The Issue The issue for resolution is which of two competing certificate of need applications should be approved for nursing home beds in District 6, Subdistrict 2, Manatee County, Florida. Other ancillary issues are whether Mediplex timely filed a letter of intent to apply for a certificate of need, whether Mediplex impermissibly amended its application at hearing and whether Beverly impermissibly is proposing two projects (delicensure and creation of beds in addition to those in the fixed need pool).
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is responsible for the administration of the certificate of need (CON) program pursuant to section 408.034, Florida Statutes. Vantage Healthcare Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., which is itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. is the largest provider of nursing home services in the nation. Vantage operates four nursing homes in the State of Florida, and has no facilities outside of Florida. The Beverly family of nursing homes comprises 67 nursing homes in Florida, with just under 8,000 nursing home beds. Mediplex is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mediplex Group which, in turn, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sun Healthcare Group. The Sun Healthcare Group operates primarily in the northeast U.S. (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) and the west (Denver and Seattle). Mediplex operates two facilities in Florida, one in Bradenton and another in West Palm Beach. Mediplex's Bradenton facility, the applicant in this proceeding, is an existing 120-bed nursing home located at 5627 Ninth Street East, Bradenton, Florida. Stipulations of the Parties Through their joint prehearing stipulation the parties stipulated to the following matters: Applications and Omission Responses may be placed into evidence without first having been proven, but the contents of those documents shall be hearsay, except as otherwise provided herein, until properly corroborated. Audited financial statements contained in the Application and/or Omissions Responses shall be admissible into evidence without a foundation witness and the information contained therein shall not be considered hearsay. Each of the applicants has access to sufficient financial resources to be able to construct and implement its proposed project; i.e. the proposals are financially feasible in the short term. Each of the applicants' dietary plans is adequate, meets regulatory requirements and does not afford the basis for comparative review between the parties. Each applicants' Letter of Intent, Corporate Resolution, newspaper publication and Schedule 2 are adequate and correct in form and content and comply with applicable statutes and rules except to the extent disputed by Mediplex in its Motion for Summary Recommended Order Against Vantage Healthcare Corporation. Newspaper publications were timely made by all applicants. Applications and Omissions Responses of all parties were timely filed. It remains at issue whether all Letters of Intent were timely filed. The fixed bed need pool available to applicants in this application cycle was 63 beds. Like and existing health care facilities in District 6 generally provide quality care, are efficient, and are adequate. However, up to 63 additional nursing home beds are required because the high utilization of the like and existing services renders them, or will render them, unavailable and inaccessible. By entering into this stipulation, the parties are not stating that the particular facilities owned or operated by Beverly Enterprises, Inc., or any of its subsidiaries, or Mediplex, necessarily provide quality care, are efficient or are adequate and reserve the right to present evidence on these issues related to these facilities. There are no appropriate alternatives to nursing care for those persons who, because of physical and/or social conditions require nursing care. No applicant is proposing joint, shared or cooperative health care resources. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, is not applicable to this proceeding. No applicant is proposing special equipment or services not accessible in adjoining areas. Mediplex, however, currently provides special equipment and/or services which may not be available in adjoining service areas. Section 408.035(1)(f) is not applicable to this proceeding. No applicant is proposing to provide a substantial portion of their proposed services to persons who do not reside in the service area. Mediplex, however, currently serves a number of patients from outside the service area in its existing facility. Section 408.035(1)(k) is not applicable to this proceeding. Existing inpatient facilities generally are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. By so stipulating, the parties are not stating that existing facilities, particularly those operated by Beverly Enterprises, Inc., or its subsidiaries, and the Mediplex cannot be used in a more appropriate or efficient manner or are currently being used appropriately or efficiently. Patients in Manatee County will experience serious problems in accessing nursing care without the addition of additional nursing care beds. Each of the parties can hire the staff listed on Schedule 6 of their applications at the salary listed therein. The parties are not stipulating that the levels of staffing proposed on Schedule 6 are adequate. Additionally, at hearing, the parties stipulated to the following matters: Neither party has ever turned in a certificate of need for failure to complete a project. Neither Mediplex nor any Beverly entity has ever failed to obtain financing for an approved project. The proposed projects are consistent with the strategic development plans of the respective applications. Both applicants have true and accurate certification pages and corporate resolutions in their applications. Both applicants will go forth with the conditions which are stated in their applications. The applicants' cover pages are true and accurate. Each applicant paid an appropriate application fee to AHCA. Each applicant has operated in Florida for the years reflected in its application. Each applicant's project development and financing costs as reflected in its application is reasonable and accurate. Each applicant's proposed project completion forecast is reasonable. Beverly's Proposal Beverly is proposing to construct a 105-bed freestanding nursing home in Manatee County to be comprised of 63 beds from the fixed need pool and 42 beds to be delicensed from a related facility, the Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center. The proposed facility will consist of 53,310 gross square feet and have a total project cost of $7,363,760. Beverly's facility will be conditioned upon providing 50.2 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients, having a 20-bed Medicare-certified skilled nursing and subacute care unit with the capacity to treat ventilator patients, having an adult day care program, providing respite care, and treating persons with associated mental health disorders, Alzheimer's disease, and persons who are HIV positive. Beverly will also contribute $10,000 to a gerontological research fund at Florida A & M University upon approval of this project. Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center is a three-story, 147-bed nursing home in Bradenton, Florida. It was constructed approximately thirty years ago and contains 3-bed wards on the second and third floors. Because of its age, the Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center has very limited space for the provision of therapy. Three-bed wards are not considered state of the art and are difficult to manage. Residents prefer private and semiprivate rooms to three-bed wards. Gender separation and smoking preferences are much harder to accommodate with larger wards. Infection control problems are increased with larger residential units. In spite of these drawbacks, the facility has a superior license and enjoys continuous occupancy of over 90 percent. Beverly has filed a certificate of need application to delicense 42 beds at Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center. Those 42 beds would be used in conjunction with 63 beds from the available fixed need pool to allow for the construction of a new Beverly facility at an undetermined site in Manatee County. If both applications are approved (the one at issue and the delicensure application), Beverly will remove all patient rooms from the first floor of Manatee Health Care and convert that space to therapy treatment rooms and office space. The additional therapy space will allow Beverly to purchase and install additional therapy equipment. All of the three-bed wards on the second floor of Manatee Health Care will be converted to semiprivate rooms. Beverly's proposal is intended to benefit residents at the proposed facility and the residents at the existing Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center. Beverly's proposed new facility is designed in a "reverse T" configuration to minimize the distance from the resident rooms to the nursing stations, with each nursing station having direct visual control over all patient rooms on that station. It will have 36 semiprivate rooms and 33 private rooms. Designed to minimize an institutional effect and provide for a home-like setting, the proposal includes two large day rooms, four activity rooms, and five enclosed courtyards. The central courtyard has a solarium/greenhouse and a screened gazebo. Separate areas are designated for the adult day care program and the Alzheimer's treatment unit. There are a large occupational and physical therapy gym and dedicated treatment areas for speech therapy and activities of daily living therapy. There is also a central ambulation court for use in physical rehabilitation. In a prehearing motion for summary recommended order and throughout the proceeding, Mediplex has contended that Beverly's application for delicensure and approval of new beds is technically defective as the proposal described in its letter of intent is really two projects, rather than the required single project. The letter of intent describes the new facility to be comprised of 63 beds from the fixed need pool and 42 beds to be delicensed from the existing facility. The new facility is the subject of CON application number 7938, at issue in this proceeding. On January 20, 1995, subsequent to the application omissions filing deadline for CON number 7938, Beverly filed its application for CON number 7998 for delicensure of 42 beds at the existing facility. This latter application was denied and the proceeding to challenge that proposed agency action is in abeyance pending the outcome here. (Vantage Healthcare Corporation v. Agency for Health Care Administration; DOAH case number 95-3891) Beverly will not delicense its beds at the existing facility unless its application for CON for the new facility is approved. The two applications are essential elements in a single expansion scheme. Beverly made full disclosure of its intent to AHCA and confirmed with AHCA the process it should follow to present its proposal within the formal regulatory framework. The process of creating a new facility with beds from the fixed need pool combined with delicensed beds from a separate facility has been approved by AHCA in the recent past in Clearwater Land Company v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 17 FALR 3817 (AHCA 1995, DOAH Case No. 94-2404/94-2972). In the Clearwater case, however, the project involved delicensure of the entire old facility, a distinction that is significant with regard to financial projections as discussed below, but a distinction that is not fatal to the single project issue. Mediplex's Proposal Mediplex proposes a 60-bed addition to its existing 120-bed facility, for an additional 14,984 gross square feet at the cost of $2,019,972. Mediplex's Manatee Springs Nursing Center is located in the southeastern corner of Manatee County, in close proximity to hospitals in Manatee County and Sarasota. Eighty beds are active rehabilitation, sometimes called "subacute" beds, which are Medicare certified. Forty beds are long term, less intensive care beds. Mediplex has a superior license and is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities (JCAHO). These accreditations are evidence of extraordinary commitment to quality of care. The 60 beds sought by Mediplex are intended to be long term care beds, as the census in the facility's existing long term beds remains stable, with a 98 to 100 percent occupancy on a day to day basis. Occupancy of the subacute care beds fluctuates, but generally more of these beds are empty. Mediplex provides amenities that contribute to a home-like non- institutional environment, with design features to promote the privacy, individual choice and comfort of its residents. Design and location of the proposed addition will facilitate access to all services and amenities offered at the existing facility. Mediplex residents, existing and future, will benefit from staffing levels and ancillary services that are unique in a nursing home setting. The facility has three full-time physicians, including the medical director, a full- time psychologist, case managers and numerous contract therapists. Mediplex's Letter of Intent On October 31, 1994, Beverly filed its letter of intent for its proposed 105-bed facility. Consequently, pursuant to Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, a grace period was triggered for the filing of additional letters of intent. The deadline for the filing of grace period letters of intent was November 16, 1994. On November 15, 1994, Mediplex delivered its letter of intent to an overnight carrier, Airborne Express, for guaranteed delivery the following day to AHCA in Tallahassee and to the Local Health Council, the Health Council of West Florida, Inc. On November 17, 1994, AHCA advised Mediplex that AHCA and the local health council did not receive Mediplex's letter of intent until that same day. AHCA also advised that it would accept the letter of intent if Mediplex could obtain correspondence from the overnight carrier explaining that the late delivery was the fault of the overnight carrier and not the fault of Mediplex. Despite the fact that Mediplex's letter of intent was delivered to AHCA and the local health council one day following the grace period letter of intent deadline, AHCA determined that the letter of intent should be accepted because the late delivery was the fault of the overnight carrier and Mediplex had delivered the letter of intent in a timely manner to the overnight carrier. AHCA has previously accepted items from certificate of need applicants which were delivered one day late when late delivery was the result of an overnight carrier failing to follow through on its guarantee. This policy has developed in the eleven years that Liz Dudek, Bureau Chief for Certificate of Need and Budget Review, has been involved in the program. It is common and reasonable for applicants to rely on next-day delivery services and it is reasonable for AHCA to accept filings in the unusual event that the carrier fails to timely deliver through no fault of the applicant. Relevant Preferences in the Local Health Plan The August 1994 CON Allocation Factors Report for District VI identifies three allocation factors that are relevant to these nursing home applicants. Both Beverly's and Mediplex's proposals include agreed conditions for Medicaid utilization that meet or exceed the percentage of persons below 125 percent of the federal poverty level (15 percent in Manatee County) and the average number of Medicaid residents in existing nursing homes in the county (50.09 percent). Beverly commits to 50.2 percent for its new facility and is already achieving 72.4 percent at the facility from whence 42 beds will be derived. Although its commitment meets the criteria, it arguably represents a decline from Beverly's current outstanding Medicaid service. Uncertainty regarding the siting of the new facility affects Beverly's assurance that 50.2 percent is merely a minimum and that it expects to achieve a higher percentage. Depending upon the geographical location of the new facility in Manatee County, it may or may not attract the same level of Medicaid residents as now benefit from the existing facility. Mediplex commits to serve 51 percent Medicaid residents in 100 long- term beds. The second allocation factor in the District VI Plan relates to proposals of specialized services (for example, adult day care) to meet identified unmet needs. Both applicants propose an array of services. Beverly's application includes specific plans for adult day care; Mediplex's application does not. Both applicants are entitled to the preference in the third allocation factor, regarding demonstrated intent to serve HIV infected persons. Beverly has identified 3,400 patient days of nursing home care to patients with HIV/AIDS in all of its Florida facilities in 1994 and projected a substantial increase in 1995. Mediplex has served, and will continue to serve these patients, but does not maintain statistics on patient days. Mediplex's unique staffing, specifically including its full-time physicians, makes it ideally prepared to care for terminally ill patients. The State Health Plan The first allocation factor under the State Health Plan provides a preference to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate in Manatee County for the applicable planning horizon is 94.63 percent, and both Beverly and Mediplex qualify for this preference. The second State Health Plan factor, regarding service to Medicaid residents, is the same as the local health plan factor discussed in paragraphs 23 - 25, above, and both applicants qualify. Preference under the third factor is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special needs residents, including AIDS and Alzheimer's residents and the mentally ill. Beverly has agreed to condition approval of its application on services to these special needs persons. Mediplex does not include such agreement in its application, but provides the services and plainly has the will and the means to continue to do so. State Health Plan allocation factor four is similar to the local plan allocation factor discussed in paragraph 26, above. Beverly describes and intends to implement a specific program for adult day care and includes a dedicated unit in its architectural plans; it also conditions award of its CON on the provision of respite care. Mediplex's application does not address day care, but states that the addition of 60 long term care beds will make it possible to implement a respite care program. Its existing 40 long term beds have been fully utilized, with no space to accommodate respite care which by its nature is short term. Allocation factor five gives preference to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. Both applicants are entitled to this preference with outstanding designs and programs. Beverly's new facility will provide more space per patient overall than Mediplex's addition, but the room sizes are approximately equal. During the hearing, issues were raised with regard to whether portions of both Mediplex's and Beverly's designs met the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Credible conclusions by experts for both parties established that the apparent deficiencies were in the rough designs and that ADA requirements could be met by both facilities within their proposed spaces and costs. Allocation factor six provides a preference for proposals of innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven to be effective in enhancing residents' physical and mental functioning level. Beverly proposes, and Mediplex already provides, a full range of high quality therapy services. While these services may be more extensive or intensive than those offered in other older nursing homes, the services are not novel or "innovative." Further, Mediplex's application for 60 new long term care beds does not contemplate intensive therapeutic services to the residents of those new beds, which services are already being provided in its existing program. Beverly's proposal more effectively advances the goal reflected in this factor since its new facility would substantially improve the rehabilitation services it now offers. Preference in allocation factor seven is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Mediplex has now, and will have in the projected future, the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. It failed to prove at hearing its statement in its CON application that approval of the 60-bed addition would result in a lower Medicaid per diem rate for the facility. Beverly's current and projected rates are substantially lower than Mediplex's. Beverly argues that Mediplex impermissibly amended its application at hearing when its expert testified that the projected Medicaid rate is $126 per day. While the financial data, as well as other parts of the application, included careless errors, the testimony explained the data provided and did not change the revenue and expense projections on Mediplex's Schedule Eleven. Allocation factor eight provides a preference to applicants with a history of superior resident care in existing facilities, considering, among other circumstances, the current licensure ratings of facilities located in Florida. Both applicants have a history of providing superior resident care. Approximately 75 percent of Beverly's many facilities in Florida enjoy a superior license rating. Of the four facilities owned by wholly-owned subsidiary, Vantage, two are superior, including the facility from which beds will be delicensed. Deficiencies have been quickly corrected when identified. Mediplex has consistently maintained a superior rating at the facility it seeks to expand. Its ability to withstand rigorous accreditation scrutiny by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations and by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, and its designation as a Head Injury Rehabilitation Care Center by the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation further attest to its unique quality. State Health Plan allocation factor nine gives preference to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Preference is also given in allocation factor ten to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet residents' needs including social services, recreation, nutrition, physical and specialized therapy, mental health and spiritual guidance. Beverly and Mediplex both clearly are entitled to these preferences as they both propose staffing levels which exceed the minimum standards of the agency's administrative rules. Both describe a multidisciplinary approach in serving residents; both employ or will contract with a full array of health care and geriatric care professionals. Entitlement by both applicants to the preference in allocation factor eleven is similarly uncontested. This preference relates to a respect for residents' rights and privacy and well-designed quality assurance and discharge plans. State Health Plan allocation factor twelve gives preference to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs than the average costs in nursing homes in the district. Only Beverly achieves this. The average administrative cost per patient day in District VI in 1993 was $24.74, and the average patient care cost per day was $47.48. To arrive at a reasonable comparison, the agency applies a five percent per year inflation factor through the applicants' second year of operation (here, 1998). This results in mid-year 1998 average patient care costs of $60.60 per day and administrative costs of $31.56 per day. For the target year Beverly proposes $22.27 administrative costs and $67.72 patient care costs. Mediplex's projected resident care cost of $118.43 and administrative cost of $59.73, per day, are both almost twice the district averages. As described by Mediplex's consultant, these costs are reflective of the high level of patient care provided in its facility. Approval of the additional 60 long term care beds, which beds will ordinarily generate less costs, will spread the subacute beds' costs over a wider base, thereby benefiting those patients. The high level of care will also be available to the long term care patients. Balancing Criteria: Need and Financial Feasibility As reflected above, there is little to recommend one application over the other when the criteria in the local and state health plans are considered. Beverly's new physical plant is preferable and its projected Medicaid rate and administrative costs (but patient costs, as well) are lower. Mediplex, however, enjoys an impeccable reputation for quality of care and provides the unique staffing to insure that its high level and quality of care are maintained. Both applicants reasonably propose to meet the identified for additional community nursing home beds in Manatee County, Florida. There is a difference in how each proposes to meet that need. Beverly suggests there is a need for subacute care beds and proposes to provide twenty such beds in its new facility. It is undisputed that patients are being discharged from acute care hospitals "quicker and sicker" and they sometimes require "step-down" or subacute level of care before returning to their homes or long term living arrangements. There is a trend in nursing homes to staff and equip facilities to meet this need. Beverly projected the need for additional subacute beds in Manatee County based on a flawed analysis of existing inventory. It considered only fifteen of Mediplex's eighty subacute beds and failed to include subacute beds recently approved in two hospitals in Manatee County, Blake and Manatee Memorial. These hospitals, without their own subacute beds, would be actively referring patients to community nursing homes with subacute care capability. There is no established definition of "subacute" and consequently no clear basis to establish an inventory of those beds in existing facilities. The facilities themselves define and identify them based on the acuity of services provided. A basic precursory step to establishing a subacute care bed is obtaining Medicare certification for that bed. There are approximately 400 Medicare-certified beds in Manatee County. Although subacute care services may not be currently provided in each of those 400 beds, their Medicare certification provides the potential for such services. There is an intuitive presumption of need for adult day care services, respite care services, services to Alzheimer's and HIV/AIDS patients, all services firmly committed to by Beverly. The state and local health plans address that need generally with the preferences described above. In this proceeding, however, no empirical data was presented to justify this basis for favoring Beverly's application over Mediplex's. It is not known, for example, whether the services are already being provided in other facilities or through alternative programs less costly than nursing homes. Mediplex established that its proposal for long term care beds more effectively meets existing need in Manatee County. Mediplex's proposal is also substantially less costly: approximately $2 million versus Beverly's $7 million, for the net addition of approximately the same number of beds. It is reasonable to expect that the $5 million difference will impact the system at some point in time when the investment is recouped either from government reimbursement systems or from the total charge structure. In reality, Beverly's project is more than $7 million when $442,000 is added for the delicensure application. And that delicensure process appears to cast a cloud on the validity of Beverly's financial feasibility projections. The projections contemplate a net loss ($42,184) for the first year's operation of the new 105-bed facility, and net income of $211,779 for the second year of operations. Standing alone, these are reasonable and suggest the long term financial feasibility of the new facility. The projections do not reflect the effect of delicensure of the beds in the existing facility, however. The projections related to the existing facility are found in the delicensure application, reviewed and analyzed in CON application number 7998. After delicensure, the existing facility will still generate a smaller, but positive net income. Both facilities will make money, but not as much as the existing facility without delicensure. This underscores the concern that somewhere in the system the $7.5 million investment will be recouped. That is, it is not reasonable to expect that $7.5 million is being spent to make less profit than would have been made without the investment. It is easier to establish the long term financial feasibility of Mediplex's project. It is an existing facility with robust financial performance and reasonable projections in the future. On balance, the Mediplex proposal better fulfills the statutory and regulatory criteria for a certificate of need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the agency enter its final order awarding CON number 7939 to Mediplex (Manatee Springs Nursing Center, Incorporated). RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY W. CLARK, 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 22nd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Beverly's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Adopted in paragraphs 1 - 3, respectively. 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. 5&6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Addressed generally in Paragraphs 33 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraphs 10 - 12. Adopted in paragraphs 13 and 25. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraphs 23 - 25. Adopted in substance in paragraph 26. 16&17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18&19. Adopted in paragraph 27, except for finding of "greater commitment", which is unsubstantiated or unsupported argument. 20&21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. 24-25. Adopted in paragraph 30, except that Mediplex did present evidence of services to patients suffering from dementia. 26. Rejected as unsupported argument. 27-28. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 31 and 32. 29. Addressed, but rejected, in paragraphs 53 and 54. 30-34. Adopted in summary in paragraph 33. 35&36. Adopted in summary in paragraph 35. 37-39. Adopted in summary in paragraph 36. 40&41. Adopted in paragraphs 38 - 40. 42&43. Adopted in paragraphs 41 and 42. 44-46. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 44 - 46, except that the high acuity services will be available to all Mediplex residents. 47. Adopted in paragraph 4. 48-54. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 58. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 46, in summary but Beverly's own projections are suspect since construction costs will be recouped through the health care system somehow. Rejected as unnecessary. See paragraph 58, above. The "no free lunch" argument has been credited. 61-70. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 71. Rejected as argument that is unsupported by the weight of evidence. 72&73. Addressed in paragraphs 19 - 22. Addressed in paragraphs 10 - 12. Addressed in paragraphs 37 and 69, with the argument rejected. Mediplex's and AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 3. Addressed in preliminary statement. 3-5. Adopted in paragraph 11. 6. Adopted in paragraph 2. 7&8. Adopted in paragraph 12. 9-11. Addressed in preliminary statement. 12&13. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 5, respectively. 14&15. Adopted in paragraph 19. 16&17. Adopted in paragraph 20. 18. Adopted in paragraph 21. 19&20. Adopted in paragraph 22. 21-42. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 49 - 52 and 55. 43-49. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 56 - 58. 50-108. The findings of unusually high quality of care and level of services at Mediplex's existing facility are accepted generally and are adopted in summary in paragraphs 15 - 18, 35, 40, 42, 43 and 46. 109-115. Adopted generally in paragraph 7 (final sentence). 116-122. Rejected as unnecessary. 123-128. Rejected as argument that is unsubstantiated or unsupported (that Beverly's Medicaid utilization will drop), although the undetermined site may affect the utilization as found in paragraph 24. 129-136. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to larger rooms); adopted in substance in paragraph 34 (as to ADA compliance). Adopted in paragraph 27. 143&144. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 4. 147-186. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 37, 56 and 59. 187-194. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Jay Adams, Esquire BROAD & CASSEL Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Michael Cherniga, Esquire GREENBERG, TRAURIG, HOFFMAN, LIPOFF, ROSEN AND QUENTEL Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James H. Peterson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, LMHS The applicant, LMHS, is a public, not-for-profit health care system, created in 1968 by special act of the Legislature. A ten-member publicly elected board of directors is responsible for overseeing LMHS on behalf of the citizens of Lee County. LMHS does not have taxing power. LMHS is the dominant provider of hospital services in Lee County. LMHS operates four hospital facilities under three separate hospital licenses. The four hospital campuses are dispersed throughout Lee County: borrowing the sub-county area descriptors adopted by LMHS’s health planning expert, LMHS operates one hospital in northwest Lee County, one hospital in central Lee County, and two hospitals in south Lee County.1/ At present, the four hospital campuses are licensed to operate a total of 1,423 hospital beds. The only non-LMHS hospital in Lee County is 88-bed Lehigh Regional Medical Center (Lehigh Regional) in northeast Lee County, owned and operated by a for-profit hospital corporation, Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA). LMHS has a best-practice strategy of increasing and concentrating clinical specialties at each of its existing hospitals. The LMHS board has already approved which specialty service lines will be the focus at each of its four hospitals. Although there is still some duplication of specialty areas, LMHS has tried to move more to clinical specialization concentrated at a specific hospital to lower costs, better utilize resources, and also to concentrate talent and repetitions, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Currently licensed to operate 415 hospital beds, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee Memorial) is located in downtown Fort Myers in central Lee County. The hospital was initially founded in 1916 and established at its current location in the 1930s. In the 1960s, a five-story clinical tower was constructed on the campus, to which three more stories were added in the 1970s. The original 1930s building was demolished and its site became surface parking. Today, Lee Memorial provides a full array of acute care services, plus clinical specialties in such areas as orthopedics, neurology, oncology, and infectious diseases. Lee Memorial’s licensed bed complement includes 15 adult inpatient psychiatric beds (not in operation), and 60 beds for comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR), a tertiary health service.2/ Lee Memorial is a designated stroke center, meaning it is a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport stroke patients, bypassing any closer hospital that lacks stroke center designation. Lee Memorial operates the only verified level II adult trauma center in the seven-county region designated AHCA district 8. Lee Memorial also is home to a new residency program for medical school graduates. At its peak, Lee Memorial operated as many as 600 licensed beds at the single downtown Fort Myers location. In 1990, when hospital beds were still regulated under the CON program, Lee Memorial transferred its right to operate 220 beds to establish a new hospital facility to the south, HealthPark Medical Center (HealthPark). One reason to shift some of its regulated hospital beds to the south was because of the growing population in the southern half of Lee County. Another reason was to ensure a paying patient population by moving beds away from Lee Memorial to a more affluent area. That way, LMHS would have better system balance, and be better able to bear the financial burden of caring for disproportionately high numbers of Medicaid and charity care patients at the downtown safety-net hospital. That was a reasonable and appropriate objective. HealthPark, located in south Lee County ZIP code 33908, to the south and a little to the west of Lee Memorial, now operates 368 licensed beds--320 general acute care and 48 neonatal intensive care beds. HealthPark’s specialty programs and services include cardiac care, open heart surgery, and urology. HealthPark is a designated STEMI3/ (heart attack) center, a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport heart attack patients, bypassing any closer hospital lacking STEMI center designation. HealthPark also concentrates in specialty women’s and children’s services, offering obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, perinatal intensive care, and pediatrics. HealthPark is a state-designated children’s cancer center. HealthPark’s open heart surgery, neonatal and perinatal intensive care, and pediatric oncology services are all tertiary health services. In 1996, LMHS acquired its third hospital, Cape Coral Medical Center (Cape Coral), from another entity.4/ The acquisition of Cape Coral was another step in furtherance of the strategy to improve LMHS’s overall payer mix by establishing hospitals in affluent areas. Cape Coral is located in northwest Lee County, and is licensed to operate 291 general acute care beds. Cape Coral’s specialty concentrations include obstetrics, orthopedics, gastroenterology, urology, and stroke treatment. Cape Coral recently achieved primary stroke center designation, making it an appropriate destination for EMS transport of stroke patients, according to Lee County EMS transport guidelines. The newest LMHS hospital, built in 2007-2008 and opened in 2009, is Gulf Coast Medical Center (Gulf Coast) in south Lee County ZIP code 33912.5/ With 349 licensed beds, Gulf Coast offers tertiary services including kidney transplantation and open heart surgery, and specialty services including obstetrics, stroke treatment, surgical oncology, and neurology. Gulf Coast is both a designated primary stroke center and a STEMI center. NCH NCH is a not-for-profit system operating two hospital facilities with a combined 715 licensed beds in Collier County, directly to the south of Lee County. Naples Community Hospital (Naples Community) is in downtown Naples. NCH North Naples Hospital Campus (North Naples) is located in the northernmost part of Collier County, near the Collier-Lee County line.6/ The Petitioner in this case is NCH doing business as North Naples. North Naples is licensed to operate 262 acute care beds. It provides an array of acute care hospital services, specialty services including obstetrics and pediatrics, and tertiary health services including neonatal intensive care and CMR. AHCA AHCA is the state health planning agency charged with administering the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes (2013).7/ AHCA is responsible for the coordinated planning of health care services in the state. To carry out its responsibilities for health planning and CON determinations, AHCA maintains a comprehensive health care database, with information that health care facilities are required to submit, such as utilization data. See § 408.033(3), Fla. Stat. AHCA conducts its health planning and CON review based on “health planning service district[s]” defined by statute. See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. Relevant in this case is district 8, which includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Additionally, by rule, AHCA has adopted acute care sub-districts, originally utilized in conjunction with an acute care bed need methodology codified as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038. The acute care bed need rule was repealed in 2005, following the deregulation of acute care beds from CON review. However, AHCA has maintained its acute care sub-district rule, in which Lee County is designated sub-district 8-5. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(h)5. The Proposed Project LMHS proposes to establish a new 80-bed general hospital on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 41 and Coconut Road in Bonita Springs (ZIP code 34135),8/ in south Lee County. The CON application described the hospital services to be offered at the proposed new hospital in only the most general fashion--medical- surgical services, emergency services, intensive care, and telemetry services. Also planned for the proposed hospital are outpatient care, community education, and chronic care management --all non-hospital, non-CON-regulated services. At hearing, LMHS did not elaborate on the planned hospital services for the proposed new facility. Instead, no firm decisions have been made by the health system regarding what types of services will be offered at the new hospital. The proposed site consists of three contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 31 acres. LMHS purchased a 21-acre parcel in 2004, with a view to building a hospital there someday. LMHS later added to its holdings when additional parcels became available. At present, the site’s development of regional impact (DRI) development order does not permit a hospital, but would allow the establishment of a freestanding emergency department. The proposed hospital site is adjacent to the Bonita Community Health Center (BCHC). Jointly owned by LMHS and NCH, BCHC is a substantial health care complex described by LMHS President James Nathan as a “hospital without walls.” This 100,000 square-foot complex includes an urgent care center, ambulatory surgery center, and physicians’ offices. A wide variety of outpatient health care services are provided within the BCHC complex, including radiology/diagnostic imaging, endoscopy, rehabilitation, pain management, and lab services. Although LMHS purchased the adjacent parcels with the intent of establishing a hospital there someday, representatives of LMHS expressed their doubt that “someday” has arrived; they have candidly admitted that this application may be premature. CON Application Filing LMHS did not intend to file a CON application when it did, in the first hospital-project review cycle of 2013. LMHS did not file a letter of intent (LOI) by the initial LOI deadline to signify its intent to file a CON application. However, LMHS’s only Lee County hospital competitor, HMA, filed an LOI on the deadline day. LMHS learned that the project planned by HMA was to replace Lehigh Regional with a new hospital, which would be relocated to south Lee County, a little to the north of the Estero/Bonita Springs area. LMHS was concerned that if the HMA application went forward and was approved, that project would block LMHS’s ability to pursue a hospital in Bonita Springs for many years to come. Therefore, in reaction to HMA’s LOI, LMHS filed a “grace period” LOI, authorized under AHCA’s rules, to submit a competing proposal for a new hospital in south Lee County. But for the HMA LOI, there would have been no grace period for a competing proposal, and LMHS would not have been able to apply when it did. Two weeks later, on the initial application filing deadline, LMHS submitted a “shell” application. LMHS proceeded to quickly prepare the bulk of its application to file five weeks later by the omissions response deadline of April 10, 2013. Shortly before the omissions response deadline, Mr. Nathan met with Jeffrey Gregg, who is in charge of the CON program as director of AHCA’s Florida Center for Health Information and Policy Analysis, and Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA Secretary, to discuss the LMHS application. Mr. Nathan told the AHCA representatives that LMHS was not really ready to file a CON application, but felt cornered and forced into it to respond to the HMA proposal. Mr. Nathan also discussed with AHCA representatives the plan to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial, but AHCA told Mr. Nathan not to make such a proposal. Since beds are no longer subject to CON regulation, hospitals are free to add or delicense beds as they deem appropriate, and therefore, an offer to delicense beds adds nothing to a CON proposal. LMHS’s CON application was timely filed on the omissions deadline. A major focus of the application was on why LMHS’s proposal was better than the expected competing HMA proposal. However, HMA did not follow through on its LOI by filing a competing CON application. The LMHS CON application met the technical content requirements for a general hospital CON application, including an assessment of need for the proposed project. LMHS highlighted the following themes to show need for its proposed new hospital: South Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with an older population; by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population. The Estero/Bonita Springs community strongly supports the proposed new hospital. Approval of the proposed new hospital “will significantly reduce travel times for the service area’s residents and will thereby significantly improve access to acute care services,” as shown by estimated travel times to local hospitals for residents in the proposed primary service area and by Lee County EMS transport logs. LMHS will agree to a CON condition to delicense 80 beds at Lee Memorial, which are underutilized, so that there will be no net addition of acute care beds to the sub-district’s licensed bed complement. AHCA’s Preliminary Review and Denial AHCA conducted its preliminary review of the CON application in accordance with its standard procedures. As part of the preliminary review process for general hospital applications, the CON law now permits existing health care facilities whose established programs may be substantially affected by a proposed project to submit a detailed statement in opposition. Indeed, such a detailed statement is a condition precedent to the existing provider being allowed to participate as a party in any subsequent administrative proceedings conducted with respect to the CON application. See § 408.037(2), Fla. Stat. North Naples timely filed a detailed statement in opposition to LMHS’s proposed new hospital. LMHS timely filed a response to North Naples’ opposition submittal, pursuant to the same law. After considering the CON application, the North Naples opposition submittal, and the LMHS response, AHCA prepared its SAAR in accordance with its standard procedures. A first draft of the SAAR was prepared by the CON reviewer; the primary editor of the SAAR was AHCA CON unit manager James McLemore; and then a second edit was done by Mr. Gregg. Before the SAAR was finalized, Mr. Gregg met with the AHCA Secretary to discuss the proposed decision. The SAAR sets forth AHCA’s preliminary findings and preliminary decision to deny the LMHS application. Mr. Gregg testified at hearing as AHCA’s representative, as well as in his capacity as an expert in health planning and CON review. Through Mr. Gregg’s testimony, AHCA reaffirmed its position in opposition to the LMHS application, and Mr. Gregg offered his opinions to support that position. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The framework for consideration of LMHS’s proposed project is dictated by the statutory and rule criteria that apply to general hospital CON applications. The applicable statutory review criteria, as amended in 2008 for general hospital CON applications, are as follows: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. * * * (e) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. * * * (g) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. * * * (i) The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. § 408.035(1), Fla. Stat.; § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (identifying review criteria that apply to general hospital applications). AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. In the absence of a numeric need methodology promulgated by AHCA for the project at issue, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) applies. This rule provides that the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.030 also applies. This rule elaborates on “health care access criteria” to be considered in reviewing CON applications, with a focus on the needs of medically underserved groups such as low income persons. LMHS’s Needs Assessment LMHS set forth its assessment of need for the proposed new hospital, highlighting the population demographics of the area proposed to be served. Theme: South Lee County’s substantial population The main theme of LMHS’s need argument is that south Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with a substantial and older population. (LMHS Exh. 3, p. 37). LMHS asserts that south Lee County’s population is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a new hospital because “by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population.” Id. LMHS identified eight ZIP codes--33908, 33912, 33913, 33928, 33931, 33967, 34134, and 34135--that constitute “south Lee County.” (LMHS Exh. 3, Table 4). Claritas population projections, reasonably relied on by the applicant, project that by 2018 these eight ZIP codes will have a total population of 200,492 persons, approximately 29 percent of the projected population of 687,795 for all of Lee County. The age 65-and-older population in south Lee County is projected to be 75,150, approximately 40 percent of the projected 65+ population of 185,655 for all of Lee County. A glaring flaw in LMHS’s primary need theme is that the eight-ZIP-code “south Lee County” identified by LMHS is not without its own hospital. That area already has two of the county’s five existing hospitals: Gulf Coast and HealthPark. In advancing its need argument, LMHS selectively uses different meanings of “south Lee County.” When describing the “south Lee County” that deserves a hospital of its own, LMHS means the local Estero/Bonita Springs community in and immediately surrounding the proposed hospital site in the southernmost part of south Lee County. However, when offering up a sufficient population to demonstrate need for a new hospital, “south Lee County” expands to encompass an area that appears to be half, if not more, of the entire county. The total population of the Estero/Bonita Springs community is 76,753, projected to grow to 83,517 by 2018--much more modest population numbers compared to those highlighted by the applicant for the expanded version of south Lee County. While the rate of growth for Estero/Bonita Springs is indeed fast compared to the state and county growth rates, this observation is misleading because the actual numbers are not large. LMHS also emphasizes the larger proportion of elderly in the Estero/Bonita Springs community, which is also expected to continue to grow at a fast clip. Although no specifics were offered, it is accepted as a generic proposition that elderly persons are more frequent consumers of acute care hospital services. By the same token, elderly persons who require hospitalization tend to be sicker, and to present greater risks of potential complications from comorbidities, than non-elderly patients. As a result, for example, as discussed below, Lee County EMS’s emergency transport guidelines steer certain elderly patients to hospitals with greater breadth of services than the very basic hospital planned by LMHS, “as a reasonable precaution.” Projections of a Well-Utilized Proposed Hospital Mr. Davidson, LMHS’s health planning consultant, was provided with the proposed hospital’s location and number of beds, and was asked to develop the need assessment and projections. No evidence was offered regarding who determined that the proposed hospital should have 80 beds, or how that determination was made. Mr. Davidson set about to define the proposed primary and secondary service areas, keeping in mind that section 408.037(2) now requires a general hospital CON application to specifically identify, by ZIP codes, the primary service area from which the proposed hospital is expected to receive 75 percent of its patients, and the secondary service area from which 25 percent of the hospital’s patients are expected. Mr. Davidson selected six ZIP codes for the primary service area. He included the three ZIP codes comprising the Estero/Bonita Springs community. He also included two ZIP codes that are closer to existing hospitals than to the proposed site, according to the drive-time information he compiled. In addition, he included one ZIP code in which there is already a hospital (Gulf Coast, in 33912). Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, primary service area was not persuasive;9/ the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. Mr. Davidson selected six more ZIP codes for the secondary service area. These include: two south Lee County ZIP codes that are HealthPark’s home ZIP code (33908) and a ZIP code to the west of HealthPark (33931); three central Lee County ZIP codes to the north of HealthPark and Gulf Coast; and one Collier County ZIP code that is North Naples’ home ZIP code. Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, secondary service area was not persuasive; the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. As noted above, the existing LMHS hospitals provide tertiary-level care and a number of specialty service lines and designations that have not been planned for the proposed new hospital. Conversely, there are no services proposed for the new hospital that are not already provided by the existing LMHS hospitals. In the absence of evidence that the proposed new hospital will offer services not available at closer hospitals, it is not reasonable to project that any appreciable numbers of patients will travel farther, and in some instances, bypass one or more larger existing hospitals with greater breadth of services, to obtain the same services at the substantially smaller proposed new hospital. As aptly observed by AHCA’s representative, Mr. Gregg, the evidence to justify such an ambitious service area for a small hospital providing basic services was lacking: So if we were to have been given more detail[:] here’s the way we’re going to fit this into our system, here’s -- you know, here’s why we can design this service area as big as we did, even though it would require a lot of people to drive right by HealthPark or right by Gulf Coast to go to this tiny basic hospital for some reason. I mean, there are fundamental basics about this that just make us scratch our head. (Tr. 1457). The next step after defining the service area was to develop utilization projections, based on historic utilization data for service area residents who obtained the types of services to be offered by the proposed hospital. In this case, the utilization projections suffer from a planning void. Mr. Nathan testified that no decisions have been made regarding what types of services, other than general medical- surgical services, will be provided at the proposed new hospital. In lieu of information regarding the service lines actually planned for the proposed hospital, Mr. Davidson used a subtractive process, eliminating “15 or so” service lines that the proposed hospital either “absolutely wasn’t going to provide,” or that, in his judgment, a small hospital of this type would not provide. The service lines he excluded were: open heart surgery; trauma; neonatal intensive care; inpatient psychiatric, rehabilitation, and substance abuse; and unnamed “others.” His objective was to “narrow the scope of available admissions down to those that a smaller hospital could reasonably aspire to care for.” (Tr. 671-672). That objective is different from identifying the types of services expected because they have been planned for this particular proposed hospital. The testimony of NCH’s health planner, as well as Mr. Gregg, was persuasive on the point that Mr. Davidson’s approach was over-inclusive. The historic data he used included a number of service lines that are not planned for the proposed hospital and, thus, should have been subtracted from the historic utilization base. These include clinical specialties that are the focus of other LMHS hospitals, such as infectious diseases, neurology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology; cardiac care, such as cardiac catheterization and angioplasty that are not planned for the proposed hospital; emergency stroke cases that will be directed to designated stroke centers; pediatric cases that will be referred to HealthPark; and obstetrics, which is not contemplated for the proposed hospital according to the more credible evidence.10/ Mr. Davidson’s market share projections suffer from some of the same flaws as the service area projections: there is no credible evidence to support the assumption that the small proposed new hospital, which has planned to offer only the most basic hospital services, will garner substantial market shares in ZIP codes that are closer to larger existing hospitals providing a greater breadth of services. In addition, variations in market share projections by ZIP code raise questions that were not adequately explained.11/ Overall, the “high-level” theme offered by LMHS’s health planner--that it is unnecessary to know what types of services will be provided at the new hospital in order to reasonably project utilization and market share--was not persuasive. While it is possible that utilization of the proposed new hospital would be sufficient to suggest it is filling a need, LMHS did not offer credible evidence that that is so. Bed Need Methodology for Proposed Service Area Mr. Davidson projected bed need for the proposed service area based on the historic utilization by residents of the 12 ZIP codes in the service lines remaining after his subtractive process, described above. Other than using an over-inclusive base (as described above), Mr. Davidson followed a reasonable approach to determine the average daily census generated by the proposed service area residents, and then applying a 75 percent occupancy standard to convert the average daily census into the number of beds supported by that population. The results of this methodology show that utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code primary service area would support 163 hospital beds; and utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area would support 225 beds in the secondary service area. The total gross bed need for the proposed service area adds up to 388 beds. However, the critical next step was missing: subtract from the gross number of needed beds the number of existing beds, to arrive at the net bed need (or surplus). In the primary service area, 163 beds are needed, but there are already 349 beds at Gulf Coast. Thus, in the primary service area, there is a surplus of 186 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. In the secondary service area, 225 beds are needed, but there are already 320 acute care beds at HealthPark and 262 acute care beds at North Naples. Thus, in the secondary service area, there is a surplus of 357 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. While it is true that Gulf Coast and HealthPark use some of their beds to provide some tertiary and specialty services that were subtracted out of this methodology, and all three hospitals presumably provide services to residents outside the proposed service area, Mr. Davidson made no attempt to measure these components. Instead, the LMHS bed need methodology ignores completely the fact that there is substantial existing bed capacity--931 acute care beds--within the proposed service area. Availability and Utilization of Existing Hospitals LMHS offered utilization data for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2012, for Lee County hospitals. Cape Coral’s average annual occupancy rate was 57.6 percent; HealthPark’s was 77.5 percent; Lee Memorial’s was 55.9 percent; Lehigh Regional’s was 44 percent; and Gulf Coast’s was 79.8 percent. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that a reasonable occupancy standard to plan for a small hospital the size of the proposed hospital is 75 percent. For a larger operational hospital, 80 percent is a good standard to use, indicating it is well-utilized. Judged by these standards, only HealthPark and Gulf Coast come near the standard for a well-utilized hospital. As noted in the CON application, these annual averages do not reflect the higher utilization during peak season. According to the application, HealthPark’s occupancy was 88.2 percent and Gulf Coast’s was 86.8 percent for the peak quarter of January-March 2012. LMHS did not present utilization information for North Naples, even though that hospital is closest to the proposed hospital site and is within the proposed service area targeted by the applicant. For the same 12-month period used for the LMHS hospitals, North Naples’ average annual occupancy rate was 50.97 percent and for the January-March 2012 “peak season” quarter, North Naples’ occupancy was 60.68 percent. At the final hearing, LMHS did not present more recent utilization data, choosing instead to rely on the older information in the application. Based on the record evidence, need is not demonstrated by reference to the availability and utilization of existing hospitals in the proposed service area or in the sub-district. Community Support LMHS argued that the strong support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community should be viewed as evidence of need for the proposed new hospital. As summarized in the SAAR, approximately 2,200 letters of support were submitted by local government entities and elected officials, community groups, and area residents, voicing their support for the proposed hospital. LMHS chose not to submit these voluminous support letters in the record. The AHCA reviewer noted in the SAAR that none of the support letters documented instances in which residents of the proposed service area needed acute care hospital services but were unable to obtain them, or suffered poor or undesirable health outcomes due to the current availability of hospital services. Two community members testified at the final hearing to repeat the theme of support by Estero/Bonita Springs community residents and groups. These witnesses offered anecdotal testimony about traffic congestion during season, population growth, and development activity they have seen or heard about. They acknowledged the role their community organization has played in advocating for a neighborhood hospital, including developing and disseminating form letters for persons to express their support. Consistent with the AHCA reviewer’s characterization of the support letters, neither witness attested to any experiences needing acute care hospital services that they were unable to obtain, or any experiences in which they had poor or undesirable outcomes due to the currently available hospital services. There was no such evidence offered by any witness at the final hearing. Mr. Gregg characterized the expression of community support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community as typical “for an upper income, kind of retiree-oriented community where, number one, people anticipate needing to use hospitals, and number two, people have more time on their hands to get involved with things like this.” (Tr. 1433). Mr. Gregg described an extreme example of community support for a prior new hospital CON application, in which AHCA received 21,000 letters of support delivered in two chartered buses that were filled with community residents who wanted to meet with AHCA representatives. Mr. Gregg identified the project as the proposed hospital for North Port, which was ultimately denied following an administrative hearing. In the North Port case, the Administrative Law Judge made this apt observation with regard to the probative value of the overwhelming community support offered there: “A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a ‘need’ for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens.” Manatee Memorial Hospital, L.P. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., et al., Case Nos. 04-2723CON, 04-3027CON, and 04- 3147CON (Fla. DOAH Dec. 15, 2005; Fla. AHCA April 11, 2006), RO at 26, ¶ 104, adopted in FO. That finding, which was adopted by AHCA in its final order, remains true today, and is adopted herein. Access The statutory review criteria consider access issues from two opposing perspectives: from the perspective of the proposed project, consideration is given to the extent to which the proposal will enhance access to health care services for the applicant’s service district; without the proposed project, consideration is given to the accessibility of existing providers of the health care services proposed by the applicant. Addressing this two-part access inquiry, LMHS contends that the proposed hospital would significantly reduce travel times and significantly enhance access to acute care services. Three kinds of access are routinely considered in CON cases: geographic access, in this case the drive times by individuals to hospitals; emergency access, i.e., the time it takes for emergency ground transport (ambulances) to deliver patients to hospitals; and economic access, i.e., the extent to which hospital services are provided to Medicaid and charity care patients. Geographic Access (drive times to hospitals) For nearly all residents of the applicable service district, district 8, the proposed new hospital was not shown to enhance access to health care at all. The same is true for nearly all residents of sub-district 8-5, Lee County. LMHS was substantially less ambitious in its effort to show access enhancement, limiting its focus on attempting to prove that access to acute care services would be enhanced for residents of the primary service area. LMHS did not attempt to prove that there would be any access enhancement to acute care services for residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area. As set forth in the CON application, Mr. Davidson used online mapping software to estimate the drive time from each ZIP code in the primary service area to the four existing LMHS hospitals, the two NCH hospitals, and another hospital in north Collier County, Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge. The drive-time information offered by the applicant showed the following: the drive time from ZIP code 33912 was less to three different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; the drive time from ZIP code 33913 was less to two different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; and the drive time from ZIP code 33967 was less to one existing LMHS hospital than to the proposed hospital site. Thus, according to LMHS’s own information, drive times would not be reduced at all for three of the six ZIP codes in the primary service area. Not surprisingly, according to LMHS’s information, the three Estero/Bonita Springs ZIP codes are shown to have slightly shorter drive times to the proposed neighborhood hospital than to any existing hospital. However, the same information also suggests that those residents already enjoy very reasonable access of 20-minutes’ drive time or less to one or more existing hospitals: the drive time from ZIP code 33928 is between 14 and 20 minutes to three different existing hospitals; the drive time from ZIP code 34134 is between 18 and 20 minutes to two different existing hospitals; and the drive time from ZIP code 34135 is 19 minutes to one existing hospital. In terms of the extent of drive time enhancement, the LMHS information shows that drive time would be shortened from 14 minutes to seven minutes for ZIP code 33928; from 18 minutes to 12 minutes for ZIP code 34134; and from 19 minutes to 17 minutes for ZIP code 34135. There used to be an access standard codified in the (now-repealed) acute care bed need rule, providing that acute care services should be accessible within a 30-minute drive time under normal conditions to 90 percent of the service area’s population. Mr. Davidson’s opinion is that the former rule’s 30-minute drive time standard remains a reasonable access standard for acute care services. Here, LMHS’s drive time information shows very reasonable access now, meeting an even more rigorous drive-time standard of 20 minutes. The establishment of a new hospital facility will always enhance geographic access by shortening drive times for some residents. For example, if LMHS’s proposed hospital were established, another proposed hospital could demonstrate enhanced access by reducing drive times from seven minutes to four minutes for residents of Estero’s ZIP code 33928. But the question is not whether there is any enhanced access, no matter how insignificant. Instead, the appropriate consideration is the “extent” of enhanced access for residents of the service district or sub-district. Here, the only travel time information offered by LMHS shows nothing more than insignificant reductions of already reasonable travel times for residents of only three of six ZIP codes in the primary service area. The drive-time information offered in the application and at hearing was far from precise, but it was the only evidence offered by the applicant in an attempt to prove its claim that there would be a significant reduction in drive times for residents of the primary service area ZIP codes. No travel time expert or traffic engineer offered his or her expertise to the subject of geographic accessibility in this case. No evidence was presented regarding measured traffic conditions or planned roadway improvements. Anecdotal testimony regarding “congested” roads during “season” was general in nature and insufficient to prove that there is not reasonable access now to basic acute care hospital services for all residents of the proposed service area. The proposed new hospital is not needed to address a geographic access problem. Consideration of the extent of access enhancement does not weigh in favor of the proposed new hospital. Emergency Access LMHS also sought to establish that emergency access via EMS ambulance transport was becoming problematic during the season because of traffic congestion. In its CON application, LMHS offered Lee County EMS transport logs as evidence that ambulance transport times from the Estero/Bonita Springs community to an existing hospital were higher during season than in the off-season months. LMHS represented in its CON application that the voluminous Lee County EMS transport logs show average transport times of over 22 minutes from Bonita Springs to a hospital in March 2012 compared to 15 minutes for June 2012, and average transport times of just under 22 minutes from Estero to a hospital in March 2012 compared to over 17 minutes for June 2012. LMHS suggested that these times were not reasonable because these were all emergency transports at high speeds with flashing lights and sirens. LMHS did not prove the accuracy of this statement. The Lee County EMS ordinance limits the use of sirens and flashing lights to emergency transports, defined to mean transports of patients with life- or limb-threatening conditions. According to Lee County EMS Deputy Chief Panem, 90 to 95 percent of ambulance transports do not involve such conditions. Contrary to the conclusion that LMHS urges should be drawn from the EMS transport logs, the ambulance transport times summarized by LMHS in its application do not demonstrate unreasonable emergency access for residents of Estero/Bonita Springs. The logs do not demonstrate an emergency access problem for the local residents during the season, as contended by LMHS; nor did LMHS offer sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed new hospital would materially improve ambulance transport times. LMHS’s opinion that the ambulance logs show a seasonal emergency access problem for Estero/Bonita Springs residents cannot be credited unless the travel times on the logs reflect patient transports to the nearest hospital, such that establishing a new hospital in Bonita Springs would result in faster ambulance transports for Estero/Bonita Springs residents. Deputy Chief Panem testified that ambulance transport destination is dictated in the first instance by patient choice. In addition, for the “most serious calls,” the destination is dictated by emergency transport guidelines with a matrix identifying the most “appropriate” hospitals to direct patients. For example, as Deputy Chief Panem explained: In the case of a stroke or heart attack, we want them to go to a stroke facility or a heart attack facility[;] or trauma, we have a trauma center in Lee County as well . . . Lee Memorial Hospital downtown is a level II trauma center. (Tr. 378). The emergency transport matrix identifies the hospitals qualified to handle emergency heart attack, stroke, or trauma patients. In addition, the matrix identifies the “most appropriate facility” for emergency pediatrics, obstetrics, pediatric orthopedic emergencies, and other categories involving the “most serious calls.” Of comparable size to the proposed new hospital, 88-bed Lehigh Regional is not identified as an “appropriate facility” to transport patients with any of the serious conditions shown in the matrix. Similar to Lehigh Regional, the slightly smaller proposed new hospital is not expected to be identified as an appropriate facility destination for patients with any of the conditions designated in the Lee County EMS emergency transport matrix. The Lee County EMS transport guidelines clarify that all trauma alert patients “will be” transported to Lee Memorial as the Level II Trauma Center. In addition, the guidelines provide as follows: “Non-trauma alert patients with a high index of suspicion (elderly, etc.) should preferentially be transported to the Trauma Center as a reasonable precaution.” (emphasis added). For the elderly, then, a condition that would not normally be considered one of the most serious cases to be steered to the most appropriate hospital may be reclassified as such, as a reasonable precaution because the patient is elderly. The Lee County EMS transport logs do not reflect the reason for the chosen destination. The patients may have requested transport to distant facilities instead of to the nearest facilities. Patients with the most serious conditions may have accepted the advice of ambulance crews that they should be transported to the “most appropriate facility” with special resources to treat their serious conditions; or those patients may have been unable to express their choice due to the seriousness of their condition, in which case the patients would be taken to the most appropriate facility, bypassing closer facilities. Elderly patients may have been convinced to take the reasonable precaution to go to an appropriate facility even if their condition did not fall into the most serious categories. Since the transport times on the EMS logs do not necessarily reflect transport times to the closest hospital, it is not reasonable to conclude that the transport times would be shorter if there were an even closer hospital, particularly where the closer hospital is not likely to be designated as an appropriate destination in the transport guidelines matrix. The most serious cases, categorized in the EMS transport matrix, are the ones for which minutes matter. For those cases, a new hospital in Estero/Bonita Springs, which has not planned to be a STEMI receiving center, a stroke center, or a trauma center, is not going to enhance access to emergency care, even for the neighborhood residents. The evidence at hearing did not establish that ambulance transport times are excessive or cause an emergency access problem now.12/ In fact, Deputy Chief Panem did not offer the opinion, or offer any evidence to prove, that the drive time for ambulances transporting patients to area hospitals is unreasonable or contrary to any standard for reasonable emergency access. Instead, Lee County EMS recently opposed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the Bonita Springs Fire District to provide emergency ground transportation to hospitals, because Lee County EMS believed then, and believes now, that it is providing efficient and effective emergency transport services to the Bonita Springs area residents. At hearing, LMHS tried a different approach by attempting to prove an emergency access problem during season, not because of the ambulance drive times, but because of delays at the emergency departments themselves after patients are transported there. The new focus at hearing was on EMS “offload” times, described as the time between ambulance arrival at the hospital and the time the ambulance crews hand over responsibility for a patient to the emergency department staff. According to Deputy Chief Panem, Lee County hospitals rarely go on “bypass,” a status that informs EMS providers not to transport patients to a hospital because additional emergency patients cannot be accommodated. No “bypass” evidence was offered, suggesting that “bypass” status is not a problem in Lee County and that Lee County emergency departments are available to EMS providers. Deputy Chief Panem also confirmed that North Naples does not go on bypass. The North Naples emergency department consistently has been available to receive patients transported by Lee County EMS ambulances, during seasonal and off- season months. Offload times are a function of a variety of factors. Reasons for delays in offloading patients can include inadequate capacity or functionality of the emergency department, or inadequate staffing in the emergency department such that there may be empty treatment bays, but the bays cannot be filled with patients because there is no staff to tend to the patients. Individual instances of offload delays can occur when emergency department personnel prioritize incoming cases, and less-emergent cases might have to wait while more-emergent cases are taken first, even if they arrived later. Offload times are also a function of “throughput” issues. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of emergency department patients require admission to the hospital, but there can be delays in the admission process, causing the patient to be held in a treatment bay that could otherwise be filled by the next emergency patient. There can be many reasons for throughput delays, including the lack of an available acute care bed, or inadequate staffing that prevents available acute care beds from being filled. No evidence was offered to prove the actual causes of any offload delays. Moreover, the evidence failed to establish that offload times were unreasonable or excessive. Deputy Chief Panem offered offload time data summaries that reflect very good performance by LMHS hospitals and by North Naples. Deputy Chief Panem understandably advocates the shortest possible offload time, so that Lee County EMS ambulances are back in service more quickly. Lee County EMS persuaded the LMHS emergency departments to agree to a goal for offload times of 30 minutes or less 90 percent of the time, and that is the goal he tracks. Both Lee Memorial and North Naples have consistently met or exceeded that goal in almost every month over the last five years, including during peak seasonal months. Cape Coral and Gulf Coast sometimes fall below the goal in peak seasonal months, but the evidence did not establish offload times that are excessive or unreasonable during peak months. HealthPark is the one LMHS hospital that appears to consistently fall below Lee County EMS’s offload time goal; in peak seasonal months, HealthPark’s offload times were less than 30 minutes in approximately 70 percent of the cases. No evidence was offered to prove the extent of offload delays at HealthPark for the other 30 percent of emergency cases, nor was evidence offered to prove the extent of offload delays at any other hospital. Deputy Chief Panem referred anecdotally to offload times that can sometimes reach as high as two to three hours during season, but he did not provide specifics. Without documentation of the extent and magnitude of offload delays, it is impossible to conclude that they are unreasonable or excessive. There is no persuasive evidence suggesting that this facet of emergency care would be helped by approval of the proposed new hospital, especially given the complicated array of possible reasons for each case in which there was a delayed offload.13/ Staffing/professional coverage issues likely would be exacerbated by approving another hospital venue for LMHS. Pure physical plant issues, such as emergency department capacity and acute care bed availability, might be helped to some degree, at least in theory, by a new hospital, but to a lesser degree than directly addressing any capacity issues at the existing hospitals. For example, HealthPark’s emergency department has served as a combined destination for a wide array of adult and pediatric emergencies. However, HealthPark is about to break ground on a new on-campus children’s hospital with its own dedicated emergency department. There will be substantially expanded capacity both within the new dedicated pediatric emergency department, and in the existing emergency department, where vacated space used for pediatric patients will be freed up for adults. Beyond the emergency departments themselves, there will be substantial additional acute care bed capacity, with space built to accommodate 160 dedicated pediatric beds in the new children’s hospital. The existing hospital will have the ability to add more than the 80 acute care beds proposed for the new hospital. This additional bed capacity could be in place within roughly the same timeframe projected for opening the proposed new hospital. To the extent additional capacity would improve emergency department performance, Cape Coral is completing an expansion project that increases its treatment bays from 24 to 42, and Lee Memorial is adding nine observation beds to its emergency department. No current expansion projects were identified for Gulf Coast, which just began operations in 2009, but LMHS has already invested in design and construction features to enable that facility to expand by an additional 252 beds. In Mr. Kistel’s words, Gulf Coast has a “tremendous platform for growth[.]” (Tr. 259). Mr. Gregg summarized AHCA’s perspective in considering the applicant’s arguments of geographic and emergency access enhancement, as follows: [I]n our view, this community is already well served by existing hospitals, either within the applicant’s system or from the competing Naples system, and we don’t think that the situation would be improved by adding another very small, extremely basic hospital. And to the extent that that would mislead people into thinking that it’s a full-service hospital that handles time-sensitive emergencies in the way that the larger hospitals do, that’s another concern. (Tr. 1425). * * * The fact that this hospital does not plan to offer those most time-sensitive services means that any – on the surface, as I said earlier, the possible improvement in emergency access offered by any new hospital is at least partially negated in this case because it has been proposed as such a basic hospital, when the more sophisticated services are located not far away. (Tr. 1431). Mr. Gregg’s opinion is reasonable and is credited. Economic Access The Estero/Bonita Springs community is a very affluent area, known for its golf courses and gated communities. As a result of the demographics of the proposed hospital’s projected service area, LMHS’s application offers to accept as a CON condition a commitment to provide 10 percent of the total annual patient days to a combination of Medicaid, charity, and self-pay patients. This commitment is less than the 2011-2012 experience for the primary service area, where patient days attributable to residents in these three payer classes was a combined 16.3 percent; and the commitment is less than the 2011- 2012 experience for the total proposed service area, where patient days in these three categories was a combined 14.4 percent. Nonetheless, LMHS’s experts reasonably explained that the commitment was established on the low side, taking into account the uncertainties of changes in the health care environment, to ensure that the commitment could be achieved. In contrast with the 10 percent commitment and the historic level of Medicaid/charity/self-pay patient days in the proposed service area, Lee Memorial historically has provided the highest combined level of Medicaid and charity patient days in district 8. According to LMHS’s financial expert, in 2012, Lee Memorial downtown and HealthPark, combined for reporting purposes under the same license, provided 31.5 percent of their patient days to Medicaid and charity patients--a percentage that would be even higher, it is safe to assume, if patient days in the “self- pay/other” payer category were added. At hearing, Mr. Gregg reasonably expressed concern with LMHS shifting its resources from the low-income downtown area where there is great need for economic access to a very affluent area where comparable levels of service to the medically needy would be impossible to achieve. Mr. Gregg acknowledged that AHCA has approved proposals in the past that help systems with safety-net hospitals achieve balance by moving some of the safety net’s resources to an affluent area. As previously noted, that sort of rationale was at play in the LMHS project to establish HealthPark, and again in the acquisitions of Cape Coral and Gulf Coast. However, LMHS now has three of its four hospitals thriving in relatively affluent areas. To move more LMHS resources from the downtown safety-net hospital to another affluent area would not be a move towards system balance, but rather, system imbalance, and would be contrary to the economic access CON review criteria in statute and rule. Missing Needs Assessment Factor: Medical Treatment Trends The consistent testimony of all witnesses with expertise to address this subject was that the trend in medical treatment continues to be in the direction of outpatient care in lieu of inpatient hospital care. The expected result will be that inpatient hospital usage will narrow to the most highly specialized services provided to patients with more serious conditions requiring more complex, specialized treatments. Mr. Gregg described this trend as follows: “[O]nly those services that are very expensive, operated by very extensive personnel” will be offered to inpatients in the future. (Tr. 1412). A basic acute care hospital without planned specialty or tertiary services is inconsistent with the type of hospital dictated by this medical treatment trend. Mr. Gregg reasonably opined that “the ability of a hospital system to sprinkle about small little satellite facilities is drawing to a close.” (Tr. 1413). Small hospitals will no longer be able to add specialized and tertiary services, because these will be concentrated in fewer hospitals. LMHS’s move to clinical specialization at its hospitals bears this out. Another trend expected to impact services within the timeframe at issue is the development of telemedicine as an alternative to inpatient hospital care. For patients who cannot be treated in an outpatient setting and released, an option will be for patients to recover at home in their own beds, with close monitoring options such as visual monitoring by video linking the patient with medical professionals, and use of devices to constantly measure and report vital signs monitored by a practitioner at a remote location. Telemedicine offers advantages over inpatient hospitalization with regard to infection control and patient comfort, as well as overall health care cost control by reducing the need for capital-intensive traditional bricks-and- mortar hospitals. A medical treatment trend being actively pursued by both LMHS and NCH is for better, more efficient management of inpatient care so as to reduce the average length of patient stays. A ten-year master planning process recently undertaken by LMHS included a goal to further reduce average lengths of stay by 0.65 days by 2021, and thereby reduce the number of hospital beds needed system-wide by 128 beds. LMHS did not address the subject of medical treatment trends as part of its needs assessment. The persuasive evidence demonstrated that medical treatment trends do not support the need for the proposed new facility; consideration of these trends weighs against approval. Competition; Market Conditions The proposed new hospital will not foster competition; it will diminish competition by expanding LMHS’s market dominance of acute care services in Lee County. AHCA voiced its reasonable concerns about Lee Memorial’s “unprecedented” market dominance of acute care services in a county as large as Lee, which recently ranked as the eighth most populous county in Florida. LMHS already provides a majority of hospital care being obtained by residents of the primary service area. LMHS will increase its market share if the proposed new hospital is approved. This increase will come both directly, via basic medical-surgical services provided to patients at the new hospital, and indirectly, via LMHS’s plan for the proposed new hospital to serve as a feeder system to direct patients to other LMHS hospitals for more specialized care.14/ The evidence did not establish that LMHS historically has used its market power as leverage to demand higher charges from private insurers. However, as LMHS’s financial expert acknowledged, the health care environment is undergoing changes, making the past less predictive of the future. The changing environment was cited as the reason for LMHS’s low commitment to Medicaid and charity care for the proposed project. There is evidence of LMHS’s market power in its high operating margin, more than six percent higher than NCH’s operating margin between 2009 and 2012. LMHS’s financial expert’s opinion that total margin should be considered instead of operating margin when looking at market power was not persuasive. Of concern is the market power in the field of hospital operations, making operating margin the appropriate measure. Overall, Mr. Gregg reasonably explained the lack of competitive benefit from the proposed project: I think that this proposal does less for competition than virtually any acute care hospital proposal that we’ve seen. As I said, it led the Agency to somewhat scratch [its] head in disbelief. There is no other situation like it. . . . This is the most basic of satellites. This hospital will be referring patients to the rest of the Lee Memorial system in diverse abundance because they are not going to be able to offer specialized services. And economies of scale are not going to allow it in the future. People will not be able to duplicate the expensive services that hospitals offer. So we do not see this as enhancing competition in any way at all. (Tr. 1416-1417). The proposed hospital’s inclusion of outpatient services, community education, and chronic care management presents an awkward dimension of direct competition with adjacent BCHC, the joint venture between LMHS and NCH. BCHC has been a money-losing proposition in a direct sense, but both systems remain committed to the venture, in part because of the indirect benefit they now share in the form of referrals of patients to both systems’ hospitals. Duplication of BCHC’s services, which are already struggling financially, would not appear to be beneficial competition. While this is not a significant factor, to the extent LMHS makes a point of the non-hospital outpatient services that will be available at the proposed new hospital, it must be noted that that dimension of the project does nothing to enhance beneficial competition. Adverse Impact NCH would suffer a substantial adverse financial impact caused by the establishment of the proposed hospital, if approved. A large part of the adverse financial impact would be attributable to lost patient volume at North Naples, an established hospital which is not well-utilized now, without a new hospital targeting residents of North Naples’ home zip code. The expected adverse financial impact of the proposed new hospital was reasonably estimated to be $6.4 million annually. Just as LMHS cited concerns about the unpredictability of the health care environment as a reason to lower its Medicaid/charity commitment for the proposed project, NCH has concerns with whether the substantial adverse impact from the proposed hospital will do serious harm to NCH’s viability, when added to the uncertain impacts of the Affordable Care Act, sequestration, Medicaid reimbursement, and other changes. LMHS counters with the view that if the proposed hospital is approved, in time population growth will offset the proposed hospital’s adverse impact. While consideration of medical treatment trends may dictate that an increasing amount of future population growth will be treated in settings other than a traditional hospital, Mr. Gregg opined that over time, the area’s population growth will still tend to drive hospital usage up. However, future hospital usage will be by a narrower class of more complex patients. Considering all of the competing factors established in this record, the likely adverse impact that NCH would experience if the proposed hospital is established, though substantial enough to support the standing of Petitioner North Naples, is not viewed as extreme enough to pose a threat to NCH’s viability. Institution/System-Specific Interests LMHS’s proposed condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial downtown is not a factor weighing in favor of approval of its proposed hospital. At hearing, LMHS defended the proposed CON condition as a helpful way to allow LMHS to address facility challenges at Lee Memorial. The evidence showed that to some extent, this issue is overstated in that, by all accounts, Lee Memorial provides excellent, award-winning care that meets all credentialing requirements for full accreditation. The evidence also suggested that to some extent, there are serious system issues facing LMHS that will need to be confronted at some point to answer the unanswered question posed by Mr. Gregg: What will become of Lee Memorial? Recognizing this, LMHS began a ten-year master planning process in 2011, to take a look at LMHS’s four hospitals in the context of the needs of Lee County over a ten-year horizon, and determine how LMHS could meet those needs. A team of outside and in-house experts were involved in the ten-year master planning process. LMHS’s strategic planning team looked at projected volumes and population information for all of Lee County over the next ten years and determined the number of beds needed to address projected needs. Recommendations were then developed regarding how LMHS would meet the needs identified for Lee County through 2021 by rearranging, adding, and subtracting beds among the four existing hospital campuses. A cornerstone of the master plan assessment by numerous outside experts and LMHS experts was that Lee Memorial’s existing physical plant was approaching the end of its useful life. Options considered were: replace the hospital building on the existing campus; downsize the hospital and relocate some of the beds and services to Gulf Coast; and the favored option, discontinue operations of Lee Memorial as an acute care hospital, removing all acute care beds and reestablishing those beds and services primarily at the Gulf Coast campus, with some beds possibly placed at Cape Coral. All of these options addressed the projected needs for Lee County through 2021 within the existing expansion capabilities of Gulf Coast and Cape Coral, and the expansion capabilities that HealthPark will have with the addition of its new on-campus children’s hospital. Somewhat confusingly, the CON application referred several times to LMHS’s “ten-year master plan for our long-term facility needs, which considers the changing geographic population trends of our region, the need for additional capacity during the seasonal months, and facility challenges at Lee Memorial[.]” (LMHS Exh. 3, pp. 12, 57). The implication given by these references was that the new hospital project was being proposed in furtherance of the ten-year master plan, as the product of careful, studied consideration in a long-range planning process to address the future needs of Lee County. To the contrary, although the referenced ten-year master plan process was, indeed, a long- range deliberative planning process to assess and plan for the future needs of Lee County, the ten-year master plan did not contemplate the proposed new hospital as a way to meet the needs in Lee County identified through 2021.15/ The ten-year master planning process was halted because of concerns about the options identified for Lee Memorial. Further investigation was to be undertaken for Lee Memorial and what services needed to be maintained there. No evidence was presented to suggest that this investigation had taken place as of the final hearing. The proposed CON condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial does nothing to address the big picture issues that LMHS faces regarding the Lee Memorial campus. According to different LMHS witnesses, either some or nearly all of those licensed beds are not operational or available to be put in service, so the license is meaningless and delicensing them would accomplish nothing. To the extent any of those beds are operational, delicensing them might cause Lee Memorial to suddenly have throughput problems and drop below the EMS offload time goal, when it has been one of the system’s best performers. The proposed piecemeal dismantling of Lee Memorial, without a plan to address the bigger picture, reasonably causes AHCA great concern. As Mr. Gregg explained, “[I]t raises a fundamental concern for us, in that the area around Lee Memorial, the area of downtown Fort Myers is the lower income area of Lee County. The area around the proposed facility, Estero, Bonita, is one of the upper income areas of Lee County.” (Tr. 1410). The plan to shift resources away from downtown caused Mr. Gregg to pose the unanswered question: “[W]hat is to become of Lee Memorial?” Id. Recognizing the physical plant challenges faced there, nonetheless AHCA was left to ask, “[W]hat about that population and how does [the proposed new hospital] relate? How does this proposed facility fit into the multihospital system that might exist in the future?” (Tr. 1410-1411). These are not only reasonable, unanswered questions, they are the same questions left hanging when LMHS interrupted the ten-year master planning process to react to HMA’s LOI with the CON application at issue here. Balanced Review of Pertinent Criteria In AHCA’s initial review, when it came time to weigh and balance the pertinent criteria, “It was difficult for us to come up with the positive about this proposal.” (Tr. 1432). In this case, AHCA’s initial review assessment was borne out by the evidence at hearing. The undersigned must agree with AHCA that the balance of factors weighs heavily, if not entirely, against approval of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a Final Order denying CON application no. 10185. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2014.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the application of Petitioner, University Medical Park, for a certificate of need to construct a 130-bed acute care hospital in northern Hillsborough County, Florida should be approved. The factual issues are whether a need exists for the proposed facility under the Department's need rule and, if not, are there any special circumstances which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application notwithstanding lack of need. The petitioner, while not agreeing with the methodology, conceded that under the DHRS rule as applied there is no need because there is an excess of acute care beds projected for 1989, the applicable planning horizon. The only real factual issue is whether there are any special circumstances which warrant issuance of a CON. The parties filed post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 18, 1985, which were read and considered. Many of those proposals are incorporated in the following findings. As indicated some were irrelevant, however, those not included on pertinent issues were rejected because the more credible evidence precluded the proposed finding. Having heard the testimony and carefully considered the Proposed Findings of Fact, there is no evidence which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application. It is recommended that the application be denied.
Findings Of Fact General Petitioner is a limited partnership composed almost entirely of physicians, including obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYN) and specialists providing ancillary care, who practice in the metropolitan Tampa area. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 103-104). Petitioner's managing general partner is Dr. Robert Withers, a doctor specializing in OB/GYN who has practiced in Hillsborough County for over thirty years. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 24- 26, 28-29.) Dr. Withers was a prime moving force in the founding, planning and development of University Community Hospital and Women's Hospital. (Tr. Vo1. 1, pp. 26-28, 73; Vol. 4, pp. 547-548.) Petitioner seeks to construct in DHRS District VI a specialty "women's" hospital providing obstetrical and gynecological services at the corner of 30th Street and Fletcher Avenue in northern Hillsborough County and having 130 acute care beds. 1/ (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 34, 74-75, Vol. 5, pp. 678-679, Northside Ex.-1, pp. 1-2, Ex.-4A.) The proposed hospital is to have 60 obstetrical, 66 gynecological and 4 intensive care beds. (Tr. Vol. 8, P. 1297, Northside Ex.-1 Table 17, Ex.-B.) DHRS District VI is composed of Hardy, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk counties. Each county is designated a subdistrict by the Local Health Council of District VI. Pasco County, immediately north of Hillsborough, is located in DHRS District V and is divided into two subdistricts, east Pasco and west Pasco. If built, Northside would be located in the immediate vicinity of University Community Hospital (UCH) in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Less than 5 percent of the total surgical procedures at UCH are gynecologically related, and little or no nonsurgical gynecological procedures arc performed there. (Tr. Vol. 4, p. 550.) There is no obstetrical practice at UCH, although it has the capacity to handle obstetric emergencies. The primary existing providers of obstetrical services to the metropolitan Tampa area are Tampa General Hospital (TGH) and Women's Hospital (Women's). (Tr. Vol. 1, p. 79, Northside Ex.-4, Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1074-1075.) TGH is a large public hospital located on Davis Islands near downtown Tampa. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 47-48, Vol. 8, pp. 1356, 1358.) TGH currently has a 35 bed obstetrical unit, but is currently expanding to 70 beds as part of a major renovation and expansion program scheduled for completion in late 1985. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1049, 1095, Vol. 8, pp. 1367-1368, Vol. 10, P. 1674, Northside Ex.- 2, P. 3.) In recent years, the overwhelming majority of Tampa General's admissions in obstetrics at TGH have been indigent patients. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 61, Vol. 8, pp. 1375- 1379; Vol. 9, P. 1451; TGH Ex.-3.) Tampa General's internal records reflect that it had approximately 2,100 patient days of gynecological care compared with over 38,000 patient days in combined obstetrical care during a recent eleven month period. (TGH Ex.-3..) Women's is a 192 bed "specialty" hospital located in the west central portion of the City of Tampa near Tampa Stadium. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 63-64, 66-67; Vol. 10 P. 1564; Northside Ex.-4.) Women's Hospital serves primarily private-pay female patients. (Vol. 1, pp. 79, 88-89; Vol. 6, pp. 892-893.) Humana Brandon Hospital, which has a 16 bed obstetrics unit, and South Florida Baptist Hospital in Plant City, which has 12 obstetric beds, served eastern Hillsborough County. (Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Northside Ex.-2, P. 3; Northside Ex.-4 and Tr. Vol. 1, P. 79; Northside Ex.-4.) There are two hospitals in eastern Pasco County, which is in DHRS District V. Humana Hospital, Pasco and East Pasco Medical Center, each of which has a six bed obstetric unit. Both hospitals are currently located in Dade City, but the East Pasco Medical Center will soon move to Zephyrhills and expand its obstetrics unit to nine beds. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 108- 109; Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Vol. 8, pp. 1278-1281; Northside Ex.-4.) There are no hospitals in central Pasco County, DHRS District V. Residents of that area currently travel south to greater Tampa, or, to a lesser extent, go to Dade City for their medical services. (Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 266-267, 271-272; Vol. 7, p. 1038.) Bed Need There are currently 6,564 existing and CON approved acute care beds in DHRS District VI, compared with an overall bed need of 5,718 acute care beds. An excess of 846 beds exist in District VI in 1989, the year which is the planning horizon use by DHRS in determining bed need applicable to this application. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1046-1047, 1163, 1165-66; DHRS Ex.-1.) There is a net need for five acute care beds in DHRS District V according to the Department's methodology. (Tr. Yolk. 7, pp. 1066, 1165; DHRS Ex.-1.) The figures for District VI include Carrollwood Community Hospital which is an osteopathic facility which does not provide obstetrical services. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 158; Vol. 7, p. 1138; Vol. 8, P. 1291.) However, these osteopathic beds are considered as meeting the total bed need when computing a11 opathic bed need. DHRS has not formally adopted the subdistrict designations of allocations as part of its rules. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1017-1017, 1019; Vol. 8, pp. 1176, 1187.) Consideration of the adoption of subdistricts by the Local Health Council is irrelevant to this application. 2/ Areas of Consideration in Addition to Bed Need Availability Availability is deemed the number of beds available. As set forth above, there is an excess of beds. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192.) Tampa General Hospital and Humana Women's Hospital offer all of the OB related services which UMP proposes to offer in its application. These and a number of other hospitals to include UCH, offer all of the GYN related services proposed by Northside. University Community Hospital is located 300 yards away from the proposed site of Northside. UCH is fully equipped to perform virtually any kind of GYN/OB procedure. Humana and UCH take indigent patients only on an emergency basis, as would the proposed facility. GYN/OB services are accessible to all residents of Hillsborough County regardless of their ability to pay for such services at TGH. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1469; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1596; Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 582; Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, P. 21.) Utilization Utilization is impacted by the number of available beds and the number of days patients stay in the hospital. According to the most recent Local Health Council hospital utilization statistics, the acute care occupancy rate for 14 acute care hospitals in Hillsborough County for the most recent six months was 65 percent. This occupancy rate is based on licensed beds and does not include CON approved beds which are not yet on line. This occupancy rate is substantially below the optimal occupancies determined by DHRS in the Rule. (DHRS Exhibit 4; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1069.) Utilization of obstetric beds is higher than general acute care beds; however, the rules do not differentiate between general and obstetric beds. 3/ Five Hillsborough County hospitals, Humana Women's, St. Joseph's, Tampa General, Humana Brandon, and South Florida Baptist, offer obstetric services. The most recent Local Health Council utilization reports indicate that overall OB occupancy for these facilities was 82 percent for the past 6 months. However, these computations do not include the 35 C0N-approved beds which will soon be available at Tampa General Hospital. (DHRS Exhibit 4). There will be a substantial excess of acute care beds to include OB beds in Hillsborough County for the foreseeable future. (Baehr, Tr.w Vol. X, pp. 1568, 1594, 1597.) The substantial excess of beds projected will result in lower utilization. In addition to excess beds, utilization is lowered by shorter hospital stays by patients. The nationwide average length of stay has been reduced by almost two days for Medicare patients and one day for all other patients due to a variety of contributing circumstances. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1102; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1583-84; etc.) This dramatic decline in length of hospital stay is the result of many influences, the most prominent among which are: (1) a change in Medicare reimbursement to a system which rewards prompt discharges of patients and penalizes overutilization ("DGRs"), (2) the adaptation by private payers (insurance companies, etc.) of Medicare type reimbursement, (3) the growing availability and acceptance of alternatives to hospitalization such as ambulatory surgical centers, labor/delivery/recovery suites, etc. and (4) the growing popularity of health care insurance/delivery mechanisms such as health maintenance organizations ("HMOs"), preferred provider organizations ("PPOs"), and similar entities which offer direct or indirect financial incentives for avoiding or reducing hospital utilization. The trend toward declining hospital utilization will continue. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1192-98; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1584-86; etc.) There has been a significant and progressive decrease in hospital stays for obstetrics over the last five years. During this time, a typical average length of stay has been reduced from three days to two and, in some instances, one day. In addition, there is a growing trend towards facilities (such as LDRs) which provide obstetrics on virtually an outpatient basis. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1456; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644.) The average length of stay for GYN procedures is also decreasing. In addition, high percentage of GYN procedures are now being performed on an outpatient, as opposed to inpatient, basis. (Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644, etc.) The reduction in hospital stays and excess of acute care beds will lower utilization of acute care hospitals, including their OB components, enough to offset the projected population growth in Hillsborough County. The hospitals in District VI will not achieve the optimal occupancy rates for acute care beds or OB beds in particular by 1989. The 130 additional beds proposed by UMP would lower utilization further. (Paragraphs 7, 14, and 18 above; DHRS Exhibit 1, Humana Exhibit 1.) Geographic Accessibility Ninety percent of the population of Hillsborough County is within 30 minutes of an acute care hospital offering, at least, OB emergency services. TGH 20, overlay 6, shows that essentially all persons living in Hillsborough County are within 30 minutes normal driving time not only to an existing, acute care hospital, but a hospital offering OB services. Petitioner's service area is alleged to include central Pasco County. Although Pasco County is in District V, to the extent the proposed facility might serve central Pasco County, from a planning standpoint it is preferable to have that population in central Paso served by expansion of facilities closer to them. Hospitals in Tampa will become increasingly less accessible with increases in traffic volume over the years. The proposed location of the UMP hospital is across the street from an existing acute care hospital, University Community Hospital ("UCH"). (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 542.) Geographic accessibility is the same to the proposed UMP hospital and UCH. (Smith, Tr. Vol. III, P. 350; Wentzel, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 486; Peters, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1532.) UCH provides gynecological services but does not provide obstetrical services. However, UCH is capable of delivering babies in emergencies. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 563.) The gynecological services and OB capabilities at UCH are located at essentially the same location as Northside's proposed site. Geographic accessibility of OB/GYN services is not enhanced by UMP's proposed 66 medical-surgical beds. The accessibility of acute care beds, which under the rule are all that is considered, is essentially the same for UCH as for the proposed facility. As to geographic accessibility, the residents of Hillsborough and Pasco Counties now have reasonable access to acute care services, including OB services. The UMP project would not increase accessibility to these services by any significant decrease. C. Economic Accessibility Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence that it would expand services to underserved portions of the community. Demographer Smith did not study income levels or socioeconomic data for the UMP service area. (Smith, TR. Vol. III, pp. 388, 389.) However, Mr. Margolis testified that 24 percent of Tampa General's OB patients, at least 90 percent of who are indigents, came from the UMP service area. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) The patients proposed to be served at the Northside Hospital are not different than those already served in the community. (Withers, Tr. Vol. II, P. 344.) As a result, Northside Hospital would not increase the number of underserved patients. Availability of Health Care Alternative An increasing number of GYN procedures are being performed by hospitals on an outpatient basis and in freestanding ambulatory-surgical centers. An ambulatory-surgical center is already in operation at a location which is near the proposed UMP site. In fact, Dr. Hyatt, a UMP general partner, currently performs GYN procedures at that surgical center. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 150; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 644, 646. Ambulatory surgical centers, birthing centers and similar alternative delivery systems offer alternatives to the proposed facility. Existing hospitals are moving to supply such alternatives which, with the excess beds and lower utilization, arc more than adequate to preclude the need for the UMP proposal. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1204, 1205, 1206; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453, 1469; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1154; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1151, 1154.) Need for Special Equipment & Services DHRS does not consider obstetrics or gynecology to be "special services" for purposes of Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes. In addition, the services proposed by UMP are already available in Hillsborough and Pasco Counties. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1162, 1210.) Need for Research & Educational Facilities USF currently uses Tampa General as a training facility for its OB residents. TCH offered evidence that the new OB facilities being constructed at Tampa General were designed with assistance from USF and were funded by the Florida Legislature, in part, as an educational facility. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1391; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453-1455.) The educational objectives of USF for OB residents at Tampa General are undermined by a disproportionately high indigent load. Residents need a cross section of patients. The UMP project will further detract from a well rounded OB residency program at Tampa General by causing Tampa General's OB Patient mix to remain unbalanced. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1458; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) UMP offered no evidence of arrangements to further medical research or educational needs in the community. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1213. UMP's proposed facility will not contribute to research and education in District VI. Availability of Resources Management UMP will not manage its hospital. It has not secured a management contract nor entered into any type of arrangement to insure that its proposed facility will be managed by knowledgeable and competent personnel. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, p. 142.) However, there is no alleged or demonstrated shortage of management personnel available. Availability of Funds For Capital and Operating Expenditures The matter of capital funding was a "de novo issue," i.e., evidence was presented which was in addition to different from its application. In its application, Northside stated that its project will be funded through 100 percent debt. Its principal general partner, Dr. Withers, states that this "figure is not correct." However, neither Dr. Withers nor any other Northside witness ever identified the percentage of the project, if any, which is to be funded through equity contributions except the property upon which it would be located. (UMP Exhibit 1, p. 26; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 134.) The UMP application contained a letter from Landmark Bank of Tampa which indicates an interest on the part of that institution in providing funding to Northside in the event that its application is approved. This one and one half year year old letter falls short of a binding commitment on the part of Landmark Bank to lend UMP the necessary funds to complete and operate its project and is stale. Dr. Withers admitted that Northside had no firm commitment as of the date of the hearing to finance its facility, or any commitment to provide 1196 financing as stated in its application. (UMP Exhibit I/Exhibit Dr. Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 138.) Contribution to Education No evidence was introduced to support the assertion in the application of teaching research interaction between UMP and USF. USF presented evidence that no such interaction would occur. (Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1329.) The duplication of services and competition for patients and staff created by UMP's facility would adversely impact the health professional training programs of USF, the state's primary representative of health professional training programs in District VI. (Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1314-19; 1322-24; 1331-1336.) Financial Feasibility The pro forma statement of income and expenses for the first two years of operation (1987 and 1988) contained in the UMP application projects a small operating loss during the first year and a substantial profit by the end of the second year. These pro formas are predicated on the assumption that the facility will achieve a utilization rate of 61 percent in Year 1 and 78 percent in its second year. To achieve these projected utilization levels, Northside would have to capture a market share of 75-80 percent of all OB patient days and over 75% of all GYN patient days generated by females in its service area. (UMP, Exhibit 1; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 145, Dacus; Tr. Vol. V, P. 750-755.) These projected market shares and resulting utilization levels are very optimistic. It is unlikely that Northside could achieve these market shares simply by making its services available to the public. More reasonable utilization assumptions for purposes of projecting financial feasibility would be 40-50 percent during the first year and 65 percent in the second year. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1700; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1578, 1579, 1601.) UMP omitted the cost of the land on which its facility is to be constructed from its total project cost and thus understates the income necessary to sustain its project. Dr. Withers stated the purchase price of this land was approximately $1.5 million and it has a current market value in excess of $5 million. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 139, 140.) Dr. Withers admitted that the purchase price of the land would be included in formulating patient charges. As a matter of DHRS interpretation, the cost of land should be included as part of the capital cost of the project even if donated or leased and, as such, should be added into the pro formas. UMP's financial expert, Barbara Turner, testified that she would normally include land costs in determining financial feasibility of a project, otherwise total project costs would be understated (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 141; Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1215, 1216; Turner, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1714.) In addition, the pro formas failed to include any amount for management expenses associated with the new facility. Dr. Withers admitted UMP does not intend to manage Northside and he anticipates that the management fee would be considerably higher than the $75,000 in administrator salaries included in the application. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 143, 144.) Barbara Turner, UMP's financial expert, conceded that the reasonableness of the percent UMP pro formas is predicated on the reasonableness of its projected market share and concomitant utilization assumptions. These projections are rejected as being inconsistent with evidence presented by more credible witnesses. The UMP project, as stated in its application or as presented at hearing, is not financially feasible on the assumption Petitioner projected. VIII. Impact on Existing Facilities Approval of the UMP application would result in a harmful impact on the costs of providing OB/GYN services at existing facilities. The new facility would be utilized by patients who would otherwise utilize existing facilities, hospitals would be serving fewer patients than they are now. This would necessarily increase capital and operating costs on a per patient basis which, in turn, would necessitate increases in patient charges. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1217-1219; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1587.) Existing facilities are operating below optimal occupancy levels. See DHRS Exhibit 4. The Northside project would have an adverse financial impact on Humana, Tampa General Hospital, and other facilities regardless of whether Northside actually makes a profit. See next subheading below. The Northside project would draw away a substantial number of potential private-pay patients from TGH. Residents of the proposed Northside service area constitute approximately 24 percent of the total number of OB patients served by TGH. The Northside project poses a threat to TGH's plans to increase its non- indigent OB patient mix which is the key to its plans to provide a quality, competitive OB service to the residents of Hillsborough County. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VIII, P. 1225; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) Impact Upon Costs and Competition Competition via a new entrant in a health care market can be good or bad in terms of both the costs and the quality of care rendered, depending on the existing availability of competition in that market at the time. Competition has a positive effect when the market is not being adequately or efficiently served. In a situation where adequate and efficient service exists, competition can have an adverse impact on costs and on quality because a new facility is simply adding expense to the system without a concomitant benefit. (Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, p. 1650.) Competition among hospitals in Hillsborough County is now "intense and accelerating." (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 558.) Tampa General is at a competitive disadvantage because of its indigent case load and its inability to offer equity interests to physicians in its hospital. (Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 945, 947-948); Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1405.) Tampa General Hospital is intensifying its marketing effort, a physician office building under construction now at Tampa General is an illustration of Tampa General's effort to compete for private physicians and patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1405-1406.) The whole thrust of Tampa General's construction program is to increase its ability to compete for physicians. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1224; Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, p. 1442.) The Tampa General construction will create new competition for physicians and patients. (Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, p. 1099.) Patients go to hospitals where their doctors practice, therefore, hospitals generally compete for physicians. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 563; Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 898, 928.) Because many of the UMP partners are obstetricians who plan to use Northside exclusively, approval of the Northside project would lessen competition. (Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, P. 11.) It is feasible for Tampa General to attract more private pay OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461.) At its recently opened rehabilitation center, Tampa General has attracted more private pay patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1393-1396.) USF OB residents at Tampa General are planning to practice at Tampa General. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460-1461.) The state-of-the-art labor, delivery, recovery room to be used at Tampa General will be an attractive alternative to OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461); Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, p.26) IX. Capital Expenditure Proposals The proposed Northside hospital will not offer any service not now available in Tampa. (Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, p. 21).
Recommendation Petitioner having failed to prove the need for additional acute care beds to include OB beds or some special circumstance which would warrant approval of the proposed project, it is recommended that its application for a CON be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1985.
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 1986, a letter of intent was filed on behalf of Anthony J. Estevez to apply for a CON in the March 16, 1986, batching cycle for a 120-bed long-term psychiatric hospital in Dade County, Florida, HRS Service District XI. A long-term psychiatric hospital is defined in Rule 10-5.011(p), Florida Administrative Code, as a "category of services which provides hospital based inpatient services averaging a length of stay of 90 days." Subsequently, DHRS notified Mr. Estevez that his letter of intent was effective March 17, 1986; the application was to be filed by April 15, 1986; the application was to be completed by June 29, 1986; and the date for final department action was August 28, 1986. On April 15, 1986, Mr. Estevez filed his CON application with DHRS (designated action #4854). Anthony J. Estevez' name appeared along with Health Care Advisors Corporation on the line of the application which requested "legal name of project sponsor." Mr. Francis A. Gomez, Mr. Estevez' authorized representative, had the responsibility for the preparation and submission of the application. Mr. Estevez signed the CON application as the project sponsor. HCAC Psychiatric Hospital of Dade County was meant to be the name of the proposed facility. HCAC is an acronym for Health Care Advisors Corporation, Inc. HCAC was incorporated as of April 14, 1987, but the name had been reserved prior to that time. HCAC was initially intended to be a health care management corporation owned by Mr. Estevez. However, it is now anticipated that Flowers Management Corporation (Flowers) will manage the project under the HCAC corporate umbrella. Mr. Estevez owns 100 percent of the stock of HCAC and is also its sole director and sole shareholder. Mr. Estevez considered HCAC and himself to be one and the same for the purpose of the CON application. HCAC initially proposed to construct in Dade County, Florida, a freestanding 120-bed long-term psychiatric hospital. HCAC proposed to divide those beds into three groups: (1) 75 beds for adults; (2) 30 beds for geriatrics; and (3) 15 beds for adolescents. On May 15, 1986, DHRS requested additional information from HCAC regarding its CON application. On June 19, 1986, and June 23, 1986, HCAC in two separate filings provided DHRS with responses to its request for additional information which DHRS believed was omitted from the original application. The application was deemed complete effective June 29, 1986. On August 20, 1986, Francis Gomez, Paul McCall, a health care consultant employed by HCAC at that time, and HCAC's attorney, met with Islara Soto of DHRS regarding the CON application. At this meeting, HCAC advised DHRS of its intent to orient the facility programmatically to meet the needs of the Hispanic population of Dade and Monroe Counties. By letter dated August 29, 1986, DHRS notified Mr. Francis Gomez of its decision to deny CON application 4584. HCAC requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial. At the formal hearing, HCAC indicated a desire to abandon its proposal to provide 15 beds dedicated to serve adolescent patients and sought to introduce evidence relating to a down-sized 105-bed long-term psychiatric hospital serving only adult and geriatric patients. Charter renewed its prehearing motion to exclude any evidence concerning a 105-bed facility. (Approximately three or four weeks prior to the administrative hearing, HCAC had decided to go forward with a proposal for the 105-bed facility.) The undersigned ruled that HCAC would be allowed to present evidence concerning a down-sized 105-bed facility to the extent that such evidence related to a separate and identifiable portion of the original application. HCAC's Proposal The proposed building site for the facility, although not finally selected, is intended to be within the Northwest Dade Center cachement area which is in the northwest corner of Dade County. The ownership of the proposed facility will be by Mr. Estevez and/or his family or wife. The proposed area to be serviced by the facility is Dade and Monroe Counties (HRS Service District XI). HCAC proposes to offer at its facility a psychiatric inpatient unit, patient support services, diagnostic/treatment services, ambulatory care, administrative services, environmental/maintenance, educational and training services, and materials management. The HCAC facility will be managed by Flowers Management Corporation (Flowers), of which Mr. Estevez is a majority shareholder. Flowers was created approximately three and a half years ago for the purpose of providing management in the psychiatric field. Humana Hospital, a hospital chain, has selected Flowers to manage four of its facilities and is also considering Flowers for an additional two facilities. Those facilities are currently providing short-term psychiatric and substance abuse services. Nelson Rodney will be responsible for the design and implementation of the treatment programs in the HCAC facility. Rodney is employed as Regional Vice President of Flowers and is responsible for the management of the Florida hospitals affiliated with Flowers, including a chemical dependency unit at Humana-Biscayne Hospital and a psychiatric unit at Humana West Palm Beach Hospital. The HCAC facility is intended to provide specialty long-term psychiatric services for chronically mentally disturbed individuals requiring a 90-day or greater average length of stay. Many of the patients would be a danger to themselves and others and will require a very restrictive setting -- a locked facility. The programs proposed to be offered involve a range of inpatient diagnostic services, including an intensive diagnostic work-up done prior to admission for all patients. Each patient will have an individualized treatment plan updated every two weeks. The treatment program will include specialized therapy, such as art, music, milieu therapy and special education. There would also be specialized inpatient and outpatient treatment programs for family members and significant others. Discharge planning from the day of admission to assure continuity of care would be another aspect of the program. The proposed HCAC facility would offer a community-like atmosphere. It would provide both open and locked units. Flower's therapeutic model encourages patient participation in daily activities and in the many decisions of what is occurring at the hospital. One component of the project will be an initial screening process by a multi-disciplinary team who will employ a predetermined set of admissions criteria to assist in appropriate levels of care determination. The multi- disciplinary team would consist of a psychiatrist, psychologist, sometimes a neurologist, social worker, a family social assessment person, the patient, and others. The team will attempt to identify and admit only those patients who will have an expected length of stay greater than 90 days. The HCAC facility would provide seminars and workshops to practitioners in the community as well as its own staff. In-service training will also be offered. HCAC proposes to be flexible in the design of its treatment programs and allow new treatments to be utilized. A variety of therapies will be available to provide individualized treatment plans in order to optimize the chance of successful outcome in the patient's treatment. Currently, Flowers affords an in-house program of evaluation. Peer review serves this function in order to assess quality of care rendered to patients in the facility. The HCAC facility proposes to have an Hispanic emphasis. More than 50 percent of the staff will be bilingual. Upper management will consist of individuals who have an acute understanding of Hispanic culture and treatment implications of that culture. The facility will be more flexible in family visitation than is done in many facilities which is an important aspect of the Hispanic culture. The facility as managed by Flowers would have the required "patient's bill of rights" and will also seek JACH accreditation, although these items were not discussed in the application. The HCAC facility would offer each patient an attending psychiatrist who will be part of the multi-disciplinary team that will determine the individualized plan for each patient. Sufficient health manpower including management resources are available to HCAC to operate the project. Additionally, the facility will provide internships, field placements and semester rotations. PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS HCAC's CON application, admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4, contains 26 tables concerning various aspects of the 120-bed project as well as Exhibit III.D.1., an operating pro forma. In response to a request for omissions by DHRS, HCAC submitted, among other things, a revised Table 7, revised Table 8, and a revised operating pro forma for the 120-bed project. The items making up HCAC's omission responses were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. In conjunction with its desire to complete a 105-bed facility only, HCAC submitted various new tables and a new operating pro forma (forecasted income statement), which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Table 1 - Source of Funds The estimated total project cost of the 120-bed facility would be $6,469,500. The estimated project cost of the 105-bed facility would be $5,696,940. The financing of the project is contemplated to be done through NCNB bank which has expressed its willingness to finance the project. It is reasonable to assume that HCAC would and could obtain the necessary financing for the proposed facility. Table 2 - Total Debt Table 2 for both the 120-bed project and the 105-bed project shows that 100 percent of the project costs would be financed by debt at an interest rate of 13 percent. The 13 percent interest rate was projected in 1986 and is higher than current rates. It is reasonable to assume that 100 percent of the costs can be financed at 13 percent for either the 120-bed or 105-bed project. Table 3 - New Purchase Equipment HCAC initially projected that $750,000 would be needed to equip the proposed 120-bed facility. The projected expenditure for the 105-bed facility is $500,000. The projected costs of $750,000 and $500,000 for the equipment needed for the 120-bed and 105-bed facility, respectively, are unreasonably low. For example, of the $500,000 projected for equipment costs for the 105-bed project, $80,000 is for mini-vans, $15,000 is for the security system, $40,000 is for a computerized medical records system, and $40,000 for a computerized on-line nurse care program. This would leave $325,000 for all other necessary equipment. Pharmacy, laboratory services and x-ray equipment would be on contract. The remaining $325,000 would be insufficient to equip the kitchen (which would require $80,000), furnish patient rooms (approximately $150,000) and equip the remainder of the 105-bed facility which would reasonably require housekeeping equipment, exam room equipment, chart racks for the nurses station, seclusion room beds, office furniture and equipment, laundry equipment, lockers or shelving, refrigerators, ice makers, day room furniture and lounge furniture. A more reasonable projection for equipment costs would be in the neighborhood of $850,000 to $900,000. Table 7 - Utilization by Class of Pay Tables 7 and 8 of the original application which dealt with utilization by class of pay and effect on patient charges, were revised by HCAC in their responses to DHRS' Omissions Request. Table 7 reflects estimations of the net revenues which HCAC expects to capture from specific payor mixes, namely, contract/indigent, Medicare and insurance/private pay. There is no Medicaid reimbursement available for psychiatric care rendered in a freestanding psychiatric facility. The proposed payor mix for the 120-bed facility is, in patient days, as follows: Year 1 -- Contract/Indigent 8.64 percent (1989) Medicare 26.10 percent Insurance and Private Pay 65.26 percent Year 2 -- Contract/Indigent 8.48 percent (1990) Medicare 26.15 percent Insurance and Private Pay 65.37 percent The proposed payor mix for the 105-bed facility is, in patient days, as follows: Years 1 and 2 - Medicare 3.3 percent Insurance and Private Pay 90.7 percent Indigent 6.0 percent The change in payor mix was not attributed to down-sizing of the facility, but rather was the result of HCAC's additional research and understanding of what the payor mix would most likely be. The change in payor mix does not represent a substantial change to the original application taken as a whole. Francis Gomez, who prepared the Table 7 and was designated as an expert for HCAC in the area of health care facilities management and financial and marketing operations, conceded that HCAC's Table 7 for the 120-bed facility is not reasonable. The Table 7 for the 105-bed facility is also not reasonable. HCAC's contractual allowances are not reasonable. HCAC projects 3.3 percent for Medicare and nothing for HMOs or PPOs. It is unreasonable for HCAC's proposal to make no provision for HMO and PPO type arrangements in view of its projection of 90.7 percent insurance and private pay. Because the proposed patient mix for the 105-bed project is adults and geriatrics, 20 to 25 percent would be a more reasonable Medicare projection. HCAC's projected 90.7 percent insurance and private patient days is unreasonably high in view of the project's intended emphasis of serving the Hispanic population in HRS Service District XI. In 1980, 27.8 percent of the Hispanics in Dade County had incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty level. The 1987 United States Hispanic market study establishes that 20 percent of the Hispanic adults who are heads of households are either retired, students or unemployed. These groups of individuals would not reasonably fit into the insurance and private pay category in most cases. Thus, the 90.7 percent figure for insurance and private pay would have to be reduced significantly. Table 8 - Effects on Patient Charges HCAC's revised Table 8 for the 120-bed facility lists net revenues rather than gross charges for the specific services listed. In year one (1989), the table lists the following projected charges/rates: daily room charge - $214.61; average daily ancillary charge - $25.00; contract/indigent - $125.00; and Medicare - $229.61. In year two (1990), the table lists the following projected charges: daily room charge - $223.19; average daily ancillary charge - $26.00; contract/indigent - $130.00; and Medicare - $238.79. The Table 8 for the 105-bed facility reflects an all-inclusive gross charge of $300 per day in both years (1989 and 1990) for the daily room charge, Medicaid and Medicare. The $300 per day figure would include ancillary charges but not physician fees. The projected patient charges fall within the range of charges currently in effect at psychiatric hospitals in Dade and Monroe Counties and are reasonable for both the 120-bed facility and the 105-bed project. Table 10 - Projected Utilization The financial feasibility of any proposed hospital is largely tied to the ability of the hospital to generate an adequate level of utilization. Absent an adequate level of utilization, a facility will not generate sufficient revenues to meet expenses. Table 10 for both the 120-bed facility and the 105- bed facility sets forth the projected utilization of the proposed facility, by month and year, in patient days, for the first two years of anticipated operation. Table 10 for the 120-bed facility projects the facility will exceed 80 percent occupancy for two of the last three months of the second year and be at 80 percent occupancy at the end of that year. Eighty percent occupancy of 120 beds yields an average daily census of about 96 patients. Table 10 for the 105- bed facility projects that the facility will arrive at 92 percent occupancy at the end of the first year of operation and remain at 95 percent throughout the second year. Ninety-five percent occupancy of the 105-bed facility equals an average daily census of about 99 or 100 patients. The Table 10 "fill-up" rates for both the 120-bed and 105-bed facilities are unreasonable and not practical to be achieved. There is presently an emphasis on providing psychiatric care in less restrictive settings, a trend favoring reduced lengths of stay and a trend in third-party payors to provide reimbursement for a shorter number of days. In addition, nationwide statistics show that only 4 percent of the patients admitted to psychiatric facilities require treatment longer than 90 days. Table 11 - Manpower Requirements For the 120-bed facility, HCAC projected in the Table 11 a staffing ratio of one full-time equivalent (FTE) per occupied bed of 1.625 for the first year of operation and 1.43 for the second year. For the 105-bed facility, HCAC projected in the Table 11 1.91 FTE per occupied bed ratio for the first year and 1.45 for the second year. The actual average of FTEs available for both facilities would be 1.8 to 2.0. The application figures are lower than the actual average because students and other non-paid personnel were not included. Thus, when all programmatic FTEs are included, the number of FTEs per occupied bed is higher than what is listed in the Table 11 for either project. There is a relationship between the number and quality of staff personnel and a facility's ability to provide quality psychiatric care. The industry standard for FTEs is 1.8 to 2.0 FTEs per occupied bed. HCAC's proposed staffing for both the 120-bed and 105-bed projects are reasonable. For both proposed facilities, HCAC projects 110.5 FTEs for the first year with a total annual salary of $1,932,000 which equals an average salary of approximately $17,400 per FTE. HCAC's projected total annual salary expense is unreasonably low. Specifically, the salary for the occupational therapist is too low and the nursing salaries are too low because of shortages. Table 16 - Areas and Square Feet / Table 18 - Space Requirements HCAC proposes a total 59,603 square feet of gross area for the 120-bed facility and a total of 56,050 square feet of gross area for the 105-bed facility. The decrease in size for the 105-bed facility is attributed to a reduction of the ground floor, a reduction of the second floor by removing the adolescent portion and an increase of ancillary services on the second floor for the geriatric population. HCAC projects 168 feet of net living space in the patient's bedroom for both the 120-bed facility and the 105-bed facility. HCAC's proposal of total area and square feet requirements for both the 120-bed and 105-bed facility are reasonable for the delivery of quality psychiatric care within the proposed facilities. There would be adequate land space for parking at HCAC's facility to forego the necessity of constructing a parking garage. Table 19 - Nursing Unit Area Summary HCAC proposes a total of 34,479 square feet of gross area for the nursing unit in the 120-bed facility and the 105-bed facility. The square footage figures under Table 19 for both the 120-bed facility and 105-bed facility are reasonable. Table 25 - Estimated Project Costs Project Advisors Corporation (PAC), of which Mr. Estevez is the Chief Executive Officer, will be responsible for the design and construction of the proposed facility. PAC is a design and construction company which employs a registered architect, several licensed general contractors, an engineer, two graduate architects and a registered graduate architect. The registered architect and basically 90 percent of the staff have previously been involved in the design and construction of health related facilities. HCAC's projected total cost for the 120-bed facility is $6,469,500 and the projected total costs for the 105-bed facility is $5,696,940. HCAC projected construction costs per square foot of $57.55 for the 120-bed facility and $60.00 per square foot for the 105-bed facility. Although the average construction cost of psychiatric facilities today is around $75 to $95 per square foot, HCAC's projected costs are reasonable and reflect reasonable charges given the fact that PAC, the company which would construct the facility, is controlled by Mr. Estevez. The projected costs of land acquisition are also reasonable. HCAC's projected equipment costs are contained in both Table 25 and Table 2. As previously discussed, the projected equipment costs for both projects are unreasonably low. Table 26 - Project Completion Forecast HCAC projects that construction for both the 120-bed facility and 105- bed facility would be completed approximately one year after DHRS' approval of the construction documents. The project completion forecasts for both projects are reasonable. Exhibit III.D.1.- Operating Pro Forma/Forecasted Income Statement Revised Exhibit III.D.1 sets forth the operating pro forma for the first two years of operation of the 120-bed facility (1989 and 1990). HCAC's pro forma for its 120-bed facility is not reasonable. The supplies and other expenses depicted in the pro forma (year one at $55.60 per patient day and year two at $58.10 per patient day) are unreasonably low. A more reasonable estimate would be approximately $100 per patient day. The pro forma for the 120-bed facility does not include any estimate for the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) tax. Similar facilities in Florida pay an HCCB tax which is composed of one and a half percent of net revenue. Utilizing the more reasonable estimate of $100 per patient day for supplies and other expenses, and including the appropriate HCCB tax, the total supplies and other expenses would increase approximately $1,100,000 and the HCCB tax would be approximately $85,000 in year one. Instead of showing a profit of $395,012, HCAC would potentially lose approximately $785,000 in that year. In year two, the total supplies and other expenses would increase approximately $1,400,000 and the HCCB tax would be approximately $115,000 to $117,000. Thus, in year two, instead of showing a profit of $919,036, HCAC would potentially lose approximately $617, 000. HCAC's "forecasted income statement" for the 105-bed project is also not reasonable. Specifically, the contractual allowances, the allowance for bad debt, and the salaries, wages and fringe benefits are unreasonable. Contractuals include such things as Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs and PPOs, which all generate discounts which are considered contractual allowances. HCAC estimates its bad debt factor at 1.6 percent. A more reasonable projection would be 6 to 8 percent of gross revenue. CONSISTENCY WITH THE DISTRICT XI HEALTH PLAN AND STATE MENTAL HEALTH PLAN The District XI local health council has produced the 1986 District XI Health Plan. The district plan contains the relevant policies, priorities, criteria and standards for evaluation of an application such as HCAC's. HCAC's application is consistent with some of the applicable sections of the District XI Health Plan but inconsistent with the plan taken as a whole. Policy No. 1 of the District XI health plan states that the district should direct its efforts toward a licensed bed capacity of 5.5 non-federal beds per thousand population ratio by 1989. Presently there are 11,294 beds in District XI which represents a number in excess of 5.5 non-federal beds. HCAC's application is inconsistent with this policy. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 1, states that proposals for the construction of new beds in the district should be considered only when the overall average occupancy of licensed beds exceeds 80 percent. Priority No. 1 refers to certain types of beds, specifically, acute care general beds, short- term psychiatric beds and substance abuse beds. HCAC's application is not inconsistent with this priority because long-term psychiatric beds are not mentioned. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 2 favors the encouragement of projects that meet specific district service needs through the conversion of existing beds from currently underutilized services. Because HCAC is not the operator of an existing hospital and it is not possible for HCAC to convert any beds from other services, HCAC's application is inconsistent with Policy No. 1, Priority No. 2. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 3 would only be relevant in the case of an existing hospital but not in the case of a new hospital where no comparative hearing is involved. HCAC's application is not inconsistent with Policy No. 1, Priority No. 3. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 4 allows for priority consideration for the initiation of new services for projects which have had an average occupancy rate of 80 percent for the last two years and which have a documented history of providing services to Medicaid and/or other medically indigent patients. HCAC's application is not entitled to priority consideration under Policy No. 1, Priority No. 4. Policy No. 2 is a broad policy which provides that service alternatives should be available within the district to meet the needs of community residents, while at the same time maintaining an efficient level of utilization. This policy is necessarily tied to the demonstration of overall need for the facility. If HCAC can show need for the proposed facility, its proposal would be consistent with this policy. Policy No. 2, Priority No. 1(f) (Psychiatric Bed Services) provides for priority consideration to be given to specific institutions which have achieved an 80 percent occupancy rate for the preceding year. HCAC's application is not entitled to priority consideration under Policy No. 2, Priority No. 1(f). Policy No. 2, Policy No. 3(f) states that a CON applicant should propose to provide the scope of services consistent with the level of care proposed in the application in accordance with appropriate accrediting agency standards. In the case of psychiatric bed services the appropriate accrediting agency is the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH). Although HCAC neglected to address its ability to comply with JCAH standards in its application, it has established its intent to seek JCAH accreditation. HCAC's proposal is consistent with Policy No. 2, Priority No. 3(f). Policy No. 2, Priority No. 4 gives a preference to those applicants that propose innovative mechanisms such as various complimenting outpatient and inpatient services which are directed toward an ultimate reduction in dependency upon hospital beds. HCAC does not meet this priority because it has not proposed any mechanisms to complement outpatient services with inpatient services directed toward an ultimate reduction in the dependency on hospital beds. Policy No. 2, Priority No. 5 gives a preference to applicants who have based their project on a valid marketing research effort and have placed it in the context of a long-range plan. HCAC does not meet this priority because there was no evidence that the project was based on a valid marketing research plan or placed in the context of a long-range plan. Policy No. 2f Priority No. 6 states that existing facilities as well as applicants for new services should demonstrate a willingness to enter into cooperative planning efforts directed at establishing a system whereby duplication of specialized services is avoided while quality of such services is enhanced. HCAC presented no documentation of transfer agreements with other hospitals and did not substantiate its willingness to enter into cooperative planning efforts with letters of intent, referral agreements or memoranda of understanding. Policy No. 3 provides that services in the community should be made available to all segments of the resident population regardless of the ability to pay. HCAC's proposal is consistent with this policy because a provision for services to indigent patients has been made. Policy No. 3, Priority No. 1 provides that priority should be given to applications proposing services and facilities designed to include Medicaid (Baker Act) patients to the greatest extent possible based on documented history or proposed services. Although Medicaid does not reimburse for freestanding psychiatric services, and Baker Act is only available to short-stay facilities specifically chosen to receive a Baker Act contract, HCAC has not designed its project to include those patients to the greatest extent possible. Thus, HCAC's application is not consistent with Policy No. 3, Priority No. 1. Goal I of the 1986 District XI Goals and Policies for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services is applicable to HCAC's application. This goal favors mental health services in the least restrictive setting possible. Long- term institutional care may be the least restrictive setting possible in the continuum of mental health care for the treatment of certain more serious types of patients. The concept of "continuum of care" means the full breadth of services available within a community, from least restrictive to most restrictive, from least intensive to most intensive. There must be settings along the full continuum of psychiatric care for patients to receive the level of care they may need. HCAC's application is not inconsistent with Goal I. Issues Relating to CON Recommendations and Priority for Inpatient Psychiatric Services (District XI Health Plan 1986, page 26). In this section of the district health plan, the Planning Advisory Committee states its recommendations and preferences for services for the comprehensive treatment of the mentally ill. The Committee recognizes that long-term hospitalization is a viable form of treatment for some mentally ill patients. However, the Committee expresses a preference for short hospital stays and applicants that project treatment modalities with an average length of stay under 20 days. In addition, the Committee emphasizes a preference for services to be obtained through the conversion of medical/surgical beds, because the district has a large surplus of such beds. Overall, HCAC's project is not consistent with the recommendations and priorities of the Planning Advisory Committee. HCAC's proposal is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the State Health Plan taken as a whole. The State Health Plan contains an important and significant goal that no additional long-term hospital psychiatric beds should be added in the area until the existing and approved beds in the district have achieved an 80 percent occupancy level. The existing long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the district have an occupancy level at approximately 67 percent. AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF ALTERNATIVES There are available, accessible and appropriate facilities within the service district which can be utilized for the services proposed by HCAC that are presently underutilized. Currently, there are short-term psychiatric providers, a long-term provider, residential facilities, nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities that are available as alternatives in the service district, and in many cases are significantly underutilized. Although the services to be offered by the HCAC facility would be in excess of what is provided in an adult residential treatment facility, nursing home or adult congregate living facility, those facilities could serve as viable alternatives in appropriate cases. In 1986, there were 6,513 existing nursing home beds in District XI and an additional 1,928 approved for opening. There are 24 adult congregate living facilities in District XI with 50 beds or more. The total number of beds for ACLFs in 1986 was 2,620. In addition, Grant Center Hospital has 140 existing and 20 approved long-term psychiatric beds; its occupancy rate is low. THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE QUALITY OF CARE AND THE APPLICANT'S RECORD OF PROVIDING QUALITY OF CARE The "Flowers Model," made a part of the application, is a description of how, from a clinical perspective, the proposal will be managed. Although Flowers does not presently operate any long-term psychiatric facilities, the Flowers Model is appropriate for a long-term psychiatric care facility. From a clinical and programmatic perspective, the HCAC facility would provide good quality of care. PROBABLE ECONOMIES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN SERVICE WHICH MAY BE DERIVED FROM OPERATION OF JOINT, COOPERATIVE OR SHARED HEALTH CARE RESOURCES HCAC has not demonstrated that there will be any improvements in service which may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative or shared health care resources. The Northwest Dade County proposed location of the HCAC facility would place the project within two hours travel of 90 percent or more of District XI population. Nevertheless, HCAC's facility would increase the number of people who would be within two hours of long-term adult psychiatric facilities by less than 1 percent. The patients in District XI will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the service proposed by HCAC. There is presently adequate and accessible long-term hospital inpatient services for District XI population based on the existing and approved facilities in District X (Southwinds Hospital, Florida Medical Center) and District XI (Grant Center). There are two approved but not yet open long-term psychiatric facilities in District X, Broward County. Florida Medical Center holds a CON for 60 long-term adult psychiatric beds to be located in Lauderdale Lakes and Southwinds Hospital holds a 75-bed CON with 60 beds counted for long-term treatment of adult and geriatric patients to be located in Andy Town. In addition, there are 238 long-term state hospital beds at South Florida State Hospital in Broward County. Although the need for long-term psychiatric beds is assessed on a district-wide basis, it is reasonable to consider psychiatric beds in Broward County (District X) as an alternative to HCAC's proposal because they are within two hours access of individuals within the two counties. Likewise, it is reasonable to consider approved beds because need is projected for a future date. Not counting approved beds would overestimate need and result in duplication of services. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY HCAC has not demonstrated that the 120-bed project or the 105-bed facility is financially feasible in the short or the long term. The projection of revenues and expenses in the pro forma (120-bed project) and the forecasted income statement (105-bed project) were flawed to such an extent that financial feasibility of the project was not shown. IMPACT ON COSTS AND COMPETITION If HCAC's project were to be built, a likely result is increased charges for the provision of services in the area. HCAC's proposed facility would negatively impact the availability of psychiatric nurses. There is a shortage of psychiatric nurses in Dade County and it is difficult to recruit and hire R.N.s with psychiatric experience. In order to hire nurses in a time of shortage, hospitals must recruit staff from other facilities. Shortages can increase the cost of recruitment and the cost of salaries. Charter is a hospital located in District XI and consists of 88 beds, 80 of which are licensed as short-term psychiatric beds and eight of which are licensed as short-term substance abuse beds. Short-term psychiatric inpatient care is defined in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code, as "a service not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults." HCAC's proposed facility, if approved, would have a negative economic impact on Charter. It is very likely that many of the patients at the proposed HCAC facility would experience lengths of stay between 45 and 60 days. Charter treats a significant number of patients (approximately 15 percent) who stay longer than 30 days. Because of the difficulty of initially identifying patients who would require either short or long-term stays, many of Charter's patients could be lost to the HCAC project. Charter could suffer a loss of up to 657 patient days per year if HCAC's proposed facility is approved. This loss of patients would impair Charter's ability to have certain types of programs, equipment and staff. PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO MEDICAID PATIENTS AND THE MEDICALLY INDIGENT HCAC's project does not propose a significant amount of indigent care and HCAC has no history of providing health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. OCCUPANCY RATE FOR EXISTING LONG-TERM HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRIC BEDS Grant Center Hospital is the only existing long-term psychiatric facility in District XI. It has 140 beds and specializes in treating children and adolescent patients. Its occupancy rate at the time of review for the preceding year was approximately 67 percent. The appropriate period to calculate occupancy rate of existing facilities in this case is July 1985 to July 1986 because this is the most recent 12-month period preceding application decision. The occupancy rate of all psychiatric beds within District XI was below 80 percent. HCAC'S PROPOSED NEED METHODOLOGY At the hearing, W. Eugene Nelson testified on behalf of HCAC on the need for the proposed long-term adult psychiatric beds. Mr. Nelson was accepted as an expert in the field of health care planning, including psychiatric bed need assessment. Mr. Nelson performed his analysis in District XI using the Graduate Medical Educational National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) methodology. The need methodology proposed by HCAC is inappropriate to adequately and accurately predict need for long-term adult psychiatric beds in District XI. The GMENAC study is a national study based on national data developed to determine physician requirements in 1990 for 23 medical specialities. GMENAC estimates the prevalence of certain psychiatric disorders among the general population and estimates the number of those persons who need care for their conditions in differing treatment settings ranging from outpatient services to 24-hour institutional care. HCAC's methodology, utilizing the GMENAC study, predicted a gross need of 895 beds in District XI in the applicable horizon (July 1991). The total number of existing long-term psychiatric beds in the entire State of Florida is only 836 beds, and the majority of those beds are experiencing occupancy levels under 65 percent. Many of these long-term facilities have been around for a period of at least three years and are still experiencing low occupancy. Therefore, the low levels are probably not based on the fact that the facilities are in a start-up mode. HCAC's bed need computation is as follows: Adult Long Term Psychiatric Bed Requirements (Excludes Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Mental Retardation, Organic Brain Syndrome and "other" Conditions) District XI: July 1991 Condition Admission Rate Schizophrenia & Other Psychoses 99 Affective Disorder Psychosis 20 Affective Disorder Neuroses 60 Neuroses and Personality Disorders 199 20 Projected 1991 Population Age 18+ 1,459,437 Total Projected Admissions 2,904 Average Length of Stay 90 Projected Patient Days Target Occupancy 80.00 261,385 percent Total Beds Required 895 Beds Currently Available 438 South Florida State Hospital (450 X .48) Residential Treatment Facilities 216 233 Net Beds Needed 496 The projected 1991 population for District XI for age 18 and above is 1,459,473. The population projections were received from the Office of the Governor. The anticipated admissions per 100,000 is calculated to be 199 for the conditions listed. The total projected admissions for 1991 is 2,904. The 2,904 projected long-term care admissions when multiplied by the average length of stay of 90 days generates 261,385 projected patient days in the 1991 horizon period in District XI. The 261,385 patient days is then divided by 365 days in the year, and then by 80 percent, the latter of which is contained in the rule as the optimum or desired occupancy for long-term psychiatric beds. This yields a total gross long-term psychiatric bed requirement for adults and geriatrics of 895 beds. In performing his analysis, Mr. Nelson used Table 4, page 22 of the GMENAC Study which lists information for mental disorders requiring care by treatment setting. The prevalence rate of 199 admissions per 100,000 population was based on the study's projection of the mental disorders listed requiring a "24-hour" treatment setting. Nelson used a projected 90-day length of stay in his computations. There is nothing in the GMENAC document that sets forth the average length of stay of persons reflected in the 24-hour column. Therefore, it is misleading to assume that persons admitted subject to the 199 per 100,000 admissions rate will actually experience an average length of stay as long as 90 days. For HCAC's admission rate to be valid, all of the facilities in District XI would have to average a 90-day length of stay. This is an unreasonable assumption. Nationwide, only a small percentage of all psychiatric admissions experience a length of stay as long as 90 days. In computing beds currently available in District XI, Mr. Nelson did not consider nursing home beds, adult congregate living facility beds, or the 135 long-term psychiatric beds that have been approved for two facilities in District X (Broward County). Nelson also did not consider whether short-term facilities were capable or willing to take additional patients for long-term treatment. Thus, the computation of beds currently available in the HCAC methodology is unreasonably low. HCAC's need methodology generated a long-term psychiatric bed to population ratio of .61 per thousand. DHRS' rule for short-term psychiatric beds was a population ratio of .35 per thousand. Short-term care facilities have admission rates two to three times greater than long-term facilities and nationwide statistics establish that only 4 percent of all psychiatric patients stay longer than 90 days. It is not reasonable for the bed rate for long-term adult psychiatric beds to be higher than the rate for short-term psychiatric beds. Mr. Nelson excluded organic brain syndrome diagnosis from his analysis and admission rate based on an assumption that many of those patients are in nursing homes. Nelson did not use nursing home beds in computing his need methodology because he believed that eliminating the organic brain syndrome category from the Table 4, page 22, 24-hour column in the GMENAC study eliminates the need for considering nursing home beds in the inventory. For that approach to be valid, the number of organic brain syndrome patients that go to long-term psychiatric facilities would need to cancel out the number of patients in other diagnostic categories who go to nursing homes. Nelson did not consult or review any data concerning the number or percentage rates of schizophrenics and other mentally ill patients in nursing homes or the number of organic brain syndrome people being treated in long-term psychiatric facilities. In addition, Nelson did not know what percentage, if any, of the GMENAC projected admissions were nursing home admissions. In computing existing beds, Nelson listed two types of facilities previously existing in District XI which were applicable to his methodology: the state hospital (216 beds) and residential treatment facilities (233 beds). The correct number of beds available for adults from District XI in the state hospital is 238. The actual number of beds for residential facilities is 335. Dr. Howard Fagin testified as an expert in health planning and feasibility analysis, including psychiatric bed need assessment and feasibility. In Dr. Fagin's opinion, Nelson's bed need methodology is incorrect and the conclusions drawn are wrong because Nelson used an inappropriate length of stay based on the GMENAC study and also incorrectly identified the applicable beds which should be considered for comparable facilities under the GMENAC study and, therefore, his total numbers in terms of gross and net beds needed are incorrect. Dr. Fagin's critique of Mr. Nelson's bed need methodology is persuasive and credible. HCAC has failed to show that its proposed need methodology could accurately project the need for long-term psychiatric beds in District XI.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that CON Application No. 4854 by Health Care Advisors Corporation, Inc. be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 308 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 H. Darrell White, Esquire Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William E. Hoffman, Esquire 2500 Trust Company Tower 25 Park Place Atlanta, Georgia 30303 George N. Neros, Jr., Esquire 101 North Monroe Street Monroe-Park Tower Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue This case involves the issue of whether the certificate of need law applies to Whitehall Boca's intended conversion of 100 beds in an adult congregate living facility to skilled nursing beds. The second issue is, in the event that it is determined that the certificate of need law does apply, whether Whitehall Boca is entitled to convert a limited number of its adult congregate living facility beds to skilled nursing beds without the need for obtaining a certificate of need in accordance with Section 381.494(1)(d), Florida Statutes. At the final hearing Petitioner called Carol J. Wortham, Steve Mulder, and Jeffrey W. Smith. The Respondent called as its only witness Gene Nelson. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence seventeen exhibits. The Respondent offered and had admitted into four exhibits. Subsequent to the final hearing, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this Recommended Order, they were rejected by the Hearing Officer as unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact Whitehall Boca is a 187-bed health care facility located in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. Sixty-nine (69) of Whitehall Boca's beds are licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as skilled nursing beds in accordance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes. One hundred eighteen (118) of Whitehall Boca's beds are licensed by the Department as an adult congregate living facility (hereafter ACLF) in accordance with Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. Whitehall Boca is seeking to convert 100 of its adult congregate living facility beds to skilled nursing beds. Whitehall Boca holds two separate licenses for the nursing home beds and for the ACLF. Whitehall Boca was opened on December 17, 1982, and was the culmination of the owner's goal of attempting to build the finest nursing home that has ever been built. The Whitehall Boca facility has received a superior rating from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' office of licensure. The cost of construction of Whitehall Boca was approximately five and one-half million dollars. The funds for this construction were obtained from 100 percent private funds, which was arranged by Oak Park Trust Bank in Illinois and invested capital provided by the Mulder family. The loans were not guaranteed by the federal government or any governmental entity whatsoever. The 100 existing ACLF beds which Petitioner seeks to convert fully comply with all applicable federal, state and local license requirements for skilled nursing beds in their present condition. Only a few ancillary items such as medicine carts would be needed in order to make the conversion. Such items would involve a capital expenditure of no more than $5,000 to $6,000. The Respondent conceded at the formal hearing that cost of conversion is not an issue. It has been the policy of Whitehall Boca since 1955 not to accept federal funds nor to accept Medicaid or Medicare patients. Whitehall Boca does not accept Medicare and Medicaid patients in any of its homes because they offer an elite type of nursing home care which is not offered in other existing nursing homes. Whitehall Boca did not obtain its initial certificate of need for the 69 skilled nursing home beds by the usual statutory procedure. Whitehall Boca purchased Health Care Corporation, the entity who had originally obtained the certificate of need. However, after Whitehall Boca obtained the certificate of need, it applied for a license from DHRS and specifically informed them in its application that it would not accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. Whitehall Boca, an Illinois limited partnership, owns and operates the 187-bed nursing home complex in Boca Raton, Florida. At present, this is the only home owned by the Petitioner in the State of Florida. Whitehall Boca is owned by a father and a son, Paul and Steve Mulder. They own three nursing homes in Chicago, Illinois. Daily rates for the skilled nursing home beds at Whitehall Boca are $68 per day for three persons to a room, $80 per day for two persons to a room, with private rooms beginning at $125 per day. These rates are substantially higher than most other nursing homes in the area. Whitehall Boca caters to a very small segment of the population that is able to afford the luxuries and amenities available at Whitehall Boca. For most residents who have chosen the luxury accommodations at Whitehall Boca, the only alternative which would provide comparable care and maintenance of their lifestyle, would be private duty nursing arrangements at home. In the alternative to a total exemption from certificate of need review, Whitehall Boca contends it is entitled to convert 18 of its ACLF beds to skilled nursing beds without CON review pursuant to the provisions of Section 381.494(1)(d), Florida Statutes. DHRS does not consider an ACLF a health care facility and contends therefore that Section 381.494(1)(d) is not applicable to Petitioner's request.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services denying an exemption for Petitioner to convert ACLF beds to skilled nursing home beds and requiring that such a request be subject to review under Sections 381.493, et seq., Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire Laramore & Clark, P.A. 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Culpepper, Turner and Mannheimer Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3300 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The parties have stipulated that these cases are properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings for de novo review of the Petitioners' applications for a certificate of need and that this action is controlled by the provisions of Chapters 120 and 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10-5 and 28- 5, F.A.C. The parties have further stipulated that portions of Section 481.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), and its counterparts under Section 10-5.11, F.A.C., have either been met or are not applicable. The portions of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which the parties have stipulated have been met or do not apply and the parties' summary of the content of those subsections are as follows: (3) both applicants have the ability to manage and operate facilities such as those applied for; (6) need in the services district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas; (7) need for research and training programs; (8) health and management manpower and personnel only. The remaining parts of (8) remain in issue; (10) special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations; (11) needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a special portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the service district. The parties stipulated that the remaining portions of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), remain in issue. Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the following issues require resolution: Is there a need for a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida? Do the Petitioners' proposals meet the criteria of Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which have not been stipulated to as having been met or as not being applicable? If a need exists for only one proposal and both Petitioners meet the appropriate criteria, which of the Petitioners should be granted a certificate of need? Should a certificate of need for a computerized axial tomography scanner (hereinafter referred to as a "CAT Scanner") be issued to AMI? Does Florida Hospital and/or OGH have the requisite standing to take part as parties in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact AMI is a publicly traded for-profit Delaware corporation which owned, managed or operated 103 hospitals in the United States and 29 hospitals outside the United States as of January, 1985. AMI also owns, manages or operates a number of other health care facilities, i.e., psychiatric care facilities and freestanding outpatient surgery centers. AMI also owns a number of subsidiary corporations which provide a variety of technologies and services in support of its hospitals. In Florida, AMI owns 100 percent or a majority interest of 9 hospitals. In its proposed findings of fact AMI has indicated that it "operates" these 9 hospitals. The record supports this finding, although the record also supports a finding that the 9 hospitals are separate legal entities. AMI initially filed a letter of intent to file a certificate of need application with the Department for a 175-bed hospital in Orange County, Florida, for review in the August 15, 1983, batching cycle. The letter of intent was rejected because it had not been timely submitted to the local health council. On October 12, 1983, AMI filed a second letter of intent with the Department in which it informed the Department that AMI "or a to-be-formed wholly-owned subsidiary of AMI intends to file a Certificate of Need application for a 175-bed hospital to be located along Highway 50 in the vicinity of the University of Central Florida in Orange County, Florida." On October 19, 1983, seven days after the letter of intent was filed, Articles of Incorporation were filed for University Community Hospital of Orlando, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UCH, Inc."). UCH, Inc., is a for-profit Florida corporation. It currently owns no assets. AMI's application, which was reviewed in the November 15, 1983, batching cycle, was denied by the Department. AMI subsequently reduced the number of beds it had requested in its application from 175 to 100 beds. No change in the application with regard to the services to be provided has been made by AMI. Based upon its amended application AMI has proposed to construct and operate a 100-bed "full-service" acute care hospital to be located in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposed hospital will include a separate outpatient unit, an on-site stationary CAT Scanner, a 24-hour a day emergency room and birthing rooms and will provide therapeutic and diagnostic inpatient services, and community outreach and wellness programs. Tertiary care services will not be provided at the proposed hospital but AMI intends to contract with existing providers of tertiary care services to provide those services to its patients. AMI has projected that the total cost of its proposal will be $19,698,831.00. This figure includes $566,700.00 for architectural and engineering fees, $6,268,747.00 for equipment, $1,025,000.00 for the acquisition of land, $10,095,000.00 for construction, $250,000.00 for start-up costs and $1,285,385.00 for capitalized interest. The proposed AMI facility will include separate entrances for outpatient surgery and the emergency room. The facility has been designed to take into account the trend in health care to provide outpatient and ambulatory services. Two of the four proposed operating rooms in the facility will be used primarily for outpatient surgery. The 8 birthing rooms to be included in the facility are designed in recognition of the trend in health care to provide a room in which the family can participate in the birthing process. A delivery room will also be provided. Finally, classroom space will be provided in the facility for allied health services training and continuing education. Winter Park. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is a not for-profit Florida corporation. It operates Winter Park, a 301 bed hospital in Winter Park, Orange County, Florida. The hospital provides a full range of medical services including a full-body CAT Scanner. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), because it is an organization designated in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. On October 31, 1983, Winter Park filed its letter of intent to file an application for a certificate of need with the Department in the same batching cycle as AMI. In its application Winter Park proposed to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposal does not include a CAT Scanner. Winter Park has projected that the total cost of its proposed facility will be $16,015,000.00. This amount includes $75,000.00 for project development, $50,000.00 for financing, $685,000.00 for professional services, $10,395,900.00 for construction, $4,457,700.00 for equipment and $351,400.00 for other related cost. Florida Hospital Florida Hospital is a not-for-project hospital owned by Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt, a division of the Adventist Church. Florida Hospital presently consists of 3 campuses: the main campus in Orlando and satellite campuses in Altamonte Springs, Seminole County, Florida and Apopka, Orange County, Florida. In the 75 years since the hospital was begun it has grown from a 20 bed hospital to its present size of 959 beds. Florida Hospital is a tertiary acute care hospital providing a full range of services including ambulatory surgery, a stationary full-body CAT Scanner, general inpatient medical and surgical services, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatric services, substance abuse treatment, open heart surgery, oncology and other services. Florida Hospital is involved in a number of teaching programs and internship programs. It is a teaching hospital with a number of positions dedicated to teaching, including a director of education. Florida Hospital would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is granted to either Petitioner. Florida Hospital has standing to intervene. OGH OGH is a not-for-profit 171-bed hospital located in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. It was founded in 1941 and has operated as a not-for-profit facility since 1945. OGH is licensed by the State of Florida as an acute care general hospital. The services provided by OGH include obstetrics, outpatient services, general inpatient medical and surgical services, pediatrics, a mobile CAT Scanner and other services. OGH would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is issued to either Petitioner. OGH has standing to intervene. THE NEED FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BEDS. Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C. Pursuant to Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the Department is responsible for determining whether health care facilities and services are needed in the State of Florida. To fulfill its responsibility with regard to acute care hospital beds, the Department has promulgated Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for acute care hospital beds in context with all applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed according to the methodology included in paragraphs (f),(g) and (h) below. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. An unfavorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when a calculated bed need exists but other criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not met. Based upon this Department goal, the need for acute care hospital beds is first determined by service district based upon the methodology included in Section 10-5.11(23)(f)-(h), F.A.C. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). For purposes of the Formula, acute care beds include general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical beds. Section 10 5.11(23)(c), F.A.C. The Petitioners are proposing to build a hospital with general medical and surgical, intensive care and obstetrical beds. Therefore, the Formula must be applied to determine if there is a need for their proposed hospitals. Under the Formula, acute care bed need is to be determined five years in the future: 1990 in these cases. Generally, acute care bed need is determined under the Formula based upon two age cohort population projections, statewide service-specific discharge rates, statewide service-specific lengths of stay, statewide service-specific occupancy standards and patient flow adjustments. See Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C. The bed need for the service district determined in accordance with Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C., is adjusted based upon the service district's historical use rate and projected occupancy rate. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The historical use rate to be used under the Formula is for the three most recent years and is based upon utilization of hospitals located in the service district. After applying the adjustment of Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., one final adjustment is required to complete the determination of acute care bed need under the Formula. Section 10-5.11(23)(h), F.A.C. provides for an adjustment to reflect peak demand in the service district. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing of these cases, application of the Formula results in a net acute care bed need of 89 beds or 146 beds, or an excess of 464 beds. These projections are all for the Department's District 7, which consists of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties, The Petitioners are proposing to build new hospitals in Orange County. The Formula projection of a net acute care bed need in District 7 of 89 beds is an outdated Department application of the Formula. The 146 net acute care bed need projection for District 7 is the Department's most current application of the Formula, dated March 12, 1985. The Department's most recent application of the Formula is not based upon a proper application of the adjustment for the District 7 projected occupancy rate and historical use rate under Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. In making this adjustment, the Department relied upon utilization data in determining the District 7 historical use rate from 1981, 1982 and 1983. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., requires that the historical use rate be based upon the most recent three years available. In these cases 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data was available to the Department. The fact that incorrect utilization data was used in determining the District 7 historical use rate was confirmed by Mr. Eugene Nelson, the Director of the Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department, Mr. Steve Windham, the Executive Director of the Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., and Mr. Lawrence W. Margolis, an expert health planner. Mr. Nelson also indicated that if 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data had been used by the Department in applying the Formula a more "contemporary picture of what's actually happening" would have be given. Mr. Margolis did apply the Formula using the most current utilization data to calculate the historical use rate of District 7. Based upon the data used by the Department in its most recent projection of acute care bed need for District 7, but substituting the current utilization data of 1982, 1983 and 1984, an application of the Formula results in a projected total acute care bed need in 1989 for District 7 of 4,416 beds. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved beds in District 7. Therefore, a proper application of the Formula based upon the most current data indicates that District 7 will have an excess of 464 acute care beds in 1989. A finding that District 7 will have an excess of acute care beds in 1989 is supported by the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in District 7. This reduction in hospital utilization, which began in 1982, has been evidenced by reductions in occupancy rates, average lengths of stay and admissions. This trend is likely to continue for an additional two to four years. The trend is sufficient to cause an excess in acute care beds despite increases in population. To add another 100 acute care hospital beds to Orange County would further reduce utilization. The reduced utilization of hospitals could become worse when new hospital beds are opened by Florida Hospital (210 beds) and Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County (81 beds). The opening of these beds could create a further excess of beds in District 7. There are a number of factors which have contributed to the decline in the use of hospitals: (1) there has been an increase in the use of health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations; (2) the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups, a method of reimbursement now being used by Medicare; and (3) there has been an increase in the use of outpatient medical services. Health maintenance organizations in Orange County alone could decrease patient days in hospitals from 800 days per 1,000 population to 350 days per 1,000 population. Because of the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups by Medicare, hospitals are trying to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Finally, there are 8 to 10 freestanding ambulatory surgery centers approved for Orange County which are, or will be, providing outpatient medical services. All of these factors have reduced hospital utilization in District 7. The current trend of reduced utilization of hospitals was recognized by Mr. Mark Richardson, AMI's expert in health planning. Mr. Richardson therefore recommended that AMI reduce its application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a hospital in Orange County from 175 acute care beds to 100 beds, which AMI did. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that District 7 will have an excess of at least 464 acute care beds in 1989 according to a proper application of the Formula of Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Although insufficient evidence was presented at the final hearing to forecast the exact acute care bed need for District 7 under the Formula for 1990, it does not appear that there will be any need for acute care beds in District 7 in 1990 in light of the fact that the trend toward decreased utilization of hospitals will probably continue for 2 to 4 more years. In fact, the evidence supports the conclusion that District 7 will continue to have an excess of beds in 1990. AMI has proposed findings of fact to the effect that there has been too much concern with "over-bedding" based upon computations such as those provided in the Formula. AMI further proposed findings of fact to the effect that a more rational approach to health planning "should be assuming adequate supply as opposed to considering a negative approach." These proposed findings of fact are rejected. The Department's rules and in particular, the Formula, are the law and will be followed in these cases. Whether "over-bedding" is over emphasized, the Formula clearly indicates that District 7 will be greatly overbedding in 1990. In addition to requiring an application of the Formula to determine acute care bed need for each Department service district, Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., requires that local health councils adopt acute care service subdistricts as an element of their local health plans. Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. District 7 has been divided along county lines into four subdistricts: Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties. Section 10-17.008, F.A.C. Prior to this proceeding AMI challenged the validity of Section 10- 17.008, F.A.C., the rule establishing subdistricts along county lines in District 7. The rule was upheld as valid in American Medical International, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 83- 3092R, September 28, 1984. Therefore, Orange, Seminole, Brevard and Osceola Counties constitute the only recognized subdistricts in District 7 for purposes of allocating acute care bed need in District 7. Section 10-5.11(23)(e), F.A.C., further provides that the district acute care bed need as determined by application of the Formula is to be allocated to each subdistrict established pursuant to Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. This allocation of acute care bed need to the subdistricts is to be made consistent with Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which provides that the local health council is to develop a district health plan and submit it to the Department. Elements of the district health plan necessary in the Department's review of certificate of need applications are required to be adopted by the Department as a part of its rules. Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the "Council"), has developed a district health plan which includes the methodology it employs to allocate the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts of District 7. That plan has also been submitted to the Department. The Department, however, has not adopted the district health plan for District 7 in its rules. This does not mean, however, that evidence pertaining to the Council's method of allocation is not relevant to, or should be ignored for purposes of, this proceeding. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, Orange County has an excess of acute care beds. This is true even if it is assumed that the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need for 89 or 146 acute care beds in District 7 is correct. According to Mr. Windham, application of the Council's subdistrict allocation methodology to the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need in District 7 for 89 acute care beds indicates that Orange County ",4 will have an excess of 81 acute care beds and that Seminole County will have an excess of 36 acute care beds. Mr. Windham's application of the Council's methodology for allocating bed need to the subdistricts of District 7 was based upon the Department's application of the Formula without the benefit of the more current utilization data. Therefore, if the most current data had been used, the projected excess beds for Orange County would be even greater. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Petitioners have failed to prove that there is any need under Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., for additional acute care beds in District 7 or in Orange or Seminole Counties. In fact, under Section 10- 5.11(23), F.A.C., there is a significant excess of acute care beds projected for Orange and Seminole Counties and District 7 as a whole. Winter Park has conceded this conclusion. AMI has in essence argued that any evidence as to the application of the Formula based upon the most current utilization data should be ignored because the Department has not yet officially applied the Formula based upon such data. Mr. Margolis, an expert in health planning, was clearly capable of applying the Formula based upon the most current information. His conclusions were also supported by Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Windham's testimony. AMI has in essence also argued that any evidence as to how acute care bed need in District 7 under the Formula should be allocated to the properly designated subdistricts should be ignored because the Council's methods of allocation have not been adopted as part of the Department's rules. Mr. Windham's unrebutted testimony, however, supports a finding that the Council's method of allocating the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts is a reasonable method for health planning purposes. The determination that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County does not necessarily preclude the issuance of a certificate of need for a new hospital to either or both of the Petitioners. Section 10- 5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that the Department will "not normally" approve an application if such an approval would result in acute care beds in excess of those needed as determined under the Formula. The rule goes on to provide that an application may be approved "when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need." Bed Need Based upon the Petitioner's Alternative to the Formula. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that there is a need for 146 acute care beds in District 7 based upon an application of the Formula. That finding of fact has been rejected, supra, because it was based upon the use of outdated utilization data. The Petitioner also failed to prove that there is a need for beds in Orange County based upon an application of the Formula. Winter Park's position throughout this proceeding and AMI's alternative position has been essentially that the population of east Orange County where the Petitioners propose to locate their facilities and parts of Seminole County do not have adequate accessibility to acute care hospital beds. In determining whether an application for a certificate of need should be issued for acute care hospital beds, Section 381.484(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides that the accessibility . . of like and existing health care services and hospitals in the service district of the applicant" should be considered. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that like and existing health care services are not accessible in portions of Orange and Seminole Counties and therefore there is a need for their proposed hospitals. The Petitioners' Medical Service Areas. AMI has identified and proposed to serve portions of Orange and Seminole Counties which purportedly have an access problem which it has designated as a "medical service area." AMI projects that the majority of its patients will be attracted from its medical service area (hereinafter referred to as an MSA) AMI's MSA consists of most of east Orange County and southeastern Seminole County. Generally, the MSA boundary runs south along most of the western shore of Lake Jessup in Seminole County, to and along Tuscawilla Road (Seminole and Orange County), to and along Highway 436 in Orange County, south to the Bee Line Expressway, east along the Bee Line Expressway to Highway 15, south along Highway 15 to the Orange-Osceola County line, east and then north along the Orange County line to the Seminole County line and along the Seminole County line north and then west to Lake Jessup. Winter Park has also identified and proposed to serve a MSA very similar to, although a little smaller than, AMI's MSA. The difference in size amounts to only a difference of 1000 less population in Winter Park's MSA. The portion of east Orange County included in the MSAs represents a distinct geopolitical and economic base. Each of the Petitioners and Florida Hospital presented testimony by experts in the field of demographics. Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D., for AMI, William J. Serow, Ph.D, for Winter Park and Stanley Smith, Ph.D., for Florida Hospital. Based upon their testimony, it is clear that the MSAs have experienced a great deal of population and economic growth since 1970 and that this growth will probably continue through 1990. During the period 1980 to 1985, the rate of population growth for Orange and Seminole Counties was 16 percent (23 percent for Seminole County alone). The rate of growth in Winter Park's MSA during this same period was 32 percent. For the period 1985 through 1990 the projected rate of growth for Orange County is 12 percent. The projected rate of growth from 1985 through 1990 for Winter Park's MSA is 23.3 percent. These figures indicate that the rate of growth for Orange County and the MSAs is slowing down. The figures also show that the MSA rate of growth is twice that of Orange and Seminole Counties. Looking at only the rate of growth of an area can be misleading. For example, a 50 percent rate of growth may not be as significant when applied to a population base of 10 as when applied to a larger population base. In terms of actual growth, the evidence proves that Orange County's population growth in terms of additional people is greater than the population growth of the MSAs. The evidence also establishes that population growth in the MSAs is projected to be greater for young adults and women of child bearing age (15 to 44 years of age), that there will be larger families and a greater number of children under 18 years of age in the MSAs than in Orange County as a whole and that the projected population of the MSAs will be newer to the area and generally more mobile than Orange County as a whole. Florida Hospital has suggested that "logic" leads to the conclusion that some of these projected trends will cause a decrease in utilization. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support such a finding of fact. The evidence clearly establishes that population growth in the MSAs will be concentrated between the western boundary of the MSAs at Highway 436 and Alafaya Trail (Highway 419), which is located in the western portion of the MSAs, during the next five years. In fact, more than half of the projected growth of east Orange County will occur in a one and a half mile corridor between Highway 436 and Goldenrod. It will be 5 to 10 years before population growth will begin to expand into any area east of Highway 419. Accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. The Department has promulgated Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1 and 2, F.A.C., for purposes of determining accessibility: Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population in an urban area subdistrict. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within a maximum automobile travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in a rural area subdistrict. The terms "urban area" and "rural area" are defined in Section 10- 5.11(23)(a)4 and 5, F.A.C., as follows: Urban Area. Urban area means a county designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, and having 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Rural Area. Rural area means a county not designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, or a county so designated but having fewer than 50,000 persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County meets the definition of an "urban area." It has been designated as part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County is not also a "rural area" as defined above as suggested by OGH although it does have some incorporated areas with less than 50,000 persons. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used only by local health councils in determining subdistrict allocations of acute care bed need and where a subdistrict allocation reveals a surplus of beds in a subdistrict. Although Section 10 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used in the manner suggested by AMI, Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is not clearly limited to such use. This section of the rule is titled "Geographic Accessibility Considerations." Its provisions are applicable in determining whether a geographic accessibility problem exists in District 7 or in the subdistricts of District 7. AMI, Winter Park and Florida Hospital presented testimony of expert traffic engineers: Mr. William A. Tipton for AMI, Mr. R. Sans Lassiter, P.E., for Winter Park and Mr. Sven Kansman for Florida Hospital. All three of these gentlemen based their travel studies on travel times to and from certain control points. The travel times were then averaged. Florida Hospital has suggested in its proposed recommended order that this method of determining travel times to and from control points and Mr. Tipton's testimony that "you probably wouldn't get as far in a given time going outbound [east" is significant because travel times from the MSAs west into Orlando, where the majority of the existing hospitals are presently located, would be shorter. This conclusion is reasonable. Therefore, travel times for the population of the MSAs to existing Orange County hospitals would be less than indicated by the traffic engineers. Also, the 30 minute contour lines on the traffic engineers' exhibits would extend farther into the MSAs. The studies performed by all three traffic engineers were performed in the same general manner as to the speed of the test vehicles. Test vehicle drivers were instructed to drive at average speed employing the "average car method," the "floating car technique" or the "moving car method." All three methods are essentially the same. The test runs were conducted in November and February by AMI'S expert, in the fall by Winter Park's expert and during the last two weeks of January by Florida Hospital's expert. January to March is the most congested time of the year in Orange County. Only two of the traffic engineers testified that their tests were conducted under "average travel conditions" as required by Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C.: Winter Park's and Florida Hospital's traffic engineers. These traffic engineers properly conducted their tests during off-peak and peak hours. Mr. Tipton, AMI's traffic engineer, conducted his tests only during the peak hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and only on week days (Monday to Thursday). According to Mr. Tipton, average travel conditions "doesn't mean anything" to a traffic engineer. Average travel conditions does mean something under the rule and to the other two traffic engineers. Mr. Tipton also indicated that the peak hours he conducted his tests during would not show "average travel conditions." Mr. Tipton also admitted that he averaged what amounted to the "worst case scenario" because it represented "real world conditions." Mr. Tipton's "real world conditions," however, is not the test of Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C. Mr. Tipton's tests have been given little weight because of his failure to take into account average travel conditions. None of the exhibits prepared by the three traffic engineers and accepted in evidence (AMI'S composite exhibit 8, Winter Park's exhibit 11 and Florida Hospital's exhibit 10) are totally consistent with the requirements of Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. AMI's composite exhibit 8 includes 30 minute contour lines representing Mr. Tipton's 30 minute drive times from only three hospitals in Orange County and one hospital in Seminole County and only shows the travel times to the east of those hospitals. Winter Park's exhibit 11 shows the 30 minute contour lines for seven hospitals in Orange County and two hospitals in Seminole County and generally only showns the travel times to the east. Florida Hospital's exhibit 10 shows the location of eight hospitals in Orange County, three in Seminole County and three in Brevard County but only shows the total 30 minute contour line for Florida Hospital's Orlando campus. The test under Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C., is whether existing acute care hospital beds are available and accessible within 30 minutes by automobile by 90 percent of the subdistrict's population. In order for AMI and Winter Park to prove that acute care hospital beds are not available and accessible within 30 minutes in Orange County, they needed to prove that more than 10 percent of the population of Orange County cannot access on existing acute care hospital bed within 30 minutes by automobile. In order to prove this crucial fact it is necessary to show the travel time based upon average travel conditions of the entire population of Orange County to all existing acute care hospitals. AMI and Winter Park have failed to do so. The evidence fails to show that more than 10 percent of Orange County's population is more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing Orange County hospitals. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is an accessibility problem under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Only 1 percent of the population of Orange County residing in the MSAs is located more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing hospitals in Orange and Seminole Counties. This is based upon the 1985 population and the projected 1990 population. In 1985 there are 4,232 people residing in the MSAs more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals. By 1990, there will only be 5,276 people projected to live more than 30 minutes from existing hospitals. These figures are maximum numbers. As indicated, supra, the evidence with regard to population growth in the MSAs proves that the projected population growth will be concentrated in the western portion of the MSAs--the portion of the MSAs closest to where existing hospitals are located. Most of the projected population growth through 1990 in the MSAs will clearly be within 30 minutes of existing hospitals. The projected 1990 population of 5,276 people who will reside more than 30 minutes from an existing Orange County or Seminole County hospital is well below 10 percent of Orange County's total projected population of 596,713. Additionally, the people in the MSAs who reside more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals are probably within 30 minutes of Jess Parrish Hospital in Titusville, Brevard County, Florida. There are no natural obstacles in Orange County which impede or prevent access to existing health care facilities. Well over 90 percent of Orange County's population can access a hospital within 30 minutes driving time. OGH has proposed findings of fact pertaining to the availability of motor vehicle and air ambulance services in Orange County. The accessibility test of Section 10-5.11 (23)(i), F.A.C., requires a consideration of automobile travel times under "average travel conditions," not emergency services. Therefore, these proposed findings of fact and OGH's proposed findings of fact as to the requirements of obtaining a trauma level designation are unnecessary. The evidence also clearly establishes that there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County. The average occupancy rates in District 7, Orange County and Seminole County for 1982, 1983 and 1984 were as follows: 1982 1983 1984 District 7 71.8% 70.34% 61.71% Orange County 69.5% 68.68% 60.80% Seminole County 76.0% 74.20% 59.39% Florida Hospital and OGH have experienced similar declines in utilization similar to those evidenced by these figures. Florida Hospital's utilization rate dropped from 86.3 percent in 1982 to 78.6 percent in 1984 and OGH's rate dropped from 88.5 percent in 1982 to 44.4 percent in 1984. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved acute care hospital beds in District 7. Based upon the 1984 utilization rate for District 7, over 1,800 acute care beds were empty on an average day in District 7 during 1984; In Orange County, approximately 1,000 acute care beds were empty on average during 1984. As indicated, supra, the decreasing acute care bed utilization rate is expected to continue for 2 to 4 years. Therefore, there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County at existing hospitals and there will be in 1990. Additionally, new acute care hospital beds have been approved for Orange County and Seminole County which are not yet open: 134 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Orlando campus and 76 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Altamonte Springs campus. Also 81 new beds will be opened in Brevard County. These additional beds will further increase the number of available acute care hospital beds in Orange and Seminole Counties and in District 7. Based upon the foregoing and the fact that there is a large number of unoccupied acute care beds available on average in Orange County, there is no geographic accessibility problem in Orange County or Seminole County under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Other Accessibility Considerations. Despite the evidence with regard to geographic accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., the Petitioners have argued that accessibility to acute care beds is a problem in the MSAs. Mr. Willard Wisler, Winter Park's administrator, although agreeing that "planning studies" indicated no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County, stated: But our posture has been that they have been misallocated, and that the east Orange County [sic) is a greatly underserved area on the basis of the number of hospital beds that are available to the people that live there. The evidence does establish that the majority of the hospitals in Orange County are located in the center of the County, in the City of Orlando, where the majority of the population is located and that there is only one hospital currently located in the MSAs. Currently, 6 percent of Orange County's acute care hospital beds are located in the MSAs at OGH while 19 percent of Orange County's population is located in the MSAs. The Petitioners have characterized this geographic distribution of acute care beds and population as a "maldistribution" of acute care beds. The disparity between the precentage of population and acute care beds in the MSAs will increase in the future because the projected rate of growth in the MSAs is greater than that of Orange County. It is projected that by 1990 22 percent of the Orange County population will be located in the MSAs. The centralization of acute care beds in Orange County, according to Mr. Van Talbert, Winter Park's expert health planner, constitutes irresponsible health planning: "It tends to perpetuate the old patterns of centralization, and I think that is inconsistent with contemporary thought in American society." Mr. Talbert also testified that the MSAs and particularly east Orange County, are greatly underserved based upon the number of hospital beds conveniently available to the people who live there. Even if Mr. Talbert's conclusions are correct and even if there is a "maldistribution" of acute care beds as defined by the Petitioners, this does not mean there is an accessibility problem in the MSAs sufficient to conclude that additional acute care beds are needed in District 7, Orange County or the MSAs. The fact that 22 percent of the population of Orange County may reside in the MSAs by 1990 with only 6 percent of the County's acute care beds is not the test. Even if it is true that "contemporary planning may indicate that centralization of acute care beds is poor planning," the pertinent statutes and rules only require a determination of whether acute care beds are available and accessible. The evidence in these cases clearly indicates that the population of the MSAs can access available acute care hospital beds in District 7. All the Petitioners have shown is that some residents of the MSAs "will be forced to make inconvenient drives to downtown hospitals," as stated in Winter Park's proposed recommended order. Likewise, AMI's proposed finding of fact that ",the realities of the situation reveal that the residents of the MSA and their physicians perceive serious access problems due to excessive travel distance, traffic congestion, the lack of convenience for patients who have to go to hospitals for tests, and the lack of convenience for families and friends having to make several trips a day to see a person in a hospital" does not prove there is an access problem. The perception of patients and physicians as to the inconvenience in accessing acute care beds does not prove there is an access problem sufficient to warrant a new hospital. In conjunction with the Petitioners' position with regard to "maldistribution" of acute care beds, the Petitioners have proposed findings of fact to the effect that previous Department responses to shifts in population growth away from where hospitals are located have been to authorize new hospitals. New hospitals in Altamonte Springs and Longwood in Seminole County, and in southwest Orange County (Sand Lake) have been cited as examples. Although Mr. Talbert's testimony supports these proposed findings of fact to some extent, there is insufficient evidence to conclude why those hospitals were authorized by the Department. If the evidence showed that additional acute care beds were needed in Seminole and Orange Counties when those hospitals were approved it would be consistent with the Department's rules to locate the additional acute care beds where population growth had occurred. In these cases, if there was an established need for an additional acute care hospital in Orange County, the evidence would probably justify placing it in east Orange County. The facts, however, do not indicate any need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Other MSA Considerations. It is not essential to identify a MSA for purposes of considering an application for a new acute care hospital as suggested by AMI. As discussed, infra, the designation of a MSA by an applicant may be helpful for some purposes, but not to determine whether there is a need for a new hospital. AMI has proposed a finding of fact that Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, both of which are located in Orlando, are tertiary care facilities providing services of higher complexity for patients; they therefore attract a substantial number of referral patients in need of more extensive, complex services which are not available from primary care hospitals. The existence of these tertiary facilities has justified the allocation of more acute care beds to Orange and Seminole Counties in the past. Although these facts were proved at the hearing, the overriding fact remains clear that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. AMI attempted to prove through Mr. Mark Richardson an expert in health planning, that there is a need for acute care beds in AMI's MSA based upon the characteristics of the MSA. Mr. Richardson testified that his projections were not based or contingent on the Formula of Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., and acknowledged the decline in utilization of acute care hospital beds in Orange County. Mr. Richardson did state that the Department's projection of a net acute care bed need of 89 beds under the Formula supported his projections. The projection of a need for 89 beds was clearly based upon outdated data. Use of current utilization data indicates an excess of 464 acute care beds. Therefore, if application of the Formula resulting in a bed need of 89 beds supports Mr. Richardson's projections, an application of the Formula which results in an excess of 464 acute care beds must indicate that Mr. Richardson's projections are suspect. Mr. Richardson's projections were clearly based primarily on the characteristics of AMI's MSA. Because of the narrow scope of Mr. Richardson's analysis, the trend in Orange County and District 7 as to reduced occupancy rates did not affect his projections. In particular, Mr. Richardson used an 80 percent occupancy rate for all beds except obstetric beds, for which he used a 75 percent rate. These occupancy rates are excessive when compared to the occupancy rates for District 7, and Orange and Seminole Counties. Additionally, Mr. Richardson failed to consider the effect of unopened acute care beds in Orange County on occupancy rates. On average, there are over 1,800 unoccupied acute care beds in District 7 and 1,000 unoccupied beds in Orange County. This does not include 134 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, 76 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Altamonte Springs campus or 81 acute care beds to be opened at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County. When opened, these additional acute care beds will further decrease occupancy rates in Orange County and District 7. Even if Mr. Richardson's projections were totally accurate, such a finding would not be relevant to the question of whether there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. That is the crucial question in these cases. Mr. Richardson and AMI have attempted to justify Mr. Richardson's projections by suggesting that the Department does not consider itself precluded from assessing the need for acute case beds on an area within a subdistrict based upon Mr. Nelson's testimony. Mr. Nelson's testimony clearly does not support the use of a MSA to determine if there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Mr. Nelson, when asked whether an applicant could determine bed need based upon the character of a part of Orange County replied: There's nothing to preclude an Applicant from doing that, from carving out what I would call an Applicant's service area, running their own calculations of bed need, and doing whatever they feel they want to do in that regard. And we're not ,precluded from looking at it, either. But our position is that that has no official basis in determinations of bed need. We do look at those subdistricts but not to determine bed need. We look at them to get a better understanding of an application, because we get a sense, from looking at the unique service areas, what they' re trying to accomplish. That would be number one. Number two, and from having worked on the private side, I know one of the reasons why this is done, this is an attempt to define a market share or market area and a percent of all the considerations of what the existing hospitals that are already in the area have in the way of markets and market shares, and so on. So on the second hand, looking at the subdistricts is very important, from the standpoint of helping us to assess the financial feasibility of these proposals, which is another criterion, of course, altogether, specifically in the longer term. Because, you know, you have to know who is getting patients from where in order to be able to fully understand that. And I think the third way in which these subdistricts, these Applicants -- pardon the expression, subdistricts, that's not what these things are -- the Applicant's medical services areas are useful is in those cases where we may have a need helping us to decide where, within, let's say a subdistrict that need should be met. For example, let's suppose in this case, we were showning a need of sufficient magnitude to approve a hospital. But instead of having two applications within a few miles of each other, we had one for east Orange County, and one in west Orange County, and portions of other counties, each of which had carved out their own service area, then it would be very important for us, in that case, to look at these things very carefully, to consider them to help us determine which location was preferable. But in terms of calculating bed need from the Department's perspective, we don't put any stock in those whatsoever from that perspective. ,Emphasis added. Based upon the above testimony, it is clear that MSAs may be looked at if an applicant uses one in order to provide a better understanding of the applicant's proposal, to assess financial feasibility and, where there is an established need for acute care beds, to decide where in the subdistrict the need is the greatest. MSAs are clearly not relied upon to determine the initial question of whether there is a need for acute care beds. To determine acute care bed need based upon a MSA without considering `the' entire subdistrict of Orange County is not appropriate. The Department, as the statute and rules require, determines need at the district level and allocates the district bed need to the subdistricts. In fact, the Department has ruled that it is improper to divide a district into subdistricts smaller than those designated by a local health council for purposes of determining need as pointed out by Winter Park in its proposed recommended order. Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1091A (1983). For purposes of determining whether there is a need for additional acute care hospital beds in Orange County, Mr. Richardson's testimony is of very little value. STATUTORY CRITERIA. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that a certificate of need may be issued when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 38l.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), demonstrate need. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that there is an accessibility problem in Orange County which demonstrates acute care bed need under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The facts do not support such a conclusion as discussed, supra. This section of the Recommended Order contains findings of fact with regard to the other criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d) Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Consistency with the State and Local Health Plan: Section 381.494(6(c)1, Florida Statutes. The applications of the Petitioners are only partly consistent with the State Health Plan and the Council's Local Health Plan. The Council's Local Health Plan establishes the following occupancy levels for acute care beds which should be met before new acute care beds are approved: TYPE OF BEDS OCCUPANCY LEVEL Medical - Surgical 80% Obstetrical 75% As already discussed, occupancy levels for acute care beds in District 7, and in Orange and Seminole Counties were below 70 percent in 1984. The declining utilization of acute care beds will continue for the next 2 to 4 years and therefore it does not appear that the occupancy level goals in the Local Health Plan will be met by either applicant. These occupancy level goals are intended to be used as checks on the bed need methodologies. The importance of existing occupancy levels in determining whether to add additional acute care beds to a district is recognized in Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The Petitioners have projected that they will achieve an occupancy rate of 45-50 percent after one year of operation. South Seminole Community Hospital, which was opened in May of 1984 in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, achieved only a 27 percent occupancy rate after 8 months of operation. In light of the fact that South Seminole Community Hospital is located in Longwood, it is doubtful the Petitioners will achieve their projected occupancy rate. The Petitioners have projected that their proposed hospitals will achieve an 80 percent occupancy rate, which is an optimal occupancy rate. Their projections, based upon the findings of fact as to acute care bed need in Orange County and current occupancy levels, are highly unlikely to be reached. Especially in light of the fact that the average occupancy rate in Orange County was only 60.80 percent in 1984. The proposals are also inconsistent with the Local Health Plan goal that a proposal be consistent with the state's acute care bed need methodology. Based upon an application of the Formula, using current data, District 7 and Orange County will have an excess of acute care beds in 1990. Winter Park's proposal is consistent with several other portions of the Local Health Plan. Winter Park's facility will have an active outpatient program, its beds can be available within 24 hours and it will meet several priorities under the Local Health Plan such as being accredited and licensed, and being willing to serve indigents and other patients without regard to payment source. AMI's proposal also meets some of these goals. The Local Health Plan also contains a provision to the effect that "needed" beds should be approved at existing hospitals unless the addition of a new hospital would substantially improve access by at least 15 minutes for 25,000 or more residents. Winter Park has suggested a finding of fact that this provision has been met. If there was a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County such a finding would be appropriate. There is, however, clearly no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. This portion of the Local Health Plan therefore does not apply. Finally, the Local Health Plan provides that applicants should be able to document community and provider support for their proposals. Community support for the proposals has been demonstrated. Provider support, however, has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is opposition from some providers to the proposed new hospitals, i.e., Florida Hospital and OGH. The proposals are also partially consistent with the State's health plan. The evidence does not clearly establish, however, that the proposals are totally consistent with the goals of the State health plan. Mr. Talbert did testify that Winter Park's proposal is consistent with the goals of the State health plan. It was not clear, however, whether all of the goals were met. Also, Mr. Talbert's testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in this proceeding in some respects. For example, Mr. Talbert testified that one goal of the State health plan is to provide adequate access to acute care resources. The evidence clearly shows that adequate access is already available in Orange County. To the extent it can be inferred that Mr. Talbert's testimony also applies to AMI's proposal, the same problems exist. The evidence does not support a finding that AMI's proposal is totally consistent with the State health plan. Based upon the foregoing, it does not appear that either proposal is totally consistent with the Local Health Plan or the State health plan. The Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization and Adequacy of Like and Existing Health Care Services in the Service District; Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires that the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district be considered. The service district for this purpose is District 7. The designation of subdistricts in District 7 is specifically for purposes of allocating district bed need to the subdistricts. The parties, to the extent they addressed this criterion, presented evidence primarily for Orange County only, however. The availability, accessibility and extent of utilization of like and existing acute care hospitals in Orange County has been discussed and findings of fact with regard thereto have been made, supra. To summarize, like and existing services in Orange County are available and accessible and are underutilized. The Petitioners have not shown that like an existing services in District 7 do not provide quality of care or that they are not efficient, appropriate or adequate. Winter Park has argued that like and existing services are not accessible. The evidence does not support such a finding of fact. AMI has argued that there are no like and existing services accessible in the MSAs. That is not the test. The determination to made under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), is whether there are like and existing services in the service district. The service district in these cases is all of District 7, not the MSAs. There are currently seven acute care hospitals in Orange County: Florida Hospital, OGH, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Brookwood Hospital, Humana Lucerne, Winter Park Hospital and West Orange Memorial Hospital. Additionally, Orlando Regional Medical Center - Sand Lake is expected to be opened before 1990. These district. The evidence does not support a finding that some or all of these facilities or others in District 7 are not available, providing quality of care, efficient, appropriate, accessible, over utilized or adequate. AMI and OGH spent an inordinate amount of time and effort presenting evidence on the issue of whether OGH is a like and existing service. The evidence supports a finding that OGH is a like and existing service. Even if OGH was not a like and existing service, such a conclusion would only be relevant if it were concluded that like and existing services must exist within the boundaries of the MSAs or that OGH was the only accessible acute care hospital to the residents of the MSAs. As stated, supra, the pertinent area is not the MSA but District 7 and there are clearly other acute care hospitals in District 7 and some of those hospitals are accessible. If Orange County alone is the appropriate service area for purposes of applying this criterion, the evidence clearly proves that the Petitioners do not meet the criterion. The evidence proves that there are available, quality, appropriate, efficient and adequate like and existing health care services in Orange County and District 7. The Ability of the Applicants to Provide Quality of Care; Section 381.494(6)(c)3. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion has been meet. 113.. The Availability and Adequacy of Other Health Care Facilities and Services in the Service District which may Serve as Alternatives: Section 381.494(6)(c)4, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). There are clearly other health care facilities in Orange County providing like and existing services. The evidence does not, however, establish that there are other health care facilities and services in Orange County which are alternatives to a 100 bed acute care hospital. Transferring beds from existing facilities has been suggested as an alternative to the proposed new hospitals. This suggested "alternative" could be achieved as easily by approving a new hospital and closing some existing beds. The cost would be essentially the some. Transferring beds is not an alternative. Use of existing beds which are not being occupied is not a viable alternative either, as suggested by OGH in its proposed findings of fact. Probable Economies and Improvements in Service that may be Derived from Operation of Joint, Cooperative or Shared Health Care Resources; Section 381.494(6)(c)5, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). AMI's proposed facility may eventually share some services with Brookwood Community Hospital in the area of administrative management. Brookwood Community Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Brookwood") is a 157 bed general acute care hospital owned and operated by a limited partnership. The general partner and owner of 82.5 percent of the partnership is Brookwood Medical Center of Orlando, Inc., which in turn is owned by AMI. AMI presented its proposal assuming that there would not be any shared services with Brookwood. Through AMI, UCH, Inc., can receive price discounts for its purchases, typically 15 percent to 20 percent lower than the lowest price available in the market generally. UCH, Inc., will also be able to participate in Brookwood's preferred provider organization agreement. This could result in enhanced utilization of UCH, Inc., which could result in decreased health care costs. Winter Park will share some resources with its new hospital. The resources to be shared include Winter Park's incinerator, CAT Scanner, cardiac catheterization ion laboratory, and certain personnel. Centralized accounting, centralized purchasing and some centralized management would also be employed. Both proposals will have joint, cooperative or shared health care resources which would result in probable economics and improvements in service. The Need in the Service District of the Applicant for Special Equipment and Services not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas; Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities: Section 81.494(6)(c) 7, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Availability of Resources; the Effects on Clinical Needs of Health Professional Training Programs in the Service District: Accessibility to Schools for Health Professionals: the Availability of Alternative Uses of Resources: Extent Accessible to All Residents; Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that Section 81.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has been met to the extent it deals with "health and management manpower and personnel only." The other factors to be considered under this criterion were not stipulated to. The first factor to be considered is the availability of resources, including physicians and funds for capital and operating expenditures. The availability of funds will be discussed, infra. As to the availability of physicians, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that physicians are available to staff either of the proposed facilities. AMI proposed a finding of fact that ", unlike WPMH, AMI demonstrated that the major medical specialty areas will be represented by various physicians who will joint the UCH medical staff." AMI did demonstrate that various medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at UCH, Inc. It is also true that Winter Park did not demonstrate that all of the medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at its proposed facility. Despite these facts, several physicians testified that they would use Winter Park's proposed facility if it were approved instead of UCH, Inc., and Mr. Willard Wisler's unrebutted testimony establishes that Winter Park would have no difficulty staffing its proposed hospital. Both Petitioners have established that physician resources are available for project accomplishment and operation. The second and third factors to be considered are the effect the projects will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in Orange County and, if available in a limited number of facilities, the extent to which services will be available to schools for health professionals in Orange County. The weight of the evidence does not establish that professional training programs are available in a limited number of facilities. In fact the evidence establishes that the University of Central Florida (hereinafter referred to as "UCF"), which is located in east Orange County, has fifty-two affiliation agreements with hospitals and other medical facilities. These affiliation agreements include agreements involving clinical training of radiology technicians at Florida Hospital and, in Brevard County, at Halifax Hospital. Approximately 32 radiology students are currently involved in hospital training programs. AMI presented evidence proving the existence of a proposed "affiliation agreement" between its proposed hospital and UCF. AMI and UCF have in fact entered into an Agreement of Intent. The Agreement of intent essentially provides, in relevant part, that AMI's proposed hospital, if approved, would provide clinical training to UCF radiology technician students. Approximately three to six UCF students per semester would receive training at the new hospital. The program with UCF will clearly have a positive effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" in Orange County. The agreement also provides for certain other benefits to UCF in the form of certain gifts. Those benefits, however, are not relevant in considering whether a certificate of need should be issued to AMI. The portion of Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), at issue in this proceeding requires only that the effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" be considered. AMI's gifts will not meet the "clinical needs" of health professional training programs. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to its gifts to UCF are unnecessary. Florida Hospital and Winter Park have proposed several findings of fact concerning AMI's motive in entering into the agreement with UCF. Those proposed findings are not supported by the evidence and are not relevant. Florida Hospital also has proposed findings of fact concerning whether a tertiary hospital would be a better facility for training, the effect of patient mix on training, the lack of any study by UCF to assess the benefits of the agreement and the fact that AMI's proposed facility will not be a teaching hospital or have full-time teachers. Those proposed findings are unnecessary. The fact is, the clinical training to be provided by AMI's facility will be a benefit to the clinical needs of health professional training programs in District 7. Because of the substantial amount of gifts to be made to UCF, which will be paid for by patients of AMI's facility, the costs of AMI's clinical program will be substantial. Winter Park is currently involved in meeting clinical needs of health professional training programs at a number of educational institutions, including UCF. Winter Park's involvement includes radiology and several other programs. Although no agreements have been entered into, programs to meet such clinical needs will be provided at Winter Park's new facility. Because Winter Park has not committed to make any gifts to educational institutions, the costs of its programs will probably be less than AMI's program. The fourth factor to be considered is the availability of alternative uses of resources for the' provision of other health services. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that there are not alternative uses of resources. The petitioners failed to present evidence sufficient to conclude that there are not alternative uses for available resources. Finally, the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district is to be considered. Both Petitioners are willing to accept all patients regardless of age, sex, race, color or national origin, and medically underserved groups. The Petitioners have met most, but not all, of the requirements of this criterion. Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility; Section 1.494(6)(c)9. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Immediate Financial Feasibility. AMI's proposed facility will be financed by a 50 percent equity contribution from AMI to UCF, Inc., and 50 percent debt financing from AMI at a maximum interest rate of 12 percent amortized over 30 years. AMI has sufficient lines of credit to cover the amount needed for debt financing. AMI also has sufficient cash and unrestricted liquid assets (almost $300,000,000.00 by the end of its 1984 fiscal year) and generates enough capital ($300,000,000.00 to $400,000,000.00 a year) to fund its equity contribution and the debt. AMI also has sufficient funds to provide working capital needs of UCF, Inc. Exactly how Winter Park's proposed facility will be financed is less clear. Both of the Petitioners have suggested that the other has not proved that it has "committed" itself to funding their respective proposals. Although the evidence does raise questions as to whether AMI or Winter Park has finally committed the total funds necessary to complete their proposals, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that both Petitioners are committed to funding their proposals. More importantly, the test is whether the Petitioners have available financing sources. University Community Hospital, et ala v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1346-A, 1360-A (1983). AMI clearly proved that its Executive Committee had approved its proposal. One of its witnesses, however, testified that the approval of capital expenditures of over $1,000,000.00 took approval of the full AMI Board of Directors. Winter Park clearly proved that its Board of Trustees had approved only $4,000,000.00 of the costs of its facility. Despite these facts, the evidence establishes that, although final approval of all the funds necessary to fund the proposals may not have been given, the funds necessary to insure the immediate, financial feasibility of both proposals are available. Where the funds will come from in Winter Park's case and the total amount of funds needed by Winter Park is far from being crystal clear. Winter Park failed to take into account several expenses it will incur, including sewer capacity reserve fees (approximately $160,500.00), telephone lease costs ($20,000.00) and possibly some interest expenses. There may also be an underestimate of the cost of debt financing, depending upon whether tax-exempt loans are available to Winter Park. The costs of sewer capacity reserve and the telephone lease can probably be covered by the contingency funds projected by Winter Park. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to equipment costs underestimates are rejected as unsupported by the weight of all of the evidence. Even with the understatement of project costs, the evidence supports a conclusion that Winter Park's proposal is immediately financial feasible. Winter Park currently has set aside "over $7,000,000.00" which can be applied to fund its proposal. (Although Winter Park has certain planned or ongoing capital improvements, the evidence does not prove that these improvements will be funded out of the funds set aside for the proposed new hospital, as suggested by AMI)'. Winter Park also has lines of credit with Barnett Bank and Sun Bank of $5,000,000.00 each. Neither line of credit has been used in the past. The Sun Bank line of credit was recently renewed and is available for one year. The Barnett Bank line of credit is also good for only one year. Both lines of credit have been renewed in the past. These lines of credit will have to be renewed before construction of Winter Park's facility begins. Winter Park presented no evidence as to whether the lines of credit would be renewed by either bank, however. Therefore, the record does not contain evidence as to whether the lines of credit will be available. Winter Park is also the sole beneficiary of the Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation set upon to receive donations for the support of Winter Park. The Foundation "would make funds available to it [Winter Parka when needed." (Although testimony concerning Winter Park's alleged ability to "request" funds from the Foundation was struck, the quoted testimony was not objected to). The Foundation currently has $2,000,000.00 which could be provided to Winter Park. Finally, Winter Park has a commitment from Barnett Bank for a loan of $9,181,648.00. The loan has been committed whether interest on the loan is tax- free or taxable to Barnett Banks. Whether the loan is tax-free will affect the immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. If the loan is not tax-free, additional interest expense will be incurred; instead of being financed at a 7.696 interest rate, Winter Park will be charged approximately 11.5 percent interest if the loan is not tax- free. If the loan is tax-free, Winter Park may have failed to take into account costs associated with obtaining tax-free financing, i.e., underwriter's fees. AMI has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning additional costs associated with whether the Barnett Bank loan is tax-free. Those findings of fact are not relevant, however, in determining immediate financial `feasibility of Winter Park's proposal. The evidence establishes that the funds available to Winter Park are sufficient to cover Winter Park's projected costs and the costs it failed to include in its proposal (including the $1,20 0,000.00 of working capital which will be needed by the and of 1988). Both proposals are financially feasible in the short-term. Long Term Financial Feasibility. The Petitioners have failed to prove that their proposals are financially feasible in the long run. The projections of the Petitioners with regard to expected gross revenue depends upon whether their utilization projections are correct. Based upon the conclusion that there is no need for the proprosed facilities it is unrealistic to expect the facilities to be financially feasible. AMI's projections as to gross revenue depend on Mr. Richardson's need analysis for AMI's MSA. As discussed, supra, Mr. Richardson's projections were based upon unrealistic occupancy rates. Winter Park's projected utilization is based upon Winter Park's historical experience with its MSA for 1983. Mr. Talbert's and Mr. John Winfrey's reliance on this data in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in Orange County is misplaced. Determining utilization of Winter Park's proposed hospital in future years based on utilization of an existing hospital in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals is very suspect. The fact that east Orange County is expected to grow in terms of population does not eliminate the concern with regard to utilization. Orange County has been growing since 1980 and before. Despite that growth, hospital utilization has declined. As to the projected expenses of the proposed hospitals which effect the financial feasibility of the proposals, it appears that AMI's projections are reasonable. A number of questions concerning Winter Park's expenses were raised, however, by the evidence. The evidence supports a finding that Winter Park has failed to take into account some expenses which will affect the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Expenses not taken into account include phone lease expenses ($15,000.00 to $20,000.00), indigent care assessments ($58,000.00 in the second year of operation) and start-up costs ($22,680.00 a year). The evidence, however, also supports a finding that Winter Park's estimate of medicare contractual allowances was $318,900.00 too high and that depreciation expense was $130,000.00 too high. These overstatements of expenses are more than sufficient to cover the understatements of expenses discussed in this paragraph. The primary problem with Winter Park's estimate of expenses is that Winter Park has projected interest expense at a tax- exempt rate of 7.6 percent. The evidence does not prove that Winter Park can, however, obtain tax-exempt financing. Winter Park only presented evidence that Barnett Bank is willing to loan funds on a tax-exempt or taxable basis. Winter Park must, however, obtain approval of its proposed tax-exempt financing from the Orange County Health Facilities Authority. See Chapter 154, Florida Statutes (1983). No evidence that such approval could be obtained was presented at the hearing. Winter has therefore failed to prove that its estimated interest expenses can be achieved. The evidence also shows that if Winter Park cannot obtain tax-exempt financing, it will have to borrow funds at an 11.5 percent interest rate. This rate of interest can be obtained, but the additional interest expense would result in a net loss for the second year of operation. Based upon the foregoing, Winter Park has failed to prove that its proposal is financially feasible in the long-term. Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that it could charge a higher rate for its services to cover understated expenses. No evidence was presented, however, that proves that Winter Park would be willing or committed to a higher charge for its services. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to expenses for utilities, food and drugs, other operating expenses, incinerator costs and equipment costs are rejected. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to the goal of Winter Park to achieve an optimum profit margin of 5 percent to 7 percent are rejected because that goal does not apply to the proposed facility. The projected profit margin of the proposed facility is only seven-tenths of one percent. AMI's proposed findings of fact as to the years projections were made for (two years instead of five), the manner of making those projections (no balance sheet, no cash flow statements and no quarterly breakdowns) and the lack of a feasibility study are not necessary. AMI's remaining proposed findings of facts concerning "soft spots" in Winter Park's projections are also rejected. Special Needs and Circumstances of Health Maintenance Organizations; Section 381.494(6)(c)10, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Needs and Circumstances of Entities which Provide Services or Resources to Individuals not Residing in the Service District or Adjacent Service Districts; Section 381.494(6)(c)11, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Probable Impact of the Proposal on the Costs of Providing Health Services; Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The weight of the evidence clearly supports a conclusion that if either of the proposed hospitals is approved, the probable impact on the costs of providing health services would be negative. The only real question raised by the evidence is the degree of the negative impact. It has already been found that there will be an excess of beds in Orange County in 1990 and that utilization rates are decreasing and will continue to do so. To add 100 acute care beds to an already over-bedded subdistrict can only further add to the number of excessive beds. Patients who would occupy 100 new acute care beds would have access to other hospitals in Orange County if a new hospital is not approved. If it is assumed that patients could be attracted to a new hospital in the MSA's it necessarily follows that those patients will not use an existing, already underutilized, hospital in Orange County, Seminole County or the rest of District 7. Additionally, the evidence clearly shows that some patients who currently use existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals would be attracted to a new hospital in the MSAs. AMI has suggested that such a loss of patients would be "minimal." Minimal or not, the loss of any number of patients would result in a loss of patient days and revenue to existing hospitals which are on average already underutilized. If patients are lost by existing hospitals, the ability to serve indigents could be adversely affected. The projected population growth for the MSA's does not solve the problem either. Orange County has been experiencing population growth during the 1980's, as well as prior to 1980. Despite this population growth, utilization rates have been decreasing. Even Mr. Richardson, AMI's expert health planner, admitted there would be an impact on existing hospitals. Mr. Richardson indicated that there would a "1.5 percent occupancy impact on the system" by 1990 based upon Mr. Margolis' analysis. Mr. Richardson indicated that such an impact would be "minimal." Whether a 1.5 percent impact is minimal is not the issue. The issue is what effect such an impact would have. The weight of the evidence clearly supports the finding that the impact would be negative and the citizens of Orange County would suffer the consequences of that "minimal" impact. Florida Hospital's expert health planner, Mr. Margolis, was the most credible witness with regard to this criterion. His testimony proves that Florida Hospital and OGH could lose 5,400 to 6,000 patient days if a new 100 acute care hospital is approved. How much the dollar loss would be as a result of such a decrease in patient days is not clear. There was testimony that OGH could lose $1,000,000.00 to $3,500,000.00 in gross revenue. AMI has again suggested that the loss in patient days and revenue to OGH would be minimal and that OGH's testimony as to the amount of loss was misleading. Mr. Patrick Deegan, who testified as an expert in finance for OGH, did fail to take into account any reduction in expenses which might be associated with a loss in revenue and also failed to take into account increases in revenue as a result of growth. Although these factors could influence the amount of projected losses in revenue, the fact remains that a new acute care hospital could and probably would have a negative impact on OGH. AMI has also suggested that OGH could and should reduce its staff. This suggestion is based upon a comparison of OGH's staffing patterns and UCH Inc's proposed staffing. The record does not support AMI's proposed findings of fact. The record does not prove that UCH, Inc's, proposed staff will be at a more appropriate staffing level. Nor does the record establish that a reduction in staff at OGH would be detrimental, as suggested by OGH. As to Florida Hospital, AMI also suggests that any impact to its campuses would be minimal, if any. It is true that there probably would be no impact on Florida Hospital's Apopka campus. Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, however, gets 20 percent of its admission from the MSAs and its Altamonte Springs campus gets 3 percent of its admissions from the MSAs, as AMI points out in its proposed findings of fact. If any of those patients utilize a new hospital in the MSAs, Florida Hospital will lose patients and will be adversely affected. AMI suggested several findings of fact with regard to the financial well-being of Florida Hospital, the addition of beds at its Altamonte Springs and Orlando campuses and its motives in intervening in these cases. These proposed facts do not support a finding that Florida Hospital would not be negatively affected by the opening of a new 100 acute care bed hospital in Orange County. Finally, Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that a new Winter Park hospital in the MSAs will foster competition and thereby lower costs in Orange County for hospital services. The record does not support these proposed findings of fact in light of the excess of beds in District 7 and the underutilization of existing beds. Based upon the foregoing, Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has not been met by the Petitioners' proposals. Costs and Methods of Construction; Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Petitioners only partially proved that Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will be met. This section requires proof as to the costs and methods of construction, including methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction. The Petitioners only proved that the costs of construction would be reasonable. AMI's proposed facility will have 99,000 square feet. The total cost of construction will be $10,095,000.00 including $650,000.00 for site preparation, $8,161,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $406,000.00 for contingencies and $878,000.00 for inflation. Architectural and engineering fees will cost an additional $566,700.00. AMI's costs of construction do not include the $236,800.00 cost of reserving sewage capacity or the costs of obtaining appropriate rezoning of its property. These costs will add to the total cost of construction and the total cost of the proposal. AMI's contingency funds are sufficient to cover these amounts. AMI's additional findings of fact concerning construction costs are cumulative or unnecessary for purposes of determining if this criterion has been met. Winter Parks's proposed facility will have 98,763 square feet. Total cost of construction projected by Winter Park is $10,415,000.00, consisting of $375,000.00 for site preparation, $9,000,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $468,700.00 for contingencies and $552,200.00 for inflation. Winter Park's projections do not include the costs of reserving sewage capacity which will add approximately $150,000.00 in costs. This additional amount can be covered by the contingency amount. Although the evidence was contradictory, Winter Park did not inadvertently leave out the cost of an incinerator--there will be no incinerator at the new hospital. Although the Petitioners presented testimony to the effect that their projected costs of construction are reasonable, no consideration was given to whether the proposed facilities would be developments of regional impact (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (1983), and the costs associated with such a determination. The evidence supports conclusion that there will be some costs associated with the determination of whether the proposals are DRIs. The additional cost, however, does not appear to be significant. The Petitioners have failed to prove that the methods of construction are reasonable. They have also failed to prove that the provision of energy will be reasonable or that there are not alternative, less costly, or more efficient methods of construction available. Section 381.494(6)(d). Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In addition to considering the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), Section 381.494(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires findings of fact in cases of capital expenditure proposals for new health services to inpatients as follows: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. The existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the case of a proposal for the addition of beds for the provision of skilled nursing or intermediate care services, that the addition will be consistent with the plans of other agencies of the state responsible for the provision and financing of long-term care, including home health services. The facts concerning the first three items quoted are favorable to the Petitioners. The last one does not apply. The fourth item has not been proved to be true in this case. Summary. In summary, the evidence proves that an application of the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not demonstrate the need for either of the proposed facilities. The Petitioners have only proved that they can provide quality of care, that there are not alternatives to their proposals, that they will have shared resources, that personnel are available, that they have the capital to create the facilities, that they will improve the clinical needs of health professional training programs, and that their proposals are `financially feasible in the short-run. The Petitioners, however, have failed to prove any need for the facilities. Their proposals are not consistent with the local health plan or the State health plan. There are sufficient, underutilized existing hospitals to meet any need for hospital care and they will be adversely affected by the proposed facilities. The proposed facilities are not financially feasible in the long run. THE NEED FOR A CAT SCANNER AMI is also seeking a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner in this proceeding. The determination of whether such a certificate of need should be issued is governed by Section 10-5.11(13), F.A.C. In order to qualify for CAT Scanner, AMI must first obtain approval of its proposed hospital. Because it has been concluded that a certificate of need for a new hospital should not be granted, AMI should not be granted a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner; it will not qualify under Section 10- 5.11(13), F.A.C. In an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made as to whether a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should be issued if AMI's application for a certificate of need for an acute care hospital is approved by the Department. Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C., provides that a favorable determination will not be given to applicants failing to meet the standards and criteria of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)1-10, F.A.C. The evidence clearly establishes that AMI's CAT Scanner application meets the standards of Sections 10- 5.11(13)(b) 1-3 and 7-9, F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)4, F.A.C., does not apply. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)5, F.A.C., requires that an applicant document that there is a need for at least 1,800 scans to be accomplished in the first year of operation and at least 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Mr. Richardson testified that this standard is intended to apply to existing providers and that for a new hospital the need should apply to a five year horizon (1990 in this case). Mr. Richardson indicated that in 1990, this standard can be met. The language of Section 10-5.11(13(b)5, is clear; there must be a need documented for the first year of operation and each year thereafter. In this case, the first year of operation will be 1987. AMI has not documented that there is a need for 1800 scans in 1987 or 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C., requires that the applicant document that the number of scans per existing scanner exceeded 2,400 during the "preceding 12 months." The evidence establishes that during the 12 months preceding the hearing all of the fixed CAT Scanners located at hospitals except two were being used for more than 2,400 scans. Again, Mr. Richardson indicated that this standard should be applied to the 12 months preceding 1990. That is not what the rule specifies. The standard applies to the 12 months preceding the hearing. The two units that have not been used for 2,400 scans just started operation, however. Because the rule requires that in the first year of operation only 1,800 scans need to be performed, those units should not be considered in determining if AMI meets this standard. Therefore, AMI meets the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C. The last standard, Section 10-5.11(13)(b)10, F.A.C., provides that extenuating circumstances pertaining to health care quality or access problems, improved cost benefit consideration or research needs may be considered. The facts do not support a finding that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. The facts do prove that any hospital such as the AMI proposed hospital should have access to a CAT Scanner. This need, however, can be met by a mobile CAT Scanner or by transferring patients to a facility with a CAT Scanner, although the latter alternative is less desirable. The evidence clearly proves that there is not access problem with regard to obtaining the services of a CAT Scanner. AMI has not met the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C. Taking into account the factors to be considered under Section 10-5.11(13)(a)1- 8, F.A.C., also supports a finding that a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should not be issued to AMI even if there is a need for its proposed hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the certificate of need applications for a 100-bed acute care hospital and CAT Scanner filed by AMI, case number 84-1819, be denied. It is further DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Baggett, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Von Eckhardt, Esquire American Medical International, Inc. 414 Camden Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. P. "Rusty" Carolan, III, Esquire WINDERWEEDLE, HAINES, WARD & WOODMAN, P.A. P.O. Box 880 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0880 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. G. "Dan" Boone, Esquire Stephen K. Boone, Esquire E.G. BOONE, P.A. P.O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Brain D. Stokes, Esquire MATEER & HARBERT, P.A. 100 East Robinson Street P.O. Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 LIST OF WITNESSES AMI NAME EXPERTISE Jim Palmer Phillip L. Coppage Hospital administration including staffing. Thomas C. Wohlford Patient group and insurance programs in the health care industry. J.D. Garland Health care facilities, including hospital construction management and budgeting and cost estimating. Manuel Viamonte, M.D. Radiology. Dick Chadbourne Manpower staffing requirements for health care facilities. Jan Stirrat Health care facility equipment planning and equipment cost budgeting. Preston Thompson Physician relations and recruiting. Joseph Akerman, M.D. Peter Hiribarnc, M.D. Louis Trefonas, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of sponsored research projects at UCF. Thomas S. Mendenhall, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of health education and affiliation programs. Alan Denner, M.D. Louis C. Murray, M.D. Joseph Sandberg, M.D. Myles Douglas, M.D. Robert D. Fennell Corporate health facilities planning, processing, implementation and development. Manuel J. Coto, M.D. Jerold J. Faden, M.D. Zivko Z. Gajk, M.D. Don Steigman Hospital operations and administration. William A. Tipton Traffic and transportation. Neal B. Hiler Civil engineering and property site analysis. Trevor Colbourn Ben E. Whisenant Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D. Demographics and socioeconomic forecasting. Nilo Regis, M.D. Richard Pajot Mark Richardson Health planning. Richard Altman Hospital management engineering. Walter Wozniak Armond Balsano Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis and third- party reimbursements. Rick Knapp Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis, third- party reimbursement and rate-setting for health care facilities. Richard Anderson Edward E. Weller Real estate appraisal. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Van Talbert Health care planning. Margo Kelly Financial management, analysis and feasibility. WINTER PARK NAME EXPERTISE Katherine J. Brown Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board procedures; hospital costs and charges, data gathering and review; and hospital costs and charges comparisons. Karl Schramm, Ph.D. Hospital cost and charges and comparisons thereof and health care financing, including the impact upon the health care consumer. Willard Wisler Hospital administration including staffing and operating hospitals. John H. Roger Construction design and costs, including site preparation, and analysis thereof, in central Florida; including health care facilities construction. R. Sans Lassiter Traffic engineering, travel times and access in central Florida. Richard Anderson Sarah Mobley Equipment and cost of equipment. William J. Serow, Ph.D. Demographics. Van Talbert Health care planning. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Robert C. Liden Investment banking, including tax-exempt financing of health care facilities. Lewis A. Siefert Hospital accounting and Medicare Reimbursement. FLORIDA HOSPITAL NAME EXPERTISE Steven Windham Health planning. W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. Ronald J. Skantz Radiology training and management. Sven Kansman Traffic engineering and travel time studies. John Crissey Stan Smith, Ph.D. Demographics. Gabriel Mayer, M.D. Physician. Larry Margolis Health care planning, hospital administration, facility planning, HMO's and PPO's. Scott Allen Miller Health care accounting and financial feasibility. OGH NAME EXPERTISE Patrick J. Carson, D.O. Medical emergencies and operation of an emergency room. Tracey Watson Michael Sherry B. Jean Martell Walter J. Wozniak Lawrence Kramer, O.D. Family practice. Patrick Deegan Accounting, hospital finance and budgeting. Andrea Walsh DEPARTMENT NAME EXPERTISE W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. PUBLIC WITNESSES Mike Baumann Bob Mandell Luddy Goetz Martin Goodman Yvonne Opfell Martin Lebnick
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10432 filed by East Florida-DMC, Inc. (DMC), to build an 80-bed acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, Florida, AHCA District 11, or CON Application No. 10433 filed by The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida d/b/a Jackson Hospital West (JW), to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, Florida, AHCA District 11, on balance, satisfy the applicable criteria; and, if so, whether either or both should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the parties’ stipulations, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, 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 Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County d/b/a Jackson Hospital West and Jackson Health System (JHS) JHS is a taxpayer-funded health system located in and owned by Miami-Dade County. It is governed by The Public Health Trust of Miami Dade-County, Florida (PHT), a seven-member board. JHS owns and operates three acute care hospitals in Miami-Dade County--Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH); Jackson North Medical Center (JN); and Jackson South Medical Center (JS)--as well as three specialty hospitals: Holtz Children’s Hospital (Holtz); Jackson Rehabilitation Hospital; and Jackson Behavioral Health Hospital. JHS also owns and operates numerous other non- hospital healthcare facilities within Miami-Dade County. JHS’s applicant in this proceeding is JW which, if approved, will be another acute care hospital in JHS. JHS is an academic teaching institution, and the University of Miami (UM) is JHS’s affiliated medical school. Over 1,000 UM residents staff JMH pursuant to an operating agreement with JHS. JN and JS are not academic medical centers. JHS annually receives sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues from Miami-Dade County in order to help fund its operations. JS and JN are community hospitals operated as part of JHS. JS was acquired in 2001. JS is licensed for 226 beds and is also home to a verified Level II trauma center. The JN facility was acquired by JHS in 2006. The facility is licensed for 382 beds. East Florida (DMC) DMC is an affiliate of HCA Healthcare, Inc. (HCA), the largest provider of acute care hospital services in the world. DMC will operate within HCA’s East Florida Division (EFD), which is comprised of 15 hospitals, 12 surgery centers, two diagnostic imaging centers, four freestanding emergency departments, nine behavioral health facilities, and one regional laboratory, along with other related services. There are three HCA-affiliated hospitals in Miami-Dade County: KRMC; Aventura Hospital and Medical Center (Aventura); and Mercy Hospital, a campus of Plantation General Hospital (Mercy). Kendall Regional (KRMC) KRMC, which is located at the intersection of the Florida Turnpike and Southwest 40th Street in Miami-Dade County, is a 417-bed tertiary provider comprised of 380 acute care beds, 23 inpatient adult psychiatric beds, eight Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) beds, and five Level III NICU beds. It is a Baker Act receiving facility. KRMC is a verified Level I trauma center. It also has a burn program. KRMC is also an academic teaching facility, receiving freestanding institutional accreditation from the Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in 2013. KRMC currently has six residency programs including, among others, surgery, internal medicine, podiatry, anesthesia, and surgical critical care. Its teaching programs are affiliated with the University of South Florida, Nova Southeastern University, and Florida International University. KRMC also participates in scholarly and clinical research. In 2017, KRMC had over 82,000 Emergency Department (ED) visits. It treated over 115,000 total inpatients and outpatients that year. There are 850 physicians on KRMC’s medical staff. It offers a full range of medical surgery services, interventional procedures, obstetrics (OB), pediatric, and neonatal care, among many other service lines. KRMC primarily serves southern and western portions of Miami-Dade County but also receives referrals from the Florida Keys up through Broward County, Palm Beach County, and the Treasure Coast. Its main competitors include, but are not limited to: Baptist Hospital; Baptist West; South Miami Hospital; PGH; Hialeah; CGH; JS, and Palm Springs General Hospital. The Tenet Hospitals PGH, Hialeah, and CGH are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Tenet South Florida. These are all for-profit hospitals. PGH is a 368-bed tertiary facility that opened in the early 1970s. It has 297 licensed acute care beds, 48 adult psychiatric beds, 52 ICU beds, and 15 Level II NICU beds. It is located at the Palmetto Expressway and Northwest 122nd Street in Hialeah, Florida. The hospital employs about 1,700 people and has over 600 physicians on its medical staff. PGH is a tertiary-level facility offering a variety of specialty services, including adult open heart surgery, a comprehensive stroke center, and robotic surgery. It has inpatient mental health beds and serves the community as a Baker Act receiving facility. It also offers OB and Level II NICU services with approximately 1,500 births a year. It has approximately 70,000 ED visits and between 17,000 and 18,000 inpatient admissions per year. In addition to its licensed inpatient beds, PGH operates 31 observation beds. PGH is ACGME accredited and serves a significant teaching function in the community. It has approximately 89 residents and fellows. The hospital provides fellowships in cardiology, critical care and interventional cardiology, and also has rotations in neurology and gastroenterology. Residents from Larkin General Hospital also rotate through PGH. PGH generally serves the communities of Opa Locka, Hialeah, Miami Lakes, Hialeah Gardens, Doral, and Miami Springs. In reality, all of the hospitals in the county are competitors, but more direct competition comes from Palm Springs Hospital, Memorial in Miramar, Mount Sinai, Kendall, and even its sister hospital, Hialeah. Hialeah first opened in 1951 and is a 378-bed acute care facility. It has 356 acute care beds, 12 adult psychiatric beds, and 10 Level II NICU beds. The ED has 25 beds and about 40,000 visits per year. It has approximately 14,000 inpatient admissions and 1,400 babies delivered annually. It offers services including cardiac, stroke, robotic surgery, colorectal surgery, and OB services. The hospital has a Level II NICU with 12 beds. CGH is located in the City of Coral Gables and is near the border between Coral Gables and the City of Miami on Douglas Road. It first opened in 1926. Portions of the original structure are still in use. CGH has 245 licensed beds, over 725 employees, 367 physicians, and over 100 additional allied providers on its medical staff. The hospital has a full-service ED. Its service lines include general surgery, geriatrics, urology, treatment of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, and others. The hospital has eight operating rooms and offers robotic surgery. The ED has 28 beds divided into the main area and a geriatric emergency room. It had about 25,000 ED visits last year, which is lower than prior years, due in part to the presence of over a dozen nearby urgent care centers. CGH has over 8,500 inpatient admissions per year and is not at capacity. While patient days have grown slightly, the average occupancy is still just a little over 40%, meaning, on average, it has over 140 empty inpatient beds on any given day. The hospital is licensed for 245 beds, but typically there are only 180 beds immediately available for use. Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) AHCA is the state health-planning agency charged with administration of the CON program as set forth in sections 408.31-408.0455, Florida Statutes. The Proposals Doral Medical Center (DMC) DMC proposes to build an 80-bed community hospital situated within the residential district of Doral. The hospital will be located in southwestern Doral in zip code 33126 and will serve the growing population of Doral, along with residential areas to the north and south of Doral. The hospital will be located in the City of Doral’s residential district on Northwest 41st Street between Northwest 109th Avenue to the east, and Northwest 112th Avenue to the west. Doral has seen significant growth in the past 15 years and has been consistently included on the list of the fastest growing cities in Florida. The new facility will have a bed complement of 80 licensed acute care beds, including 72 medical/surgical and eight OB beds. The proposed acute care hospital will be fully accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities and licensed by the State of Florida. No public funds will be utilized in construction of the hospital and it will contribute to the state, county, and municipal tax base as a proprietary corporation. DMC will offer a full range of non-tertiary services, including emergency services, imaging, surgery, intensive care, cardiac catheterization, and women's services, including an OB unit, and pediatric care. DMC will be a general medical facility that will include a general medical component and a surgery component. Although DMC will operate an OB unit, NICU services will not be offered at DMC. If DMC’s patients need more advanced services, including NICU, the EFD hopes they will receive them from KRMC. The open medical staff will be largely community-based, but University of Miami physicians would be welcome at DMC. Before the hospital is built, KRMC will construct and operate a freestanding emergency department (FSED) at the location that will eventually become the ED of DMC. Construction of the FSED is now underway, and Brandon Haushalter, chief executive officer (CEO) of KRMC, estimated that it will open in March or April of 2019. Jackson West JHS proposes to build a community hospital to be known as “Jackson West” near the eastern edge of Doral. The proposed 100-bed general acute care hospital would have medical surgical and obstetrical beds and offer basic acute care services. JHS is a public health system owned by Miami-Dade County. All of JHS’s assets, as well as its debts, belong to the county. JHS is a not-for-profit entity, and therefore does not pay taxes, though it receives hundreds of millions of dollars from property taxes and sales taxes in Miami-Dade County. JHS’s main campus is a large health campus located near the Midtown Miami area in between Allapattah (to the north) and Little Havana (to the south). In addition to JMH, the campus includes Holtz Children’s Hospital, a behavioral health hospital, an inpatient rehabilitation hospital, and several specialty clinics. Bascom-Palmer Eye Institute, a Veterans Administration hospital, and University of Miami Hospital are also located adjacent to Jackson West’s main campus. JMH is a 1,500-bed hospital with a wide array of programs and services, including tertiary and quaternary care, and a Level I trauma program, the Ryder Trauma Center. JMH receives patients from throughout Miami-Dade County, elsewhere in Florida, and internationally. JMH is a teaching hospital and has a large number of residents, as well as professors from the University of Miami, on staff. UM and JMH have had a relationship for many years, and in addition to research and teaching, UM provides physician staffing to JMH. JN is a 342-bed community hospital located in between Miami Gardens and North Miami Beach, just off of I-95 and the Turnpike. JS is a 252-bed community hospital located in the Palmetto Bay area just south of Kendall. It has stroke certification and interventional cardiology, and was recently approved for a trauma program, which began in May 2016. Both JN and JS were existing hospitals that were acquired by JHS. JHS has never built a hospital from the ground up. In 2014, JHS leadership directed its internal planning team to review the healthcare needs of county residents. JHS’s analysis identified a need for outpatient services in western Miami-Dade, the only remaining quadrant of the county in which JHS did not have a hospital or healthcare program at the time. As part of its due diligence, JHS then consulted healthcare firm Kurt Salmon & Associates (KSA) to independently evaluate the data. KSA’s investigation validated a need in the west county for adult and pediatric outpatient services, including need for an FSED. This prompted JHS to explore opportunities for expansion of outpatient services where needed: in the western corridor of Miami-Dade. This was also the genesis of JHS’s long-range plan to first build an FSED in the Doral area, to be followed ultimately by the addition of a general acute care hospital at the site. The JW site is a 27-acre parcel of land located just west of the Palmetto Expressway and north of 25th Street. The site is in an industrial area only a short distance from the western end of the runways at Miami International Airport. The site is located in zip code 33122, which is very sparsely populated. JW proposed a primary service area (PSA) consisting of zip codes 33126, 33144, 33166, 33172/33122, 33174, 33178, and 33182, and a secondary service area (SSA) of zip codes 33155, 33165, 33175, and 33184. JW intends to serve general, acute care non-tertiary patients and OB patients. Detailed below, trends in the JW service area do not demonstrate need for its proposed hospital. The location of the JW site will not contribute to the viability of the proposed hospital. According to 2010 census data, only 328 people live within a one-mile radius of the JW site. Since 2000, only 32 total people have moved into that same area around the JW site--an average of three per year. There are virtually no residences within a one-mile radius of the JW site. From 2000 to 2010, the population within a two- mile radius of the JW site decreased by a rate of 9.4%. The JW health planner projects JW’s home zip code of 33122 will have a total population of only eight (8) people in 2022. From 2012 to 2014, the use rate in the JW service area for non-tertiary patients decreased by 3.9%. That decline continued at a steeper pace of 4.2% from 2014 to 2017. This was largely due to the 65+ age cohort, the demographic of patients that utilize inpatient services the most. The 65+ age cohort is growing at a slower pace in the JW service area than in Miami- Dade or Florida as a whole. Non-tertiary discharges in the JW service area are declining at a greater pace than that of Miami- Dade County--negative 4.2% compared to negative 1.9%. The rate of projected population growth in the JW PSA is decreasing. The projected rate of growth for the JW service area is lower than that of Miami-Dade County and Florida as a whole. The OB patient base JW intends to rely on is projected to remain flat. The inpatient discharges for all ages in the JW service area have declined from 2014 to 2017. For ages 0-17, discharges in the JW service area declined 21.4% during that time period. The discharges for ages 18-44 declined by 4.8%, and the discharges for ages 45-64 declined by 8.9%. The discharges for the important 65+ age cohort declined by 0.1%. Specifically, the discharges for ages 65-74 declined by 6.5%, and the discharges for ages 75-84 declined by 3.3%. The discharges for ages 85+ are the only age cohort that has not declined from 2012 to 2017. Overall, the non-tertiary discharges per 1,000 population (i.e., use rate) for all ages in the JW service area declined from 2012 to 2014 by 6%, and from 2014 to 2017 by 7.8%. Despite these declines in discharges in the JW service area, the health planners who crafted the JW projections used a constant use rate for the 0-17, 18-44, and 45-64 age cohorts. The JW health planners used a declining use rate for the 65+ age cohort. These use rates were applied uniformly across all zip codes, despite wide variance in actual use rates in each zip code. Applying the zip code specific use rates in conjunction with the other assumptions used by the JW health planner demonstrates that the JW projections are unreasonable. For instance, JW’s reliance on a uniform use rate over-projects the number of discharges in JW PSA zip code 33178 by nearly 1,000 patients. This occurs because the population is only growing at a 2% rate in the zip code, but JW’s reliance on service area-wide projections cause the discharges to grow at an extraordinary rate of 8.9% per year. Applying actual use rates across all zip codes causes a drastic change in the JW PSA and SSA definition. Section 408.037(2) requires a CON applicant to identify its PSA and SSA by listing zip codes in which it will receive discharges in descending order, beginning with the zip code with the highest amount of discharges, then proceeding in diminishing order to the zip code with the lowest amount of discharges. The zip codes, which comprise 75% of discharges, constitute the PSA; and the remaining zip codes, which consist of the remaining 25% of discharges, makes up the SSA. However, JW did not project its utilization in this manner. In its application, JW did not define its service area, PSA, and SSA zip codes in descending order by number or percentage of discharges. When this correct adjustment is made, its PSA consists of zip codes 33126, 33172, 33178, 33174, 33144, and 33165; and its SSA consists of zip codes 33175, 33166, 33155, 33182, and 33184. Zip codes 33166 and 33182 were in the original JW PSA, and zip code 33165 was in the original JW SSA. As such, JW’s home zip code should actually be in its SSA. JW health planners call this illogical, but it demonstrates that the JW site is located within a zip code that has almost no population of potential patients. JHS is developing an FSED and outpatient/ambulatory facilities on the JW site regardless of whether its CON application for a hospital is approved. Construction has begun on the JW site, and JHS is actually building a “shelled in” structure intended to house a future hospital, notwithstanding lack of CON approval for the hospital. There is no contingency plan for use of the shelled-in hospital space if CON approval is not obtained. JHS executives unequivocally stated that they intend to continue pursuing CON approval for the JW hospital, even if the proposed DMC hospital is approved. Indeed, JHS has filed third and fourth CON applications for its proposed JW hospital. The budget for the JW campus is $252 million. Sixty to $70 million is being funded from a bond issuance approved by voters in Miami-Dade County. Notably, the bond referendum approved by voters made no mention of a new hospital. The remaining $180 to $190 million is being funded by JHS, which has chosen to only keep 50 days cash-on-hand, and put any surplus toward capital projects. This is well below the number of days cash-on-hand ws advisable for a system like JHS. The specific programs and services to be offered at JW have not been finalized, but it is clear that JW will be a small community hospital that will not offer anything unique or different from any of the existing hospitals in the area, nor will it operate NICU beds. Patients presenting to JW in need of specialized or tertiary services will need to be transferred to another hospital with the capability of serving them, most likely JMH. The Applicants’ Arguments Doral Medical Center (DMC) DMC’s arguments in support of its proposed hospital may be summarized as follows: Geographic features surrounding Doral create transportation access barriers for the residents of the area; Doral is a densely-populated community that is growing quickly and lacks a readily accessible hospital; KRMC, which is the provider of choice for Doral residents, is a growing tertiary facility that cannot sufficiently expand to meet its future demands. DMC will serve much of the same patient population currently served by KRMC and help decompress KRMC’s acute care load so KRMC can focus on its tertiary service lines; From a geographic standpoint, the Doral community and its patients are isolated from much of Miami-Dade County to the north, west, and east, and the nearest hospitals. East Florida-DMC is a subsidiary of HCA and would be a part of the HCA EFD. Michael Joseph is the president of the EFD, which includes 15 hospitals and other facilities from Miami north through the Treasure Coast. Mr. Joseph authorized the filing of the DMC CON application, which proposes an 80-bed basic acute care hospital that includes 72 medical surgical and eight OB beds. As noted, there will be neither unique services at DMC nor any tertiary services, such as a NICU. HCA anticipates that DMC patients needing tertiary services would be referred and treated at KRMC. The proposed hospital would be built on 41st Street, between Northwest 109th Avenue and Northwest 112th Avenue. This site is located on the western edge of Doral, just east of the Everglades. When the consultants were retained to write the first DMC CON application, HCA had already made the decision to go forward with the project. Mr. Joseph described Miami-Dade County as one of the most competitive markets in the country for hospital services. There is robust competition in the Miami-Dade market from the standpoints of payors, physicians, and the many hospitals located in the county, including Jackson, HCA, Tenet, Baptist and others. HCA is not proposing this project because any of the existing hospitals in the area do not provide good quality care. HCA is currently building an FSED on the DMC site that will open regardless of whether the DMC hospital is approved. Mr. Joseph acknowledged that there is a trend toward outpatient rather than inpatient care. Inpatient occupancy of acute care hospitals in Miami-Dade County has been declining in recent years. Managed care has added further pressure on reducing inpatient admissions. Surgical advances have also resulted in fewer inpatient admissions. Surgeries that formerly required an inpatient stay are now often done on an outpatient basis. Mr. Joseph agreed that 30 minutes is a reasonable travel time to access an acute care hospital. The home zip code for the proposed DMC hospital is 33178. KRMC’s market share for that zip code is 20%. Individuals in that zip code are currently accessing a wide variety of hospitals. PGH is only 6.7 miles away and has the fourth highest market share in that zip code. HCA’s healthcare planning expert, Dan Sullivan, acknowledged that, if approved, DMC would likely have an adverse financial impact on KRMC and other area hospitals. Several witnesses testified that the travel time from the DMC site to KRMC is about 10 minutes, and that an ambulance could do it in as little as five minutes. As to the argument that the residents of Doral face geographic access barriers, the evidence did not indicate that there is anything unique about Doral from a traffic standpoint compared to other parts of Miami-Dade County. People come in and out of Doral on a daily basis in significant numbers for work and other reasons via various access points. Witnesses agreed that 25 to 30 minutes is a reasonable drive time for non-tertiary acute care services, and the evidence showed that residents of Doral, and the DMC service area, are well within 30 minutes of multiple hospitals providing more intensive services than are proposed by DMC. Indeed, many residents of DMC’s service area are closer to other hospitals than to the DMC site. None of the DMC witnesses were able to identify any patient in Doral who had been unable to access acute care services, or had suffered a bad outcome because of travel from Doral to an area hospital. The evidence did not establish that there currently exists either geographic or financial access barriers within the service area proposed to be served by DMC. Jackson West As in its Batch One application, JW advances six arguments as to why its proposed hospital should be approved. They are: It will serve a significant amount of indigent and Medicaid patients. JHS already serves residents of the proposed service area, which JW characterizes as “fragmented,” in that residents go to a number of different hospitals to receive services. Development of the freestanding ED and ambulatory center is under way. JW would provide an additional opportunity to partner with UM and FIU. There is physician and community support for the project. JW will add to the financial viability of JHS and its ability to continue its mission. JW presented very little analysis of the types of factors typically considered in evaluating need for a new hospital. JW did not discuss existing providers and their programs and services, the utilization of existing hospitals, and whether they have excess capacity, or other important considerations. Instead, JW advanced the six arguments noted above, for approval of its proposed hospital, none of which truly relate to the issue of need. First, JW states that its proposed hospital will serve a significant level of Medicaid and indigent patients. While it is true that JHS serves a significant amount of Medicaid and indigent patients, there are a number of reasons why this is not a basis to approve its proposed hospital. As an initial matter, JW treads a fine line in touting its service to Medicaid and indigent patients, while also targeting Doral for its better payer mix and financial benefit to JHS. JHS also receives an enormous amount of tax dollars to provide care to indigent and underserved patients. While other hospitals in Miami-Dade County provide care to such patients, they do not receive taxpayer dollars, as does JHS, although they pay taxes, unlike JHS. Also, Medicaid is a good payer for JHS. With its substantial supplement, JHS actually makes money from Medicaid patients, and it costs the system more for a Medicaid patient to be treated at a JHS hospital than elsewhere. More significantly, there is not a large Medicaid or indigent population in Doral, nor evidence of financial access issues in Doral. Second, JW argues that its CON application should be approved because JHS already serves patients from the Doral area, which JW characterizes as “fragmented” because area residents go to several different hospitals for care. This so- called “fragmentation” is not unique to Doral, and is not unusual in a densely-populated urban market with several existing hospitals. The same phenomenon occurs in other areas of Miami-Dade County, some of which actually have a hospital in the localized area. The fact that Doral residents are accessing several different hospitals demonstrates that there are a number of existing providers that are accessible to them. As discussed in greater detail below, residents of the Doral area have choices in every direction (other than to the west, which is the Everglades). JHS itself already serves patients from the Doral area. If anything, this tells us that patients from Doral currently have access to the JHS hospitals. Third, JW argues that its CON application should be approved because development of the JW campus is under way. This is irrelevant to the determination of need, and is simply a statement of JHS’s intent to build an FSED and outpatient facilities on a piece of land that was acquired for that purpose, regardless of CON approval. Fourth, JW argues for approval of its proposed hospital because it would provide an additional opportunity to partner with UM and Florida International University (FIU). However, the statutory criteria no longer addresses research and teaching concerns, and JHS’s relationship with UM or FIU has no bearing on whether there is a need for a new hospital in the Doral area. Moreover, JW did not present any evidence of how it would partner with UM or FIU at JW, and there does not seem to be any set plans in this regard. Fifth, JW claims that there is physician and community support for its proposed hospital, but it is very common for CON applicants to obtain letters in support for applications. Indeed, the DMC application was also accompanied by letters of support. Sixth and finally, JW argues that its proposed hospital will add to the financial viability of HSA and allow it to continue its mission. However, JW provided no analysis of the projected financial performance of its proposed hospital to substantiate this. The only financial analysis in the record is from KSA, a consulting firm that JHS hired to analyze the programs and services to be developed at JW. The KSA analysis posits that the JW FSED project will lose millions of dollars and not achieve break-even unless there is an inpatient hospital co-located there so that JW can take advantage of the more lucrative hospital-based billing and reimbursement. The sixth “need” argument relates to the issue of JHS’s historical financial struggles, which bear discussion. Only a handful of years ago, the entire JHS was in dire financial trouble, so much so that selling all or parts of it was considered. Days cash-on-hand was in the single digits, and JHS fell out of compliance with bond covenants. JHS’s financial difficulties prompted the appointment of an outside monitor to oversee JHS’s finances. Price Waterhouse served in that role, and made several recommendations for JHS to improve its revenue cycle, make accounting adjustments, and improve its staffing and efficiency. As a result of these recommendations, JHS went through a large reduction in force, and began to more closely screen the income and residency of its patients. As a result of these measures, overall financial performance has since improved. Despite its improved financial position, JHS still consistently loses money on operations, including a $362,000,915 loss as of June 30, 2018. JHS clearly depends upon the hundreds of millions of non-operating tax-based revenues it receives annually. JHS’s CEO expressed concerns over decreases in the system’s non-operating revenue sources, and claimed that JHS needs to find ways to increase its operating revenue to offset this. JW is being proposed as part of this strategy. However, JHS’s chief financial officer testified that “the non-operating revenues are a fairly stable source of income.” In fact, JHS’s tax revenues have gone up in the last few years. JHS sees the more affluent Doral area as a source of better paying patients that will enhance the profitability of its new hospital. Beyond this aspiration however, there is no meaningful analysis of the anticipated financial performance of its proposed hospital. This is a glaring omission given that a significant impetus for spending millions of public dollars on a new hospital is to improve JHS’s overall financial position. The KSA analysis referenced above determined that changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule would result in the JW campus losing hundreds of millions of dollars and never reaching “break even,” absent an inpatient hospital on the campus for “hospital based” billing and reimbursement. Though a financial benefit to the system, the increased reimbursement JHS would receive by having an inpatient hospital on the JW campus would be a financial burden on the healthcare delivery system since it would cost more for the same patient to receive the same outpatient services in a hospital- based facility. Reports by KSA also state that a strategic purpose of JW is to attract patients that would otherwise go to nearby facilities like PGH and Hialeah, and to capture tertiary or higher complexity cases which would then be sent to JMH. JW’s witnesses and healthcare planning experts fully expect this to happen. In 2015, and again in 2017, JHS conducted a “Community Health Needs Assessment,” which is required by law to be performed by public safety net hospitals. The assessments were conducted by gathering responses to various questions from a wide array of community leaders and stakeholders, including the CEOs of JHS’s hospitals, about the healthcare needs of the community. The final Community Health Needs Assessment documents are lengthy and cover a variety of health-related topics, but most notable for this case is that: (1) nowhere in either the 2015 or 2017 assessment is the development of a new hospital recommended; and (2) expansion into western Miami-Dade County scored by far the lowest on a list of priorities for JHS. In its application and at hearing, JW took the position that JW can enter the Doral area market without impacting existing providers to any meaningful extent. While JW acknowledges that its proposed hospital would impact the Tenet Hospitals, it argues that the impact is not significant. The evidence established that the financial impact to the Tenet Hospitals (calculated based upon lost contribution margin) would total roughly $3 million for lost inpatients, and $5.2 million including lost outpatients. While these losses will not put the Tenet Hospitals in financial peril, they are nonetheless significant and material. The Existing Healthcare Delivery System Miami-Dade County is home to 18 freestanding acute care hospitals, comprising a total of 7,585 licensed and approved acute care beds. With an average annual occupancy of 53.8% in calendar year 2017, there were, on average, approximately 3,500 unoccupied acute care beds in the county on any given day. While the countywide occupancy rate fluctuates from year to year, it has been on a downward trend in the past several years. As pointed out by several witnesses, the lack of a hospital in Doral is not itself an indication of need. In addition, population growth, and the demands of the population for inpatient hospital beds, cannot be considered in a vacuum. Sound healthcare planning requires an analysis of existing area hospitals, including the services they offer and their respective locations; how area residents travel to existing hospitals and any barriers to access; the utilization of existing hospitals and amount of capacity they have; and other factors which may be relevant in a given case. The population of Doral currently is only about 59,000 people. It is not as densely populated as many areas of Miami-Dade County, has a number of golf course communities, and is generally a more affluent area with a higher average household income than much of Miami-Dade County. As set forth in JW’s CON application, the better payer mix in Doral was a significant factor behind its decision to file its CON application. Although there is not a hospital within the Doral city limits, there are a number of healthcare providers in Doral and several hospitals nearby. PGH and Palm Springs Hospital are just north of Doral. KRMC is just south of Doral. Hialeah is northeast of Doral. CGH, Westchester General, and NCH are southeast of Doral. JMH and all of its facilities are east of Doral. And there are others within reasonable distance. KRMC is only six miles due south of the proposed DMC site, and PGH is just eight miles north of the DMC site. As to the JW site, PGH is 6.9 miles distant, CGH is 8.6 miles distant, and Hialeah is 7.4 miles distant. Residents of the Doral area have many choices in hospitals with a wide array of services, and they are accessing them. The parties to this case, as well as other existing hospitals, all have a share of the Doral area market. JW calls this “fragmentation” of the market and casts it in a negative light, but the evidence showed this to be a normal phenomenon in an urban area like Miami, with several hospitals in healthy competition with each other. Among the experts testifying at the hearing, it was undisputed that inpatient acute care hospital use rates are on the decline. There are different reasons for this, but it was uniformly recognized that decreasing use rates for inpatient services, and a shift toward outpatient services, are ongoing trends in the market. Recognizing the need for outpatient services in the Doral area, both JW and DMC (or, more accurately, their related entities) have proposed outpatient facilities and services to be located in Doral. Kendall Regional Medical Center KRMC is currently the dominant hospital provider in the Doral area. Regarding his motivation for filing the DMC application, Mr. Joseph readily admitted “it’s as much about protecting what I already currently provide, number one.” KRMC treats Medicaid and indigent patients. KRMC has never turned away a patient because it did not have a contract with a Medicaid-managed care company. The CEO agreed that there is no access problem for Medicaid or charity patients justifying a new hospital. It was argued that KRMC is crowded, and the DMC hospital would help “decompress” KRMC, but the evidence showed that KRMC has a number of licensed beds that are not being used for inpatients. In addition, its ED has never gone on diversion, and no patient has ever been turned away due to the lack of a bed. Moreover, the census at KRMC has been declining. It had 25,324 inpatient admissions in 2015, 24,649 admissions in 2016, and 23,301 in 2017. The most recent data available at the time of hearing reflected that KRMC has been running at a little less than 75% occupancy, before its planned bed additions. KRMC is between an eight to 10 minute drive from Doral, and currently has the largest market share within the applicants’ defined service areas. KRMC is readily available and accessible to the residents of Doral. KRMC currently has a $90 million dollar expansion project under way. It involves adding beds and two new floors to the West Tower--a new fifth floor which will add 24 ICU beds and 24 step-down beds, and a new sixth floor which will house the relocated pediatric unit and 12 new medical-surgical beds. KRMC is also adding a new nine-story, 765 parking space garage and other ancillary space. This expansion will reduce the occupancy rate of KRMC’s inpatient units, and in particular its ICUs. These bed additions, in conjunction with increasing emphasis on outpatient services and the resultant declining inpatient admissions, will alleviate any historical capacity constraints KRMC may have had. There are also a number of ways KRMC could be further expanded in the future if needed. The West Tower is designed so it could accommodate a seventh floor, and the East Tower is also designed so that an additional floor could also be added to it. In addition, KRMC recently completed construction of a new OR area that is built on pillars. The new construction includes a third floor of shelled-in space that could house an additional 12 acute care beds. Moreover, this new OR tower was designed to go up an additional two to three floors beyond the existing shelled-in third floor. It is clear that KRMC has implemented reasonable strategies for addressing any bed capacity issues it may have experienced in the past. Decompression of KRMC is not a reason to approve DMC. Palmetto General Hospital Evidence regarding PGH was provided by its CEO Ana Mederos. Ms. Mederos is a registered nurse and has lived in Miami-Dade County for many years. She has a master of business education from Nova University and has worked in several different hospitals in the county. Specifically, she was the chief operating officer (COO) at Cedars Medical Center, the CEO at North Shore Medical Center, the CEO at Hialeah Hospital, and has been the CEO at PGH since August of 2006. Ms. Mederos is one of the few witnesses that actually lives in Doral. She travels in and out of the area on a daily basis. Her average commute is only about 15 minutes, and she has multiple convenient options in and out of Doral. PGH is located just off the Palmetto Expressway at 68th Street. It opened in the early 1970s and has 368 licensed beds, including 52 ICU beds. The hospital employs about 1,800 people and has over 600 physicians on its medical staff. PGH’s occupancy has declined from 79.8% in 2015 to 64% in 2016, and even further to 56.7% in 2017. There are many reasons for this decline, including pressure from managed care organizations, the continued increase in the use of outpatient procedures, improvements in technology, and increased competition in the Miami-Dade County market. Ms. Mederos expects that inpatient demand will continue to decline into the foreseeable future. PGH recently activated 31 observation beds to help improve throughput and better accommodate the increasing number of observation patients. PGH offers high-quality care and uses various metrics and indicators to measure and monitor what is going on in the hospital. The hospital has also been recognized with numerous awards. Through its parent, Tenet, PGH has contracts with just about every insurance and managed care company that serves the community. The hospital treats Medicaid and indigent patients. PGH’s Medicaid rate of $3,580 per patient is significantly lower than the rate paid to JMH. PGH has an office dedicated to helping patients get qualified for Medicaid or other financial resources, which not only helps the hospital get paid for its services, it also assists patients and families to make sure that they have benefits on an ongoing basis. Roughly 9-10% of PGH’s patients annually are completely unfunded. PGH only transfers patients if there is a need for a service not provided at the hospital, or upon the patient’s request. PGH does not transfer patients just because they cannot pay. PGH pays physicians to take calls in the ED which also obligates those physicians to provide care to patients that are seen at the hospital. PGH is a for-profit hospital that pays income taxes and property taxes, and does not receive any taxpayer subsidies like those received by JHS. Ms. Mederos reviewed the applications of JW and DMC, and articulated a number of reasons why, in her opinion, neither application should be approved. She sees no delays in providing care to anyone in the area, as there are hospitals serving Doral in every direction. There are a multitude of FSEDs available and additional FSEDs are being built in Doral by both applicants. There is another FSED being built close to PGH by Mount Sinai Medical Center. NCH has also opened an FSED that has negatively affected the volume of pediatric patients seen at PGH. There are also multiple urgent care centers. It was Ms. Mederos’ firm belief that persons living in Doral have reasonable geographic access to both inpatient and outpatient medical services. Ms. Mederos’ testimony in this regard is credited. There are no programs or services being proposed by either applicant that are not already available in the area. Ms. Mederos also noted that there is currently no problem with access to OB services in the area. However, she has a particular concern in that both applicants propose to offer OB services, but neither is proposing to offer NICU services. The evidence showed that most all of the hospitals that provide OB services to the Doral area offer at least Level II and some Level III NICU services. Thus, in terms of OB care, both proposed hospitals would be a step below what has developed as the standard of care for OB patients in the county. Ms. Mederos acknowledged that PGH does not have a huge market share in the zip codes that the applicants are proposing to serve, but that does not mean that the impact from either would not be real and significant. If a hospital is built by either applicant, it will need physicians, with some specialists in short supply. There are tremendous shortages in certain medical fields, such as orthopedics and neurology. In addition, there will be additional competition for nurses and other staff, which will increase the cost of healthcare. The loss of $1.3 to $2 million in contribution margin, as projected by Tenet’s healthcare planner, is a negative impact on PGH as hospital margins become thinner, and those numbers do not include costs like those needed to recruit and retain staff. PGH is again experiencing a nursing shortage, and losing nurses, incurring the higher cost for contract labor, paying overtime, and essentially not having the staff to provide the required services is a serious potential adverse impact from either proposed new hospital. JHS also tends to provide more lucrative benefits than PGH, and a nearby JW hospital is a threat in that regard. As a final note, Ms. Mederos stated that her conviction that there is no need for either proposed hospital in Doral is even more resolute than when she testified in the Batch One Case. With continued declines in admissions, length of stay and patient days, the development of more services for the residents of Doral, the shortages of doctors and nurses, the ever increasing role of managed care that depresses the demand for inpatient hospital services and other factors, she persuasively explained why no new hospitals are needed in the Doral area. Coral Gables Hospital (CGH) Maria Cristina Jimenez testified on behalf of CGH, where she has worked in a variety of different capacities since 1985. She was promoted to CEO in March 2017. She has lived in Miami her entire life. Ms. Jimenez has been involved in initiatives to make her hospital more efficient. She is supportive of efforts to reduce inpatient hospitalizations and length of stay, as this is what is best for patients. Overall, the hospital length of stay is dropping, which adds to the decreasing demand for inpatient services. CGH is accredited by the Joint Commission, has received multiple awards, and provides high-quality care to its patients. It also has contracts with a broad array of managed care companies as do the other Tenet hospitals. CGH treats Medicaid patients, and its total Medicaid rate is less than $3,500 per inpatient. The hospital has a program similar to PGH to help patients get qualified for Medicaid and other resources. CGH also provides services to indigent patients, and self-pay/charity is about 6% of the hospital’s total admissions. The hospital does not transfer patients just because they are indigent. Physicians are compensated to provide care in the emergency room and are expected to continue with that care if the patients are admitted to the hospital, even if they do not have financial resources. CGH also pays income and property taxes, but does not receive any taxpayer support. CGH generally serves the Little Havana, Flagami, Miami, and Coral Gables communities, and its service area overlaps with those of the applicants. In order to better serve its patients and to help it compete in the highly competitive Miami-Dade County marketplace, CGH is developing a freestanding ED at the corner of Bird Road and Southwest 87th Avenue, which is scheduled to open in January 2020. This will provide another resource for patients in the proposed service areas. Ms. Jimenez had reviewed the CON applications at issue in this case. She does not believe that either hospital should be approved because it will drain resources from CGH, not only from a financial standpoint, but also physician and nurse staffing. CGH experiences physician shortages. Urologists are in short supply, as are gastrointestinal physicians that perform certain procedures. Hematology, oncology, and endocrinology are also specialty areas with shortages. The addition of another hospital will exacerbate those shortages at CGH. While CGH does not have a large market share in the proposed PSA of either applicant, anticipated impact from approval of either is real and substantial. A contribution margin loss of $1.2 to $2.2 million per year, as projected by Tenet’s healthcare planner, would be significant. The drain on resources, including staff and physicians, is also of significant concern. Hialeah Hospital Dr. Jorge Perez testified on behalf of Hialeah. Dr. Perez is a pathologist and medical director of laboratory at the hospital. More significantly, Dr. Perez has been on the hospital’s staff since 2001 and has served in multiple leadership roles, including chair of the Performance Improvement Council, chief of staff; and since 2015, chair of the Hialeah Hospital Governing Board. Hialeah offers obstetrics services and a Level II NICU with 12 beds. Approximately 1,400 babies a year are born there. Hialeah’s occupancy has been essentially flat for the past three years, at below 40%, and it clearly has ample excess capacity. On an average day, over 200 of Hialeah’s beds are unoccupied. Like other hospitals in the county, Hialeah has a number of competitors. The growth of managed care has affected the demand for inpatient beds and services at Hialeah. Hialeah treats Medicaid and indigent patients. Approximately 15% of Hialeah’s admissions are unfunded. As with its sister Tenet hospitals, Hialeah is a for- profit hospital that pays taxes and does not receive tax dollars for providing care to the indigent. Dr. Perez succinctly and persuasively identified a variety of reasons why no new hospital is needed in Doral. First and foremost, there is plenty of capacity at the existing hospitals in the area, including Hialeah. Second, both inpatient admissions and length of stay continue trending downward. Care continues to shift toward outpatient services, thereby reducing the demand for inpatient care. According to Dr. Perez, if a new hospital is approved in Doral it will bring with it adverse impacts on existing hospitals, including Hialeah. A new hospital in Doral will attract patients, some of which would have otherwise gone to Hialeah. Moreover, Doral has more insured patients, meaning the patients that would be lost would be good payors. There would also be a significant risk of loss of staff to a new hospital. Dr. Perez’s testimony in this regard is credible. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria In 2008, the Florida Legislature streamlined the review criteria applicable for evaluating new hospital applications. Mem’l Healthcare Grp. v. AHCA, Case No. 12- 0429CON, RO at 32 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 7, 2012). The criteria specifically eliminated included quality of care, availability of resources, financial feasibility, and the costs and methods of proposed construction. Lee Mem’l Health System v. AHCA, Case No. 13-2508CON, RO at 135 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 28, 2014). The remaining criteria applicable to new hospital projects are set forth at section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes. Section 408.035(1)(a): The need for the healthcare facilities and health services being proposed. Generally, CON applicants are responsible for demonstrating need for new acute care hospitals, typically in the context of a numeric need methodology adopted by AHCA. However, AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) provides that if no agency need methodology exists, the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology, which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Both applicants propose to build small community hospitals providing basic acute care and OB services in the Doral area of western Miami-Dade County. Both applicants point to the increasing population and the lack of an acute care hospital in Doral as evidence of need for a hospital. The DMC application focuses largely on geographic access concerns, while the JW application is premised upon six arguments as to why JHS contends its proposed JW hospital should be approved. The lack of a hospital in Doral is not itself an indication of need.3/ In addition, population growth, and the demands of the population for inpatient hospital beds, cannot be considered in a vacuum. Sound healthcare planning requires an analysis of existing area hospitals, including the services they offer and their respective locations; how area residents travel to existing hospitals, and any barriers to access; the utilization of existing hospitals and amount of capacity they have; and other factors which may be relevant in a given case. Doral is in the west/northwest part of Miami-Dade County, in between the Miami International Airport (to the east) and the Everglades (to the west). It is surrounded by major roadways, with US Highway 27/Okeechobee Road running diagonally to the north, US Highway 836/Dolphin Expressway running along its southern edge, US Highway 826/Palmetto Expressway running north-south to the east, and the Florida Turnpike running north- south along the western edge of Doral. To the west of the Turnpike is the Everglades, where there is minimal population and very limited development possible in the future. The City of Doral itself has an area of about 15 square miles, and is only two or three times the size of the Miami International Airport, which sits just east of Doral. Much of Doral is commercial and industrial, with the largest concentration of residential areas being in the northwest part of the city. While there is unquestionably residential growth in Doral, the population of Doral is currently only about 59,000 people. Doral is not as densely populated as many areas of Miami-Dade County, has a number of golf course communities, and is generally a more affluent area with a higher average household income than much of Miami-Dade County. JW proposes to locate its hospital on the eastern side of Doral, just west of Miami International Airport, while the DMC site is on the western side of Doral, just east of the Everglades. JW’s site is located in an industrial area with few residents, while the DMC site is located in an area where future growth is likely to be limited. Both sites have downsides for development of a hospital, with both applicants spending considerable time at hearing pointing out the flaws of each other’s chosen location. Both applicants define their service areas to include the City of Doral, but also areas outside of Doral. Notably, the entire DMC service area is contained within KRMC’s existing service area, with the exception of one small area. While the population of Doral itself is only 59,000 people, there are more concentrated populations in areas outside of Doral (except to the west). However, the people in these areas are closer to existing hospitals like PGH, Hialeah, KRMC, and others. For the population inside Doral, there are several major roadways in and out of Doral, and area residents can access several existing hospitals with plenty of capacity within a 20-minute drive time, many closer than that. It was undisputed that inpatient acute care hospital use rates continue to decline. There are different reasons for this, but it was uniformly recognized that decreasing inpatient use rates, and a shift toward outpatient services, are ongoing trends in the market. These trends existed at the time of the Batch One Case. As observed by Tenet’s healthcare planner at hearing: “The occupancy is lower today than it was two years ago, the use rates are lower, and the actual utilization is lower.” Both applicants failed to establish a compelling case of need. While there is growth in the Doral area, it remains a relatively small population, and there was no evidence of community needs being unmet. Sound healthcare planning, and the statutory criteria, require consideration of existing hospitals, their availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization. These considerations weigh heavily against approval of either CON application, even more so than in the prior case. Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing healthcare facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant; and Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to healthcare for residents of the service district. As stated above, there are several existing hospitals in close proximity to Doral. Thus, the question is whether they are accessible and have capacity to serve the needs of patients from the Doral area. The evidence overwhelmingly answers these questions in the affirmative. Geographic access was a focal point of the DMC application, which argued that there are various barriers to access in and around Doral, such as a canal that runs parallel to US Highway 27/Okeechobee Road, train tracks and a rail yard, industrial plants, and the airport. While the presence of these things is undeniable, as is the fact that there is traffic in Miami, based upon the evidence presented, they do not present the barriers that DMC alleges. Rather, the evidence was undisputed that numerous hospitals are accessible within 20 minutes of the proposed hospital sites, and some within 10 to 15 minutes. All of Doral is within 30 minutes of multiple hospitals. These are reasonable travel times and are not indicative of a geographic access problem, regardless of any alleged “barriers.” In addition, existing hospitals clearly have the capacity to serve the Doral community, and they are doing so. Without question, there is excess capacity in the Miami-Dade County market. With approximately 7,500 hospital beds in the county running at an average occupancy just over 50%, there are around 3,500 beds available at any given time. Focusing on the hospitals closest to Doral (those accessible within 20 minutes), there are hundreds of beds that are available and accessible from the proposed service areas of the applicants. KRMC is particularly noteworthy because of its proximity to, and market share in, the Doral area. The most recent utilization and occupancy data for KRMC indicate that it has, on average, 100 vacant beds. This is more than the entire 80-bed hospital proposed in the DMC application (for a service area that is already served and subsumed by KRMC). Moreover, KRMC is expanding, and will soon have even more capacity at its location less than a 10-minute drive from the DMC site. From a programmatic standpoint, neither applicant is proposing any programs or services that are not already available at numerous existing hospitals, and, in fact, both would offer fewer programs and services than other area hospitals. As such, patients in need of tertiary or specialized services will still have to travel to other hospitals like PGH, KRMC, or JMH. Alternatively, if they present to a small hospital in Doral in need of specialized services, they will then have to be transferred to an appropriate hospital that can treat them. The same would be true for babies born at either DMC or JW in need of a NICU. Similarly, there are bypass protocols for EMS to take cardiac, stroke, and trauma patients to the closest hospital equipped to treat them, even if it means bypassing other hospitals not so equipped, like JW and DMC. Less acute patients can be transported to the closest ED. And since both applicants are building FSEDs in Doral, there will be ample access to emergency services for residents of Doral. This criterion does not weigh in favor of approval of either hospital. To the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly established that existing hospitals are available and accessible to Doral area residents. Section 408.035(1)(e), (g) and (i): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to healthcare, the extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness, and the applicant’s past and proposed provision of healthcare services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. It goes without saying that any new hospital is going to enhance access to the people closest to its location; but as explained above, there is no evidence of an access problem, or any pressing need for enhanced access to acute care hospital services. Rather, the evidence showed that Doral area residents are within very reasonable travel times to existing hospitals, most of which have far more extensive programs and services than either applicant is proposing to offer. Indeed, the proposed DMC service area is contained within KRMC’s existing service area, and KRMC is only 10 minutes from the DMC site. Neither applicant would enhance access to tertiary or specialized services, and patients in need of those services will still have to travel to other hospitals, or worse, be transferred after presenting to a Doral hospital with more limited programs and services. Although it was not shown to be an issue, access to emergency services is going to be enhanced by the FSEDs being built by both applicants. Thus, to the extent that a new hospital would enhance access, it would be only for non-emergent patients in need of basic, non-tertiary level care. Existing hospitals are available and easily accessible to these patients. In addition, healthy competition exists between several existing providers serving the Doral area market. That healthy competition would be substantially eroded by approval of the DMC application, as HCA would likely capture a dominant share of the market. While approval of the JW application might not create a dominant market share for one provider, it would certainly not promote cost-effectiveness given the fact that it costs the system more for the same patient to receive services at a JHS hospital than other facilities. Indeed, approval of JW’s application would mean that the JW campus will have the more expensive hospital-based billing rates. Florida Medicaid diagnosis related group (DRG) payment comparisons among hospitals are relevant because both DMC and JW propose that at least 22% of their patients will be Medicaid patients. Data from the 2017-18 DRG calculator provided by the Medicaid program office was used to compare JHS to the three Tenet hospitals, KRMC, and Aventura Hospital, another EFD hospital in Miami-Dade County. The data shows that JHS receives the highest Medicaid rate enhancement per discharge for the same Medicaid patients ($2,820.06) among these six hospitals in the county. KRMC receives a modest enhancement of $147.27. Comparison of Medicaid Managed Care Reimbursement over the period of fiscal years 2014-2016 show that JHS receives substantially more Medicaid reimbursement per adjusted patient day than any of the hospitals in this proceeding, with the other hospitals receiving between one-third and one-half of JHS reimbursement. In contrast, among all of these hospitals, KRMC had the lowest rate for each of the three years covered by the data, which means KRMC (and by extension DMC) would cost the Medicaid program substantially less money for care of Medicaid patients. Under the new prospective payment system instituted by the State of Florida for Medicaid reimbursement of acute care hospital providers, for service between July 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, JHS is the beneficiary of an automatic rate enhancement of more than $8 million. In contrast, KRMC’s rate enhancement is only between $16,000 and $17,000. Thus, it will cost the Medicaid program substantially more to treat a patient using the same services at JW than at DMC. Furthermore, rather than enhance the financial viability of the JHS system, the evidence indicates that the JW proposal will be a financial drain on the JHS system. Finally, JHS’s past and proposed provision of care to Medicaid and indigent patients is noteworthy, but not a reason to approve its proposed hospital. JW is proposing this hospital to penetrate a more affluent market, not an indigent or underserved area, and it proposes to provide Medicaid and indigent care at a level that is consistent with the existing hospitals. JHS also receives the highest Low Income Pool (LIP) payments per charity care of any system in the state, and is one of only a handful of hospital systems that made money after receipt of the LIP payments. HCA-affiliated hospitals, by comparison, incur the second greatest cost in the state for charity care taking LIP payments into consideration. Analysis of standardized net revenues per adjusted admission (NRAA) among Miami-Dade County acute care hospitals, a group of 16 hospitals, shows JHS to be either the second or the third highest hospital in terms of NRAA. KRMC, in contrast, part of the EFD/HCA hospitals, is about 3% below the average of the 16 hospitals for NRAA. DMC’s analysis of standardized NRAA using data from 2014, 2015, and 2016, among acute care hospitals receiving local government tax revenues, shows JHS receives more net revenue than any of the other hospitals in this grouping. Using data from FY 2014 to FY 2016, DMC compared hospital costs among the four existing providers that are parties to this proceeding and JMH as a representative of JHS. Standardizing for case mix, fiscal year end, and location, an analysis of costs per adjusted admission shows that the hospitals other than JMH have an average cost of between a half and a third of JMH’s average cost. The same type of analysis of costs among a peer group of eight statutory teaching hospitals shows JHS’s costs to be the highest. It should also be noted that if JW were to fail or experience significant losses from operations, the taxpayers of Miami-Dade County will be at risk. In contrast, if DMC were to fail financially, EFD/HCA will shoulder the losses. When the two applications are evaluated in the context of the above criteria, the greater weight of the evidence does not mitigate in favor of approval of either. However, should AHCA decide to approve one of the applicants in its final order, preference should be given to DMC because of its lower costs per admission for all categories of payors, and in particular, the lower cost to the Florida Medicaid Program. In addition, the risk of financial failure would fall upon EFD/HCA, rather than the taxpayers of Miami-Dade County. Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e): Need considerations. Many of the considerations enumerated in rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e) overlap with the statutory criteria, but there are certain notable trends and market conditions that warrant mention. Specifically, while the population of Doral is growing, it remains relatively small, and does not itself justify a new hospital. And while there are some more densely populated areas outside of the city of Doral, they are much closer to existing hospitals having robust services and excess capacity. Doral is a more affluent area, and there was no evidence of any financial or cultural access issues supporting approval of either CON application. The availability, utilization, and quality of existing hospitals are clearly not issues, as there are several existing hospitals with plenty of capacity accessible to Doral area residents. In terms of medical treatment trends, it was undisputed that use rates for inpatient hospital services continue trending downward, and that trend is expected to continue. Concomitantly, there is a marked shift toward outpatient services in Miami-Dade County and elsewhere. Finally, both applicants are proposing to provide OB services without a NICU, which is below the standard in the market. While not required for the provision of obstetrics, NICU backup is clearly the most desirable and best practice. For the foregoing reasons, the considerations in rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) do not weigh in favor of approval of either hospital.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Healthcare Administration enter a final order denying East Florida-DMC, Inc.’s CON Application No. 10432 and denying The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida, d/b/a Jackson Hospital West’s CON Application No. 10433. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2019, 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 30th day of April, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Petitioner, Leesburg Regional Medical Center ("Leesburg"), is a 132-bed acute care private, not-for-profit hospital located at 600 East Dixie Highway, Leesburg, Florida. It offers a full range of general medical services. The hospital sits on land owned by the City of Leesburg. It is operated by the Leesburg hospital Association, an organization made up of individuals who reside within the Northwest Taxing District. By application dated August 13, 1982 petitioner sought a certificate of need (CON) from respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to construct the following described project: This project includes the addition of 36 medical/surgical beds and 7 SICU beds in existing space and the leasing of a CT scanner (replacement). The addition of the medical/surgical beds is a cost effective way to add needed capacity to the hospital. Twenty-four (24) beds on the third floor will be established in space vacated by surgery and ancillary departments moving into newly constructed space in the current renovation project. A significant portion of this area used to be an obstetric unit in the past; and therefore, is already set up for patient care. The 7 bed SICU unit will be set up on the second floor, also in space vacated as a result of the renovation project. Twelve additional beds will be available on the third and fourth floors as a result of changing single rooms into double rooms. No renovation will be necessary to convert these rooms into double rooms. It is also proposed to replace the current TechniCare head scanner with GE8800 body scanner. Based on the high demand for head and body scans and the excessive amount of maintenance problems and downtime associated with the current scanner, Leesburg Regional needs a reliable, state-of-the-art CT scanner. The cost of the project was broken down as follows: The total project cost is $1,535,000. The construction/renovation portion of the project (24 medical/surgical and 7 SICU beds) is $533,000. Equipment costs will be approximately $200,000. Architectural fees and project development costs total $52,000. The CT scanner will be leased at a monthly cost of $16,222 per month for 5 years. The purchase price of the scanner is $750,000 and that amount is included in the total project cost. The receipt of the application was acknowledged by HRS by letter dated August 27, 1982. That letter requested Leesburg to submit additional information no later than October 10, 1982 in order to cure certain omissions. Such additional information was submitted by Leesburg on October 5, 1982. On November 29, 1982, the administrator for HRS's office of health planning and development issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter advising Leesburg its request to replace a head CT scanner (whole body) at a cost of $750,000 had been approved, but that the remainder of the application had been denied. The basis for the denial was as follows: There are currently 493 medical/surgical beds in the Lake/Sumter sub-district of HSA II. Based upon the HSP for HSA II, there was an actual utilization ratio of existing beds equivalent to 2.98/1,000 population. When this utilization ratio is applied to the 1987 projected population of 156,140 for Lake/Sumter counties, there is a need for 465 medical/surgical beds by 1987. Thus, there is an excess of 28 medical/surgical beds in the Lake/Sumter sub-district currently. This action prompted the instant proceeding. At the same time Leesburg's application was being partially denied, an application for a CON by intervenor-respondent, Lake Community Hospital (Lake), was being approved. That proposal involved an outlay of 4.1 million dollars and was generally described in the application as follows: The proposed project includes the renovations and upgrading of patient care areas. This will include improving the hospital's occupancy and staffing efficiencies by reducing Med-Surg Unit-A to 34 beds and eliminating all 3-bed wards. Also reducing Med-Surg Units B and C to 34 beds each and eliminating all 3-bed wards. This will necessitate the construction of a third floor on the A wing to house the present beds in private and semi-private rooms for a total of 34 beds. There is also an immediate need to develop back-to-back six bed ICU and a six-bed CCU for shared support services. This is being done to fulfill JCAH requirements and upgrade patient care by disease entity, patient and M.D. requests. Another need that is presented for consideration is the upgrading of Administrative areas to include a conference room and more Administrative and Business office space. However, the merits of HRS's decision on Lake's application are not at issue in this proceeding. In addition to Lake, there are two other hospitals located in Lake County which provide acute and general hospital service. They are South Lake Memorial Hospital, a 68-bed tax district facility in Clermont, Florida, and Waterman Memorial Hospital, which operates a 154-bed private, not-for-profit facility in Eustis, Florida. There are no hospitals in Sumter County, which lies adjacent to Lake County, and which also shares a subdistrict with that county. The facilities of Lake and Leesburg are less than two miles apart while the Waterman facility is approximately 12 to 14 miles away. South Lake Memorial is around 25 miles from petitioner's facility. Therefore, all three are no more than a 30 minute drive from Leesburg's facility. At the present time, there are 515 acute care beds licensed for Lake County. Of these, 493 are medical/surgical beds and 22 are obstetrical beds. None are designated as pediatric beds. The Proposed Rules Rules 10-16.001 through 10-16.012, Florida Administrative Code, were first noticed by HRS in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 12, 1983. Notices of changes in these rules were published on September 23, 1983. Thereafter, they were filed with the Department of State on September 26, 1983 and became effective on October 16, 1983. Under new Rule 10-16.004 (1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, subdistrict 7 of district 3 consists of Lake and Sumter Counties. The rule also identifies a total acute care bed need for subdistrict 7 of 523 beds. When the final hearing was held, and evidence heard in this matter, the rules were merely recommendations of the various local health councils forwarded to HRS on June 27, 1983 for its consideration. They had not been adopted or even proposed for adoption at that point in time. Petitioner's Case In health care planning it is appropriate to use five year planning horizons with an overall occupancy rate of 80 percent. In this regard, Leesburg has sought to ascertain the projected acute care bed need in Lake County for the year 1988. Through various witnesses, it has projected this need using three different methodologies. The first methodology used by Leesburg may be characterized as the subdistrict need theory methodology. It employs the "guidelines for hospital care" adopted by the District III Local Health Council on June 27, 1983 and forwarded to HRS for promulgation as formal rules. Such suggestions were ultimately adopted by HRS as a part of Chapter 10-16 effective October 16, 1983. Under this approach, the overall acute care bed need for the entire sixteen county District III was found to be 44 additional beds in the year 1988 while the need within Subdistrict VII (Lake and Sumter Counties) was eight additional beds. 2/ The second approach utilized by Leesburg is the peak occupancy theory methodology. It is based upon the seasonal fluctuation in a hospital's occupancy rates, and used Leesburg's peak season bed need during the months of February and March to project future need. Instead of using the state suggested occupancy rate standard of 80 percent, the sponsoring witness used an 85 percent occupancy rate which produced distorted results. Under this approach, Leesburg calculated a need of 43 additional beds in 1988 in Subdistrict VII. However, this approach is inconsistent with the state-adopted methodology in Rule 10- 5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, and used assumptions not contained in the rule. It also ignores the fact that HRS's rule already gives appropriate consideration to peak demand in determining bed need. The final methodology employed by Leesburg was characterized by Leesburg as the "alternative need methodology based on state need methodology" and was predicated upon the HRS adopted bed need approach in Rule 10-5.11(23) with certain variations. First, Leesburg made non-rule assumptions as to the inflow and outflow of patients. Secondly, it substituted the population by age group for Lake and Sumter Counties for the District population. With these variations, the methodology produced an acute care bed need of 103 additional beds within Lake and Sumter Counties. However, this calculation is inconsistent with the applicable HRS rule, makes assumptions not authorized under the rule, and is accordingly not recognized by HRS as a proper methodology. Leesburg experienced occupancy rates of 91 percent, 80 percent and 73 percent for the months of January, February and March, 1981, respectively. These rates changed to 86 percent, 95 percent and 98 percent during the same period in 1982, and in 1983 they increased to 101.6 percent, 100.1 percent and 95.1 percent. Leesburg's health service area is primarily Lake and Sumter Counties. This is established by the fact that 94.4 percent and 93.9 percent of its admissions in 1980 and 1981, respectively, were from Lake and Sumter Counties. Although South Lake Memorial and Waterman Memorial are acute care facilities, they do not compete with Leesburg for patients. The staff doctors of the three are not the same, and there is very little crossover, if any, of patients between Leesburg and the other two facilities. However, Lake and Leesburg serve the same patient base, and in 1982 more than 70 percent of their patients came from Lake County. The two compete with one another, and have comparable facilities. Leesburg has an established, well-publicized program for providing medical care to indigents. In this regard, it is a recipient of federal funds for such care, and, unlike Lake, accounts for such care by separate entry on its books. The evidence establishes that Leesburg has the ability to finance the proposed renovation. HRS's Case HRS's testimony was predicated on the assumption that Rule 10-16.004 was not in effect and had no application to this proceeding. Using the bed need methodology enunciated in Rule 10-5.11(23), its expert concluded the overall bed need for the entire District III to be 26 additional beds by the year 1988. This calculation was based upon and is consistent with the formula in the rule. Because there was no existing rule at the time of the final hearing concerning subdistrict need, the witness had no way to determine the bed need, if any, within Subdistrict VII alone. Lake's Case Lake is a 162-bed private for profit acute care facility owned by U.S. Health Corporation. It is located at 700 North Palmetto, Leesburg, Florida. Lake was recently granted a CON which authorized a 4.1 million dollar renovation project. After the renovation is completed all existing three-bed wards will be eliminated. These will be replaced with private and semi-private rooms with no change in overall bed capacity. This will improve the facility's patient utilization rate. The expansion program is currently underway. Like Leesburg, the expert from Lake utilized a methodology different from that adopted for use by HRS. Under this approach, the expert determined total admissions projected for the population, applied an average length of stay to that figure, and arrived at a projected patient day total for each hospital. That figure was then divided by bed complement and 365 days to arrive at a 1988 occupancy percentage. For Subdistrict VII, the 1988 occupancy percentage was 78.2, which, according to the expert, indicated a zero acute care bed need for that year. Lake also presented the testimony of the HRS administrator of the office of community affairs, an expert in health care planning. He corroborated the testimony of HRS's expert witness and concluded that only 26 additional acute care beds would be needed district-wide by the year 1988. This result was arrived at after using the state-adopted formula for determining bed need. During 1981, Lake's actual total dollar write-off for bad debt was around $700,000. This amount includes an undisclosed amount for charity or uncompensated care for indigent patients. Unlike Leesburg, Lake receives no federal funds for charity cases. Therefore, it has no specific accounting entry on its books for charity or indigent care. Although Leesburg rendered $276,484 in charity/uncompensated care during 1981, it is impossible to determine which facility rendered the most services for indigents due to the manner in which Lake maintains its books and records. In any event, there is no evidence that indigents in the Subdistrict have been denied access to hospital care at Lake or any other facility within the county. Lake opines that it will loose 2.6 million dollars in net revenues in the event the application is granted. If true, this in turn would cause an increase in patient charges and a falling behind in technological advances. For the year 1981, the average percent occupancy based on licensed beds for Leesburg, Lake, South Lake Memorial and Waterman Memorial was as follows: 71.5 percent, 58.7 percent, 63.8 percent and 65.7 percent. The highest utilization occurred in January (81 percent) while the low was in August (58 percent). In 1982, the utilization rate during the peak months for all four facilities was 78 percent. This figure dropped to 66.5 percent for the entire year. Therefore, there is ample excess capacity within the County even during the peak demand months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Leesburg Regional Medical Center for a certificate of need to add 43 acute care beds, and renovate certain areas of its facility to accommodate this addition, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, a public body corporate, owns and operates two public hospitals - Tampa General Hospital and Hillsborough County Hospital. In 1981, the Authority received Certificate of Need Number 1784 which authorized an expenditure of $127,310,000 for the consolidation of the two hospitals. The project involved new construction and renovation at Tampa General, delicensure of beds at Hillsborough County Hospital and the transfer of those beds to Tampa General. The Certificate provided for a total of 1,000 licensed beds at Tampa General Hospital and for the "renovation, new construction, consolidation and expansion of service per application." The completion of the total project was projected to occur by October, 1987, but is presently running about four months behind schedule. When the Authority received its Certificate of Need in 1981, it was then operating a total of 93 psychiatric beds between the two hospitals -- 71 at County Hospital and 22 at Tampa General. The plan for consolidation and the 1981 Certificate of Need called for an overall reduction of 14 psychiatric beds - from 93 total beds between the two facilities to 79 total consolidated psychiatric beds, at the conclusion of the project. At the time the Authority obtained its Certificate of Need in 1981, there was no differentiation between determinations of need for general acute care beds and psychiatric beds. The number of psychiatric beds operated by a hospital were not separately listed on a hospital's license. As noted above, Tampa General was operating 22 psychiatric beds when it received its 1981 Certificate of Need. Because of an increased demand for acute care beds (non- psychiatric medical and surgical beds) in late 1982, Tampa General closed the psychiatric unit and made those 22 beds available for acute care. In the Authority's 1983-85 license for Tampa General, those 22 beds were included in the 637-bed total, which was not broken down by bed type. An attachment to the license indicates that the total bed count should read 671. In the space designated for "hospital bed utilization," the figure "O" appears after the word "psychiatric." (Respondent's Exhibit 1) In 1983, the statutory and regulatory law changed with regard to the separate licensure and independent determination of need for psychiatric beds. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, was amended to provide, in pertinent part, that the number of psychiatric beds is to be specified on the face of the license. Rule 10-5.11(25), Florida Administrative Code, adopted in 1983, set forth a specific psychiatric bed need methodology for use in future Certificate of Need decisions. In order to implement its new 1983 policy and rule with regard to the separate licensure and determination of need for psychiatric beds, HRS conducted a survey to determine the number of existing psychiatric beds in the State. Hospitals then had the opportunity to indicate whether their existing beds were to be allocated or designated as acute care beds or psychiatric beds. HRS conducted the survey by directly contacting each hospital which had previously indicated it was operating a psychiatric unit and then contacting by telephone any facility not answering the initial inquiry. In August and September of 1983, the Authority indicated to HRS that Tampa General did not have any psychiatric beds in operation. HRS published the results of its survey and final hospital bed counts in the February 17, 1984 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 10, Number 7. The inventory listed Hillsborough County Hospital as having 77 psychiatric beds and Tampa General Hospital as having O psychiatric beds. The notice in the Weekly advised that hospital licenses would be amended in accordance with the published inventory to reflect each hospital's count of beds by bed type. Hospitals were further notified that "Any hospital wishing to change the number of beds dedicated to one of the specific bed types listed will first be required to obtain a certificate of need." (Respondent's Exhibit 2). For economic and business reasons, and in order to accomplish a more orderly consolidation of the two hospitals, the Authority now desires to re-open a small, self-funding psychiatric unit at Tampa General Hospital. It wishes to utilize the maximum number of psychiatric beds designated in its 1981 Certificate of Need application (93), including the beds which had been temporarily changed in late 1982 to acute care beds, while gradually phasing out a sufficient number of beds at the County Hospital to bring the total number of psychiatric beds down to 79 by late 1987. In order to implement this plan, the Authority applied to the office of Licensure and Certification in 1985 for the licensure of 77 psychiatric beds at County Hospital and 22 psychiatric beds at Tampa General Hospital. The Authority acknowledges that it should have applied for only 16 psychiatric beds at Tampa General Hospital to meet the 1981 figure of a total of 93 beds. HRS issued a license for the 77 requested psychiatric beds at County Hospital, but issued a license for only 2 psychiatric beds at Tampa General. The record does not adequately reflect the rationale for licensing even 2 beds at Tampa General. It is not economically or practically feasible for a hospital to operate a separate 2-bed psychiatric unit. The rationale for refusing to license the remaining psychiatric beds requested is the change in the statutory and regulatory law occurring in 1983 and the survey results published in 1984 illustrating Tampa General to have no psychiatric beds in operation at that time. The stated reason for denial is "because you have failed to obtain a Certificate of Need or exemption from [CON] review . . . ." (Petitioner's Exhibit 3).
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority for the licensure of 16 short-term psychiatric beds at Tampa General Hospital be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX-CASE NO. 85-3109 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been approved and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner Page 3, last sentence and Page 4, first sentence Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Page 6, first full paragraph Rejected, not a finding of fact. Page 6, second paragraph Rejected, not a finding of fact. Page 7, Reject those findings based upon a conclusion that Tampa General has Certificate of Need approval for psychiatric beds. Respondent 9. Second and third sentences Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial to issue in dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Josey, Esquire Allen, Dell, Frank and Trinkle P. O. Box 2111 Tampa, Florida 33601 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================ =
