Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Deny the renewal license application for a home health agency, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and other matters of records, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") finds and concludes as follows: By Order dated August 26, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge closed its files in the above-styled case. Petitioner filed a status report withdrawing the application for renewal oflicense on August 20, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 2). The denial of the renewal application for Petitioner home health agency is upheld and the application for license renewal has been withdrawn. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Agency's file is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida this ffj day of ,2009. A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Monica L. Rodriguez Attorney for Petitioner Dresnick & Rodriguez, P.A. One Datran Center 91 South Dadeland Blvd, Suite 1610 Miami, Florida 33156 (U.S. Mail) Nelson E. Rodney Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 8350 NW 52nd Terrace, Suite #103 Miami, Florida 33166 (Interoffice Mail) Home Care Unit Agency for Health Care Administration' 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #34 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Stuart M. Lerner Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (U.S. Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 2 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent to the above-named addressees by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on thisLday of s5xpf 009. Richard Shoop. Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 3 CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR June 23, 2008 Kelly Marie Damas, Admin istrator- 1 / / ·.:;, '. TEHC LLC '- -...· , .. ' ' 3317NW10thTerrSte404 i' r:;_'.'./fl Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33309 J:.:·:>r 1.< \ ii{;;_ License Number: 204390961 Case#: 2008007748 NefltE't)iKIN1'ENT:·q,oDENY It is the decision of this Agency that the application for renewal licensure as a home health agency, for TEHC, LLC., located at 3317 NW 10th Terrace, Suite 404, Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33309, is DENIED. The basis for this action is pursuant to authority of Section 120.60 Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Section 408.815 (1), (c) and (d), F.S. which states as follows: (1) In addition to the grounds provided in authorizing statutes, grounds that may be used by the agency for denying and revoking a license ... include any of the following actions by a controlling interest: A violation of this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules. A demonstrated pattern of deficient performance. The home health agency did not demonstrate compliance with Chapter 400, Part III, F.S. and the state home health agency rules, Chapter 59A-8, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) at the home health agency licensure survey conducted Mr..y 5 through May 8, 2008. The plan of correction due June 7, 2008 as submitted to the Agency's Field Office was not acceptable. Non compliance was found in the following areas: The home health agency failed to ensure the Director of Nursing established and conducted an on-going quality assurance _program that evaluated the effectiveness of all the provided service for consistency with professional standards and anticipated outcomes. (H 224) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095(2) (c), F.A.C. "Director of Nursing: (c) The director of nursing shall establish and conduct an ongoing quality assurance program which assures: 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#34 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 EXHIBIT j Visit AHCA Online at http://ahca.myflo rida.com 'Tehc LLC Page 2 · ·-:June 23;·2008· Case assignment and management is appropriate, adequate, and consistent with the plan of care, medical regimen and patient needs; Nursing and other services provided to the patient are coordinated, appropriate, adequate, and consistent with plans of care; All services and outcomes are completely and legibly documented, dated and signed in the clinical service record; Confidentiality of patient data is maintained; and Findings of the quality assurance program are used to improve services." The home health agency failed to ensure that the Registered Nurse (RN)provide case management for 5 of 17 nursing and therapy patients. This was evidenced by: failure to provide an assessment prior to documenting a start of care comprehensive assessment for one patient; failure to provide supervision for the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) in the performance of duties for two patients and failure to assure progress reports were made to the physician for patients receiving nursing services when the patient's condition changed for two patients. The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095 (3) (a), F.A.C. "Registered Nurse. A registered nurse shall be currently licensed in the state, pursuant to Chapter 464, F.S., and: Be the case manager in all cases involving nursing or both nursing and therapy care. Be responsible for the clinical record for each patient receiving nursing care; and Assure that progress reports are made to the physician for patients receiving nursing services when the patient's condition changes or there are deviations from the plan of care." The home health agency failed to ensure that the RN retained full responsibility for the care given and making supervisory visits to the patient's home for 3 of 17 sampled patients as evidenced by failure to provide supervision for the LPN in the performance of duties for two patients; failure to provide supervision for the Home Health Aide (Aide) and failed to prepare a written Aide assignment/instructions for services to be provided to the patient for 3 patients. (H 231) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095 (3) (b), F.A.C., "Registered Nurse. A registered nurse may assign selected portions of patient care to licensed practical nurses and home health aides but always retains the full responsibility for the care given and for making supervisory visits to the patient's home." The home health agency failed to provide supervision for the LPN in the perfonnance of duties for 2 of 17 patients. (H 235) Tebc LLC Page 3 --+---- ----:June-23--;-2008·--------- ·-- --------- --- The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095 (4) (a), F.A.C., "Licensed Practical Nurse. A licensed practical nurse shall be currently licensed in the state, pursuant to Chapter 464, F.S., and provide nursing care assigned by and under the direction of a registered nurse who provides on-site supervision as needed, based upon the severity of patients medical condition and the nurse's training and experience. Supervisory visits will be documented in patient files. Provision shall be made in agency policies and procedures for annual evaluation of the LPN's performance of duties by the registered nurse." The home health agency failed to ensure the LPN reported any changes in the patient's condition to the RN and document the changes in the patient's clinical record for 1 of 17 sampled patients. (H 236) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095 (4) (b), F.A.C., "Licensed Practical Nurse A licensed practical nurse shall: Prepare and record clinical notes for the clinical record; Report any changes in the patient's condition to the registered nurse with the reports documented in the clinical record; Provide care to the patient including the administration of treatments and medications; -------and --- , ---------------- , -------------, ------------------ -------------·· Other duties assigned by the registered nurse, pursuant to Chapter 464, F.S." The home health agency failed to ensure that the care provided followed the plan of treatment for 11 of 17 sampled patients. The home health agency also failed to ensure a verbal order obtained by a home health agency nurse was put into writing and signed by the attending physician for 1 of 17 sampled patients. (H 302) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.487 (2) F.S., "When required by the provisions of chapter 464; part I, part III, or part V of chapter 468; or chapter 486, the attending physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner, acting within his or her respective scope of practice, shall establish treatment orders for a patient who is to receive skilled care. The treatment orders must be signed by the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner before a claim for payment for the skilled services is submitted by the home health agency. If the claim is submitted to a managed care organization, the treatment orders must be signed within the time allowed under the provider agreement. The treatment orders shall be reviewed, as frequently as the patient's illness requires, by the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner in consultation with the home health agency." 'Tehc LLC Page 4 _June 2},-200&------- ----- Chapter 59A-8.0215(2), F.A.C., "Home health agency staff must follow the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment orders that are contained in the plan of care. If the orders cannot be followed and must be altered in some way, the patient's physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner must be notified and must approve of the change. Any verbal changes are put in writing and signed and dated with the date of receipt by the nurse or therapist who talked with the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's office." The home health agency failed to ensure 9 of 17 patients were advised of the payment for home health agency services before care was started and were clear about the payor source and any charges required from the patient. (H 304) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.487 (1), F.S., "Services provided by a home health agency must be covered by an agreement between the home health agency and the patient or the patient's legal representative specifying the home health services to be provided, the rates or charges for services paid with private funds, and the sources of payment, which may include Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, personal funds, or a combination thereof. A home health agency providing skilled care must make an assessment of the patient's needs within 48 hours after the start of services." Chapter 59A-8.020 (2), F.A.C., "At the start of services a home health agency must establish a written agreement between the agency and the patient or client or the patient's or client's legal representative, including the information described in Section 400.487(1), F.S. This written agreement must be signed and dated by a representative of the home health agency and the patient or client or the patient's or client's legal representative. A copy of the agreement must be given to the patient or client and the original must be placed in the patient's or client's file." Chapter 59A-8.020 (3), F.A.C., "The written agreement, as specified in subsection (2) above, shall serve as the home health agency's service provision plan, pursuant to Section 400.491(2), F.S., for clients who receive homemaker and companion services or home health aide services which do not require a physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment order. The written agreement for these clients shall be maintained for one year after termination of services." The home health agency failed to demonstrate effective communication between interdisciplinary team members to coordinate services as outlined in the plan of care for 3 of 17 'patients and failed to ensure that 8 of 17 sampled patients received the skilled nursing services in accordance with the physician's VvTitten plan of care. (H 306) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 'Tehc LLC Page 5 --·-- June 23, 20-08 ··· - ----- Section 400.487 (6), F.S., "Tl1e skilled care services provided by a home health agency, directly or under contract, must be supervised and coordinated in accordance with the plan of care." The home health agency failed to ensure the registered nurse completed the initial evaluation visit for 1 of 17 patients. The Director of Nursing who signed the initial evaluation visit never made a home visit to the patient. (H 307) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.008 (1), F.A.C.., "In cases of patients requiring only nursing, or in cases requiring nursing and physical, respiratory, occupational or speech therapy services, or nursing and dietetic and nutrition services, the agency shall provide case management by a licensed registered nurse directly employed by the agency.'' The home health agency failed to provide written notice for tenninating home health services to 1 of 3 sampled patients. There was no written notification regarding the date of termination; reason for termination or a referral to another agency with a plan for continued services prior to the termination. (H 316) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Chapter 59A-8.020 (4), F.A.C., "When the agency terminates services for a patient or client needing continuing home health care, as determined by the patient's physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner, for patients receiving care under a physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment order, or as determined by the client or caregiver, for clients receiving care without a physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment order, a plan must be developed and a referral made by home health agency staff to another home health agency or service provider prior to termination. The patient or client must be notified in writing of the date of termination, the reason for termination, pursuant to Section 400.491, F.S., and the plan for continued services by the agency or service provider to which the patient or client has been referred, pursuant to Section 400.497(6), F.S. This requirement does not apply to patients paying through personal funds or private insurance who default on their contract through non-payment. The home health agency should provide social work assistance to patients to help them determine their eligibility for assistance from government funded programs if their private funds have been depleted or will be depleted." The home health agency failed to develop a plan of care for 6 of 17 sampled patients that included all of the required items needed to appropriately serve patients including goals to support the physician's treatment orders, level of staff to provide the services to reach the goals, and the frequency of visits to conduct the services by appropriate home health agency staff. (H 320) Tehc LLC Page 6 -June 23, 2008 The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.487 (2). f.S., "When required by the provisions of chapter 464; part I, part III, or part V of chapter 468; or chapter 486, the attending physician, physician assistant, or advanced regis1ered nurse practitioner, acting within his or her respective scope of practice, shalJ establish treatment orders for a patient who is to receive skilled care " Chapter 59A-8.0215 (1), F.A.C., "A plan of care shall be established in consultation with the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.487, F.S., and the home health agency staff who are involved in providing the care and services required to carry out the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment orders. The plan must be jncluded in the clinical record and available for review by all staff involved in providing care to the patient. The plan of care shall contain a list of individualized specific goals for each skilled discipline that provides patient care, with implementation plans addressing the level of staff who will provide care, the frequency of home visits to provide direct care and case management." The home health agency failed to demonstrate evidence that patients were informed in advance about any changes to the plan of care prior to implementation of the changes for 1 of 17 patients. (H 321) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Chapter 59A-8.0215 (3), F.A.C., "The patient, caregiver or guardian must be informed by the home health agency personnel that: He has the right to be informed of the plan of care; He has the right to participate in the development of the plan of care; and He may have a copy of the plan if requested." The home health agency failed to maintain a clinical record in accordance with accepted professional standards for 12 of 17 patients. (H 350) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.491 (1), F.S,, "The home health agency must maintain for each patient who receives skilled care a clinical record that includes pertinent past and current medical, nursing, social and other therapeutic information, the treatment orders, and other such information as is necessary for the safe and adequate care of the patient. When home health services are terminated, the record must show the date and reason for termination " 'Tehc LLC Page 7 June 23,-2008 The home health agency failed to include all of the required items in the discharged patient clinicai records for 3 of 3 patients. There were no tem1ination summaries as required. (H 356) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Chapter 59A-8.022(5), F.A.C., "Clinical records must contain the following: Source ofreferral; Physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's verbal orders initiated by the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner prior to start of care and signed by the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner as required in Section 400.487(2), F.S. Assessment of the patient's needs; Statement of patient or caregiver problems; Statement of patient's and caregiver's ability to provide interim services; Identification sheet for the patient with name, address, telephone number, date of birth, sex, agency case number, caregiver, next of kin or guardian; Plan of care or service provision plan and all subsequent updates and changes; Clinical and service notes, signed and dated by the staff member providing the service which shall include: Initial assessments and progress notes with changes in the person's condition; Services rendered; Observations; Instructions to the patient and caregiver or guardian, including administration of and adverse reactions to medications; (i) Home visits to patients for supervision of staff providing services; G) Reports of case conferences; (k) Reports to physicians, physician assistants, or advanced registered nurse practitioners; (1) Termination summary including the date of first and last visit, the reason for termination of service, an evaluation of established goals at time of tennination, the condition of the patient on discharge and the disposition of the patient." The home health agency failed to submit their comprehensive emergency management plan to the local county health department for review and approval. (H 376) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.497(8) (c), F.S. "Preparation of a comprehensive emergency management plan pursuant to s. 400.492. (c) The plan is subject to review and approval by the county health department. During its review, the county health department shall contact state and local health and medical stakeholders when necessary. The county health department shall complete its review to . Tehc LLC Page 8 - --June 23.1008 ensure that the plan is in accordance with the criteria in the Agency for Health Care Administration rules within 90 days after receipt of the plan and shall approve the plan or advise the home health agency of necessary revisions. If the home health agency fails to submit a plan or fails to submit the requested information or revisions to the county health department within 30 days after vvTitten notification from the county health department, the county health department shall notify the Agency for Health Care Administration. The agency shall notify the home health agency that its failure constitutes a deficiency, subject to a fine of $5,000 per occurrence. If the plan is not submitted, information is not provided, or revisions are not made as requested, the agency may impose the fine." Chapter 59A-8.027 (2), F.A.C., "The plan, once completed, will be forwarded electronically for approval to the contact designated by the Department of Health." Section 400.492, F.S., "Each home health agency shall prepare and maintain a comprehensive emergency management plan that is consistent with the standards adopted by national or state accreditation organizations and consistent with the local special needs plan. The plan shall be updated annually ... " Chapter 59A-8.027(3) and (4), F.S., "The agency shall review its emergency management plan on an annual basis and make any substantive changes. (4) Changes in the telephone numbers of those staff who are coordinating the agency's emergency response must be reported to the agency's county office of Emergency Management and to the local County Health Department. For agencies with multiple counties on their license, the changes must be reported to each County Health Department ap.d each county Emergency Management office. The telephone numbers must include numbers where the coordinating staff can be contacted outside of the agency's regular office hours. All home health agencies must report these changes, whether their plan has been previously reviewed or not, as defined in subsection (2) above." · The home health agency failed to renew the application for a Certificate of Exemption that authorizes the performance of waived laboratory tests. (H 390) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 483.091,F.S. "Clinical laboratory license.--A person may not conduct, maintain, or operate a clinical laboratory in this state, except a laboratory that is exempt under s. 483.031, unless the clinical laboratory has obtained a license from the agency A license is valid only for the person or persons to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily, and is not valid for any premises other than those for which the license is issued. 483.031 Application of part; exemptions.--This part applies to all clinical laboratories within this state, except: (1) A clinical laboratory operated by the United States Government. (2) A clinical laboratory . Tehc LLC Page 9 · - · June 23;-2008 that performs only waived tests and has received a certificate of exemption from the agency under s. 483.106. (3) A clinical laboratory operated and maintained exclusively for research and teaching purposes that do not involve patient or public health service. 483. l 06 Application for a certificate of exemption.--An application for a cenificate of exemption must be made under oath by the owner or director of a clinical laboratory that performs only waived tests as defined ins. 483.041. A certificate of exemption authorizes a clinical laboratory to perform waived tests. Laboratories maintained on separate premises and operated under the same management may apply for a single certificate of exemption or multiple certificates of exemption ... EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. Anne Menard, Manager Home Care Unit cc: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 Arlene Mayo-David, AHCA Delray Beach Field Office Manager Track & Confirm Search Resuhs Label/Receipt Number: 7160 3901 9845 4743 6663 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 11:36 AM on June 26, 2008 in FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33309. Track.& Confirm FAQs Enter Label/Receipt Number. Options Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. ( /,h,>) fgnns Oov'I Services .Jobs Priv11.c;y Policy Tenns_ofUse • Nation;il_&.Premier Accounts Copyright© 1999-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA http://trkcnfrm l .smi.usps.com/PTSintemetWeb/Inter Labellnquiry .do 7/21/2008 STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION Agency ,i' ., :, In RE: Licensure Renewal Application of Care Admi :i: : TEHC,LLC AHCA No. 2008007748 License No. 204390961 I REQUEST FOR FORMAL HEARING The law firm of Dresnick & Rodriguez, P.A., notices its appearance as counsel for TEHC, LLC, in conjunction with the above-referenced matter. All pleadings, documents, and other communications should be provided to TEHC's counsel at the address below. TEHC disputes the allegations of fact contained in the Notice oflntent to Deny and requests that this pleading be considered a demand for a formal hearing, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and pursuant to Rule 28-106.2015,. Florida Administrative Code, before an Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. In support of this Petition, TEHC states the following: The Petitioner is TEHC, TLC, 3317 NW 10th Terrace. Suite 404. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309. TEHC's telephone number is 954-351-1895, and the facsimile number is 954-351-1820. TEHC's counsel should be contacted at the address and fax number below. TEHC disputes allegations of fact including, but not limited to, those in paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the Notice oflntent to Deny, and requests an Administrative Hearing regarding these allegations. In addition, TEHC disputes that they DRESNICK & RODRIGUEZ, P.A., ONEDATRAN CENTER, SUITE 1610, 9100 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD, MIAMI, F'L 33156-7817 • (305) 670-9800 AHCA No. 2008007748 License No. 204390961 have demonstrated a pattern of deficient performance, and that the plan of correction submitted in June, 2008 was not acceptable. TEHC received the Notice oflntent to Deny on June 26, 2008. The Agency's file number in this case is 2008007748. Respectfully submitted, DRESNICK & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Attorneys for TEHC, LLC One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Blvd, Suite 1610 Miami, FL 33156 Off: (305) 670-9800 Fax: (305) 670-9933 '£' Monica L. Rodriguez) Florida Bar No. 986283 2 DRESNICK & RODRIGUEZ, P.A., ONE DATRAN CENTER, SUITE 1610, 9100 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FL 33156-7817 • (305) 670-9800 AHCA No. 2008007748 License No. 204390961 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been furnished by telefax and U.S. Mail on July 16, 2008 to: Nelson Rodney, Assistant General Counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration, 8350 N.W. 52nd Terrace, Suite 103, Miami, FL 33166, with a copy via telefax and U.S. Mail to Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk, 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop # 3, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. '-<:;.., )...f?. .c..,...:_ Monica L. Rodriguez O ') 3 DRESNICK & RODRIGUEZ. P.A., ONEDATRAN CENTER, SUITE 1610, 9100 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FL 33156-7817 • (305) 670-9800 08/20/2009 15 51 FAX 305 870 9933 ?RESN ICK & RODRIGUEZ, PA 002/003 STATE OF FLORJDA
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Palm Beach-Martin County Medical Center, Inc. (PBMCMC), owns and operates Salhaven Home Health Agency (Salhaven), a home health agency in Palm Beach County, Florida. Salhaven is licensed by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to provide home health services in Palm Beach County. This authority was obtained in 1984. At the same time it obtained Medicare provider number 10-7203 effective August 10, 1984 from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). According to applicable statutory definitions, a home health agency is an agency or organization which provides home health services." Home health services in turn are defined as "health and medical services and medical supplies furnished to an individual by a home health agency, on a visiting basis, in a place of residence used as an individual's home." PBMCMC owns and operates Jupiter Hospital (JH), a 156-bed acute care facility in Jupiter, Florida. That municipality lies in Palm Beach County just south of the Palm Beach-Martin County line. A significant number of JH's patients reside in Martin County. The stipulated record suggests, but does not specifically state, that Salhaven provides home health services to JH's Medicare patients. Due to a limitation imposed on its service area, Salhaven cannot now provide home health services to Medicare patients who receive inpatient treatment at JH, but reside in Martin County. The proposed removal of this limitation is the subject of this proceeding. On December 15, 1986 PBMCMC's director of finance filed with HRS a request to expand without certificate of need (CON) review, Salhaven's service area to include Martin County, Florida. On April 15, 1987 HRS issued proposed agency action denying PBMCMC's request on the following grounds: Review of the department's files regarding Salhaven indicate Salhaven was a medicare provider in Palm Beach County prior to 1971. The records in HCFA indicate Salhaven withdrew from the medicare program after 1971 and did not reenter the program until 1984 when it sought and was approved for grandfathering into Palm Beach County. The agency approved the grandfathering of your client's home health agency in Palm Beach County based on the 1968-71 data which you produced in your July 1984 letter. However, there is no supporting information in your January 1987 letter which indicates your client served patients in Martin County during the 1968-71 period of time. The patient they served in 1975 was served during the period of time when Salhaven was not a medicare provider and was not licensed by the state. Based on this information the department cannot approve your client's request for expansion of its service region. If your client can prove they served clients in Martin County during the 1968-71 period of time when they held a provider number we will be willing to readdress this decision. The denial of the request precipitated this proceeding. Beginning in 1970, Salhaven was a home health agency providing home health services in the State of Florida. In August of that year, it was also certified by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), which is HHS' predecessor, to provide Medicare services under provider number 10-7072. William Leone was Salhaven's assistant administrator from July 1968 through calendar year 1973, and its administrator from 1974 through 1983. According to his affidavit stipulated into evidence as exhibit B, Salhaven obtained a Medicare provider number from HEW in 1969 or 1970, and until Leone's retirement in 1983, Salhaven "took (no) action to withdraw... from the Medicare program, or to surrender its provider number." Leone added that had such action been taken, he would have been aware of the same. In addition, Leone filed required annual Medicare audit reports with the appropriate federal agency each year from 1970 through 1983, and utilized provider number 10-7072 on each such report. Finally, Leone did not receive a notice at any time from HEW, HHS or Blue Cross/Blue Shield advising that Salhaven's Medicare provider number had been terminated. In the affidavit of Margery Harp, stipulated into evidence as exhibit D, Harp established that during 1972, Salhaven was an active provider of home health services to Medicare recipients. However, the affidavit does not disclose in which counties (including Martin) such services were provided. The parties have stipulated, however, that Salhaven provided home health services to residents of Martin County in the months of February and November, 1975. HRS' decision to preliminarily deny PBMCMC's application is predicated upon its acquisition of a document identified as exhibit C, and which is stipulated to be a copy of a page taken from the logbook of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), presumably an arm of the HHS, but whose statutory duties for and relationship to Medicare certified home health agencies is not of record. The parties have also agreed the logbook has a handwritten entry reflecting that Salhaven voluntarily withdrew from the Medicare program on November 1, 1972. Relying solely upon that information, HRS determined that Salhaven was not a Medicare participant after November 1, 1972, and therefore could not qualify for licensure. According to the admitted facts, which are drawn in part from an interview with an HCFA employee, exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a document taken from HCFA's home health agency files, and represents the manner in which records for home health agencies were maintained by HCFA in 1972. Indeed, it was the practice of HCFA to make a handwritten notation in the file when a provider was voluntarily terminated from the Medicare program. However, HCFA acknowledges that it does not know who made the handwritten entry pertaining to Salhaven, and has no correspondence or other documentation from Salhaven evidencing Salhaven's intention to withdraw from the program. The document is the only one in HCFA's possession which relates to Salhaven's participation in the Medicare program during the years 1970-1976. There is no evidence as to whether HCFA required formal or informal notice from a provider before it terminated a number, or did so on its own volition, or after receiving advice from another governmental agency. Neither is there any indication as to what office or section within HCFA had the responsibility to maintain and make entries in the logbook. There is also no evidence as to whether HCFA was the official custodian of Medicare certified home health agency records, or had the authority to issue and cancel provider numbers on its own behalf or acting as surrogate for HHS or HEW. HRS conceded its personnel have no personal knowledge, or indeed documentary evidence in its own files, to confirm that Salhaven voluntarily withdrew from the Medicare program on November 1, 1972. It also has no files pertaining to Salhaven that predate 1983. It is HRS' understanding and belief that HCFA would have terminated a provider number in 1972 if the provider had demonstrated no Medicare service activity for an extended period of time. However, this "understanding" was not corroborated by any other evidence. There is no evidence of record as to any HRS policy concerning its interpretation of the grandfather provisions of Section 400.504, Florida Statutes (1985).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of Palm Beach-Martin County Medical Center for authority to expand the service area of Salhaven Home Health Agency into Martin County, Florida without certificate of need review be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of November, 1987.
The Issue The issues concern the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to the grant of a certificate of need (CON) to provide home health services in District III.
Findings Of Fact On December 15, 1986, Petitioner made application for a certificate of need (CON) to provide home health services in Citrus County, Florida. That application was denied by Respondent on December 14, 1987. The basis for denial as set out in Respondent's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) was to the effect that there was no demonstrated need when resort was made to the methodology suggested by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council in its 1986 District III Health Plan. (At that time Respondent did not have a methodology for determining need). It was felt that some advantage might be gained in serving the needs of underserved groups; however, there was limited information to demonstrate that existing home health agencies in the county could not meet the demands for service. Finally, it was stated that the referral agreement between Petitioner, as a source of clients from its hospital operation, and Intervenor as an existing home health care provider, to include use of Petitioner's employees in the provision of care, care which was as "hi-tech", as Petitioner could provide, was sufficient. Following the application denial, Petitioner filed a timely request for formal hearing under the authority set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On February 17, 1988, Intervenor was allowed to intervene. Given that the Respondent did not have a rule methodology in place to consider this application when first filed or at the point in time where the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration, on May 12, 1988, Respondent moved, unopposed, to have the case returned to the agency to await the promulgation of a new home health rule. The motion was granted. On September 12, 1988, the new rule became effective as Rule 10- 5.011(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Which provided as follows: (d) Medicare Certified Home Health Agencies. Definitions. Home Health Agency. A home health agency is defined as a Medicare certified home health agency in accordance with subsection 381.702(10), F.S. Home Health Services. Home Health Services are defined in accordance with subsection 400.462(3), F.S. Home Health Services Provider. For the purpose of this rule, a home health services provider is defined as the person or corporate entity to which the certificate of need or license is issued. District. District means a service district of the department as established in subsection 20.19(5), F.S. Service Area. A certificate of need for the establishment of a home health agency shall authorize a home health services provider to locate a home health agency and serve persons anywhere within the district for which the certificate of need is awarded. Planning Horizon. The planning horizon is the anticipated time frame within which the agency is expected to be licensed. The planning horizon for applications submitted between January 1 and June 30 of each year, shall be July of the following year; the planning horizon for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31 of each year shall be January of the year following the year subsequent to the application deadline. Approved Home Health Agency. For the purpose of this rule, an approved home health agency is defined as a new agency within the district which holds a valid certificate of need and has not been licensed by the department one moth prior to the publication date of the semi-annual fixed need pool. Persons or corporations who do not operate Medicare certified home health agency in the district and are the holder of one or more certificate of need approvals within the same district, shall only be counted as one approval. Persons or corporations who do operate a Medicare certified home health agency in the district and are also the holder of a certificate of need approval for the same district, shall not be counted in the inventory of approved agencies. Quality of Care. Home health agencies regulated under this rule shall meet the minimum of care standards contained in HRS rules 10D-68, F.A.C. Need Methodology. The establishment of a home health agency by a provider who does not currently operate a Medicare certified home health agency in a district, shall require a certificate of need for the operation of a Medicare certified home health agency in the district. Applications for home health agencies shall be reviewed against all applicable statutory and related rule criteria. Applications for home health agencies shall not normally be approved unless a need is indicated in accordance with the formula under paragraph 3. The establishment of additional Medicare certified home health agencies, additional offices, mail drops, or any other physical presence by a Medicare certified home health services provider within the same district is not subject to a certificate of need. The need for the establishment of a new home health agency within the HRS district shall be determined twice a year. The net need for new Medicare home health agencies in each HRS district is calculated as follows: HHNN = ((PHHV - AHHV)/CEAS) - AHH Where: HHNN equals the Medicare certified home health agency net need. PHHV equals the projected number of home health agency visits for the respective district and planning horizon. The projected number of home health agency visits is calculated by multiplying the number of home health visits per 1000 population 65 years and over provided by the Medicare certified agencies in the district for the most recent year for which data available, by the projected population 65 years and over for the respective district. The population projections shall be based on the population projects issued by the Executive Office of the Governor available to the department 1 month prior to the publication date of the semi- annual fixed pool. AHHV equals the actual number of home health agency visits provided by all Medicare certified home health agencies in the district based on cost report data obtained from Medicare Intermediaries for the most recent year available to the department 1 month prior to the publication date of the semi-annual fixed need pool as specified in Rule 10-5.008(2), F.A.C. CEAS is the cost efficient agency size in numbers of visits at which economy of scale is achieved according to the data available to the department. If the fraction (PHHV - AHHV)/CEAS is .5 or exceeds .5, the fraction shall be rounded upward to the nearest whole number. CEAS shall be updated by the department annually and shall be determined by the department according to the following methodology: Rank all agencies by visit size, excluding hospital-based agencies. calculate the average cost for all visits for each remaining agency. Calculate the mean visit cost for all agencies, excluding hospital-based agencies, and two standard deviations from the mean for the remaining agencies. Eliminate agencies with average visit costs at or exceeding two standard deviations above and below the mean visit cost from further calculations. Array remaining agencies by visit size from low to high, and sort agencies into 4 groupings by visit size containing an equal or similar number of agencies, and calculate the mean cost for each groupings. Calculate the percentage reduction, if any, in mean visit cost for each grouping as compared to the previous grouping. Identify the agency size groupings which have a mean visit cost reduction of 5 percent or more compared to the mean visit cost of the previous groupings. Select the agency size grouping for which the last 5 percent or more reduction in mean visit cost is achieved prior to a grouping for which a less than 5 percent reduction is achieved as compared to the previous grouping and determine the median agency size for this grouping rounded to the nearest thousand. This agency size is defined as CEAS. AHH equals the number of approved home health agencies in the district. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing to provide home health care services to indigent persons and Medicaid patients. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing a comprehensive range of home health services if it is determined by the department that certain types of services are unavailable or that there is a shortage of certain types of home health service. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing to provide home health services and establish a physical presence underserved areas of the district. Data Reporting Requirements. Home health agencies regulated under this rule shall provide the following information to the department or its designee. The information shall be provided for the same reporting period covered by the annual cost reports submitted to the Medicare Intermediaries, and shall be submitted to the department or its designee at the same time the annual cost report is submitted to the Medicare Intermediary. The total number of patients served less than 65 years of age and 65 years of age and over by county of residence. The total number of visits provided by type of service. The total number of patients served by payment source including Medicaid, Medicare, and uncompensated care. As can be seen, this rule considers the need question district-wide as opposed to a county-by-county analysis in effect at the time of application by Petitioner. District III, which contains Citrus County, has fifteen other counties. The rule in its text is not found to be applicable per se to this application, although its underlying concepts arguably have an influence on the case outcome. While the Petitioner and Respondent urge that the rule does-have retroactive effect and the Intervenor disagrees, all parties acknowledge the logistical awkwardness of trying to employ the rule's terms in a literal sense. In fact, the rule cannot be used as it is written, for reasons to be explained and in any event neither of the proponents have exercised its terms in exact detail. When Respondent reviewed the application using a modified version of the new rule in the interest of what Respondent believed to be an equitable treatment of pending home health applicants who had waited for the rule to be enacted, it changed its position from one of recommended denial to recommended grant of the CON. The case was returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings and upon motion by the Intervenor, as granted, the Petitioner updated its application on December 5, 1988. This lead to the hearing on the dates previously described The updated information was provided to the other parties in this case. It was not given to the local health council for further review by that organization. Petitioner is a public not-for-profit healthcare organization created by state law. The hospital is governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the Governor of the State of Florida. The proposed home health agency would be owned and operated by Petitioner. It treats indigent and Medicaid patients and other medically underserved groups. The hospital's mission is to serve the residents of the community regardless of their ability to pay. This approach would be continued in home health care. Petitioner provides high quality patient care and this could be expected to continue if a CON for home health care was granted. The quality assurance plan and mechanisms in place at Petitioner's hospital would be used in its home health agency to help assure high quality patient care. Petitioner would also develop a utilization review plan similar to what is in effect at the hospital that would help insure proper utilization of the home health agency. Petitioner is JCAH accredited and licensed by the State of Florida, and is currently in compliance with all State of Florida licensure requirements. Petitioner's home health agency would be a hospital-based home health agency, as opposed to a free-standing home health agency. There are benefits to being a hospital-based home health agency. The home health agency employees have the advantage of being part of the hospital's employment benefit package; the home health agency has the ability to tap into the expertise of the hospital in such areas as accounting, data processing, and so forth; discharge planning is easy to coordinate; and, the home health agency has the potential ability to use trained hospital personnel who have high tech skills and expertise and can provide services to the home health agency in their area of expertise. However, the suggestion that employees would be involved in both roles of hospital care and home health care is suspect in that certain employees such as nursing staff are not expected to fulfil that dual role and other employees such as the dietician were unable to consistently aid the patient in the home and carry out the duties in the hospital under an arrangement by which the Intervenor per agreement with the Petitioner sought to have continuation of services from the hospital to the home. If this could not be done, given the demands on the dietician in the hospital duties at that time, then there is no reason to believe that it would be any easier to achieve if the hospital had a home health agency. None of the aforementioned benefits are significant improvements over existing conditions in Citrus County where home health care is provided by freestanding agencies. More specifically, Petitioner currently has physical therapists, respiratory therapists, dietitians, and social workers on its full-time paid staff that could conceivably be available to the home health agency. Since these persons are already full-time salaried employees of the hospital, it would not cost the home health agency any additional amount for these skilled persons to provide services to home health care patients, assuming the ability to meet the needs of hospital patients and home health care patients, again a real uncertainty. Petitioner's personnel would be available to assist in the development of policy and procedure manuals, quality assurance plan and utilization review plan for the home health agency. There are other possible economies in service that could be derived from Petitioner's operation of a hospital-based home health agency. These include: the hospital-based agency is easily accessible to physicians; discharge planning is facilitated due to the close cooperation of nursing, social worker, and home care provider while the patient is still in the hospital; services will be available 24-hours a day through the use of hospital switchboard and communications systems; and use of current medical records systems will mean a patient's entire medical history will be available to practitioners. Again, these arrangements do not afford a significant improvement over existing home health services. Petitioner has sufficient resources available to initiate and operate a hospital-based home health agency. Necessary staff can be employed to the extent they are not already working at the hospital. Petitioner is in sound financial condition. Petitioner would be able to hire a qualified administrator. Petitioner's projected payor mix of 88% Medicare, 3% Medicaid, 4% insurance and 5% indigent, is an admirable goal. However, there is some question about whether the projections of Medicare and indigent care levels of service will be achieved. Petitioner as a referral source from its hospital operations had not achieved those projected levels of referrals in the past. This is important because Petitioner expects to obtain its home health patients from the hospital referrals. Consequently to promote the grant of the CON premised solely upon the belief that underserved groups will be better off would not be warranted. The possibility exists that with greater awareness more underserved persons might be referred for home health care but nothing in this case points to any increased effort to publicize the availability of home health for the underserved to justify the optimistic levels the applicant predicts. In a home health agency, all of the patient services are provided in the patient home. Thus, the only space requirement is for office space for the administrative staff and working space for the employees to do their necessary paperwork. Petitioner Memorial Hospital has about 1,600 square feet of vacant space available in which to house the home health agency offices. This building is currently owned by Petitioner. There is no debt associated with this building, and the building has been fully depreciated. Contrary to the statement in its application, Petitioner has decided not to offer prescription delivery services. This is not a significant change. Intervenor is a licensed home health agency in Citrus County. It first became licensed by the State of Florida in February, 1986. Intervenor has been surveyed annually by Respondent since 1986. In each of these surveys, it received no deficiencies. Intervenor is a full-service home health agency. It offers a range of "hi-tech" home health services, including: skilled nursing services; physical therapy; occupational therapy; speech therapy; social services; home health aide services; dietary guidance; medical supplies; home IV therapy; parenteral nutrition; interostomal therapy; home phlebotomy and lab testing services; and respiratory care. It has offered these services since its inception. Intervenor provides some homemaker services during home health aide visits, such as cleaning, straightening, and laundry. Intervenor's personnel include registered nurses, certified home health aides, physician therapists, licensed physical therapist assistants, speech therapists, occupational therapists, a medical social worker who holds a masters in social work, interstomal therapists, nutritionists, and respiratory therapists. Intervenor offers quality of care and ensures continuity of care in the delivery of home health services. Petitioner has never complained that a patient could not be discharged quickly enough due to Intervenor's shortcomings in taking on home health services for the discharged patient. Intervenor makes every effort to coordinate its operations with Petitioner to ensure quality and continuity of care related to patients referred by the hospital. The service area of Intervenor is Citrus County. Until late 1988, about 70% of Intervenor's referrals came directly from Petitioner. On average, Intervenor provides about 28.6 home health visits per patient. Intervenor provides home health services to all patients regardless of ability to pay. Intervenor provides home health services to the following payor classes: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, workmen's compensation, private insurance, and indigent. Its CON contemplates 2% Medicaid and 3% indigent patients. Since opening in 1989, Intervenor has treated 985 patients. Of these 985 patients, only ten (10) have been indigent and fifteen (15) have been Medicaid patients. This works out to one percent (1%) indigent care and one and one half percent (1.5%) Medicaid care. Community Care publishes a brochure that advertises its services to the community. Nowhere in this brochure does it indicate that Community Care serves indigent patients. The brochure stresses that services will be provided through reimbursed coverage, either Medicare, insurance, or other reimbursement sources. On the other hand it does not require any deposit or up-front payment from new home health patients and has never refused a patient due to an inability to pay. As stated until recently a very substantial portion of the Intervenor's referrals came from Petitioner and levels of service to the underserved, that is, Medicaid and indigent, have been low. This ties back to the observation that the 3% Medicaid and 5% indigent projection of service made by Petitioner may not be any easier to achieve and probably less so than the 2% Medicaid and 3% indigent which Intervenor is committed to. This is supported by the fact that on the first 11 months in 1988, Petitioner referred less than 2% Medicaid and 1% indigent. Moreover, the District III average for existing agencies of services to these underserved groups is .8% Medicaid and 1.3% indigent. As alluded to before, in December, 1985, Petitioner and Intervenor entered into an agreement. Per that agreement, Petitioner would refer all home health patients to Intervenor unless a patient or physician specifically requested otherwise. The agreement provided that Petitioner would provide certain services and personnel to Intervenor in exchange for compensation. It was a two-year agreement with an automatic one-year renewal. Petitioner chose to extend the contract for three years through the latter part of 1988. Since late 1988, Petitioner rotates its hospital referrals in the instance where the patient, patient's family or physician did not specify which home health agency was preferred. This means that as many as seven agencies could be involved in the rotation if Petitioner gained a CON, with Petitioner having no greater share than the rest. At present, there are four providers, two in the rotation are from the ABC home health group, the Intervenor and Upjohn another home health provider. Petitioner would make five. To make seven, VNA and Gulf Coast Home Health Services who have come into Citrus County would be added. VNA is another provider with a history of service to underserved patients. In this connection, Petitioner argues that its equal treatment of existing providers and itself, if granted a CON, minimizes the adverse impact of another competitor arriving on the scene and allows existing providers who are for profit agencies to remain financially viable. This together with trends toward early release in DRG for the hospital inpatient sector; provision of home health care through the Catastrophic Healthcare Act, and the general trend in increased home health visits in Citrus County make it possible for both the existing providers and the Petitioner to survive in the market place, if you accept the point of view of those who favor the grant of a CON to Petitioner. In fact, the DRG situation and the Catastrophic Healthcare Act, as events, are too speculative to say what their influence will be in promoting greater use of home health services. Otherwise, the trend toward increased visits that have been pointed out are now being met with an increased number of providers to deliver those visits. This dilutes market share. The Petitioner's rotation system further dilutes market share, especially as to the Intervenor. Thus, the question is raised on the matter of whether the historical trend toward increased visits is enough to sustain the existing providers with the advent of the Petitioner's presence and choice to rotate referrals. On the whole, the Petitioner's influence on competition is not positive and is not acceptable. The Petitioner's projections concerning its own market acceptance are unrealistic and unacceptable. The projections in the original application and in the December 5, 1988 update to that application as to skilled visits per patient far exceed the experience in the service area, Citrus County. The applicant speaks in terms of 53 visits when the historical experience in the county is approximately 30. Nothing in the record of the hearing tends to support the idea that Petitioner can deliver such an excessive increase in visits. Additionally, estimates of total home health visits in the first two years of operation are generally out of line. The estimate by Petitioner ranges as high as 42,000, plus visits. Some of the items in that count are not comparable to referrals made out of the hospital at present. Examples of this incomparability are homemaker services, DME and the category listed as general items. Again, prescription service is no longer proposed thereby reducing the numbers. Nonetheless, the estimate is still excessive. This is made the more apparent when taking in account that by annualizing available data 464 patients were referred by Petitioner in 1988. In examining what had been referred out in 1988 in number of patients, the number of visits on average by history and the idea of rotation of referrals, Petitioner cannot achieve the performance level it predicts. Moreover, projections for population in 1990 and 1991, the furtherest years out given by Petitioner in support of its application, don't change this impression because the increases in population will not justify the Petitioner's projections on market share as a function of number of visits. The estimates of visits at 1990 and 1991 based upon 50% retention of referrals projected from Petitioner's hospital for home health services is unrealistic in that retention could be as low as 15% to 20%. Therefore, visits would be much less than 5,693 and 7,950 in 1990 and 1991, respectively. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 22.) The failing in the estimate of performance level means that the revenue projections are inaccurate. Although Petitioner is a not for profit institution, its proposed home health operation is not seen to be financially feasible in the short term or long view. The fact that approximately 80% of costs in a home health operation are variable and that home health delivery is cost-based reimbursed does not relieve the Petitioner from giving a more realistic estimate of those costs, its performance and net financial position. The effect of this failing leaves the record unclear and the trier of fact unconvinced concerning the true facts about this project's financial feasibility. The pro formas as written do not identify employee benefits ranging in costs from 25% to 30%. Transportation costs are not reflected. If other facts were favorable to Petitioner, there would be very little additional costs associated with the start-up of its operation. Only minor "sprucing up" would be necessary before occupying existing space. Excess office furniture is currently available at the hospital. The addition of Petitioner as a provider of home health services will not significantly advance variety or quality of care sufficient to justify the issuance of a CON. At present, existing providers offer a wide variety of home health services and provide quality care. The fact that the Petitioner is a hospital based not for profit institution, does not alter these findings. The addition of Petitioner promotes no positive influence in competition in the market place. The risk is presented that overall cost in the health care system can be increased if the Petitioner is added and the market place becomes overburdened. Based upon past experience, the Intervenor needs to achieve around 8,700 visits a year to be financially viable, and to break even. Petitioner's proposal together with other competitors in the market, some recently arrived, Upjohn, VNA and Gulf Coast Home Health Services jeopardize the ability to remain financially viable. Nothing can be done about the other competitors, but the issue of Petitioner's presence can be dealt with and should be rejected as an outcome. At a minimum the addition of Petitioner does not foster cost containment in that it could cause the existing providers to up requests for reimbursement nearer the caps in the Medicare segment at public expense. While there is a need for homemaker services in Citrus County, that fact doesn't justify the grant of a CON to Petitioner because it is willing to provide them. In home health care delivery there is credible evidence that initial economies of scale occur between 6,000 to 9,000 visits per annum. There is a serious question about the Petitioner's ability to achieve that level of performance under the facts found previously. When initially reviewing the compliance of the application with the 1986 District III Health Plan, in addition to problems of compliance with the need methodology in that plan, Petitioner did not respond to the need for home health services in Hamilton County and expansion of the range of services in Columbia and Suwannee Counties. These counties are within District III. These latter items concerning the other counties do not hinder the Petitioner's attempt to gain a CON because at present the decision to grant or deny a CON is on a district-wide and not county-by-county basis. Therefore, in theory, the Petitioner could serve Hamilton, Columbia and Suwannee Counties. Admittedly, that is unlikely given the proximity of these counties to Citrus County. More importantly, there has been no showing that some other applicant entitled to comparative review with the Petitioner sought to serve the other three counties putting into effect the local planning guidelines on priorities for grant of a CON. Likewise the local planning council methodology is of no moment. It deals with a county-wide analysis, not a district-wide analysis of need. The district-wide concept applies in this case per the change in the method of assessment that was fostered by the agreement to wait for the Respondent to enact a rule methodology and with that delay the tacit acceptance of the idea that approved and licensed home health providers could expand their services throughout the district. By contrast the fact that the local council reported that 148% of need was being met in Citrus County is telling and works against Petitioner. Finally, the support of the application by the local council as advisor to the Respondent is noteworthy but cannot overturn the adverse facts in this hearing which cause the application to be rejected. Petitioner is basically in compliance with the Florida State Health Plan in effect at the time of application except for the question of whether the Petitioner can achieve the aforementioned economies of scale at 6,000 to 9,000 visits per annum and the possible adverse influence on existing providers in maintaining economies of scale. Rule 10-5.0111(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, supra, is the product of a considerable effort by Respondent to establish a balanced method of measuring the need for additional home health care providers in the various districts throughout the state. Unfortunately, it has limited utility in trying to resolve this controversy. The proponents of the use of the rule point out that nothing in the rule states that it cannot be applied retroactively to the case facts. Intervenor reminds us that nothing says it can be applied in that way. As hinted before, the rule cannot be seen to apply retroactively as it is written to render a defensible projection of need at the theoretical planning horizon of January, 1988. First, the service area in December, 1986 through January, 1988 was in reality Citrus County, not the district. There is no way to postulate who might have taken advantage of the opportunity to serve the overall district and come into Citrus County from outlying counties within the district because that was not allowed as a matter of right back then as it is now in the terms of the rule. The present situation has shown that there is such interest in coming into Citrus County with the addition of Upjohn, VNA and Gulf Coast Home Health Services. Next, the idea of who would have been shown as approved as a home health agency taking into account the January, 1988 planning horizon cannot reasonably be ascertained. The annual fixed need pool publication did not occur such that one could see who had been approved, or held a CON, one month prior to that publication to serve the district. Although one could argue that the identification of the pool can be hypothetically set for the fall of 1986, problems with identifying the 1985 data to establish that pool based upon information that was available to the Respondent at the time to announce the pool or availability of a complete data set about 1985 at the point of hearing persist. Associated with this dilemma is the influence agency expansions into other counties would have on calculation of CEAS. In the area of CEAS the exact nature of that situation cannot be ascertained. It cannot because one doesn't know which existing providers might have determined to go out of the counties in which they had offered their services and into other counties to open new units. This would have some influence on the average agency size within the district, which in turn causes a possible different answer in deriving the number of needed providers by the use of the formula. All this makes the exercise of accurately setting the pool unlikely and it wasn't done in this hearing. In using the district-wide service analysis back in time to fit the Petitioner's situation, an application by VNA in District III, Alachua County, pending and denied in December, 1987, the same month as Petitioner's denial, was not comparatively reviewed with the Petitioner as the law would theoretically require. VNA was subsequently approved and is functioning now. Consequently, comparative review is no longer possible. On the topic of the 1985 data, which is mandated in exercising the rule, what data in this category was available in the fall of 1986 is uncertain. The data about 1985 presently held by the Respondent is incomplete. This incompleteness is in AHAV where visits in all categories cannot be shown for 1985. This tends to understate what the formula derives as an answer. The derived answer for needed agencies is .7, rounded up per terms in the rule is one agency if the other factors that were described are ignored. They should not be. Especially, compelling is the existence of VNA, Alachua County which could use up the net need of one agency. Concerning the applicants who waited for the Respondent to enact a rule who applied for a CON in the period June, 1985 through December, 1987, the Respondent modified the use of the rule. In its thinking to make certain that no applicant along that time continuum was treated unfairly, Respondent picked 1986 data and a July, 1988 planning horizon in deciding the question of need. The result in the Petitioner's case was to use inappropriate data and an inappropriate planning horizon, according to the rule. This produced an answer of 1.1 agencies rounded down to 1. This is the same answer as before and no purpose is served in criticizing the Respondent's choice to deviate from the terms of the rule. On balance the concept of this rule as opposed to the ability to use the rule per se may look appealing as an abstraction, but it is unappealing as a means to resolve the factual dispute. It superimposes a system of district review at a time of county level service. For that reason, it cannot answer the riddle of how many providers would have exercised the right to serve Citrus County from other counties in the district as they have begun to do when the rule took effect in September, 1988. Using the rule retroactively anticipates a planning horizon which is already past. In recognition of this anomaly the parties have spoken to the future in their proof through the years 1990 and 1991. This has been necessitated by the agreement to wait for the Respondent to enact a new home health rule. That future is not conducive to the grant of the CON on the facts in this case which are more instructive about the true need in the district than the exercise of the formula in some past period. Had the Petitioner chosen to reapply and fallen under the clear terms of the rule, the result might be different. It did not, and it must accept the results of that choice.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of facts found in the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which denies the request for Certificate of Need as applied for by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Klingbell Boone & Roberts, P.A. 1001 Avenida Del Circo P. O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Stephen M. Presnell, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen, P.A. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-0386 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Finding of Facts The first paragraph and the first sentence to the second paragraph are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences within paragraph 2 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 3 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 4-7 are subordinate to facts found with exception the last sentence in paragraph 7 which is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 9 may express the statement of policy by the Respondent, but it is not an acceptable outcome in this instance. Paragraphs 10-12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is an accurate portrayal of the facts as far as its goes; however, it does not account for the problems of imposing the new home health rule over the time period associated with the filing date in this application. Paragraphs 14-16 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 17 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 19 is not necessary to resolution of dispute. Paragraph 20 in all sentences except the latter is subordinate to facts found. The latter sentence is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 21 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 23 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 25 is true in that at the time the local health council examined the application there was an indicated need for home health for Medicare and indigent patients. That need is being met at present to the extent that those classes of patients have been made aware of the existence of the home health services. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are contrary to facts found. Suggestions in Paragraph 29 do not comport with the situation in Citrus County at present. Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 31 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 32-36 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 37 and 38 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 39-43 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 44 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 45-51 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 52 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 53 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 54-56 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 57 is subordinate to facts found. As to Paragraph 58 it is uncertain whether the staff levels are adequate given the failure to accurately portray the volume of visits. In a related sense, Paragraph 59 as to salary level made to depicts the cost of those salaries, but it fails to include the benefits. Paragraph 60 is to general in its contention. It does not answer the failure to identify the more reasonable statement of staffing levels. Paragraph 61 is subordinate to facts found. The pro formas were not clear and the complementary proof offered at hearing did not confirm the assertion set out in paragraph 62. Paragraphs 63-65 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 66 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 67 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 68 is not necessary to the-resolution of dispute. Paragraph 69 depicts a situation that is to speculative to have relevance in this case. Paragraphs 70 and 71 are contrary to facts found. While the Paragraphs 72-74 accurately states the circumstance related to the intervenor in its initial involvement in the market. This situation has changed since that time and if Petitioner were to gain entry into the market the probability is that the intervenor's business would be seriously impacted. Paragraph 75 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 76 and 77 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 78 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 79-82 with exception of the last sentence in 82 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence in paragraph 82 is not accepted. Paragraph 83 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 84 and 85 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 86 is true if one fails to take into account the advent of services by the intervenor and additional providers who has come into the market who are willing to undertake service to those patients. Paragraphs 87 and 88 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 89 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 90 and 91 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 92 is subordinate to facts found. In Paragraph 93, while it is true that Petitioner has an excellent record of service to the Medicaid population in Citrus County, it is unclear why Medicaid patients are not receiving sufficient home health services, compared to what one would expect the demand to be. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 4-6 are contrary to facts found. Suggestion in Paragraph 7 is not a certainty and is not accepted in the fashion presented in these proposed facts. Paragraphs 8-10 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 12 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 13 and 14 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15 is a true statement if other factors which have been discussed in the recommended order are not taken into account. Paragraph 16 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 17-19 are not sufficiently relevant to this case to be reported as facts. Paragraph 20 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 21 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 22 and 23 may be basically an accurate statement of the Respondent's policies; however, this arrangement is not satisfactory on this occasion. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 29 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 30 is true if the rule was found to be applicable. Paragraph 31 and 32 are not necessary to resolution of dispute. Paragraph 33 may be true in terms of the prospective use of the rule but is not influential in this case. Paragraph 34 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 35 is speculative and has little relevance absent a showing that the expansion into the other areas within the district offset new providers coming into Citrus County, to include the Petitioner. Paragraphs 36 and 37 are subordinate to facts found. The suggestion in paragraph 38 is a statement of limited value in that there are no other competitors in District III from other batches. Paragraphs 39-43 are subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to paragraph 44 is subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 45 and 46 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 47 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 48 is accurate as for as it goes; however, it fails to take into account the fact that the Intervenor began to provide home health care to indigent and Medicaid patients. Paragraph 49 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 50 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 51-53 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 54 is subordinate to facts found. 35 The suggestion in the first sentence of paragraph 55 is true. Again it fails to take into account the change in circumstances with the advent of the Intervenor's services. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not in meaningful contribution to the fact finding in the context of the overall facts reported in the recommended order. Paragraphs 57 and 58 are subordinate to facts found. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3-5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 7 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is; not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 9 through the first sentence in paragraph 16 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences in paragraph 16 are not necessary to the resolution in dispute nor is the first and last sentences within paragraph 17. The other sentence within paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence in paragraph 18 is subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 19 through the first sentence of paragraph 23 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence in paragraph 23 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute nor is paragraph 24. Paragraph 25 in all sentences save the last is subordinate to facts found. The last sentence is not necessary to resolution of dispute. Paragraph 26 through all sentences in paragraph 30 except the last sentence are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 32 and the first sentence to paragraph 33 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence in paragraph 33 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 34 and the first sentence of paragraph 35 subordinate to facts found. The last sentence in paragraph 35 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 36 through the first sentence of paragraph 38 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence in paragraph 38 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 39 cannot be utilized in that the rule in question was not provided to the Hearing Officer under official recognition and is unavailable to confirm the assertion set out in that paragraph. Paragraphs 40 through 43 are subordinate to facts found. The suggestions in paragraphs 44 through 45 are contrary to the impression of the Hearing Officer. Paragraphs 46 through 48 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 49 and 50 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 53 through 55 as an approach to resolving factual disputes are rejected. Paragraph 56 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 57 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 58 is not in keeping with the analysis of this case and the facts found in the recommended order nor is paragraph 59. Paragraphs 60 through 65 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 66 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 67 and the first two sentences within paragraph 68 are subordinate to facts found. Remaining sentences within paragraph 68 are not in keeping with the analysis performed in the fact finding within the recommended order. Paragraph 69 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 70 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 71 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 72 through 76 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 77 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 80 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 81-86 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 87 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 88 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 89-91 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 92 through 94 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 95 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 96 through 101 in the first sentence to that paragraph are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences in paragraph 101 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 102 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 103 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 104 and 105 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 106 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 107 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 108 through 116 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 117 and 118 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 119 through 122 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 123 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 124-126 are subordinate to facts found. Suggestion in paragraph 127 that the rotation system will not be employed is rejected. The remaining contents within that paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 128 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 129 through 133 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 134 is contrary to the facts found. Paragraph 135 is contrary to the facts found. Paragraph 136 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute.
The Issue The issues presented in this case concern the entitlement of Vari-Care, Inc., d/b/a Hospitality Home Health, Inc.(Vari-Care) and A All Care Home Health Agency (A All Care) to be granted a certificate of need to provide home health services in HRS Service District IX. In this regard there are two basic issues. The first issue concerns the question of whether there is a need for the provision of additional home health services through the recognition of the contending applicants for certificate. The second issue concerns the matter of the comparative or competitive review of the credentials of the two applicants who vie for this recognition. These matters are considered in keeping with Section 381.494, Florida Statutes, and the related provisions of Section 10- 5.11, Florida Administrative Code. The recognition would be as envisioned in the definition of home health care agency as set forth in Section 400.462(2) Florida Statutes. EXHIBITS In furtherance of its presentation Petitioner, Vari-Care, presented twelve exhibits which were received. A All Care, as Petitioner, presented eight exhibits which were received. HRS offered one exhibit and it was received. Intervenor, Palm Beach Regional Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. (Visiting Nurse) offered five exhibits and they were received. Intervenor A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc. (A Associated), offered two exhibits and they were received.
Findings Of Fact Vari-Care and A All Care made application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for the grant of certificates of need to establish home health care agencies in Palm Beach County, Florida, to serve residents in that locale. Following review of these applications, the department noticed the applicants of the intent to deny the applications. In the face of this rejection, the applicants made timely request for an administrative hearing to resolve the question of their entitlement to the grant of certificates of need. In view of the fact that the applications had been reviewed and considered by the department in the same "batch", the hearing had as its purpose the question of the need for additional home health care delivery through the efforts of these applicants and the matter of comparison of Petitioners' relative merits as would-be home health care providers. Several entities requested intervention, among them Florida Association of Home Health Agencies. That agency was denied intervention. Intervention was afforded to Palm Beach Regional Visiting Nurse Association Inc., and A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc., both of whom are holders of certificates to provide home health care services in Palm Beach County, Florida. In furtherance of its request, Vari-Care has established a separate corporation in the state of Florida to operate its intended home health agency. This corporation is known as Vari-Care, Inc., d/b/a Hospitality Home Health. At present Vari-Care offers health care through three nursing homes in the state of Florida, all of which are located in Palm Beach County. In addition, Vari-Care is a home health care provider in Alabama and Arizona. If recognized to provide home health care services through the certification process, Vari-Care proposes to offer services primarily for the benefit of those patients who are being discharged from its three nursing homes located in Palm Beach County. The nursing homes in question carry a superior rating. At the point of hearing, five to ten patients a week were discharged from the several nursing homes operated by Vari-Care. Those patients are presently receiving home health care services from other home health care providers and the administration of Vari- Care has not experienced difficulty in arranging for the delivery of that care for the benefit of the patients discharged from the Vari-Care facilities. Vari- Care contends that if it were allowed to follow-up the care of the patients discharged from the nursing homes it would promote a "continuum of care" tending to improve the quality of care and relieve patient anxiety. In this regard Vari-Care would hope to use some of the professional staff in the nursing homes to offer to deal with the needs of the patient who was homebound following discharge. The testimony tended to establish that this facet of continuity of care is tenuous at best. It is more likely that separate health care professionals would be involved with the patient in the nursing home and home setting. It would appear that the idea of "continuum of care" will only transpire to the extent of the affiliation between the nursing homes and the home health care arm of Vari-Care. Initially Vari-Care had indicated that it would have its base of operation in the nursing home facility. That position was amended and at the point of hearing the Vari-Care application contemplated the establishment of a separate operating facility for the benefit of the home health care business. Out of that facility Vari-Care would provide skilled nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, social services, meals on wheels and transportation services. Finally, Vari-Care in its operation does not preclude the possibility of attracting other patients who are not being discharged from its nursing homes, in marketing its home health care delivery. A All Care is a corporation in which Julie Monahann is the sole stockholder. At present Ms. Monahann is sole stockholder of A All Care Nursing, of Boynton Beach, Florida, which operates a private-duty nurse registry in the southern part of Palm Beach County. That registry has available approximately 200 nurses. Ms. Monahann contemplates the establishment of a certified home health care operation as an outgrowth of her present business. Not being the holder of a certificate of need, Ms. Monahann has been unable to serve patients who are the recipients of Medicare and wishes to have that opportunity. Provision of this care would be through some of the same nurses who are listed in the registry for Ms. Monahann's private duty nursing business. In pursuing the application of certificate of need, Monahann has been influenced by the erroneous perception that no other certified home health care provider was directing its efforts to serving homebound patients in south Palm Beach County. As stated, presently there are a number of licensed and certified home health care providers operating in Palm Beach County. Those agencies offer a comprehensive range of home health services. Visiting Nurse operates throughout Palm Beach County with its parent office in West Palm Beach and satellite offices in Jupiter, Boynton Beach and Belle Glade. In addition to serving Medicare and Medicaid patients, this home health care provider offers services to the indigent. It is the intention of the Visiting Nurse to move their Boynton Beach operation to Boca Raton. Should either of the applicants be recognized by the grant of a certificate of need, Visiting Nurse would be substantially affected. In the recent past, Visiting Nurse has experienced the introduction of additional home health care service by other home health care providers operating in Palm Beach County and it has tended to decrease the number of patient visits provided by Visiting Nurse and to negatively impact cost, by requiring an increase in cost of the provision of a home health care visit. The effect of a drop in the number of home visits and increase in cost impacts the quality control of Visiting Nurse in such matters as the ability to provide in-service education and provide the services of home care coordinators. Home care coordinators assist in the provision of continuity of care between the referring sources and the patient in the home. Finally, a diminution in home visits and increase in cost would adversely affect the treatment of indigent patients in the home, in that Visiting Nurse is a significant provider of indigent care to those patients in that category and pressures upon the financial standing of the provider would decrease the care available to indigent patients. A Associated, intervenor, serves Palm Beach County from two offices, one in Jupiter and the other in Lake Worth. This organization utilizes employee teams who live in a particular area of Palm Beach County where the patients are found. This would include the area of Boca Raton and Delray Beach which is found in south Palm Beach County, areas where both petitioners would place emphasis. With the advent of a new home health care agency in 1983, which is known as Coastal, A Associated experienced a decrease in patient referrals and an increase in the cost per visit, due to the need to fund the same amount of overhead in the face of a lesser number of visits. Given the previous experience with Coastal, the introduction of the two applicants into the marketplace in south Palm Beach County would substantially affect the rights and opportunities of A Associated and as a consequence patient rights. All told, there are nine licensed home health agencies serving Palm Beach County and approximately thirteen licensed home health agencies operating within District IX, which includes Palm Beach County and counties adjacent to Palm Beach County. Some agencies in Palm Beach County maintain multiple offices to facilitate the delivery of the health care. Those agencies include Visiting Nurse with its four offices, A Associated with its two offices, Community Home Health with two offices, A Visiting Redi Nurse with three offices, and Home Care of the Palm Beaches with two offices. Mederi Home Health Services has one office in Palm Beach County. A recent addition, Salhaven Home Health Care, licensed to operate as a home health agency will operate in the Jupiter area of Palm Beach County. Its services were to be provided within a month of the date of final hearing in this cause. Gold Coast Home Health Services provides home health service in south Palm Beach County from its Broward county office which is near the Broward County/Palm Beach County line and has operated in Palm Beach county since 1970. Coastal Home Health Services also referred to as Associated Home Health Services is presently operating in Palm Beach County, though it has its office in Broward County. Of these agencies, only Salhaven and Gold Coast decline to operate in the entire Palm Beach County area. Gold Coast operates from the southern boundary of the County to a central area. The aforementioned home health agencies are duly licensed and certified to provide home health care to Medicare recipients and as such, present alternatives to the services which the applicants would offer to Medicare patients within the Palm Beach county community. The home health care providers who service HRS District IX and in particular Palm Beach County, have the capacity to meet need for home health services in the questioned service area. In addition, those home health care agencies are capable of meeting foreseeable increases in the need for additional home health services either within their present resources or through expansion of resources. Neither adjustment would reduce their effectiveness or negatively impact cost considerations and quality of care. A number of patient referral agencies, i.e., nursing homes and hospitals, in the person of officials, provided testimony in the course of the hearing and did not indicate that placement of Medicare patients in need of home health care presented a problem in Palm Beach County. There is an ongoing liaison between the placement agencies such as hospitals and nursing homes and the several home health care providers serving Palm Peach County who offer assistance to homebound Medicare patients. In that context, there is a vigorous competition between the home health care providers to serve Medicare patients in need of home health care delivery. The vigor of the competition is evidenced by the experience of MederiInc., which has operated out of its Delray Beach office since September 1983, and has been disappointed in the number of patient referrals. This is attributable to the active competition between the home health care providers. As a consequence, Mederi has a high percentage of unused capacity without increasing administrative overhead, approaching the ability to accommodate fifty percent more patients. In fact, Mederi could provide twenty percent more home health care visits without increasing its direct patient care staff. The proposal for the applicants related to patient costs are not advantageous when compared to those costs related to the present home health care providers. The present Medicare home health providers in Palm Beach County are well within the "cost caps" established by the Medicare program. On the subject of patient cost for Medicare patients, there is a wide variety of cost per visit depending upon the given home health care provider; however, none of those costs are as high as those proposed by the applicants in this case. The Medicare reimbursement program is required to reimburse the home health care provider who holds a certificate of need and license on the basis of reasonable operating costs, provided those reasonable operating costs are less than the charges made by the agency for the services and provided the Medicare reimbursement cost implementations, "cost caps", are not exceeded. Vari-Care by its proposal would exceed the present "cost caps" and adversely affect the medicare program by the imposition of such costs. The applicants do not afford any unique services in the home health care setting. In fact, the applicants' provision of care does not rival the level of sophistication of some of the ongoing providers. Presently Community Home Health is receiving patient referrals from the three nursing homes of Vari-Care and is providing the Medicare home visits to those patients at a cost per visit much less than contemplated by Vari-Care. Actually, those costs per visit by Community are the lowest rates mentioned by any provider of home health care for Medicare patients in Palm Beach County. In the course of the hearing, one of the attempts to measure the question of the need for additional home health care delivery for Medicare patients was described in the terms of "unmet need". There being no established methodology by the department to measure the entitlement of the applicants to the grant of a certificate of need, the concept of "unmet need" provides a valuable insight in deciding the application question on this occasion. Using this measurement, no indication has been given which would tend to identify patients within Palm Beach County or in the overall HRS District IX, who are not receiving needed home health care services. Moreover, there is sufficient capacity within the present home health care providers to meet the need for home health care delivery for Medicare patients within the planning horizon contemplated by the applications under consideration. In a related vein, there does not appear to be a body of Medicare recipients whom the home health care providers have neglected, based upon a belief that the patients were inaccessible to the home health care professionals who deliver the services. The present home health care providers have located their central and satellite offices to cover Palm Beach County completely and in particular south Palm Beach County where the two applicants would establish their offices. The hours of operation of the present home health care providers are satisfactory and the applicants would not offer hours of operation which are significantly different. In addition, there is no indication that there is a lack of awareness on the part of the patients on the topic of availability of home health care services, quite the contrary, an intricate mechanism is in place which promotes the necessary referrals of those patients to home health care providers to assist the patient in the home setting. An example of this mechanism is seen in the broad-based referral arrangements between a number of hospitals and the home health providers in Palm Beach county or in some instances specific agreements between hospitals and a given provider. This is based upon the information presented at the hearing as to arrangements between Delray Community Hospital, St. Mary's, Humanna, Good Samaritan, Belle Glade Community, and Bethesda Hospitals, and the various providers. On the associated question of quality of care, as in the instance of availability of care there is no indication that the quality of care received by the patients in the home setting is lacking. If this problem existed, one would expect a hue and cry by the public or agencies charged with the function of monitoring quality of care. Such an upheaval has not been shown to exist in Palm Beach County related to the delivery of home health care to the Medicare patients. The only actual research in this regard was done by Delray Community Hospital and its informal survey did not indicate displeasure with the quality of home health care being received by its patients who were Medicare recipients. All home health care providers operating in Palm Beach County seem to have an awareness of the need to deliver quality care and have involved themselves in programs related to in-service training and quality assurance. Vari-Care in its nursing home experience in referring patients for home health care delivery has not experienced complaints from its patients related to the quality of home health care. The present home health care providers are mindful of the need for fiscal restraint given the breadth of competition and have instituted policies to promote efficiency, to include the utilization of contract professionals who are not full time employees of those providers. In carrying out the administration of its operations, the home health care providers in Palm Beach County are aware of the "cost caps" established by Medicare and do not exceed them. Neither has there been any indication that those providers have run afoul of other regulatory provisions of the Medicare program in efforts to deliver the Medicare services in the home. By contrast, the present applicants do not seem well apprised of the requirements of Medicare. At present, there are a number of demonstration projects by health maintenance organizations operating in Palm Beach County. Those projects include the delivery of home health care. It has been shown that patients within the health maintenance organization receive home health services, who ordinarily would be entitled to Medicare reimbursement. The effect of this arrangement is to decrease home visits by the home health care providers in Palm Beach County. On the other hand, some of the health care agencies have experienced problems where services were delivered to patients who were members of health maintenance organizations and the health maintenance organization refused to reimburse the home health agency for services rendered to members of the health maintenance organization. It is not certain what the future holds for delivery of home health care through health maintenance organizations, but at present the development tends to diminish the patient pool from which the home health care providers draw their clientele. While both applicants have sufficient financial ability to begin operation as a home health care provider, the short and long-term financial feasibility of the projects is not sound. Vari-Care has overestimated the amount of reimbursement that it hopes to receive from Medicaid by projecting a return of $55 per visit when it would only be entitled to $16, promoting a deficit of some $40,000. It also projects a charge for Medicare visits at $55 when the Medicare "cost cap" is $50 to $52, promoting a deficiency of at least $3 per visit and a total deficiency of some $24,000. A All Care has no established referral base such as the nursing homes referrals contemplated by Vari-Care, and its financial feasibility is questionable given that circumstance. Finally, both applicants face a competitive environment in which their survival and that of the on-going home health care providers, is jeopardized should the applicants be recognized by the issuance of certificates of need. Dr. Donald Davis, an expert in health care planning, testified in behalf of A All Care. He correctly identifies the fact that home health care services are labor intensive as opposed to an undertaking which requires extensive capital expenditure. Consequently, from his point of view, when competition is great in the home health care setting, patient cost will be lower and a more efficient system will evolve forming a basis for the recognition of additional home health agencies. Dr. Davis was also impressed with the fact that a lower number of home health care providers per capita were found in Palm Beach County as contrasted with Dade and Broward counties, in Florida, when the number of home health care providers are compared to the overall population in those counties, which by his observation might be an indication of the need for additional home health care providers. Here he did not contend that there is some optimum number of patients or visits which can be offered by a given home health care provider. Davis had misunderstood the number of home health agencies serving Palm Beach County in advancing his remarks. His belief was to the effect that only six Medicare home health agencies operated in Palm Beach County, instead of the nine that wore actually there. By comparison, Daniel Sullivan, who testified as a health planning expert, called as a witness by Visiting Nurse, felt that in the present environment, increased competition would result in increased costs to patients. He believes that the present providers can serve additional patients at a lower cost than the applicants could with the advent of the recognition of the two applicants. Sullivan stated that if the number of visits to patients were sufficiently reduced, as would occur when the applicants were recognized, the cost per visit would increase. Having considered the opinions of Davis and Sullivan, Sullivan is found to be the more compelling witness arid his opinions as set forth are accepted. In summary, if the applicants introduced their operations into the Palm Beach County and HRS District IX service area, health care costs would escalate and the quality of delivery of health care services through the present home health care providers would be adversely affected. Vari-Care presented the testimony of the health planning expert Mary Ellen Early. She presented a methodology for ascertaining the need for additional home health care service, there being no established methodology by rule. Early looked at the increase in population within Palm Beach County between 1970 and 1980, which is in the neighborhood of 65.3% compared to 43.5% in Florida. She noted that Palm Beach County had increased in population since 1983 on the order of 13.1% and was the fifth most populated county in the state. Of the five most populated counties, Palm Beach County has experienced the largest percentage of growth in the decade 1970 through 1980. She noted that Palm Beach County ranks third nationally in the percentage of elderly and that the percentage of elderly sixty five and older doubled between the years 1970 and 1980. She noted that 13,220 individuals fall into the age categories of seventy five years and older, a high risk population. Statistics by the local health planning agency, as discovered by Early, indicated a continuing increase in the sixty five and older population, projected to be 29.3% by 1990. With this background, in her needs formula Early used three variables. Her formula assumes that 6% of medical/surgical hospital discharges, 8% of individuals sixty five and older, and 50% of nursing home discharges would need home health care services showing a demand of 18,129 people that could require home health service. The calculations were made based upon 1982 statistics about the sixty five and older age group. Ms. Early was not mindful of, nor has any other party to this cause, indicated the exact number of individuals presently receiving home health services in Palm Beach County. Without that knowledge the projection is not useful because it can not be shown that additional services need to be provided. From the projection of the number of persons who would demand home health care and adding to that methodology the idea, in Early's mind, that the effect of discharges from hospitals and nursing homes as it pertains to diagnostic-related groupings, and the high occupancy rates in nursing homes in Palm Beach county, and the increase in Medicaid patient days and Medicare patient days in the period 1980 through 1983, together with the limited number of home health agencies within Palm Beach County compared to the other six most populace counties in Florida, a need exists for recognition of Vari-Care's application to serve homebound patients. In analyzing her remarks, the information provided in the course of the hearing does not tend to be firm enough to conclude that the referrals from hospitals and nursing homes, as a result of diagnostic related groupings, will significantly increase the number of home health care visits. Therefore, that element of the opinion of Early is discarded. Also, the needs methodology used by Early, overstates that need for Medicare home health care services in that it includes in its definition home health services not reimbursed by Medicare. It includes duplication of numbers of persons in need of home health care services by counting 65 year old and older persons discharged from the hospitals and then recounting those persons in a calculation related to the fact that 8% of individuals sixty five and older would need the home health care delivery. This was further brought to question in that contrary to the 8% estimate of sixty five population and over needing Medicare home health services, effective 1983, 5 1/2% of that age cohort population was in need of those services. Returning to the topic of the formula selected by Ms. Early, it can also be assumed that some of the patients being discharged from the nursing homes into the home health setting, will be sixty five years and older and the risk of double counting exists in that calculation. As with the circumstance of observations by Dr. Davis, there has been no showing of the ultimate number of services that may be provided by home health care provider. Therefore the ratio of the number of home health care providers to population in Palm Beach County, as one of the six most populated counties in contrasting this ratio with the counties with the high population groups, is meaningless. The evidence tends to reveal that the real question is whether all patients who wish to be afforded the home health care delivery, are being provided quality care at a reasonable cost, and this is occurring at present in Palm Beach County and throughout District IX. On balance, the needs formula and the other projections by Ms. Early as to the need for additional home health care services provided by Vari-Care are not accepted. Vari-Care places emphasis on the fact that it would offer services to Medicaid patients, who are primarily being served at present by Visiting Nurse. The inquiry in this cause has to do with services for the benefit of Medicare recipients. To the extent that the Medicaid recipients are involved in any way in this question, there is a suspicion that Vari-Care would not be willing to go forward with the provision of the amount of Medicaid service that it has proposed in its application given its misunderstanding of the reimbursement entitlement, the difference between the $16 allowed and the $55 which Vari-Care feels it is entitled to. Even if those costs were reduced and Medicaid services were provided at the level contemplated by Vari-Care, this would not be sufficient reason to afford a certificate of need to Vari-Care. The introduction of Vari-Care into the market place would also have an adverse impact on Visiting Nurse and as described would be brought to bear on the Medicaid patients who receive services from that organization. In view of the fact that no proof has been established tending to show the need for the recognition of either applicant for certificate of need, it is not necessary to comment on the relative qualifications of the applicants, beyond whet has already been established in these facts.
Findings Of Fact CHS is an existing provider of home health care services in Pasco and Pinellas Counties, HRS District V, and has provided such services since 1981. CHS offers a wide range of nursing services including nurses specializing in I.V. therapy, oncology, geriatrics, obstetrics, pediatrics, and orthopedics; licensed practical nursing services; nursing assistants; home health care aides; and respiratory therapy services n the home. These services are offered solely to private payors. Only home health care providers who have been issued certificates of need are licensed and eligible to serve Medicare and Medicaid patients whose care is paid for under whose programs. CHS is applying for a certificate of need in order to be eligible to provide home health care which is paid for pursuant to Medicare and Medicaid procedures. At the time CHS' application was first considered Respondent found the application not to meet the requirements of a need methodology rule which was subsequently declared invalid. The present denial is alleged to be bared solely on statutory criteria. CHS presented one expert witness who calculated need for additional home health care services using a formula suggested by he U.S. Department of Human Services but which was never adopted as a rule by any agency. Pursuant to this formula, which takes into consideration the projected population of the service area, the age cohorts of the population, the population's historical and projected utilization of home health and related services, he service area's hospital discharge rate, and nursing home utilization data, an unmet need for services for 62,541 potential home bed health care patients in 1985, with 13,960 in Pasco and 49,581 in Pinellas Counties, was found. Based on the historical utilization of home health area services by patients in District V, the existing licensed home health agencies, of which there are 12, are projected to serve 25,424 patients in 1985 Exhibit 3). This would leave a potential unmet need for some 28,000 patients in District V. However, serious questions were raised as to the efficacy of the assumption in the formula since this methodology was never adopted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has not been tested by empirical verification, and the definition of home health services used in this formula is not limited to part-time or intermittent services. Home health care providers differ from other medical care providers principally in the fact that the capital outlay in establishing home health care is minimal. This is so because such care is personal service oriented with little tangible property required. As an example, CHS employs some four or five full-time employees and maintains a list of approximately 350 nurses and aides that can be called to provide the home health care services needed. Accordingly, there is no large fixed payroll to meet when work is slack and services can be increased by any home health care provider simply by employing nurses as the jobs arrive and stop their pay when the care is no longer needed. There is no large overhead to be concerned with in this type operation. CHS is financially capable and has the personnel resources to provide the proposed service. CHS has a line of credit with a commercial bank of $100,000, has the organizational ability to operate as a home health care provider, and has personnel available to provide all services needed. CHS proposes to serve all Medicaid patients who apply for services and to provide services throughout District V as needed. No evidence was presented that patients needing home health care are unable to get such care from existing providers. CHS presently serves private pay patients and holds itself out as able to provide all home health care required within District V. No evidence was presented that those 12 licensed home health care providers in District V are unable to provide all authorized Medicare and Medicaid home health care needed. Since any of them can increase the availability of services simply by employing additional personnel to provide such services as needed actual need for additional certificate of need holders will be difficult to prove. CHS presented evidence that when its private pay patients who are Medicare eligible are hospitalized and subsequently discharged from the hospital needing home health care, the hospital usually refers these patients to a licensed home health care provider who can be compensated by Medicare. This results in CHS losing these patients. Home health care providers get approximately one-half of their patients referred to them by a doctor and one-half referred by a hospital. This ratio is accurate for Petitioner and for the licensed home health care providers The advent of diagnostic relate groupings (DRGs) could impact on home health care providers, but no evidence was presented (if available) of the actual impact DRGs will have on nursing homes or on home health care providers.
Findings Of Fact 1. The initial action of HRS in regard to the application of Home Health Care of Bay's application for a CON, as set forth in the State Agency Action Report (SAAR), was to deny the application. 2. The SAAR, dated April 29, 1987, together with a cover letter dated April 30, 1987, advised Home Health Care of Bay that its application has been denied because "[t]here was no need demonstrated by Home Health Care of Bay for an additional home health agency in Bay County." These two documents further advised Home Health Care of Bay of its point of entry into Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. 3. Home Health Care of Bay availed itself of this point of entry by filing a reguest for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) on the initial decision to deny its application. 4. Home Health Care of Bay is a for-profit corporation under the laws of Florida, having been incorporated on December 10, 1986, prior to the SAAR and the initial denial letter. 5. Home Health Care of Bay has had its principal office in the State of Florida since its incorporation. 6. Home Health Care of Bay does not have and has never had more than 25 full-time employees. 7. At the time of its CON application and of the initial denial by HRS, Home Health Care of Bay had assets of $1,000, which was received from issuance of 1,000 shares of stock at $1.00 per share, and a note receivable of $21,600. The total net worth of Home Health Care of Bay at the time this action was initiated was $22,600. 8. By its response to Request for Admission 1 and its stipulation at hearing, HRS has stipulated that Home Health Care of Bay incurred attorneys' fees and associated costs in DOAH Case No. 87-2151 equal to $15,000 and that said fees and costs are reasonable. It is so found. 9. Following a formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 87- 2151, a Recommended Order was entered on December 17, 1987, recommending granting of the CON. A Final Order was entered by HRS on February 15, 1988. HRS adopted all of the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order. HRS granted certain exceptions to the Conclusions of Law. Specifically, HRS granted exceptions as to the conclusions that its reliance on the statutory criteria is "nebulous," that its failure to establish a need methodology is arbitrary and capricious, that it was requiring applicants to prove "unmet need," and that the Hearing Officer relied in part on a need methodology abandoned by HRS. 10. HRS granted the requested CON to Home Health Care of Bay by this Final Order. 11. Findings of Fact in that Recommended Order, which were adopted by HRS, included findings that: A. HRS abandoned its "interim policy" regarding use of a need methodology in home health agency applications in late 1986. (Finding of Fact 56). B. HRS informed applicants that it had abandoned the interim policy only after applications were filed in the second batching cycle of 1986. (Finding of Fact 57). C. Applicants in this December, 1986, batching cycle, including Home Health Care of Bay, were asked for an unlimited extension of time within which HRS could render a decision. (Finding of Fact 58). D. Applicants who refuse to agree to an extension were evaluated on the basis of the "statutory need criteria." Applicants who did not agree to an extension were denied. (Finding of Fact 59). E. The new "policy" used by HRS to evaluate these applications (the ones who refused to grant extensions) put the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate an unmet need. Such a demonstration would be difficult to make. (Finding of Fact 62). F. HRS reviewed Home Health Care of Bay's application using the new "policy" based on the "thirteen statutory criteria." Such a review required Home Health Care of Bay to prove need by demonstrating an unmet need. (Finding of Fact 63). G. As evidenced by HRS' review of Home Health Care of Bay's application, a policy requiring an applicant to meet a negative burden of proof is unreasonable. It imposes a standard which is e for an applicant to meet. (Finding of Fact). 12. Fig in the Recommended Order set forth extensive the standard used by HRS to review the application Health Care of Bay and the reasons why the review was deficient and the determination to deny the application was flawed. 13. One Conclusion of Law which HRS did not reverse is that found on page 35 of the Recommended Order in the second full paragraph: Further, DHRS' preliminary decision had no reasonable basis in law or fact at the time it was made. It is this same preliminary decision which was set forth in the SAAR and which constituted the initial decision from which Home Health Care of Bay had a point of entry into Chapter 120 proceedings. 14. In attempting to justify its actions, HRS presented the testimony of Sharon Gordon-Girvin. Ms. Gordon-Girvin had no part in or knowledge of the initial decision of HRS to deny this application. Instead, shortly before and in preparation for the formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 87-2151, Ms. Gordon- Girvin reviewed the SAAR and the initial decision and agreed with HRS' counsel not to enter into a settlement with Home Health Care of Bay. Her testimony regarding the basis for and correctness of the initial denial is rejected as being irrelevant to the question of whether HRS had a reasonable basis in law and in fact at the time it initially denied the application. Additional, such after-the-fact rationalization and justification for HRS' actions is so self- serving as to merit little weight. 15. HRS failed to prove that its initial denial was reasonable in DOAH Case No. 87-2151 and it failed to prove in this case that there was any reasonable basis for its initial denial. 16. HRS did present evidence that Home Health Care of Bay may be able to recover some of its fees and costs through Medicare reimbursements amortized over at least five (5) years. However, the evidence was speculative and uncertain, and HRS did not offer evidence that Home Health Care of Bay will recover any or all of its fees and costs through Medicare reimbursements.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Board of Medicine (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Pedro Rene Benitez, M.D., is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 53453. On or about November 12, 1997, a true bill was returned by a grand jury in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Number 97-574-Cr-LENARD, which charged Respondent, as well as numerous co-defendants, with, inter alia, conspiracy to defraud the United States by making false claims to the United States Department of Health and Human Services in its administration of the Medicare program, contrary to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 371.1 Pertinent to this case, Count I of the Superseding Indictment charged Respondent, together with eighteen other persons or organizations, as follows: COUNT I (CONSPIRACY: 18 U.S.C. § 371) From in or about January 1991, the exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, and continuing through in or about October 1993, in Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendants . . . did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, agree, and reach a tacit understanding with each other and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit offenses against the United States, as follows: (a) to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating, through deceitful and dishonest means, the lawful government functions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in its administration of the Medicare program, in violation of Title 18, Unites States Code, Section 371. . . . GENERAL ALLEGATIONS At all times material to this Indictment: THE MEDICARE PART A PROGRAM AND REGULATIONS The Medicare program was a Federal program that helped pay for health care for the aged, blind and disabled. The Medicare program was administered by HHS, through its agency, the Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA"). Medicare, through the Medicare "Part A" program, covered certain eligible home health care costs for medical services provided by "home health agencies", commonly referred to as "providers", to persons who qualified for Medicare and who required home health services because of an illness or disability that caused them to be homebound. . . . HCFA contracted with private insurance companies to administer the Medicare Part A program throughout the United States. In the State of Florida, HCFA contracted with Aetna Medicare Administration of Clearwater ("AETNA"). As administrator, AETNA was to receive, adjudicate and pay claims submitted by home health agencies and providers under the Part A program. * * * Under the Medicare Part A program, home health agencies possessing the required CON were reimbursed for reasonable costs and overhead expenses incurred for direct patient care. The Medicare Part A program reimbursed 100% of the allowable charges for participating agencies providing home health care services only if the patient: (a) was confined to the home; (b) was under the care of a physician who determined the need for home health care and set up a written home health plan, known as a Home Health Certification and Plan of Treatment; and (c) was in need of skilled nursing care on an intermittent basis, required physical or speech therapy, or had a continuing need for occupational therapy. Medicare Part A regulations further required home health agencies providing services to Medicare patients to maintain complete and accurate medical records reflecting the medical assessment and diagnoses of their patients, as well as records documenting actual treatment of the patients to whom services were provided and for whom claims for reimbursement were submitted by the home health agency. These medical records were required to be sufficiently complete to permit Medicare, through AETNA, to review the appropriateness of Medicare payments made to the home health agency under the Part A program. Among the written records necessary to document the appropriateness of home health care claims submitted under Part A of Medicare was a Home Health Certification and Plan of Treatment (HCFA Form 485) (hereinafter referred to as "POT"), signed by an attending physician certifying that the patient was confined to his or her home and was in need of the planned home health services. Moreover, any substantial changes to the POT, or the provision of any home health services beyond a two-month (62 days) period from the date of the original certification, required a re-certification by the attending physician of the need for these changed or additional home health services. Additionally, Medicare Part A regulations required home health agencies to maintain medical records of each visit made by a nurse or home health aide to a patient. The record of a nurse's visit was required to describe, among other things, any observed significant signs or symptoms, any treatment and drugs administered, any reactions by the patient, and any changes in the patient's physical or emotional condition. These written medical records generally were created and maintained in the form of "skilled nursing notes" and "home health aide observations." * * * HOME HEALTH AGENCIES INVOLVED Defendant MEDERI OF DADE COUNTY, INC. ("MEDERI DADE COUNTY") was a home health care provider, incorporated in the State of Florida ("Florida") and certified by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY was located in Coral Gables, Florida and possessed Medicare Provider Number 10-7087. Mederi of Miami Lakes, Inc. ("Mederi Miami Lakes") was a home health care provider, certified by the Florida Division of Health and Quality Assurance. Mederi Miami Lakes, which was a branch of defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY, was located in the Miami Lakes area of Dade County, Florida and possessed Medicare Provider Number 10-7380. THE DEFENDANTS * * * * * * 43. Defendant PEDRO RENE BENITEZ was a resident of Dade County, Florida and a licensed physician. * * * PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRACY 53. It was the purpose and object of the conspiracy for the defendants to enrich themselves by fraudulently inducing HHS to pay defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes millions of dollars in Medicare Part A reimbursements for purportedly legitimate home health care claims and expenses, which claims and expenses the defendants knew to be false, fictitious, fraudulent and otherwise non-reimbursable in that, as the defendants well knew, the services were not actually provided or were provided to persons who the defendants knew were not qualified to receive Medicare home health care benefits. MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY The manner and means by which the defendants sought to accomplish the purpose and object of the conspiracy included the following: * * * . . . defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JORGE PEREZ, MANUEL DIAZ, NORA COSTA, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTO MONTANER, NILDA MIRANDA and RAUL CABRERA participated in the recruitment of licensed physicians, including defendants EDUARDO CUNI, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, AGUSTIN GRANDA, JESUS OLIVA and JORGE MORENO, to sign fabricated and fictitious POT forms in exchange for cash and other financial benefits. In addition to directing the fabrication of POT forms, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO and LEOPOLDO PEREZ, with the knowledge and concurrence of defendants JORGE PEREZ, MANUEL DIAZ, NORA COSTA, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTO MONTANER, EDUARDO CUINI, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, AGUSTIN GRANDA, JESUS OLIVA and JORGE MORENO, used employees of defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes to generate the following fictitious supporting documentation, including: (a) records necessary to support the payments made to the nursing groups by defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes for the claimed visits, including billing sheets, final matched itinerary/bill reports, and group batch worksheets; and (b) records necessary to support defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY's and Mederi Miami Lakes' billing of those visits to Medicare. * * * 68. Defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO and LEOPOLDO PEREZ, with the knowledge and concurrence of defendants JORGE PEREZ, MANUEL DIAZ, NORA COSTA, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTO MONTANER, EDUARDO CUNI, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, AGUSTIN GRANDA, JESUS OLIVA, JORGE MORENO, JESUS PUNALES, ELISA GAVILLA, LYDIA GUADALUPE, JULIA GARCIA and NILDA MIRANDA, used employees of defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes to process and submit to Medicare the false claims for home health visits originating from the nursing groups. * * * OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to accomplish its objects, at least one of the co-conspirators committed or caused to be committed, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, at least one of the following overt acts, among others: * * * CREATION OF FALSE DOCUMENTATION BY MEDERI EMPLOYEES * * * 48. On or about June 4, 1992, defendant PEDRO RENE BENITEZ caused his signature to be affixed on a POT form for a patient identified by the initials N.J. * * * On or about December 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ and PEDRO RENE BENITEZ caused an employee of Mederi Miami Lakes to create a POT for a patient identified by the initials F.D. On or about December 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ and PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, caused the signature of a licensed physician, defendant PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, to be affixed to a POT form for F.D. On or about December 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ and PEDRO RENE BENITEZ caused employees of Mederi Miami Lakes to complete nineteen (19) false "skilled nursing notes" pertaining to F.D. * * * SUBMISSION OF FALSE CLAIMS * * * 93. On or about October 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ and LYDIA GUADALUPE caused an employee of Mederi Miami Lakes to submit a false home health claim in the amount of $2,700.00 to Medicare, through Aetna, pertaining to a patient identified by the initials M.G. (Emphasis added.) The false documentation Respondent made, presented and filed, or caused to be made, presented and filed, with the United States Department of Health and Human Services, through AETNA, for Medicare reimbursement for home health care visits resulted in a loss to the government with regard to patient N. J. of $500.00, with regard to patient F. D. of $4,600.00, and with regard to patient M. G. of $2,700.00, for a total loss of $7,800.00. For the creation of such false documentation, Respondent averred, at hearing, that he was paid "75.00 per beneficiary." (Transcript, page 22.) On April 27, 1998, consistent with a plea agreement Respondent had entered into with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Respondent entered a plea of guilty to Count I of the Superseding Indictment ("Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, by making false claims to the [United States Department of] Health and Human Services in its administration of the Medicare program," contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 371), and on April 19, 1999, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of such offense. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) For such offense, given his cooperation with the United States attorney, discussed infra, Respondent was given a split sentence of 14 months, consisting of a term of imprisonment of 7 months, followed by 7 months of participation in the Home Detention Electronic Monitoring Program. Upon release from imprisonment, Respondent was to serve a term of 2 years on supervised release. Special conditions of supervision imposed by the judgement of conviction included the following: Effective immediately, the defendant shall surrender his medical license to the U.S. Probation Office. The U.S. Probation Office shall submit the license to the appropriate regulatory agency. The defendant shall not serve as a doctor or be employed or act in any capacity at any type of medical services, whether it be as a doctor, physician assistant or an administrator. The defendant shall not have any interest, directly or indirectly, in any medical businesses, whether it be medical services or medical supplies. The defendant shall notify the State Board of Medicine of his conviction and sentence in this case, and of the fact that his medical license has been taken by this Court. The defendant shall not participate in any Medicare/Medicaid billing procedures for any medical facility or program. Respondent was also ordered to pay, individually, restitution in the amount of $150,000.00 to the Palmetto Government Benefits Administration.2 The remaining charges (counts) against Respondent were dismissed (consistent with the plea agreement) on motion of the United States Attorney. On May 17, 1999, Respondent surrendered to the United States Marshal for the Southern District of Florida for commitment to the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 7 months. Respondent apparently completed that term in or about December 1999, and as of the date of hearing (February 8, 2000) was serving his 7-month period of participation in the Home Detention Electronic Monitoring Program. According to Respondent, his term of supervised release (probation) is scheduled to end December 12, 2001. Circumstances related to aggravation or mitigation of any penalty Respondent has been actively engaged in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida from his initial licensure on June 22, 1988, until the Department suspended his license (on an emergency basis, as a consequence of the pending federal charges) on April 6, 1999.3 During such period, in addition to his active practice, Respondent volunteered his services (from 1998 until his license was suspended) two or three days a month to the Dade County Chapter of the American Red Cross; volunteered his services for 5 or 6 years as a member of the medical staff of "Camilla's House," an organization serving the homeless; and volunteered his services to the American Red Cross for treatment of the victims of Hurricane Andrew. Respondent has never previously been disciplined by the Board of Medicine, and notwithstanding his conviction, continues to enjoy the support of former patients and colleagues. With regard to the Mederi case, Respondent cooperated with the United States attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, albeit not until investigators discovered (3 years after the events) his participation in the conspiracy, and confronted him with their findings; it appeared in his best interest to cooperate. Notwithstanding, consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, Respondent provided truthful information, testified on behalf of the government at trial, and proved to be a key witness in resolving the case favorably for the government. With regard to the strictures placed on his conduct under the terms of conviction, the proof demonstrates Respondent has complied with the Special Conditions of Supervision. Indeed, during the term of his imprisonment, Respondent was formally excluded from eligibility to participate in the Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs; was barred from receiving payment, directly or indirectly, from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program; and, surrendered his controlled substances privileges (Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration). As for restitution, there is no proof of record that Respondent has made any payment toward satisfaction of such obligation; however, it is also noted that Respondent was imprisoned from May 17, 1999, to on or about December 12, 1999, and, consequently, unemployed. As for his future plans, Respondent, given his training and experience, desires to resume the practice of medicine upon completion of his term of supervised release (December 12, 2001), provided the Department does not further restrict his licensure status.4 Such practice will, according to Respondent, allow him an opportunity to properly support his family,5 and it would also appear likely that such employment would accord Respondent an opportunity to satisfy, in whole or part, his obligation to pay restitution for his criminal offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and which, for the violation found, imposes an administrative fine of $10,000.00; orders compliance with all terms of the judgment of conviction; and continues the suspension of Respondent's license for a term of 2 years following successful completion of his term of supervised release, followed by a 2-year period of probation on such terms and conditions as the Board may deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2000.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Impose Fine dated March 3, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("the Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the Respondent and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The Respondent shall remit to the Agency, within ninety (90) days of this Final Order, the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). A check should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care 1 Filed November 9, 2009 11:58 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. Administration." The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS # 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this s3 day o tJ-?t?<: ,2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Care Administrat1 A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Ann Lisenby Parmer Lisenby Home Care, Inc. 412 North Cove Blvd. Panama City, Florida 32401 (U. S. Mail) Shaddrick A. Haston Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #2 Mail Stop Code #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this _6ay of /}6 , 2009. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 Ce1t1f1ecl Article Number SENDERS RECORD CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR March 3, 2009 ANN LISENBY PARMER LISENBY HOME CARE, INC. 412 N COVE BLVD PANAMA CITY, FL 32401 JFlORl AAGENCY F,OR HIcAl.lCH CARE AOMAINISlllATION Better Health Care for all Floridians oqJ521 CASE #: 2009002407 NOTICE OF INTENT TO IMPOSE FINE Pursuant to Section 400.474 (6) (f), Florida Statutes (F.S.), a fine of $5,000 is hereby imposed for failure to submit the home health agency quarterly report within 15 days after the quarter ending September 30. As required in section 400.474(6) (f), F.S., the agency shall impose a fine of$ 5,000. TO PAY NOW, PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN 21 DAYS AND MAil.ED WITH A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF INTENT TO: Agency for Health Care Administration Finance and Accounting, Revenue Section OMCManager 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Include License Number: 20651096 and Case Number: 2009002407 in check memo field. EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION OF RIGHTS FORM. Agency for Health Care Administration By: Anne Menard, Manager Home Care Unit cc: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#34 Tallahassee. Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myfl · • I EXHIBIT I No Theme Page 1 ofl HOME HEALTH AGENCY QUARTERLY REPORT For the Quarter July 1 to September 30, 2008 Send an e-mail with this information to home.ti_ alth@ahca.myflorida.com by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 to avoid a $5,000 fme. NAME OF HOME HEALTH AGENCY Lisenby home Care, Inc LICENSE# 20651096 STREET ADDRESS & CITY: 412 N. Cove Blvd, Panama City, Fl 32401 On September 30, 2008, there were _3_ insulin-dependent diabetic patients receiving insulin injection services from my home health agency. On September 30, 2008 there were _36_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency AND licensed hospice services. On September 30, 2008, there were a total of_77_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency. The following professional nurses (RNs or LPNs), whose primary job responsibility is to provide home health services to patients, received remuneration from my home health agency in excess of $25,000 between July 1, 2008 and September 30, 2008. NONE Name Florida License Number Insert additional names and license numbers if necessary. http://webmail.att.net/wm/en-US/toolbar/advnotheme.html 10/2/2008 psPS - Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1 • !:fQ!DtltltlJllSlgn.J.n Track & Confirm Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 7160 3901984813801355 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 9:48 AM on March 19, 2009 in PANAMA CITY, FL 32401. Track &Confirm Enter Label/Receipt Number. N..-o---t-i--f-i-·c-··d·-·o·-·n- - -Q. rn·t·i01J$------- ---- Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. (Bo>) Return Receipt (Electronic) Verify who signed for your item by email. ( tJo>) Copyright© 1999-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA '\:,_· J-i t;.-,pe ; :;•,· • l.\!!.'-'l·/•. ;- t' ip!;,,; http://trkcnfrm1.smi.usps.com/PTSinternetWeb/InterLabellnquiry.do 03/24/2009 STATE OF FLORIDA
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether a license should be issued to the Intervenor to operate a home health agency in Palm Beach County, Florida. Intervenor contends that it is not required to obtain a Certificate of Need to operate in Palm Beach County because it is excluded from Certificate of Need requirements by a "grandfathering" provision. Petitioner contends that the Intervenor is not exempt from the requirement of obtaining a Certificate of Need and that a license should not have been issued allowing Petitioner to operate in Palm Beach County. Intervenor contends that Petitioner has no standing to attack Intervenor's license and that the Petition for Hearing was not filed in a timely manner.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding is an offshoot of a long and bitter feud between former business partners. Two couples, the Collisters and the Schacks, together established a home health agency that provided services in Broward County, Florida. The agency was set up to provide skilled nursing and other therapeutic services to homebound patients in their place of residence. The agency was incorporated as "A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." on February 26, 1974. It thereafter provided services to homebound patients in Broward County. To facilitate payments for the agency's Medicare or Medicaid patients, the agency obtained a provider identification number from the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The federal department issued the agency Provider Identification No. 10-7093. Sometime in late 1974 or early in 1975, the agency opened an office in Palm Beach County and began serving patients there. The Broward County office operated as the parent office of the Palm Beach County office. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued provider No. 10-7305 to the Palm Beach office operating as a suboffice of the Broward County office. The provider number was issued to the Palm Beach County office on June 18, 1975. The relationship between the Schacks and the Collisters deteriorated shortly after the expansion into Palm Beach County. The Schacks were operating the Broward County office, and the Collisters were operating the Palm Beach County office. The two offices began to operate independently of each other from the point of view of day-to-day operations beginning in December, 1975, when an accountant was hired for the Palm Beach County office. From then on, agency patients in Broward County were served by the Schacks, operating out of the Broward County office. Agency clients in Palm Beach County were served by the Collisters, operating out of the Palm Beach County office. For more than a year after December, 1974, the parties continued to operate legally as A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc., with a parent office in Broward County and a suboffice in Palm Beach County. While this was their legal umbrella, the parties operated independently of each other subsequent to December, 1974. The parties were unable to work out a settlement of their difficulties. There is some question as to whether they both ever signed any document that outlined how an ultimate separation should occur. Whether they both signed it or not, the parties acted as if a memorandum dated February 18, 1976, set the terms of their separation. Under this memorandum, the Schacks agreed not to compete in Palm Beach County, and the Collisters agreed not to compete in Broward County. Basically, each office would retain its balance sheets for November 30, 1975. The Broward office would be allowed to keep the logo, and the Palm Beach County office would keep the existing corporation. The Broward County office would form a new corporation. The Schacks filed Articles of Incorporation for a new corporation on June 30, 1976. The Certificate of Incorporation was issued July 1, 1976. The Schacks incorporated as "Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." Thereafter, the Collisters continued to operate in Palm Beach County as "A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." (Petitioner). The Schacks continued to operate in Broward County, Florida, as "Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." (Intervenor). The parties had not entered into any agreement as to who would retain the provider identification numbers that had been issued by the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Palm Beach County office could not continue to operate under Provider No. 10-7305 because it was a provider number for a suboffice. After July 1, 1976, the Palm Beach County office could not have been considered a suboffice of the Broward County office. The parties apparently quarreled about this with the federal agency. The federal agency recognized that the original provider number (10-7093) could have been assigned to the original corporation, then housed in Palm Beach County. In order to minimize confusion, however, it assigned the original provider number to Intervenor and issued a new provider number (10-7154) to Petitioner. It appears that the federal agency's reason for assigning the original provider number to the Intervenor was simply to avoid confusion. It does not appear that the federal agency had any intention of granting any special rights to either party by choosing to assign the original provider number to Intervenor. The Schacks and the Collisters operated thereafter for some years without bothering each other. The Intervenor annually applied for licensure to operate in Broward County in 1978 and 1979. In 1980, however, despite its covenant not to compete in Palm Beach County, the Intervenor applied for a license to operate in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties. The application was denied. The Intervenor did the same thing with respect to the year June 1, 1981, to May 31, 1982. This application was also denied. Intervenor did the same thing for the June 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983, year. Intervenor's application for licensure in Dade and Palm Beach Counties was denied by letter dated May 5, 1982. Intervenor requested an administrative hearing to challenge that denial. Intervenor provided some additional documentation to the Department and ultimately submitted a new application to be licensed to operate in Palm Beach County. The Department issued a license allowing Intervenor to operate In Broward and Palm Beach Counties on July 8, 1982. The executive director of the Petitioner became aware sometime in July, 1982, that Intervenor was operating in Palm Beach County. He wrote to the Department, which replied that on July 8, 1982, Palm Beach County was added to the service area of Intervenor. The Department's reply was dated July 19, 1982. It did not advise Petitioner that it had any right to a hearing respecting the licensure of Intervenor in Palm Beach County. Through counsel, Petitioner requested a clarification and stated that misrepresentations had been made in Intervenor's application. Further correspondence with the Department did not generate any explanation until, by letter dated October 26, 1982, the Department advised Petitioner that it had a right to request an administrative hearing with regard to the licensure of Intervenor in Palm Beach County. This letter was the first notification to Petitioner that it had a right to hearing with respect to Intervenor's licensure in Palm Beach County. The letter advised Petitioner that it could request a hearing within thirty days of receipt of the letter. Petitioner requested a formal hearing within that period and also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida. Upon the filing of the request for hearing, the Department forwarded the matter to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this proceeding ensued. The Intervenor has been operating in Palm Beach County since the Department issued a license on Jul 8, 1982. Petitioner has suffered a loss of business and a loss of revenue as a result of Intervenor's operations in Palm Beach County. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that Intervenor has suffered from its reliance upon licensure by the Department so that the Department should now be estopped from denying licensure in Palm Beach County. While money has been spent to set up Intervenor's business in Palm Beach County, it was not Intervenor's money. There is no evidence that Intervenor or any government agency made any expenditures for Intervenor to operate in Palm Beach County prior to the time that Petitioner requested a hearing. Furthermore, it was Intervenor itself which euchred the Department into issuing a license without notifying Petitioner and others. In its application for licensure to operate in Palm Beach County, Intervenor stretched the facts and stated that it had done business in Palm Beach County prior to April 30, 1976. This was not true.
