The Issue Whether the application of Elysium Rehabilitation Center Inc., (“Elysium”) for a certificate of need (CON) to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home along with a CON application for an included 20-bed subacute unit in Palm Beach County, Florida, and the application of Good Samaritan Hospital (“Good Samaritan”) for a CON to convert 27 acute care beds to a 27-bed hospital-based skilled nursing unit (SNU), also known as a “subacute unit”, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact AHCA published a “Notice of Community Nursing Home Fixed Need Pool” on April 19, 1996, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 22, No. 16. In District 9, Subdistrict 4, the published numerical need, as acknowledged by the parties, was zero for the January 1999 planning horizon. The published need resulted from calculation of projected need for additional community nursing beds in accordance with need methodology contained in Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code. On May 24, 1996, AHCA published a “Notice To Potential Applicants” for CONs. The notice stated the following: In the review of applicants seeking beds from the January, 1999 Nursing Home Fixed Need Pool, as published in the April 19, 1996 F.A.W., which includes the same need for long and short term beds, the agency will consider the need for short and long term beds separately. Those applicants seeking both short and long term [beds] must file applications for each type of bed. As acknowledged by the parties, the notice specifically set out a “Need For Short Term Beds” in AHCA’s Subdistrict 9-4 of zero. Neither the April 19 published fixed need pool or the May 24 notice was challenged by any of the parties. Although the term “subacute” is not defined in federal or Florida law, the weight of expert testimony in this case establishes that for health planning purposes in the current environment, measurement of Medicare certified skilled nursing days or services (“Short Term Beds”) is a fair and reasonable surrogate for “subacute” care. Good Samaritan’s Application By letter of intent and application for CON filed in the batching cycle applicable to the January, 1999 planning horizon, Good Samaritan seeks to convert 27 acute beds at its Palm Beach County facility in AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 4, to a 27-bed subacute unit or SNU. Good Samaritan has attempted to demonstrate a need for the proposed beds through the presentation of an “internal survey,” in addition to calculations under three different methodologies. The internal survey results relied upon by Good Samaritan to show the existence of need is a product of the social work staff of Good Samaritan and its affiliate, St. Mary’s Hospital. The purpose of the survey was to identify patients who could, on the day of the survey, have received subacute as opposed to acute care. The survey results were compiled from 36 patients who, at that time, were in acute care beds and, according to Rehabilitation Services Expert Joan Horvath, needed to be in a subacute program. Survey documentation includes descriptive columns documenting “Reason for SNU Potential” and “Reason for Occupying Acute Bed.” Short, non-specific statements of the “reasons” for a patient’s occupation of an acute bed are listed for most of those surveyed. Reasons are varied with some having little to do with availability of an appropriate subacute bed. Of all survey results, only one patient case arguably reports unavailability of subacute care. There is no contention that attempts were made to provide placement to the patients in the survey. Karen Rivera, AHCA’s CON review consultant testified that the survey “raised more questions than it answered.” Good Samaritan’s application confirms that most patients included in the survey were subsequently placed in free standing SNU facilities without any substantiation by Good Samaritan of unnecessary delays. Good Samaritan has failed to demonstrate or document any lack of patient access to needed services. Dr. Jeffrey Farber, slated to be the medical director of Good Samaritan’s proposed subacute unit, testified “from an anecdotal level” that certain physicians may retain patients longer than necessary in acute care because of a lack of physician comfort with available facilities. Farber is unaware of any quantification of patient need related to systematic or chronic lack of availability of subacute care services. Evidence related to physician convenience or patient preference is not responsive to the rule-based criteria which requires a finding of a lack of reasonable access to appropriate medical care. Reasons advanced by Dr. Farber to support a finding of need for additional access to subacute services are, as he conceded, “those same issues [that] would exist as to any acute care patient at any acute care facility which did not have a subacute care unit.” Several methodologies presented in Good Samaritan’s application seek to support the conclusion that the proposed project is needed. Reliance is primarily on a health planning product called the Subacute Care Market Analysis Model, developed and marketed by Dr. Harold Ting as a means to estimate demand for subacute care in a given market. A “normative” demand model, the Ting methodology attempts to project potential demand for subacute services based on a subjective ideal, the number of patients that should or could have been provided subacute care—as opposed to actual experience with patients. Without regard to any specific infirmities in the Ting theory, the Ting methodology cannot be credited as a means of determining need in this case. It is a proprietary collection of calculations which, as a result, cannot be expressly described or tested. It can be discerned, however, that the theory may be flawed in its application inasmuch as it uses an inflated average length of stay for patients in subacute facilities of 36 days for purpose of need calculation, as opposed to the median length of stay for patients in subacute units in hospitals in Florida of approximately 24 days. An adjustment to calculations for this inflation factor which were then run at the final hearing by Jay Cushman, Good Samaritan’s expert in the field of health planning, did not demonstrate any need for additional hospital-based subacute capacity. Neither of the other two numeric methodologies presented by Good Samaritan at the final hearing demonstrated need for the proposed project sufficient to warrant its approval. Hospital-based SNUs or subacute units, beyond convenience and preference issues, in relation to free standing skilled nursing facilities, offer more immediate availability of emergency and acute services and the possibility that laboratory tests are completed in a shorter time. Good Samaritan maintains that the need pool for community nursing homes published by AHCA on April 19, 1996, is inapplicable to its application, although Good Samaritan filed no challenge to that bed need pool. Since affirmation by the First District Court of Appeal in Health Care and Retirement Corp. v. Tarpon Springs, 671 So.2d 217 (Fla. App. 1st DCA 1996)of Administrative Law Judge James York’s decision invalidating Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, no comparative review of SNU beds in hospitals in relation to all community nursing home beds has been conducted and AHCA no longer conducts such reviews. Subsequent to publication of the court’s opinion in Tarpon Springs, AHCA published the fixed need pool for the planning horizon at issue in this case based upon a calculation of need using the same numeric methodology contained in Rule 59C- 1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code. The calculation includes consideration of the entire Subdistrict population, and the need for all of the various categories of services included under the heading of skilled nursing care, including subacute and Alzheimer’s care. AHCA’s calculation also accounts fully for the number and occupancy rates of skilled nursing beds within the Subdistrict’s hospitals and free standing nursing homes. The published fixed need of zero represents “overall” need for skilled nursing beds, including Medicare certified and non-Medicare certified (also referred to as “short term” and “long term”). AHCA’s expert health planner, responsible for CON rule development, testified at final hearing that the need number calculated under the methodology contained in Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code, represents the “overall” need for all nursing beds except for private contract “sheltered beds” requiring entry fees which are a specific category regulated by another government agency and not available to the public at large. This need number also includes all skilled nursing facility beds, whether located in freestanding nursing homes or hospitals. After determination of overall need, AHCA determined the need for Medicare certified beds in each subdistrict, based upon existing utilization of such beds. In response to the decision in Tarpon Springs, AHCA explored options and proceeded to determine, as reflected in the April 19 and May 24, 1996 notices published in this case, the need for Medicare certified nursing home beds separately from non-Medicare certified or “long term” beds, without regard to the location of those beds in hospitals or nursing homes. AHCA segregated nursing home beds into two groups, Medicare certified and non-medicare certified, for need determinations and comparative review purposes. Under this approach, comparison of applicants is made on the character of the services being provided. Good Samaritan’s position is that AHCA’s need determination is inconsistent with the court’s holding in Tarpon Springs. As established by proof at the final hearing, there has been no showing that subdividing the applications into short-term and long-term services is flawed or irrational. Additionally, Good Samaritan has not shown any rational alternative means of creating subgroups of skilled nursing applications or determining need for short-term beds on anything broader than an institution- specific basis. AHCA’s position is that the actual need methodology in Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code was not invalidated by Tarpon Springs. The court’s decision in that case is limited to a prohibition of comparative review between hospital-based SNUs or subacute care beds and all community nursing home beds. Elysium’s Application Elysium, like Good Samaritan, did not challenge the April 19, 1996, published notice of the fixed need pool for the January 1999 planning horizon. As noted above, the notice, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, established a projected bed need of zero (0) for community nursing homes in AHCA’s planning district 9, Subdistrict 4, Palm Beach County. Elysium’s timely filed application for a CON to construct a 120 bed skilled nursing facility containing a 20 bed subacute care unit (medicare certified) and a 16 bed Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia Unit, however, seeks approval pursuant to provisions of Rule 59C-1.036(2)(h) and Rule 59C- 1.030(2), Florida Administrate Code for CON issuance to meet “special circumstances” despite the lack of numeric need. It is Elysium’s contention that elderly Jews who keep kosher are an identifiable ethnic minority in Palm Beach County with unique ethnic, religious, cultural and dietary needs who will be effectively denied access to long term care absent CON issuance. However, the applicant, Elysium Rehabilitation Center, Inc., owns no nursing homes and operates no nursing homes. The applicant has virtually no operating assets and no businesses. Sole shareholder of Elysium is John Fiorella, Jr. He is not a licensed nursing home administrator. He has never worked full time in a nursing home. He has not operated or opened a nursing home. The board of directors of Elysium include Fiorella and his mother and father. Both of the parents are experienced in the nursing home industry, but stopped working in 1986. A related corporation is Elysium of Boca Raton, Inc., which owns an assisted living facility (ALF) in Boca Raton, Florida, but no nursing homes. The ALF has a kosher kitchen. Elysium proposes to locate its nursing home facility on the ALF campus. The proposed facility is a freestanding building to be connected by an enclosed walkway to the ALF operated by Elysium of Boca Raton, Inc. The proposed facility’s connection to the existing ALF is intended to allow residents of the facility to be visited by spouses who are residing in the adjacent ALF, to allow use of common staff elements, and to allow for sharing of the common space of the existing facility. The projected cost of the proposed facility approximates 7.9 million dollars and includes proposals for a 20 bed subacute care unit and a 16 bed Alizheimer’s disease/related dementia unit. Elysium projects 65 percent occupancy in year one and 90 percent occupancy in year two. The proposed payor mix is: 7.1 percent private, 16.6 percent semiprivate, 55.5 percent Medicaid, 16.7 percent Medicare, 0 percent HMO or insurance and 4.2 percent “other”. The facility will admit Jewish and non-Jewish residents. While proposing to “provide a predominantly Jewish environment and meet the dietary laws of glatt kosher for the large number of elderly Jewish citizens residing in the area”, Elysium’s application also documents that the proposed facility will have a “predominately non-Jewish staff.” The proposed nursing home will not have an in-house kosher kitchen since the kosher kitchen at the adjoining ALF has been designated as glatt kosher by the Va’ad Hakashrut section of the Rabbinical Association. Elysium also proposes to offer its residents Hebrew classes, Yiddish discussion groups, religious studies, programs at the local Jewish Community Center and holiday celebrations. Need Per Section 408.035(1)(b) and (2), Florida Statutes And Rule 59C-1036(2), Florida Administrative Code Section 408.035(1)(b) and (2) requires that consideration be given to the availability, need, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in a District. By Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code, AHCA projects bed need on a county-wide basis. The need formula considers elderly population in a county, projected growth in the elderly population, the occupancy of existing nursing homes, number of licensed and CON-approved beds in a county, and other health variables. The formula projects need for all nursing home services, inclusive of custodial care, Alzheimer/related dementia disease, and subacute care. AHCA has published a zero need for additional nursing home beds in Palm Beach County. Elysium does not dispute AHCA’s finding. Additionally, there are 630 CON-approved, but not yet opened, nursing home beds in Palm Beach County. As established by the testimony at the final hearing of Dan Sullivan, an expert in health care planning and health care finance, the zero fixed need for Palm Beach County is attributable to these already approved beds. Many of the CON-approved beds will serve the same geographic area as that proposed by Elysium. Further, all nursing homes in Palm Beach County provide custodial care, Alzheimer’s care, subacute care, and Medicaid services. As conceded at final hearing by Elysium’s expert in health planning, Sharon Gordon-Girvin, custodial care, Alzheimer’s care, subacute care, and Medicaid services are provided at all nursing homes in Palm Beach County and are not unique or “not normal” services. Jewish residents in Palm Beach County currently receive Alzheimer’s services and subacute services with no problem in regard to clinical outcomes or quality of care issues. Subacute bed need is subsumed within AHCA’s need methodology. The specific subacute disorders proposed to be dealt with by Elysium are commonly provided in any subacute unit and, clinically, subacute care is the same regardless of religion. Per Rule 59C-1.036(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, proof of need in the absence of fixed need requires proof of an access problem. Documented need means persons must be denied access or demonstrate that actual need exceeds the number of available beds. The testimony of Dan Sullivan at hearing establishes that Elysium’s allegation of unique need is not proven in that there has not been identification of “a single patient who had been denied services or refused services in nursing home” due to a lack of glatt kosher services. The lack of documentation of an “access” problem for glatt kosher food is illustrated by the lack of demand for same. Diane Karolkowski was the admissions director at Menorah House, a Jewish facility, in 1996. An in-house survey conducted by her documented that of 115 patients, only 2 preferred kosher foods. Jewish residents are adequately served at existing nursing homes in Palm Beach County. As established by testimony of Dr. Ira Sheskin, Elysium’s expert in Jewish demography, the majority of Jewish residents in south Palm Beach County nursing homes are in nursing homes other than Jewish nursing homes. About 60 percent of patients at Intervenor Manor Care’s facility are Jewish, including orthodox and conservative Jews. Kosher foods are made available to residents requesting same, but such foods are rarely requested by even the orthodox Jewish residents. Manor Care’s Boynton, Florida facility has conducted studies of residents’ food preferences with the result that residents simply do not prefer the kosher foods. The ALF owned by Elysium of Boca Raton, Inc. has a kosher kitchen. With 144 beds, the ALF averages only 55 residents—a very low occupancy demonstrative of the little demand for kosher kitchen services. Elysium’s submittal that 20 percent of elderly Jews in south Palm Beach County keep kosher does not establish a demand or need for kosher kitchen services in a nursing home. Occupancy rates are expressly incorporated in the calculation of fixed need. The occupancy rates of the two Jewish nursing homes in the area accordingly do not justify deviation from the zero fixed need. Waiting lists at nursing homes do not demonstrate need. As indicators of bed need, such list are not meaningful. Nursing homes with empty beds have waiting lists. Waiting lists can reflect patient preference for a particular accommodation such as a private room or need for a Medicaid bed, a subacute bed, an Alzheimer’s bed, or simply a desire to be with a friend. Additionally, such lists become outdated when people change their minds or develop other placement options without removing themselves from other waiting lists. Waiting for a Medicaid bed, not kosher foods, is the primary reason given by those on waiting lists. Elysium And Quality Of Care Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Elysium is without any record of providing quality of care. Neither owner nor operator of any nursing home, this applicant has no experience or record of nursing home operations. A premium is placed on nursing home provider experience and competence since people are discharged earlier from hospitals than in the past and are consequently sicker than in previous years. Elysium’s ability to provide quality of care is not demonstrated. Schedule 6 in Elysium’s application presents projected staffing patterns. The projected staffing is not proposed by specific unit. Staffing will vary between the proposed facility’s 20-bed subacute unit, the 16-bed Alzheimer’s unit, and the custodial care units but this variance is not indicated in the application. Also, Elysium’s sole shareholder could not testify concerning the different staffing ratios for different units. There is no indication in Elysium’s application regarding whether a dedicated staff is contemplated for the subacute or Alzheimer’s units. Lack of a dedicated staff for these units is not reasonable. A minimum of 2.7 nursing hours per day for the subacute patient is reflected by on page 1b-5 of Elysium’s application, an unreasonable number since subacute units usually require at least 4.7 nursing hours per day to properly service the complexity and acuity of subacute disorders. Special Alzheimer’s units require 2.8 nursing hours per patient day. Elysium’s application fails to state what the ratio will be for such units in its facility. Assuming a standard of 4.7 nursing hours per day for subacute, 2.8 nursing hours per day for an Alzheimer’s unit and 1.9 nursing hours per day for custodial patients, measures established at final hearing by testimony of Marta Meers, Manor Care’s expert on Nursing, Nursing Administration and Clinical Services, the nursing full time equivalency (FTEs)required per Elysium’s utilization projections in year two for Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) is as follows: UNIT RN/LPN CNA TOTAL Alzheimer’s 4.2 10 14.2 Subacute 8.2 8.2 16.4 Long-Term 6.3 24 30.3 (Custodial) TOTAL FTEs 60.9 The 30.3 FTEs for custodial beds presumes that all 72 custodial, non-specialty beds are in one contiguous unit. Under Elysium’s proposal these units are to be located on separate floors of the proposed facility and would require more FTEs. Elysium’s projections in year two show requirements for 5.6 RNs, 8.5 LPNs, and 34.1 CNAs for a total of 48.2 positions. This is at least 12.7 FTEs low, as established by testimony of expert Meers. Elysium’s professed intent, as documented on Schedule 6, to contract for therapists (physical, speech, occupational, and audiological) instead of hiring these professionals as employees does not promote quality of care or quality assurance since contract staff provides less continuity. Many companies send different therapists to nursing homes at different times. Elysium’s application fails to state the volume of therapy that will be provided to subacute patients. Normal practice is to provide three hours of physical, occupational and speech therapy to patients requiring same. While stating that subacute programmatic policies and procedures will be developed, Elysium’s application is absent any such formulated policies—evidence of an inexperienced provider. The Elysium application also projects zero HMO or insurance days for its subacute program. In Palm Beach County, 30 to 40 percent of subacute patients are managed care with the likelihood that this percentage will increase in the future. Deficiencies of the proposed facility include mixing custodial and subacute patients; location of the physical therapy room on the second floor while subacute patients are located on the first floor; and a nurses’ station layout that complicates the possibility of a dedicated staff by locating the one station to service the subacute unit, the Alzheimer’s Unit, and custodial beds. Successful subacute programs require a dedicated, trained staff who normally exhibit a higher level of skill and professionalism than the custodial bed staff. Elysium’s application lacks established protocols of care and has not identified any employee who will serve in the capacity of therapist, unit director, or nurses for the subacute program. Elysium’s proposed 16-bed Alzheimer’s unit provides no nursing station within the unit, no separate dining room, no activity space, therapy space, family visitation area or quiet time room. These spaces are necessary for a quality, operational unit. Elysium’s proposal to mainstream Alzheimer’s residents for various services and activities is at variance with the fundamental reason for a special unit, particularly in view of the special needs of latter stage Alzheimer patients which make separate services appropriate. Mainstreaming these patients does not promote quality of care or quality assurance, and the application fails to indicate what mainstreaming for what stage of disease is contemplated. Elysium’s application promotes a less than ideal bracelet security system for the Alzheimer’s unit. Patients will be fitted with bracelets that will trigger and lock doors as the patients approach them. Safer measures would include the locked ward concept where doors are locked and alarms sound when the door is opened. Adequate And Available Alternatives Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Consideration of adequate alternatives to the proposed project is required by Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The many available and accessible nursing homes already existent in the area illustrate such alternatives to Elysium’s proposal. Most of the existing nursing homes provide the same services proposed by Elysium. Additionally, many of the CON-approved beds that are still to come on line will provide further alternatives. Most of the nursing homes in the southern part of Palm Beach County admit Jewish residents, observe Jewish holidays, and allow other cultural practices and customs for the Jewish population, inclusive of religious services. Kosher foods can and are provided without kosher kitchens in many of the area nursing homes, but, as noted earlier, demand for such foods is rare. Catering kosher food, if necessary, from the under-utilized ALF which would supply Elysium’s proposed facility is a cheaper, better alternative to meeting the occasional need for kosher food than building an unneeded nursing home. Improvements In Services Through Joint Resources Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, addresses whether improvements in services may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. With exception of limited discussion regarding joint use of the ALF’s kosher kitchen, the Elysium application does not meet this criterion. Additionally, financial projections in the application fail to indicate any economies, reduction in staff, reduction in non-salary expense, or other expense relief resulting from locating the nursing home next to the ALF. There is no discussion in the application of shared services with other health care providers. The ALF administrator, Claire Bojanoski, even professes no knowledge of the application or involvement in discussions about coordination between the existing ALF and the proposed facility. Applicant Resources For Project Accomplishment Section 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Section 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes, considers whether the applicant has available resources in personnel, management, and funds for project accomplishment and operation. Elysium’s application does not meet this criterion. As noted above, Elysium neither owns or operates nursing homes. The sole shareholder has no ownership or operational experience in the field. The applicant has no employees or specific individuals employed in any key operational or management positions. With regard to funding, the applicant proposes to borrow 5.8 million in long-term debt for project development. The only evidence in the application with regard to availability of such funding are two “letters of interest” from banks. The letters are casual, in no way binding, and cannot be viewed as firm commitments to provide debt funding. The applicant does have 250,000 dollars in capital for the nearly 8 million dollar project. Such a small percentage of the initial requirement for funding, plus the need for working capital when the facility opens, necessitates a finding that Elysium has not demonstrated in its application that it can firmly secure funds for project accomplishment and operation. Project Financial Feasibility Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Immediate financial feasibility is the ability to finance construction and initial operations. It is similar to the criterion of funds availability for capital and operating expenditures and, based on findings set forth above in that regard, it is found that the project lacks immediate financial feasibility. Long term feasibility addresses whether a project is financially viable after two years of operation. Elysium’s position that the large and growing Jewish population in the southern part of Palm Beach County will be adequate to assure long term feasibility is not sufficient to meet this criterion, particularly in view of the present usage of the ALF (less than 40 percent occupancy) and the lack of documented need for a facility that will target primarily a Jewish population. Utilization projections advanced by Elysium in Schedule 5 of its application are not reasonable. There is inadequate demand for glatt kosher in Palm Beach County to justify the high occupancy and rapid fill up of occupancy projected by Elysium. Physical needs of patients primarily direct nursing home placement as opposed to cultural or dietary preferences, and the zero fixed need also illustrates the lack of need on that basis for the Alzheimer’s services, subacute care, Medicaid services, and custodial services associated with the typical nursing home. Elysium projects, in Schedule 10 of the application, that it will capture 6,588 Medicare days. Equated to subacute days, such a figure amounts to 337 subacute admissions for which no specific referral sources are identified. Subacute services are increasingly funded by managed care, yet Elysium projects zero days from managed care for the entire facility. With regard to projected Medicare revenues, a significant portion of total revenues, Elysium did not calculate Medicare costs on the basis of actual cost of delivering subacute services, but chose instead to assume that Medicare reimbursement would equal the average Medicare reimbursement for all Palm Beach County nursing homes. Such an assumption for an alleged unique facility is not reasonable. Additionally, projected Medicare revenues do not indicate staffing patterns or amount of therapy to be provided subacute patients. With respect to projected expenses, Elysium projected these expenses merely as a percentage of projected revenues. No consideration was given to the purported unique aspects of the proposed facility. Salary expenses, the largest expense item for a nursing home, are very understated in view of the dramatic understated number of nursing home employees required to operate the specialized units and the total facility. As established at the final hearing by testimony of the expert on health care planning and health care finance, Dan Sullivan, Elysium’s projection on Schedule 11 of $61.58 patient care costs per day in year 2000, the second year of operation, is unrealistic. Palm Beach County nursing homes averaged $61.27 in 1994. If the 1994 figure is inflated 4 percent per year, that would increase Elysium’s patient care costs by $15 per day. Multiplication of $15 per day times 39,528 patient days (utilization projections in year two) generates an additional expense of almost $600,000. Elysium projected a profit of $300,000, which, as Sullivan opined, becomes a $300,000 loss with the additional $600,000 cost. Promotion Of Competition, Quality Assurance, Or Cost-Effectiveness Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. There are no competitive benefits associated with Elysium’s application in view of the lack of Fixed Need and the existence of many nursing homes that presently provide the same services proposed by this applicant. Additionally, Jewish residents now receive adequate, available, and accessible cultural and religious services at existing facilities. For the same facts set forth earlier, finding that Elysium’s application fails to meet the “quality of care” criterion, the criterion of quality assurance is not met. With regard to cost effectiveness, there is no specific cost savings or cost effectiveness for health care delivery systems identified by Elysium’s application. Elysium has substantially understated its expenses and has expended no effort to share costs with the ALF or to provide any meaningful economic linkage with the ALF. Reasonableness Of Project Cost And Design Section 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes. The layout of Elysium’s Alzheimer’s unit and subacute unit, as previously noted, are not reasonable. Additionally, Elysium’s projected “start-up” costs of $25,000 shown on Schedule 1 manifests a misapprehension of what is involved in developing and operating a nursing home. Testimony of Marta Meers establishes that start-up involves hiring an administrator and other key staff six to eight months before opening; hiring and training other staff prior to opening; marketing and promotion. A projection of $25,000 for these costs is unrealistic and fails to meet this criterion. Elysium is inconsistent with regard to whether there will be a separate kosher kitchen for the proposed facility. Page 3-16 of the application states there will not be a separate kitchen, contrary to the project architect’s testimony that the proposed facility could accommodate preparation of kosher and non-kosher foods. The architect’s testimony is not credited on this point. Applicant’s Past And Proposed Provision Of Medicaid And Indigent Services Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Elysium has no history and therefore has no history of providing service to Medicaid or indigent persons. Elysium projects 55 percent Medicaid which is the Palm Beach County nursing home average. Elysium makes no attempt to quantify Medicaid need for nursing home residents demanding glatt kosher foods and puts further in question whether the applicant seeks to offer a unique service. Elysium does not satisfy this criterion. Continuum Of Care In A Multi-Level Health Care System Section 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes. This proposed facility is not linked to any other element in the health care system of Palm Beach County with the exception of the ALF which is not particularly viable. There are no letters of support from hospitals or other nursing homes. The applicant has failed to establish that the proposed facility is an integrated part of a continuum of services. Local And State Health Plan Satisfaction Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Local Health Plan The District 9 Local Health Plan includes preferences for consideration in the review of applications for nursing home beds. The first preference gives priority to applicants for new nursing homes who agree to provide a minimum of 30 percent Medicaid patient days. Elysium has proposed a minimum of 55 percent Medicaid patient days and, therefore, meets this preference. The second preference contains four subparts that establish priorities for applicants: documented history of providing good residential care; staffing ratios, particularly for registered nurses and aids, that exceed staffing requirements; provision for the treatment of residents with mental health problems; and the inclusion of intensive rehabilitation services for those short stay patients requiring rehabilitation below the level of an acute care hospital. Elysium has not operated a skilled nursing facility to date and therefore does not have a rating history to report. With regard to staffing ratios, provision of treatment of residents with mental health problems, the inclusion of intensive rehabilitation services for those short stay patients requiring rehabilitation such as a subacute unit, these preferences are not met by Elysium in view of the facts found above documenting the applicant’s failure to demonstrate an ability to provide high quality of care and quality assurance for its specialized services. The third priority under the local/district health plan establishes a priority for applicants who propose to serve a distinct population that is not currently being served within the Subdistrict. As noted above, the distinct population in this instance is already well served by other nursing homes in Palm Beach County which meet the ethnic, religious, cultural and dietary needs of the elderly Jewish population who keep kosher. Florida State Health Plan The Florida State Health Plan contains twelve allocation factors for reviewing CON applications for community nursing home beds. Factor 1 provides a preference for applicants proposing to locate in subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. Elysium conforms to this preference since occupancy rates in Palm Beach County have exceeded 90 percent throughout 1995. Factor 2 provides a preference to those proposing to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the subdistrict average. At risk to its claim that it proposes a truly unique facility, Elysium conforms to this preference. Factor 3 provides a preference to applicants proposing specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS, Alzheimer’s and mentally ill residents. As previously noted above, the applicant’s failure to demonstrate an ability to provide high quality of care and quality assurance for its specialized services prevents conformance with this preference. Factor 4 provides a preference to applicants proposing a continuum of services, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. As previously noted, Elysium’s failure to demonstrate an ability to provide quality of care or quality assurance precludes consideration of this preference. Factor 5 of the State Health Plan is for applicants proposing reasonable facility design. As found above, Elysium’s proposal is unreasonable in design, particularly with regard to the specialized units for Alzheimer’s and subacute patients. Factor 6 provides a preference to applicants providing innovative and therapeutic programs that enhance residents’ physical and mental functional level and emphasize restorative care. Elysium’s proposed subacute program does not offer services not provided at other nursing homes in the area. Additionally, Elysium does not demonstrate an ability to provide quality of care in its programs. Factor 7 provides a preference to applicants proposing charges that do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the Subdistrict. Elysium conforms with this preference. Factor 8 provides a preference to applicants with a history of providing superior residential care in existing facilities in Florida and other states. Elysium has not operated a skilled nursing facility to date and therefore does not have a rating history to report. Factor 9 provides a preference to applicants proposing staffing levels that exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. The staffing ratios proposed by Elysium’s application do not meet minimum staffing ratios under the licensure rules due to understatement by the applicant of the number of nursing employees needed to operate its proposed facility. Factor 10 provides preference to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents’ needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation and spiritual guidance. Elysium minimally complies, with proposed contractual services, with requirements for this preference. Factor 11 provides a preference to applicants who document how they will ensure residents’ rights and privacy, if they use residents’ councils, and if they plan to implement a well-designed quality assurance and discharge planning program. Absent quality assurance concerns, Elysium qualifies for priority under this factor. Factor 12 provides preference to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Elysium does not meet this preference in that proposed patient care costs are lower than average. Adverse Impact To Other Facilities Manor Care is a 180 bed nursing home. Superior-rated, it has a 32-bed Alzheimer’s unit and provides subacute services. Service is provided to the Medicaid population and 60 percent of its residents are Jewish. It is located 1.5 miles from Elysium’s proposed site. Presuming that Elysium reached projected utilization, 20 percent of that business would come at the expense of Manor Care in an amount equal to the loss of 8,000 patient days. Currently generating a contribution margin of $60 per resident day, the loss to Manor Care would approximate $480,000 should Elysium’s application be approved. This is a substantial and adverse financial loss.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the applications of Elysium and Good Samaritan which are at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Sheehan, III, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, et al. 625 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33402 David K. Friedman, Esquire Weiss and Handler, P.A. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 218A Boca Raton, FL 33431 James C. Hauser, Esquire Skelding, Labasky, Corry et al. 318 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Gilroy, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3426 Tallahassee, FL 32308 R. Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403
The Issue The issue is whether BayCare Long Term Acute Care Hospital, Inc.'s Certificate of Need Application No. 9753 and University Community Hospital's Certificate of Need Application No. 9754, both submitted to the Agency for Health Care Administration, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact LTCHs defined An LTCH is a medical facility which provides extended medical and rehabilitation care to patients with multiple, chronic, or clinically complex acute medical conditions. These conditions include, but are not limited to, ventilator dependency, tracheotomy care, total parenteral nutrition, long- term intravenous anti-biotic treatment, complex wound care, dialysis at bedside, and multiple systems failure. LTCHs provide an interdisciplinary team approach to the complex medical needs of the patient. LTCHs provide a continuum of care between short-term acute care hospitals and nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), or comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Patients who have been treated in an intensive acute care unit at a short-term acute care hospital and who continue to require intensive care once stabilized, are excellent candidates for care at an LTCH. Included in the interdisciplinary approach is the desired involvement of the patient's family. A substantial number of the patients suitable for treatment in an LTCH are in excess of 65 years of age, and are eligible for Medicare. Licensure and Medicare requirements dictate that an LTCH have an average length of stay (ALOS) of 25 days. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reimburses for care received through the prospective payment system (PPS). Through this system, CMS reimburses the services of LTCHs separately from short-term acute care providers and other post acute care providers. The reimbursement rate for an LTCH under PPS exceeds that of other providers. The reimbursement rate for an LTCH is about twice that of a rehabilitation facility. The increased reimbursement rate indicates the increased cost due to the more intensive care required in an LTCH. The Agency The Agency is a state agency created pursuant to Section 20.42. It is the chief health policy and planning entity for the State of Florida. The Agency administers the Health Facility and Services Development Act found at Sections 408.031-408.045. Pursuant to Section 408.034, the Agency is designated as the single state Agency to issue, revoke, or deny certificates of need. The Agency has established 11 health service planning districts. The applications in this case are for facilities in District 5, which comprises Pinellas and Pasco counties. UCH UCH is a not-for-profit organization that owns and operates a 431-bed tertiary level general acute care hospital and a 120-bed acute care general hospital. Both are located in Hillsborough County. UCH also has management responsibilities and affiliations to operate Helen Ellis Hospital, a 300-bed hospital located in Tarpon Springs, and manages the 300-bed Suncoast Hospital. Both of these facilities are in Pinellas County. UCH also has an affiliation to manage the open heart surgery program at East Pasco Medical Center, a general acute care hospital located in Pasco County. As a not-for-profit organization, the mission of UCH is to provide quality health care services to meet the needs of the communities where it operates regardless of their patients' ability to pay. Baycare BayCare is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BayCare Healthsystems, Inc. (BayCare Systems). BayCare Systems is a not-for-profit entity comprising three members that operate Catholic Health East, Morton Plant Mease Healthcare, and South Florida Baptist. The facilities owned by these organizations are operated pursuant to a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) entered into by each of the participants. BayCare Systems hospitals include Morton Plant Hospital, a 687-bed tertiary level facility located in Clearwater, Pinellas County; St. Joseph's Hospital, an 887-bed tertiary level general acute care hospital located in Tampa, Hillsborough County; St. Anthony's Hospital, a 407-bed general acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County; and Morton Plant North Bay, a 120-bed hospital located in New Port Richey, Pasco County. Morton Plant Mease Health Care is a partnership between Morton Plant Hospital and Mease Hospital. Although Morton Plant Mease Healthcare is a part of the BayCare System, the hospitals that are owned by the Trustees of Mease Hospital, Mease Hospital Dunedin, and Mease Hospital Countryside, are not directly members of the BayCare System and are not signatories to the JOA. HealthSouth HealthSouth is a national company with the largest market share in inpatient rehabilitation. It is also a large provider of ambulatory services. HealthSouth has about 1,380 facilities across the nation. HealthSouth operates nine LTCHs. The facility that is the Intervenor in this case is a CMR located in Largo, Pinellas County. Kindred Kindred, through its parent company, operates LTCH facilities throughout Florida and is the predominant provider of LTCH services in the state. In the Tampa Bay area, Kindred operates three LTCHs. Two are located in Tampa and one is located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County. The currently operating LTCH in District 5 that may be affected by the CON applications at issue is Kindred-St. Petersburg. Kindred-St. Petersburg is a licensed 82-bed LTCH with 52 private beds, 22 semi-private beds, and an 8-bed intensive care unit. It operates the array of services normally offered by an LTCH. It is important to note that Kindred-St. Petersburg is located in the far south of heavily populated District 5. The Applications UCH proposes a new freestanding LTCH which will consist of 50 private rooms and which will be located in Connerton, a new town being developed in Pasco County. UCH's proposal will cost approximately $16,982,715. By agreement of the parties, this cost is deemed reasonable. BayCare proposes a "hospital within a hospital" LTCH that will be located within Mease Hospital-Dunedin. The LTCH will be located in an area of the hospital currently used for obstetrics and women's services. The services currently provided in this area will be relocated to Mease Hospital- Countryside. BayCare proposes the establishment of 48 beds in private and semi-private rooms. Review criteria which was stipulated as satisfied by all parties Section 408.035(1)-(9) sets forth the standards for granting certificates of need. The parties stipulated to satisfying the requirements of subsections (3) through (9) as follows. With regard to subsection (3), 'The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care,' all parties stipulated that this statutory criterion is not in dispute and that both applicants may be deemed to have satisfied such criteria. With regard to subsection (4), 'The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation,' it was stipulated that both applicants have all resources necessary in terms of both capital and staff to accomplish the proposed projects, and therefore, both applicants satisfy this requirement. With regard to subsection (5), 'The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district,' it was stipulated that both proposals will increase access. Currently there are geographic, financial and programmatic barriers to access in District 5. The only extant LTCH is located in the southernmost part of District 5. With regard to subsection (6), 'The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal,' the parties stipulated that UCH satisfied the criterion. With regard to BayCare, it was stipulated that its proposal satisfied the criterion so long as BayCare can achieve its utilization projections and obtain Medicare certification as an LTCH and thus demonstrate short-term and long-term feasibility. This issue will be addressed below. With regard to subsection (7), 'The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness,' the parties stipulated that approval of both applications will foster competition that will promote quality and cost effectiveness. The only currently available LTCH in District 5, unlike BayCare and UCH, is a for-profit establishment. With regard to subsection (8), 'The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction,' the parties stipulated that the costs and methods of construction for both proposals are reasonable. With regard to subsection (9), 'the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent,' it was stipulated that both UCH and BayCare have a demonstrated history and a commitment to providing services to Medicaid, Medicaid HMO, self-pay, and underinsured payments. Technically, of course, BayCare has no history at all. However, its sponsors do, and it is they that will shape the mission for BayCare. BayCare's Medicare certification as an LTCH The evidence of record demonstrates that BayCare can comply with Medicare reimbursement regulations and therefore can achieve its utilization projections and obtain Medicare certification as an LTCH. Thus short-term and long-term feasibility is proven. Because BayCare will be situated as a hospital within a hospital, in Mease Hospital Dunedin, and because there is a relationship between that hospital and BayCare Systems, Medicare reimbursement regulations limit to 25 percent the number of patients that may be acquired from Mease Hospital Dunedin or from an organization that controls directly or indirectly the Mease Hospital Dunedin. Because of this limitation, it is, therefore, theoretically possible that the regulator of Medicare payments, CMS, would not allow payment where more than 25 percent of admissions were from the entire BayCare System. Should that occur it would present a serious but not insurmountable problem to BayCare. BayCare projects that 21 percent of its admissions will come from Mease Hospital Dunedin and the rest will come from other sources. BayCare is structured as an independent entity with an independent board of directors and has its own chief executive officer. The medical director and the medical staff will be employed by the independent board of directors. Upon the greater weight of the evidence, under this structure, BayCare is a separate corporate entity that neither controls, nor is controlled by, BayCare Systems or any of its entities or affiliates. One must bear in mind that because of the shifting paradigms of federal medical regulation, predictability in this regard is less than perfect. However, the evidence indicates that CMS will apply the 25 percent rule only in the case of patients transferring to BayCare from Mease Hospital Dunedin. Most of the Medicare-certified LTCHs in the United States operate as hospitals within hospitals. It is apparent, therefore, that adjusting to the CMS limitations is something that is typically accomplished. BayCare will lease space in Mease Hospital Dunedin which will be vacated by it current program. BayCare will contract with Mease Hospital Dunedin for services such as laboratory analysis and radiology. This arrangement will result in lower costs, both in the short term and in the long term, than would be experienced in a free-standing facility, and contributes to the likelihood that BayCare is feasible in the short term and long term. Criteria related to need The contested subsections of Section 408.035 not heretofore addressed, are (1) and (2). These subsections are illuminated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2., which provides standards when, as in this case, there is no fixed-need pool. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., provides as follows: 2. If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, sub district or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Population Demographics and Dynamics The applicants presented an analysis of the population demographics and dynamics in support of their applications in District 5. The evidence demonstrated that the population of District 5 was 1,335,021 in 2004. It is anticipated that it will grow to 1,406,990 by 2009. The projected growth rate is 5.4 percent. The elderly population in the district, which is defined as persons over the age of 65, is expected to grow from 314,623 in 2004, to 340,676, in 2009, which represents an 8.3 percent increase. BayCare BayCare's service area is defined generally by the geographic locations of Morton Plant Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, St. Anthony's Hospital, Mease Hospital Dunedin, and Mease Hospital Countryside. These hospitals are geographically distributed throughout Pinellas County and southwest Pasco County and are expected to provide a base for referrals to BayCare. There is only one extant LTCH in Pinellas County, Kindred, and it is located in the very southernmost part of this densely populated county. Persons who become patients in an LTCH are almost always moved to the LTCH by ambulance, so their movement over a long distance through heavy traffic generates little or no problem for the patient. Accordingly, if patient transportation were the only consideration, movement from the north end of the county to Kindred in the far south, would present no problem. However, family involvement is a substantial factor in an interdisciplinary approach to addressing the needs of LTCH patients. The requirement of frequent movement of family members from northern Pinellas to Kindred through congested traffic will often result in the denial of LTCH services to patients residing in northern Pinellas County or, in the alternative, deny family involvement in the interdisciplinary treatment of LTCH patients. Approximately 70 letters requesting the establishment of an LTCH in northern Pinellas County were provided in BayCare's application. These letters were written by medical personnel, case managers and social workers, business persons, and government officials. The thread common to these letters was, with regard to LTCH services, that the population in northern Pinellas County is underserved. UCH Pasco County has experienced a rapid population growth. It is anticipated that the population will swell to 426,273, in 2009, which represents a 10.1 percent increase over the population in 2004. The elderly population accounts for 28 percent of the population. This is about 50 percent higher than Florida as a whole. Rapid population growth in Pasco County, and expected future growth, has resulted in numerous new housing developments including Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). Among the approved DRI's is the planned community of Connerton, which has been designated a "new town" in Pasco County's Comprehensive Plan. Connerton is a planned community of 8,600 residential units. The plan includes space for a hospital and UCH has negotiated for the purchase of a parcel for that purpose within Connerton. The rate of growth, and the elderly population percentages, will support the proposed UCH LTCH and this is so even if BayCare establishes an LTCH in northern Pinellas County. Availability, utilization, and quality of like services in the district, sub-district, or both The Agency has not established sub-districts for LTCHs. As previously noted, Kindred is the only LTCH extant in District 5. It is a for-profit facility. Kindred was well utilized when it had its pediatric unit and added 22 additional beds. Subsequently, in October 2002, some changes in Medicare reimbursement rules resulted in a reduction of the reimbursement rate. This affected Kindred's income because over 70 percent of its patients are Medicare recipients. Kindred now uses admission criteria that have resulted in a decline in patient admissions. From 1998, the year after Kindred was established, until 2002, annual utilization was in excess of 90 percent. Thereafter, utilization has declined, the 22-bed addition has been shut down, and Kindred projects an occupancy of 55 percent in 2005. Kindred must make a profit. Therefore, it denies access to a significant number of patients in District 5. It denies the admission of patients who have too few "Medicare- reimbursable days" or "Medicaid-reimbursable days" remaining. The record indicates that Kindred only incurs charity care or Medicaid patient days when a patient admitted to Kindred with seemingly adequate funding unexpectedly exhausts his or her funding prior to discharge. Because of the constraints of PPS, Kindred has established admission criteria that excludes certain patients with conditions whose prognosis is so uncertain that it cannot adequately predict how long they will require treatment. Kindred's availability to potential patients is thus constrained. HealthSouth, a licensed CMR, is not a substitute for an LTCH. Although it is clear that there is some overlap between a CMR and an LTCH, HealthSouth, for instance, does not provide inpatient dialysis, will not accept ventilator patients, and does not treat complex wound patients. The nurse staffing level at HealthSouth is inadequate to provide for the type of patient that is eligible for treatment in an LTCH. The fact that LTCHs are reimbursed by Medicare at approximately twice the rate that a CMR is reimbursed, demonstrates the higher acuity level of LTCH services when compared to a CMR. HealthSouth is a facility which consistently operates at high occupancy levels and even if it were capable of providing the services typical of an LTCH, it would not have sufficient capacity to provide for the need. A CMR is a facility to which persons who make progress in an LTCH might repair so that they can return to the activities of daily living. SNFs are not substitutes for LTCHs although there could be some limited overlap. SNFs are generally not appropriate for patients otherwise eligible for the type of care provided by an LTCH. They do not provide the range of services typically provided by an LTCH and do not maintain the registered nurse staffing levels required for delivering the types of services needed for patients appropriate for an LTCH. LTCHs are a stage in the continuum of care. Short- term acute care hospitals take in very sick or injured patients and treat them. Thereafter, the survivors are discharged to home, or to a CMR, or to a SNF, or, if the patients are still acutely ill but stable, and if an LTCH is available, to an LTCH. As noted above, currently in northern Pinellas County and in Pasco County, there is no reasonable access to an LTCH. An intensive care unit (ICU) is, ideally, a treatment phase that is short. If treatment has been provided in an ICU and the patient remains acutely ill but stable, and is required to remain in the ICU because there is no alternative, greater than necessary costs are incurred. Staff in an ICU are not trained or disposed to provide the extensive therapy and nursing required by patients suitable for an LTCH and are not trained to provide support and training to members of the patient's family in preparation for the patient's return home. The majority of patients suitable for an LTCH have some potential for recovery. This potential is not realized in an ICU, which is often counterproductive for patients who are stabilized but who require specialized long-term acute care. Patients who remain in an ICU beyond five to seven days have an increased morbidity/mortality rate. Maintaining patients suitable for an LTCH in an ICU also results in over-utilization of ICU services and can cause congestion when ICU beds are fully occupied. UCH in Pasco County, and to a lesser extent BayCare in northern Pinellas County, will bring to the northern part of District 5 services which heretofore have not been available in the district, or, at least, have not been readily available. Persons in Pasco County and northern Pinellas County, who would benefit from a stay in an LTCH, have often had to settle for some less appropriate care situation. Medical Treatment Trends LTCHs are relatively new cogs in the continuum of care and the evidence indicates that they will play an important role in that continuum in the future. The evidence of record demonstrates that the current trend in medical treatment is to find appropriate post acute placements in an LTCH setting for those patients in need of long-term acute care beyond the stay normally experienced in a short-term acute care hospital. Market conditions The federal government's development of the distinctive PPS for LTCHs has created a market condition which is favorable for the development of LTCH facilities. Although the Agency has not formally adopted by rule a need methodology specifically for LTCHs, by final order it has recently relied upon the "geometric mean length of stay + 7" (GMLOS +7) need methodology. The GMLOS +7 is a statistical calculation used by CMS in administering the PPS reimbursement system in determining an appropriate reimbursement for a particular "diagnostic related group" (DRG). Other need methodologies have been found to be unsatisfactory because they do not accurately reflect the need for LTCH services in areas where LTCH services are not available, or where the market for LTCH services is not competitive. GMLOS +7 is the best analysis the Agency has at this point. Because the population for whom an LTCH might be appropriate is unique, and because it overlaps with other populations, finding an algebraic need expression is difficult. An acuity measure would be the best marker of patient appropriateness, but insufficient data are available to calculate that. BayCare's proposal will provide beneficial competition for LTCH services in District 5 for the first time and will promote geographic, financial, and programmatic access to LTCH services. BayCare, in conducting its need calculations used a data pool from Morton Plant Hospital, Mease Dunedin Hospital, Mease Countryside Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, and St. Anthony's Hospital for the 12 months ending September 2003. The hospitals included in the establishment of the pool are hospitals that would be important referral sources for BayCare. BayCare then identified 160 specific DRGs historically served by existing Florida LTCHs, or which could have been served by Florida LTCHs, and lengths of stay greater than the GMLOS for acute care patients, and compared them to the data pool. This resulted in a pool of 871 potential patients. The calculation did not factor in the certain growth in the population of the geographic area, and therefore the growth of potential LTCH patients. BayCare then applied assumptions based on the proximity of the referring hospitals to the proposed LTCH to project how many of the patients eligible for LTCH services would actually be referred and admitted to the proposed LTCH. That exercise resulted in a projected potential volume of 20,265 LTCH patient days originating just from the three District 5 BayCare hospitals and the two Mease hospitals. BayCare assumes, and the assumption is found to be reasonable, that 25 percent of their LTCH volume will originate from facilities other than BayCare or Mease hospitals. Adding this factor resulted in a total of 27,020 patient days for a total net need of 82 beds at 90 percent occupancy. BayCare's GMLOS +7 bed need methodology reasonably projects a bed need of 82 beds based on BayCare's analysis of the demand arising from the three District 5 BayCare hospitals and the two Mease hospitals. UCH provided both a GMLOS +7 and a use rate analysis. The use rate analysis is suspect in a noncompetitive environment and, obviously, in an environment where LTCHs do not exist. UCH's GMLOS +7 analyses resulted in the identification of a need for 159 additional LTCH beds in District 5. This was broken down into a need of 60 beds in Pasco County and 99 additional beds in Pinellas County. There is no not-for-profit LTCH provider in District The addition of BayCare and UCH LTCHs to the district will meet a need in the case of Medicaid, indigent, and underinsured patients. Both BayCare and UCH have agreed in their applications to address the needs of patients who depend on Medicaid, or who are indigent, or who have private insurance that is inadequate to cover the cost of their treatment. The statistical analyses provided by both applicants support the proposed projects of both applicants. Testimony from doctors who treat patients of the type who might benefit from an LTCH testified that those types of facilities would be utilized. Numerous letters from physicians, nurses, and case managers support the need for these facilities. Adverse impacts HealthSouth and Kindred failed to persuade that BayCare's proposal will adversely impact them. HealthSouth provides little of the type of care normally provided at an LTCH. Moreover, HealthSouth is currently operating near capacity. Kindred is geographically remote from BayCare's proposed facility, and, more importantly, remote in terms of travel time, which is a major consideration for the families of patients. Kindred did not demonstrate that it was currently receiving a large number of patients from the geographic vicinity of the proposed BayCare facility, although it did receive some patients from BayCare Systems facilities and would likely lose some admissions if BayCare's application is approved. The evidence did not establish that Kindred would suffer a material adverse impact should BayCare establish an LTCH in Mease Dunedin Hospital. HealthSouth and Kindred conceded that UCH's program would not adversely impact them. The Agency's Position The Agency denied the applications of BayCare and UCH in the SAARs. At the time of the hearing the Agency continued to maintain that granting the proposals was inappropriate. The Agency's basic concern with these proposals, and in fact, the establishments of LTCHs throughout the state, according to the Agency's representative Jeffrey N. Gregg, is the oversupply of beds. The Agency believes it will be a long time before it can see any measure of clinical efficiency and whether the LTCH route is the appropriate way to go. The Agency has approved a number of LTCHs in recent years and is studying them in order to get a better understanding of what the future might hold. The Agency noted that the establishment of an LTCH by ongoing providers, BayCare Systems and UCH, where there are extant built-in referring facilities, were more likely to be successful than an out-of-state provider having no prior relationships with short-term acute care hospitals in the geographic vicinity of the LTCH. The Agency noted that both a referring hospital and an LTCH could benefit financially by decompressing its intensive care unit, and thus maximizing their efficiency. The Agency did not explain how, if these LTCHs are established, a subsequent failure would negatively affect the delivery of health services in District 5. The Agency, when it issued its SAAR, did not have the additional information which became available during the hearing process.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that UCH Certificate of Need Application No. 9754 and BayCare Certificate of Need Application No. 9753 satisfy the applicable criteria and both applications should be approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 29th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire J. Robert Griffin, P.A. 1342 Timberlane Road, Suite 102-A Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1762 Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, Cole, & Bryant P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Timothy Elliott, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Christa Calamas, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for Certificates of Need should be approved?
Findings Of Fact Ocala Ocala is a general partnership composed of three partners: Ocala Health Care Associates, Inc., Casterfield, Ltd., and Big Sun Healthcare Systems, the lessee and operator of Munroe Regional Medical Center. Ocala is the current holder of an approved CON for 35 community beds in Marion County. If the 21-bed transfer of sheltered beds to community beds is approved, Ocala intends to operate a 56-bed facility. A 56-bed facility is more viable than a 35-bed facility. At the time of the hearing, there were 642 approved and licensed beds and 215 approved not yet licensed beds in Marion County. The 215 beds include Ocala's 35-bed CON. A patient needing subacute care is one who has been released from acute care status by a physician and is ready to be released from a hospital (acute care) to a less costly facility, e.g. a skilled nursing home. Subacute care patients are those needing, e.g., intravenous tubes, respirators, IV medication, decubitus ulcer care, tracheotomy tubes, or antibiotic therapy. Patients needing subacute care should be placed in a nursing home, since this is less costly than hospital care and it allows for acute care beds in a hospital to be used for patients needing acute care. Skilled nursing homes are authorized to provide subacute care, but are not required to do so. In order to provide subacute care, a nursing home may need additional staff and equipment. There is a problem in Marion County with the placement of subacute care patients in nursing homes. This problem is caused by a variety of factors and usually results in a patient remaining in a hospital longer than is necessary. One factor is that some of the existing nursing homes will not accept patients needing certain types of subacute care, e.g., patients needing ventilators or feeding tubes. Another equally important factor is that the nursing homes want to make sure they will get paid and there is usually some delay in determining how the nursing home will be compensated. Other factors include the patients inability to pay and, on occasion, the unavailability of beds. Ocala intends to use its 35-bed approved CON to provide subacute care. Country Club While the application shows the applicant's name as "Country Club Retirement Center," that is the name of the project. The applicant is Mr. J. E. Holland. Mr. Holland's application is for a 60-bed nursing home which will be part of a 250-apartment continuing care community. The facility is to be located in Clermont, in Lake County. Lake County is in Planning Area VII of HRS District III. Planning Area VII also includes Sumter County. Mr. Keach, the only witness presented by Country Club, is Vice President of National Health Care. National Health Care operates a nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. In addition to operating the nursing home, National Health Care assists persons seeking a CON with preparation of the CON application. Mr. Keach and other National Health Care employees assisted Mr. Holland with the preparation of the CON application submitted in this case. National Health Care will not own or operate Mr. Holland's facility. Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in Clermont for a 60- bed nursing home. He bases his opinion on letters of support for the construction of the facility, on petitions signed by persons attending a public hearing, and on four or five visits to the area. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report there were 958 beds approved and licensed in Planning Area VII. Of these, 838 are located in Lake County, with 142 located in a nursing home in Clermont. Also these are swing-beds providing long-term care at a hospital in Clermont. Finally, there were 236 beds approved not yet licensed in Planning Area VII, with 176 to be located in Lake County. The occupancy rate for the nursing home facility located in Clermont is approximately 89 percent. For the six months ending March, 1988, the occupancy rate for Planning Area VII was below 80 percent. There are at least two nursing homes in operation within a 20-mile radius of Clermont. These two nursing homes are located in Winter Garden and one of them has received a CON to add 89 beds. Twenty-Eight Corporation The applicant in this case is Twenty-Eight Corporation. "The owner of the nursing home will be the Levy Nursing Care Center, a limited partnership, which will be owned and secured by Twenty-Eight Corporation." (28 Corporation, Composite Exhibit 1.) Twenty-Eight corporation seeks approval of a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be operated as part of a continuing care project which will include a 50-unit apartment complex. The facility is to be located in Chiefland, Florida, in Levy County. Levy County is in Planning Area II of HRS District III. Planning Area II also includes Alachua, Gilchrist and Dixie counties. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report, there were 1112 licensed nursing home beds in Planning Area II. Of these, 120 are located in Trenton, in Gilchrist County, 180 are located in Williston, in Levy County, and the rest are located in Alachua County. Also, there are 147 beds approved not yet licensed to be located in Alachua County. Chiefland is approximately 12 miles from Trenton. Williston is approximately 27 miles from Trenton. Mr. Keach was the only witness who testified on behalf of Twenty-Eight Corporation. Mr. Keach is vice-president of National Health Care. (See Finding of Fact 17, supra.) Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in the Chiefland area for a 60-bed nursing home. His opinion is based on letters of support and petitions of support he received for the project. Also, his opinion is based on the fact that there is no nursing home located in Chiefland and the nearest nursing home is located in Trenton, 12 miles away. The 1986 District III Health Plan shows the Trenton facility having an occupancy rate of 99.93 percent. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' applications in these three cases. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1862, 88-1863, 88-1864 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Ocala's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Accepted. 2-4. Supported by competent, substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 5-7. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. There is not an absolute absence of facilities willing to accept all patients needing subacute care. Irrelevant. "Serious concerns" are not what is needed under the Rule. First sentence rejected as recitation of testimony. Second sentence irrelevant; issue is whether nursing homes will accept patients, not whether nursing homes will enter into agreement with MRMC. 13-16. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. (a) Rejected to the extent it implies that the approved facilities would not provide subacute care. Mr. Bailey's testimony is that the facilities refused to enter into a relationship with MRMC; this does not establish that the facilities would not provide subacute care. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The weight of the evidence shows that some facilities would accept same subacute patients. True, but it is unclear if these are the physician's notations the HRS witness referred to. True that charts and logs were provided, but they did not establish the number of patients in need of subacute care in excess of licensed or approved beds. 19-26. Irrelevant. 27-29. Accepted-for what they are, but insufficient to establish need. Twenty-Eight Corporation's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4 Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. But see Finding of Fact 31. Mr. Keach testified that Chiefland is 40 miles from Williston. The road map published by the Department of Transportation shows the distance between the two cities at 27 miles. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. Also, a determination by a family member does not establish medical "need". True that this is Mr. Keach's opinion. However, Mr. Keach's opinion is rejected. His opinion of need is not based on what the Rule requires or on what health planners rely on to establish need. Mr. Keach is not able to testify as to the financial feasibility of the facility because he has no first- hand knowledge of the finances. 21-22. Irrelevant. 23. Rejected. See ruling on 10., supra. 24-26. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Irrelevant; this is not a rule challenge. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 37-38. Irrelevant. First phrase accepted. Second phrase rejected to extent implies that only need to show that no other facility exists within 20 miles. Irrelevant. Country Club's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 14-17. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. True, but irrelevant. See ruling on 11, supra. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. The Rule also recognizes this. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 33-34. True, but irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. 35-39. Irrelevant. 40. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 41-42. Accepted 43. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 44. True, but irrelevant. Also, there are approved beds within 20 miles, but located in a different HRS District. Leesburg's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted. 10-15. See Conclusions of Law section of RO. Accepted. Rejected as argument. Accepted. Rejected. Fact that need does not exist under HRS rule doesn't necessarily mean that that facility will not be financially feasible. In any event, Country Club was not able to establish financial feasibility. 20-21. See Conclusions of Law. 22. Rejected as argument. 23-28. Supported by competent substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted.- HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-19. Accepted. Rejected. The HRS witness did not specifically state that HRS needs to see the actual physician referral. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 22-28. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 29. Not a finding of fact. 30-37. Accepted. 38. Irrelevant. 39-42. Unnecessary to the decision reached. Irrelevant. Accepted. 45-46. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Not a finding of fact. 50-65. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 66. Not a finding of fact. 67-71. Accepted, but Ocala's Exhibits 6 & 7 are not amendments to the application but simply more of the same information that was provided with the application. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 First Florida Bank Building Suite 600 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 307 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Grafton Wilson, II, Esquire 711 NW 23rd Avenue, Suite #4 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Parties FRTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation which proposes to construct and operate a 60 bed intensive residential treatment program (IRTP) in Bradenton, Florida, which is located in the Department's District VI. The Department is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications. Manatee Palms is an existing residential treatment center in Manatee County, Florida which opened in January, 1987 and is currently operating without a CON. It provides services similar or identical to those proposed by FRTC. Manatee Palms was developed by, and is a subsidiary of, Psychiatric Institutes of America. Its primary service area extends beyond District VI from Orlando to Naples. Manatee Palms is a sixty bed facility providing psychiatric, substance abuse and educational services for juveniles up to 18 years of age, and is licensed by the Department as a child caring facility, as a provider of services to the Department, and for subspecialties involving drug and alcohol programs. It is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals as a residential treatment center. The average length of stay for patients is six months. Occupancy rates have been consistently above projections and have been as high as 97 percent in May, 1987. Manatee Memorial is a full-service acute care hospital and an existing provider of short-term psychiatric services in Bradenton, Florida, with 25 licensed short-term psychiatric beds, nine of which comprise a children's and adolescent unit. It is the Manatee County contract provider of in-patient psychiatric services to the medically indigent, and provides approximately 91 percent of the indigent care in Manatee County. Manatee Memorial does not have, and has never sought, a CON as an IRTP, but does have earlier-batched applications pending for additional short and long term psychiatric beds. Its average length of stay is 35-40 days, and its utilization rate is approaching 100 percent. Manatee Memorial provides services similar or identical to those proposed by FRTC, and its program also utilizes a "levels system" similar to that used by FRTC. The Application and Project On September 15, 1986 FRTC filed a Letter of Intent notifying the Department of its intent to file a CON application for an IRTP for children and adolescents in Bradenton, Florida. On October 14, 1986 FRTC filed CON application number 4825 to obtain specialty hospital licensure as an IRTP. This application was initially approved by the Department on March 10, 1987, after the filing of a completeness response on or about December 23, 1986 at the request of the Department. Manatee Palms and Manatee Memorial timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings challenging the Department's intent to issue the CON. The project at issue in this case is a 60 bed IRTP situated on a 9.35 acre site. The proposed building will have total gross square footage of approximately 32,000 and has been adapted from a prototype short-term psychiatric hospital design which has been used in approximately 50 locations. The floor plan submitted by FRTC provides for 28 semi-private rooms, three of which are designed to accommodate the handicapped, and one 4- bed assessment unit. Additionally, reasonable and sufficient space is provided for five classrooms, occupational therapy, a gymnasium, three group rooms, three day rooms, a seclusion area, three consult rooms, laundry and storage rooms, a nurses' station, dining room, and an administrative wing. A parking area, multi-purpose court, pool, activities field and drainage retention area are also provided. The parties have stipulated that the building will be energy efficient. Total project cost is reasonably estimated at $4,303,020. As a result of design modifications, the square footage of the project has increased by approximately 1,000 gross square feet and project costs have increased by approximately $69,000 from FRTC's completed application. The Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, John Griffin, testified that for a project of this size these changes are not considered to be "amendments" to the application. The changes in facility design identified at hearing represent refinements and permissible modifications, rather than application amendments. There is no architectural significance to the changes. Rather, they make the design more appropriate for an IRTP. Specifically, a multi-purpose area was converted to a half-court gymnasium, the occupational therapy and interior mechanical spaces were slightly increased for more storage area, a seclusion room was deleted, the nurses' station was reduced, a 4-bed assessment unit was added, and other minor changes were made. FRTC proposes to offer 24-hour psychiatric services to children and adolescents under the age of 18, who are severely emotionally disturbed, and who are admitted voluntarily, after screening, with a history of prior treatment. Its program elements will include occupational therapy, recreational therapy, group and individual therapy, nursing care, an educational component, psychological testing, counseling and family therapy. The FRTC program will be initiated as a locked intensive program whose goal is to return the patient to his family and to life in a natural setting. Patients who are severely retarded, autistic, or with an active diagnosis of substance abuse will not be admitted. The average length of stay for patients is reasonably projected to be one year, with a range of from 6 months to two years. There are no licensed intensive residential treatment programs (IRTP) for children and adolescents in Manatee County, Florida or in the Department's District VI, which includes Manatee County as well as Hardee, Highland, Hillsborough and Polk Counties. There are also no licensed IRTPs in adjoining Districts V and VIII. Stipulations The parties have stipulated that FRTC has the ability to recruit physicians for this project, and also has funds available for FRTC's capital and operating expenditures. In addition, the parties have stipulated that review criteria concerning the need for research and educational facilities, the extent to which the services will be accessible to schools for health professional, and the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations are not applicable to this CON application. Non-Rule Policy For IRTP The Department currently has no rule governing the approval of IRTP applications for a CON. However, since February 1987 the Department has followed a non-rule policy which presumes there is a need for at least one licensed IRTP of reasonable size in each Departmental service district, and which does not consider the existence of unlicensed residential treatment beds in a district in determining if the presumed need has been met. No changes or revisions in this non-rule policy of the Department are under review. The Department applied this non-rule policy in initially approving the CON application. Based upon the testimony of John Griffin, the Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary who administers the CON program and is responsible for health planning, an IRTP applicant does not have to establish "need" in a particular service district where it wants to locate a facility because the non- rule policy presumes there is a need for one IRTP of reasonable size per district. The applicant must, however, establish that there is not presently a licensed IRTP in the district and that it proposed to establish an IRTP of reasonable size. Griffin was not able to explicate this non-rule policy based upon health planning concerns, considerations or factors. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Administrator of the Department's Office of Community Medical Services and Facilities, was also unable to articulate or explicate a health planning basis for this policy. Rather, the only basis enunciated at hearing by the Department for this non-rule policy was its statutory interpretation of Sections 395.002(8) and 395.003(2)(f), Florida Statutes, as renumbered by Section 34, Chapter 87-92, Laws of Florida. Need And Consistency With State And Local Health Plans There are no licensed IRTPs in District VI. Manatee Palms is a residential treatment center for children and adolescents located in Manatee County, but it is not licensed by the Department as an IRTP. Relevant issues identified in the District VI Local Health Plan are stated as follows: As a general policy, the least restrictive, most cost effective setting and programs should be used. The State of Florida, as a major purchaser of mental health and substance abuse services, can continue to lead the way by encouraging the development of non-hospital alternatives and by purchasing services from them preferentially. Another important issue in psychiatric care is the trend toward hospitalization of children who have behavior and conduct disorders, and who should more appropriately be served through non-hospital alternatives. . . At the present time, the severe emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped (SED/EH) child or adolescent is served in a broad range of programs. There are crisis stabilization units (CSUs) for stabilizing the adult client in acute crisis. Currently CSU services for children and adolescents are not adequate throughout the District. Intensive residential, day/night program, group and foster homes are for the client requiring close supervision. Relevant policies set forth in the District Local Health Plan are as follows: The multi-modality approach as expressed in the community mental health (and substance abuse) system should be considered a model of programming, staffing, facility requirements, costs, etc., against which applications for inpatient services should be reviewed. Review of applications for inpatient psychiatric and substance abuse services should include comment from the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Offices of DHRS. No additional psychiatric and/or substance abuse beds should be granted approval unless the capacity of current hospital providers is being fully utilized (75 percent occupancy rate annual). Additional psychiatric and/or substance abuse beds should be through conversion of existing beds. The State Health Plan sets forth the following relevant policies and statements: The goal of (mental health) services is (to) . . . provide educational; mental health treatment; and when needed, residential services for severely emotionally disturbed students. It is the intent of the Legislature that the least restrictive means of intervention be employed based on the individual needs of each patient within the scope of available services . . . The program goals for each component of the network are . . . to provide programs and services as close as possible to the child's home in the least restrictive manner consistent with the child's needs. Sufficient funding for the development of residential treatment and community support services is necessary if the state is to fulfill its commitment to providing services for long term mentally ill persons. These services provide, in the long run, a more humane and cost effective means of meeting the mental health needs of Florida residents. Continued development of long and short term inpatient hospital programs for the treatment of adolescents and children is contrary to current treatment practices for these groups and is, therefore, inappropriate without local data to support the need for these services. Such development can contribute to inappropriate placement, unnecessary costs of treatment, and divert scarce resources away from alternative uses. In addition, the following relevant goals are contained in the State Health Plan: Promote the development of a continuum of high quality, cost effective private sector mental health and substance abuse treatment and preventive services. Bring about changes in third party reimbursement policy for psychiatric and substance abuse care which would promote the development of the most appropriate, cost-effective treatment settings . . . Develop a network of residential treatment settings for Florida's severely emotionally disturbed children by 1989 . . . Develop residential placements within Florida for all SED children currently receiving treatment in out of state facilities by 1990. The FRTC application is consistent with the above cited relevant portions of the state and local health plans. It is consistent with the State Health Plan which reflects and emphasizes the trend toward deinstitutionalization and the current emphasis on education, treatment and residential services for severely emotionally disturbed students rather than what has been the traditional approach to treatment in an institutional setting, a generally more costly approach from a capital cost and staffing perspective. The FRTC application promotes treatment within the State and will assist in reducing out of state placements. Through the report and testimony of Ronald T. Luke, Ph.D., J.D., and despite the testimony of Jay Cushman, both of whom were accepted as experts in health planning, FRTC established the need for, and reasonableness of, its 60 licensed IRTP beds in District VI, with 50 percent occupancy in the first year and 60 percent in the second year, using two bed need assessment methodologies. First, using the ratio of licensed IRTP beds in other service districts to population ages 0-17 years old, a range of .07 to 1.33 beds per 1,000 population is identified. Using 1991 population projections for District VI, the 60 bed FRTC facility would result in a bed to population ratio of .17 per 1,000 population aged 0-17 years. Since there are no licensed beds in the current inventory, no adjustment of this ratio must be made to account for existing beds. Thus, the FRTC application is within the range of ratios of currently licensed IRTPs in other districts, and is therefore reasonable. Second, a utilization methodology identifies an intensive residential treatment bed need of 90 in 1987 to 95 in 1991, with target occupancy rates of 90 percent. This methodology is based upon 1987 and 1991 population projections. Using a census rate per 100,000 population of 21.58 which is appropriately and reasonably derived from national data for residential treatment patients aged 0-17, an average daily census of 74 in 1987 and 78 in 1991 is derived. Thus, FRTC has established a need for its facility in District VI, given its projected occupancy levels, and given that there are no licensed beds currently in the District. It is important to recognize that the bed ratio analysis is based upon licensed intensive residential treatment beds in Florida, and is therefore clearly relevant and credible to the issues in this case. The utilization methodology supports and confirms the need found thorough the bed ratio analysis, although it is noted that this methodology, by using national data, is not based upon licensed beds in Florida, and would therefore not be sufficient, in itself, to establish need. It is, however, persuasive and credible in confirming the bed ratio analysis. Accessibility To All Residents FRTC projects only 1.5 percent indigent care and 8 percent bad debt. Its projection for private pay patients is 25 percent and for insurance covered care is 65.5 percent. This is a marginal and insignificant indigent load. There is no provision for services to state-funded patients. FRTC's projected utilization by class of pay is reasonable. The clear purpose of this application is to enable FRTC to become licensed as a hospital under Section 395.002, Florida Statutes, and thereby enable it to be called a "hospital". It was established through the testimony of Dwight Hood, who was accepted as an expert in health care finance and health care third party payments, that if a facility is licensed as a hospital it has a significant advantage for reimbursement from third parties who more readily reimburse for care in a licensed facility than in an unlicensed residential treatment center. Therefore, accessibility will be increased for those children and adolescents in need of this care whose families have insurance coverage, since it is more likely that payments under such third party coverage will be made at an IRTP licensed as a "hospital" than otherwise. Quality of Care The applicant has clearly demonstrated its ability to provide quality care to its patients, based upon the testimony of C. Hal Brunt, M.D., Robert Friedel, M.D. and G. L. Tischler, M.D., who were accepted as experts in psychiatry, and notwithstanding the testimony of Howard Goldman, M.D., and Glen Lewis, M.D., who were also accepted as experts in psychiatry. FRTC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation which has experience in the operation and management of a residential treatment center, Charter Colonial Institute in Virginia, and also has extensive experience in providing quality health care at five hospitals in Florida, including Charter Hospital of Tampa Bay. The treatment program at FRTC will be adapted to local community needs. In providing quality care, FRTC will assign patients to the correct level of care within the facility by insuring that they are seen by a psychiatrist within 24 hours of admission, and by having each case reviewed by an independent utilization review committee, completing appropriate patient assessments and developing integrated treatment programs which are regularly updated, making appropriate treatment outcome assessments, and providing for continuity of care for patients leaving the IRTP through the development of a community-wide continuum of care. Charter has six out-patient counselling centers located within two hours of the FRTC proposed facility. It is both reasonable and appropriate to structure psychiatric treatment and care in a hospital setting within a "levels system" that rewards and reinforces desired behavior, and FRTC will utilize a "levels system" in its highly goal oriented patient treatment programs. Quality of care is not dependent upon a hospital's environment and physical facilities, according to Dr. Goldman. The floor plan proposed by FRTC is functional and is a proto- typical design used by Charter in approximately fifty locations, although not as an IRTP. The criticisms of the floor plan and facility design to which Maxine Wolfe, Ph.D., and Glen Lewis, M.D., testified do not establish that the applicant will be unable to provide quality care in this facility. While the Petitioners might design a facility differently, and specifically provide for a different orientation of the nurses' station relative to the patient wings, a different location for the dining room, more rooms where a patient can have privacy, and more opportunity for individualized treatment, these preferences do not establish that FRTC's floor plan and design will impair the quality of care rendered at this proposed facility. It is also noted that Dr. Wolfe testified critically about residential treatment in general, and expressed the opinion that residential treatment in a hospital is not beneficial and that children should never be treated in a large facility of any kind under any circumstance. Her testimony clearly establishes her bias and impairs her own credibility and the weight to be given to her testimony in this case. Availability and Adequacy of Alternatives Although there are no licensed IRTPs in District VI residential treatment and/or psychiatric services are currently available to children and adolescents through Manatee Memorial (9 beds), Manatee Palms (60 beds), Glenbeigh (14-16 beds), Sarasota Palms (60-70 beds), Sarasota Memorial Care Center (30 beds), Children's Home in Tampa (68 beds) and Northside Center in Tampa (12 beds). The average of length of stay at the significant majority of these facilities is up to 90 days, and they also attract patients from outside District VI. FRTC proposes to serve patients who require an average length of stay of a year. Some of these facilities serve patients with a dual diagnosis that includes substance abuse whereas FRTC will not. Therefore, these facilities do not offer adequate alternatives for the patients which FRTC is seeking to serve. Further, it was not established that outpatient or ambulatory services represent an adequate and appropriate alternative to an IRTP. Availability of Resources The total project cost of $4,303,020 will be funded through an equity contribution from Charter Medical Corporation and through a conventional loan. Assuming a 50 percent occupancy rate (30 beds) in its first year of operation, the proposed facility will have a staff of 43 positions, 27 of which will represent personnel who will be direct nursing or staff support for the patients, including social workers, psychologists, staff registered nurses, mental health workers, patient care coordinator, nursing supervisors, occupational and recreational therapists and special education teachers. A part-time medical director will also be available. This results in a ratio of 1.4 positions per patient. In comparison, Manatee Palms has a 1.8 staffing ratio based on a census of 55 patients. FRTC has proposed a reasonable and adequate staffing pattern and ratio to treat 30 patients. FRTC will recruit personnel through direct advertising, community contacts, posted notices, job fairs, and school visits. It will compete with unlicensed residential treatment centers, as well as short and long term psychiatric hospitals, in attracting staff for its facility. Although only six mental health workers are identified in FRTC's list of manpower requirements, and it would be beneficial to the level of treatment and care to increase this number, nevertheless, the staffing patterns proposed by FRTC will allow it to render quality care to patients at its facility, based upon 50 percent occupancy in its first year of operation. Staff salaries proposed by FRTC are reasonable and realistic, although its proposed salaries for nurses and mental health workers are higher than that available at Manatee Memorial. Existing facilities may have to increase their salaries to the levels proposed by FRTC to continue to retain and attract qualified staff, particularly nurses and mental health workers. Recruitment difficulties have been experienced in the District VI area for nurses, social workers, mental health workers and occupational therapists. However, it appears that FRTC will be able to attract qualified applicants for all positions due to the level of salaries offered and quality of care provided. Financial Feasibility Net revenues from the first year of operation are projected to be $100,000, which represents 2.3 percent of the capital expenditure as a return on investment. In the second year of operation, net revenues are projected to be $302,000, a 7 percent return on investment. Both years show a fair return on investment, and the pro forma establishes the financial feasibility of this project. In preparing the pro forma for this project, William S. Love, who was accepted as an expert in health care finance, used the reasonable assumption of 50 percent occupancy in the first year of operation and 60 percent in the second year. Despite the testimony of Jay Cushman, who was accepted as an expert health planner, it was not established that FRTC's location will preclude these occupancy rates. Love also assumed patient revenues of $300 per day and an average length of stay of one year. Utilization by class of payor was estimated to be 65 1/2 percent insurance, 25 percent private pay, 8 percent bad debt and 1 1/2 percent indigent care. It was assumed there would be no Medicare or Medicaid. Assumptions regarding patient revenues and utilization by class of payor are reasonable based on the testimony of Love, Luke and Dwight Hood, as well as a survey of insurance benefits available through employers, and despite the testimony of Christopher Knepper, who was accepted as an expert in health care finance. Knepper's testimony is applicable to unlicensed residential treatment centers rather than an IRTP. Therefore, his criticism of the pro forma as underestimating bad debt and overestimating the private pay portion is not persuasive since it disregards the fact that a licensed IRTP, due to its status as a specialty hospital, will have an increased ability to attract patients with insurance and with an ability to pay deductibles and other unreimbursed costs for care. It was established that a residential treatment center licensed as a specialty hospital has a significant advantage in terms of an improved payor mix over unlicensed facilities because of its recognized status with insurance companies. In addition, Knepper's testimony at hearing concerning the financial feasibility of this project conflicted with estimates made during discovery, and his explanation of such discrepancy was not credible. This conflict in Knepper's position at hearing and during discovery reduces the weight to be given to his testimony. FRTC assumed it would not be subject to the indigent care tax, but even if it were subject to the tax this would only add $29,000 in expenses, and therefore not affect the financial feasibility of the project. A management fee will be charged by Charter Medical Corporation, although this is not separately shown on the pro forma. It is the position of FRTC that this fee is associated with home office costs which will exist without regard to this facility. However, this fee, as well as additional construction costs of approximately $70,000, will not affect the financial feasibility of this project since salary costs associated with administration, as well as data processing costs have been separately shown and included on the pro forma as expenses, even though they are sometimes included in a management fee. FRTC's estimate of gross patient revenue of $300 per day for the first year of operation is substantially higher than other facilities offering like services. Net revenues per day during the first year of operation are estimated to be $265.30. Total direct expenses are estimated to be $198.70 for the first year, with total expenses per patient day estimated at $250.50 in the first year. A 7 percent inflation factor was used for the second year of operation, and this is a reasonable inflation factor. Impact On Costs and Competition As previously noted, salary estimates for nurses and mental health workers for this project are above those provided at Manatee Memorial, and therefore could reasonably be expected to increase salaries in these categories for some facilities in the area. The all inclusive charge of $300 per day proposed by FRTC is greater than Manatee Palm's average gross charge of between $270 - $280 per day. It is likely that paying patients, including patients with insurance coverage, who would otherwise be treated at Petitioners' facilities, will be treated at FRTC if this application is approved. However, the extent of such a loss in paying patients due to FRTC is unclear since Manatee Palms is recently receiving greater acceptance by insurers for reimbursement purposes, and Manatee Memorial's estimates of patient losses were based upon impact from both Manatee Palms and FRTC. Reasonableness of Costs The equipment cost estimate of $360,015 is reasonable. This finding is based on the testimony of Susan Hickman, who was accepted as an expert in health care facility equipment. The equipment and beds are appropriate for an IRTP of this size. The total cost of $707,897 for telephones, signage, graphics, interior design and equipment is also reasonable. The construction cost estimate of $2,010,823 is reasonable. This finding is based on the testimony of Patrick A. Regan, who was accepted as an expert in health care facility construction budgeting. Due to the conservative nature of the cost figures, a 2 1/2 percent contingency is adequate, rather than the normal 5-6 percent contingency. The contingency could be used for unbudgeted items such as stucco siding and hard ceilings. FRTC owns the facility site, which was purchased for $664,000.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order approving FRTC's application for CON 4825. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 22nd day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-2036, 87-2049 Rulings on the Joint Proposed Findings of Fact filed by FRTC and the Department: 1 Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 27. 2-4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 5 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 6-9 Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 29, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 10-11 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 15-16 Adopted in Finding of Fact 46, Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 10 but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 21-22 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 10, 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 27-30 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 27, 28, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 31 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 32-34 Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 28, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 33, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 39, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 50-57 Adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 39, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 58 Rejected as unnecessary. 59-61 Adopted in Finding of Fact 15, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary or as a conclusion of law. 62 Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 61 Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 15, 16. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17, but adopted in part in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 69-72 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant since the Department's non-rule policy was not explicated and therefore cannot be relied upon. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since the "reasonableness" of the facility's size is not at issue, the Department having failed to explicate its non-rule policy. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 31, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 24, 33, 35, 39. The proposed average length of stay of one year is found to be reasonable in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 22. 79-81 Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 23, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 18, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 11, 26 but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 87-88 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 44, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and therefore unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as unnecessary and simply a summation of testimony. 95-96 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and in part simply a summation of testimony. 97-98 Rejected as a summation of testimony and otherwise as speculative and irrelevant. 99 Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 100-103 Rejected as irrelevant. 104 Rejected as a summation of, and argument on, the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Manatee Palms: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as unnecessary, and as simply a statement of position. 9-11 Rejected as unnecessary and as otherwise covered in preliminary procedural matters. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 31, but otherwise rejected as simply a summation of testimony and position of the parties. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 25, 39, 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14, but rejected in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but rejected in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21, 22, 23. Rejected as simply argument and a statement of position rather than a Finding of Fact. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 25, 39. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21, 22, 23. 24-26 Rejected in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 44, but rejected in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 23, 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 34-42 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. This is a de novo proceeding through which final agency action will be taken, and therefore preliminary agency findings are irrelevant to a determination of the issues in this case which must be decided based upon evidence presented at hearing. Rejected as simply a statement of position without any citation to the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 45-46 Rejected in Finding of Fact 24. 47-48 Adopted and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 24. 49-60 Rejected in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as simply a conclusion of law. Rejected as without citation to the record and as simply a statement of position rather than a Finding of Fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 66-70 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative, since it is established that services are similar or identical to those proposed by FRTC. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 44. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact. 26, 39 and otherwise as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Rejected as simply a statement of position, without citation to the record. Rejected as simply a conclusion of law. 80-81 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 8, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 82 Rejected as unnecessary. 83-84 Rejected in Findings of Fact 33 and 35, and otherwise as irrelevant. Rejected as simply a conclusion of law. Rejected in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34, 36. 89-90 Rejected in Findings of Fact 35, 37. Rejected as simply a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings of Fact 38, 39, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 39, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 98-100 Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 101-102 Adopted in Findings of Fact 38, 39. 103-109 Rejected in Finding of Fact 39, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26, 29. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. Rejected in Finding of Fact 35, and otherwise as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings of Fact 38, 39, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 115-117 Adopted and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 40, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Adopted and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 8, 40, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings of Fact 38-42. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34, 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 45. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and without citation to the record. Rejected as a conclusion of law. 128-129 Rejected as simply a comment on the evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected in Finding of Fact 47. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 8, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as simply a statement of position and argument. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Manatee Memorial: 1-2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3-4 Rejected as irrelevant. 5 Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 29. 6-7 Rejected as irrelevant to a determination of the issues in this case. 8-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 34, 36, 45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 13-22 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary. Rejected in Finding of Fact 24 and otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34, 36. Rejected as speculative and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 5, 10, but rejected in in Finding of Fact 44. 30-32 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 33 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 34-39 Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 43-45 Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Since Mr. Griffin is the highest level departmental representative who testified at hearing, his statement of the non-rule policy is presumed to be correct. Rejected in Finding of Fact 16. Rejected in Finding of Fact 16 and otherwise as unnecessary and irrelevant. 49-51 Rejected as irrelevant since this is a de novo hearing by which final agency action will be taken. Rejected as simply a conclusion of law. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 58-60 Rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23 and otherwise as irrelevant. 61-63 Rejected in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30, but rejected in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39 and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 and rejected in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26, 39, 42. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 38, 39, 44. Rejected in Findings of Fact 24 and 39. Rejected as speculative, and not based on competent substantial evidence. 71-79 Rejected in Findings of Fact 26, 38, 39 and otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 80-83 Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 35. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 35, 38, 39, 42. Rejected in Findings of Fact 39, 40. Rejected in Findings of Fact 38-42. Rejected in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected in Finding of Fact 35. Rejected in Findings of Fact 27, 33, 35. Rejected in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as unnecessary. 94-95 Rejected in Finding of Fact 37. 96 Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. 97-100 Rejected in Findings of Fact 28, 29. 101-102 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 103-105 Rejected in Finding of Fact 29. 106 Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. 107-109 Rejected in Findings of Fact 27, 28, 29 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 110 Rejected as irrelevant. 111-112 Rejected in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9, 27, 28, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 115-116 Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted and rejected in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 and rejected in Finding of Fact 47. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted and rejected in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3, 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 39, 45. 125-127 Rejected as speculative and not based on competent substantial evidence. 128-130 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jean Laramore, Esquire Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Bruce A. Leinback, Esquire Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William Hoffman, Esquire Deborah Winegard, Esquire 2500 Trust Co. Tower 25 Park Place Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Fred W. Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire 900 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The parties present at the hearing stipulated to the following facts which are hereby entered as findings of fact: All letters of intent submitted by the applicants involved herein with the exception of FCC were timely filed on or before December 15, 1984 and the relating applications by these applicants were timely filed on or before January 15, 1985. As a result, these applications addressed a January, 1988 bed need planning horizon. All applications, as mentioned above, were deemed complete by DHRS and were reviewed under a January, 1988 bed need planning horizon. All applications as cited above, were preliminarily denied by DHRS based on a lack of need and notice of these denials were timely published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All unsuccessful applicants herein thereafter timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of their applications. The application filed by FCC for CON number 2738, filed by the applicant in July, 1983, and addressing a July, 1986 bed need was initially denied by DHRS in November, 1983. FCC thereafter timely filed a petition for formal, administrative hearing contesting the denial of this application and on January 10, 1985, DHRS and FCC entered into a stipulated settlement in which DHRS agreed to grant CON Number 2738 to FCC. This CON was issued to FCC on January 19, 1985, for 91 community nursing home beds and on March 15, 1985, a Final Order was entered by DHRS confirming the grant off CON Number 2738 to FCC. FCC's original application under CON Number 2738 was for a 120 bed community nursing home to be located in Indian River County, Florida. DHRS's initial denial of FCC's application was based on a lack of bed need at the time. When DHRS entered into the stipulation with FCC reversing its position and granting a CON to FCC for 91 community nursing home beds, it did so on the basis of bed need figures utilizing statistics relating to the subsequent January, 1988 bed need planning horizon even though FCC's application did not pertain to that planning horizon. In fact the beds taken and awarded to FCC came from the fixed pool of beds that, under the DHRS rule in effect at the time, was reserved for applicants in the January, 1985 batching cycle with a planning horizon of January, 1988. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), F.A.C., sets out the bed need rule methodology for determining projected need for new or additional community nursing home beds. Pursuant to this rule, need is projected three years into the future. The methodology provided in this rule is clear and reasonable. If this methodology is followed precisely as set forth in the rule and utilizing the DHRS statistics available to personnel in the health care professions, such as its semi-annual nursing home census report as well as the Florida population estimates and projections by DHRS district and county, a net bed need of 116 additional beds in Indian River County is established for the period January, 1988. This figure does not, however, include an award of 91 beds to FCC under CON Number 2738 by DHRS under the terms of its settlement and those 91 beds are included within the 116. The expert testifying for the applicants herein concluded that the award of the 91 beds to FCC outside its planning horizon was erroneous and improper and based on no calculation of bed need appropriate to the applicant's original July, 1986 planning horizon and it was so found. In this case, DHRS, by awarding beds to FCC from a subsequent planning horizon is implementing a bed need policy which establishes a "planning horizon" three years from the date the Petitioners' applications were filed but updating all available data to that existing as of the date of the final hearing. This would include July, 1986 population data, current licensed beds, current approved beds, and the latest occupancy rate. The procedure followed by DHRS here is, however, a DHRS policy interpretation rather than a literal interpretation of the rule and the DHRS expert was unable to establish or in any way justify DHRS' policy of updating all data to the date of hearing in contravention of the terms of its own rule. If the unjustified and unsubstantiated DHRS policy were accepted and utilized here, calculations would reflect a surplus of 70 nursing home beds in Indian River County for the January, 1988 planning horizon as opposed to the more reasonable and rational bed need of 116.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT Certificate of Need Number 2733, previously issued to Florida Convalescent Centers be rescinded and that the 91 beds relating thereto be returned to the January, 1988 planning horizon fixed pool. It is further recommended that the Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services remand the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a comparative hearing to evaluate the pending applicants within that batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific ruling pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by National Health Corporation, FMSC and Forum 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the actual calculations outlined in the formulas which are incomplete. 2 & 3 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-6 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 7-13 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 14 Not a Finding of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Health Care and Retirement Corporation Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the citation of the rule which is incomplete. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated. 5-9 Accepted. 10 & 11 Accepted. 12 Rejected as not the best analysis. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Beverly Enterprises 1-3 Accepted. 4-6 Incorporated into Findings of Fact. 7 & 8 Accepted. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. & 11 Accepted. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. Cumulative to other findings. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. Incorporated in Finding of Fact. 16-20 Legal Argument not a Finding of Fact. 21-22 Cumulative to other evidence of record. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by DHRS 1-3 Accepted. 4-8 Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9 Accepted as to the calculation including the 91 beds available to FCC. Rejected as to the propriety of the award and the reason. Copies Furnished: William Page, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Rodriguez, Esquire, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be presented is whether Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, John Lee, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 50043. Dr. Lee specializes in obstetrics and gynecology, but is not board certified at this time. He has a solo practice. Dr. Lee has had one prior final order imposing discipline against him. On November 7, 1996, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order approving an amended Consent Agreement entered between the Agency for Health Care Administration (the Department's predecessor with respect to regulation of health care professionals) and Dr. Lee. The Final Order imposed a letter of concern, a fine of $2,000, and 20 hours of continuing medical education. On or about November 2, 2005, patient R.R. first saw Respondent with a complaint of chronic pelvic pain and an inability to function. Based upon his examination of R.R., Respondent recommended that R.R. undergo a bilateral salpingo- oophorectomy (removal of both ovaries and fallopian tubes). R.R. decided to have the recommended surgery and on December 13, 2005, Respondent performed a bilateral salpingo- oophorectomy, as well as an appendectomy, lysis of adhesions and partial omentectomy. There are three layers to the bowel: the serosa is the thin outer protective layer; under the serosa is the muscularis; a third layer below the muscularis called the mucosa. Dr. Lee's surgical notes indicate that there was some serosal denuding of the sigmoid colon, but with no luminal extravasion (no leakage from the bowel). Dr. Lee described the serosal denuding as an irritation of the serosa from removal of adhesions, and not a complication of the surgery. In any event, there are no allegations in the Administrative Complaint claiming that either Dr. Lee's decision to perform the surgery or the performance of the surgery itself deviated from the appropriate standard-of- care, and no findings to that effect are found. R.R. was discharged from the hospital on December 15, 2005. At that time, she was ambulatory, tolerating liquids, had passed flatus and had a small bowel movement. At that time she had no documented fever and a normal white count. The next day, Friday, December 16, 2005, R.R.'s husband called Dr. Lee's office at approximately 3:00 p.m. According to R.R., she spoke to Brandi Melvin, now known as Brandi Harper (Ms. Harper), the medical assistant for Dr. Lee, and told her that she was running a fever of 101.8 degrees, did not feel well and wanted Dr. Lee to call her. She testified that at that time, she did not feel well, was achy all over, had pain in her abdomen and had chills. R.R. testified that Ms. Harper told her to increase her Dilaudid in accordance with her prescription and to continue rotating Tylenol and Motrin. She denies being told to go to the emergency room if her fever did not go down, and denies being instructed to pick up a prescription for an antibiotic. Brandi Harper is a medical assistant in Dr. Lee's office, and has been since 2004. She is a certified nurse's assistant and has completed a year and a half toward her registered nursing degree. Part of Ms. Harper's duties include screening calls that come in from patients post-surgery. In doing so, she follows a set protocol that has been established in that office. In accordance with Dr. Lee's preferences, she inquires not only about the symptoms the patients report having, but also about symptoms they may not be having. Consistent with that protocol, she testified that, with respect to the call from R.R. and her husband, she asked whether R.R. was having any drainage from the incision; any abdominal pain; or was experiencing any other symptoms. Ms. Harper testified that R.R. did not report having any abdominal pain above expected soreness, and did not report difficulty breathing or shortness of breath; drainage from the incision; vomiting; bloating or distension of the abdomen. Ms. Harper's testimony is credited. After receiving the telephone call from R.R., Ms. Harper wrote a note to Dr. Lee which referenced R.R. and stated, "[t]aking the cephalexin you gave her on discharge. Is running 102 temp, just sore. She has been rotating Tylenol and nothing has brought it down. Informed her to drink plenty of fluids. Do you want to add anything?" Neither Ms. Harper's notes nor her testimony reflect that she told the patient to increase pain medication. Nor does the note reflect that R.R. wanted to speak with Dr. Lee. Because Dr. Lee was seeing patients, Ms. Harper placed the note on his desk for his review. After reviewing the note, Dr. Lee wrote "Levaquin 500mg, #10, 1 a day." Ms. Harper then called the patient to tell her that a prescription was being called in for her and confirmed the pharmacy the patient used. At that time, consistent with the protocol established by Dr. Lee, she told R.R. or her husband that if the fever did not go down after two hours, to go to the emergency room at West Florida Hospital. She did not tell her to call the office back because, at the time of the return phone call, it was approximately 3:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, and in two hours the office would be closed. Ms. Harper then called the prescription in to Burklow's Pharmacy, as identified by the patient, and noted the prescription in patient's medication log. She noted the time of the call and the name of the pharmacist with whom she spoke. Ms. Harper did not note in the medical record that she advised the patient to go to the emergency room if her fever did not go down, and did not specifically note the return call to the patient. However, she plausibly explained that she could not call in the prescription to Burklow's without speaking to the patient, because there were two different pharmacies noted in her file previously. She also credibly testified that she always calls the patient back in conjunction with the call to the pharmacy, and gives standard instructions to post-operative patients regarding further action (in this case, going to the West Florida Hospital emergency room) should their condition not change. She does not necessarily document the return call because she does it so many times daily. Dr. Lee also testified that instructions to call back if the office is open or go to the emergency room if symptoms do not improve in a few hours is part of the standard protocol. Ms. Harper's and Dr. Lee's testimony is credited. R.R. did not go to the emergency room over the weekend and there was no evidence that she ever called Dr. Lee's office back after the 3:00 Friday afternoon call. She continued to not feel well, however, and on Monday morning, December 19, 2005, at approximately 5:00 a.m., she woke up in intense pain between her shoulder blades. She went by ambulance to Santa Rosa Medical Center (SRMC). R.R. went to SRMC as opposed to West Florida Hospital because it was much closer to her home. Dr. Lee does not have privileges at SRMC. Although R.R. went to the emergency room early December 19, 2005, there was no determination that first day that she had a bowel perforation, and she was not admitted to the hospital until approximately 8:30 that evening. At the time of admission, she had a white blood count of 3.3, with a differential count of 12 neutrophil bands. The history and physical taken at the hospital and signed by Dr. Michael Barber, M.D., states in part: HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: [R.R.] is a 33- year-old, . . . who underwent abdominal surgery six days ago by Dr. John Lee at West Florida Hospital. She had bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, partial omentectomy, appendectomy, and extensive adhesiolysis. . . . She states that although this surgery was prolonged and reportedly difficulty (sic), she tolerated the surgery well and by the second postoperative day was ambulating and voiding freely, tolerating a regular diet with a bowel movement and positive flatus. She stated her pain was well managed with 4 mg of Dilaudid q4h as needed. She was sent home on Cephalexin 500 mg q6h, Phenergan 25 mg q6h and Dilaudid 4 mg q6h. She was also on Hydrochlorothiazide for chronic hypertension, Klonopin and Effexor for anxiety and depression. She states that after going home she had some anorexia that was doing well until the morning of admission. She was awakened from her sleep at approximately 6 a.m. with remarkable abdominal distention and severe diffuse abdominal pain. She developed nausea as the pain progressed but has had no vomiting. She states that other than the bowel movement immediately post surgery, she had not had any bowel activity since discharge in six days. After several hours and worsening of pain, she presented to the emergency room at Santa Rosa Medical Center. On admission, a CT scan of the abdomen was accomplished and revealed a moderate volume loss infiltrate in the left lung base, apparent present to a lesser extent on the right. There was free air noted within the abdomen and also noted to be some free fluid. This was felt to be due to the patient's prior surgery, however, a more acute process could not be ruled out. There were also some distended loops of small bowel with apparent decompression of the distal small bowel which suggested at least a partial small bowel obstruction, although again, the diagnosis included ileus. A CT of the pelvis was unremarkable except as noted on the CT scan. There was some free fluid and free air within the pelvis. Since transfer to West Florida Hospital and the patient's attending physician could not be arranged, decision was made to admit to Dr. Barber on GYN service. * * * IMPRESSION: Severe abdominal pain 6 days post exploratory surgery with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, partial omentectomy, appendectomy and adhesiolysis. No signs at this time of active infection or perforation. The most likely diagnosis is a severe postoperative ileus, however, the patient warrants close observation. An ileus occurs when the bowel is "asleep" and not moving. Dr. Barber transferred R.R. to the Intensive Care Unit overnight for close observation. R.R.'s temperature at the time of admission was 96.8. The History of Present Illness taken from R.R. does not mention the rise in temperature following discharge from West Florida Hospital, or the phone call to Dr. Lee's office. On December 20, 2005, Dr. Althar saw R.R. in consultation. At that time, her white count was 8.4 with 48 bands, indicating overwhelming sepsis. Dr. Althar took her immediately to surgery. Surgery revealed a bowel perforation of the sigmoid colon, and Dr. Althar performed a sigmoid colectomy, end colostomy, and Hartmann procedure. R.R. suffered some complications after surgery, which were not unexpected, and remained in the hospital until her discharge January 16, 2006. The Department presented the expert testimony of Robert W. Holloway, M.D. Dr. Holloway graduated from Vanderbilt University Medical School; completed his residency in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; and completed a fellowship in gynecology oncology at Georgetown University Hospital. Dr. Holloway has been licensed as a medical doctor in Florida since 1990, and is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and gynecologic oncology. He is currently the co-Medical Director of the Gynecologic Oncology program at the Florida Hospital Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, and a clinical instructor for the Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Program at Orlando Regional Medical Center. Dr. Holloway is in an office on the Florida Hospital campus, where there are four attending physicians and three follows in training. Fifty to 60 percent of his patients are oncology patients, with the remainder having benign issues. Dr. Holloway opined that in this case, the bowel perforated most likely late Sunday evening or early Monday morning, probably 6-12 hours before R.R. woke up in extreme pain. He found no violation of the standard-of-care regarding the denuding of the serosa in the original surgery, viewing it as an anticipated outcome with a difficult case of endometriosis. However, he opined that Dr. Lee fell below the appropriate standard-of-care when he failed to evaluate the patient on Friday afternoon when she had a temperature of 102 degrees. Dr. Holloway indicated that the most common indications of bowel perforation in post-operative patients are abdominal pain and fever. He knew of no cases where a perforation occurred with the patient presenting with fever alone. He also agreed that it is common for physicians to rely on their staff to triage patients, and to relay information back to patients. It is common, according to Dr. Holloway, for doctors to train staff to tell the patient to call back or go to the emergency room if a problem does not resolve itself, and staff normally does the majority of charting. With respect to the directions to the patient to call back or go to the emergency room, Dr. Holloway could not say that those directions are always noted in the chart for patients in his office, although they frequently are. Most importantly, Dr. Holloway could not conclude that Ms. Harper did not give the instructions to R.R. because it was not specifically noted in the chart, and he would be apt to give the staff the benefit of the doubt. He could not conclude from the absence of the note that proper instructions were not given. Dr. Holloway also indicated that he did not believe the bowel had perforated as of Friday afternoon when the call was made to Dr. Lee's office. Respondent presented the testimony of John Douglas Davis, M.D., who serves as the Director of Gynecology and Associate Residency Director of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine. Dr. Davis graduated from medical school at Wake Forest University and received his post-doctoral training at the University of Florida. Dr. Davis is licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida, and has been board certified in obstetrics and gynecology since 1992. Ninety-five percent of his patients are gynecological patients. Dr. Davis did not believe that Respondent violated the appropriate standard-of-care in his treatment of R.R. He opined that it is reasonable to rely on staff to perform triage functions with respect to calls from patients, and would interpret the note from Ms. Harper as not being indicative of bowel perforation. He testified that it was more likely to assume that the fever was caused by a pulmonary source, and the prescription for Levaquin was consistent with that assumption. In addition, the CT scan upon admission to SRMC was consistent with findings of pneumonia, and in Dr. Davis' view, the eventual determination that the bowel perforated does not mean that pneumonia was not also present. Like Dr. Holloway, Dr. Davis testified that bowel perforation does not present without severe abdominal pain, which was not reported to Dr. Lee. Dr. Davis opined that R.R.'s fever of 102 degrees must be interpreted in light of the patient's situation at discharge from the hospital, which Dr. Lee already knew. Most importantly, Dr. Davis testified that not seeing R.R. on Friday afternoon did not have an impact on her subsequent clinical course. His testimony is credited. In summary, it is found that Ms. Harper did instruct the patient to go to the emergency room at West Florida Hospital should her symptoms not improve after a couple of hours with the new medication. Dr. Lee's reliance on her to give that instruction is within the standard-of-care for a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 23rd day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Elana J. Jones, Esquire Ian Brown, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Nicholas W. Romanello, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-170 Joy A. Tootle, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
The Issue This case arises out of a petition filed by Humana, Inc., Humedicenters, Inc., and Humhosco, Inc., challenging the validity of Respondent's Rule 10- 5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code. The challenged rule was promulgated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to provide a uniform methodology for determining the need for acute care beds in the various IRS districts in Florida. Subsequent to the filing of the petition and the scheduling of this matter for hearing, the Intervenor, University Community Hospital, filed a petition to Intervene and was permitted to intervene upon the same issues raised by the original petition. At the formal hearing, the Petitioners Humana, Inc., Humedicenters, Inc., and Humhosco, Inc., called as witnesses Brad Sexauer, David Petersen, Ira Korman, Richard Alan Baehr, Frank Sloan and James Bruce Ryan. Petitioners offered and had admitted into evidence nine exhibits. The Intervenor, University Community Hospital, called as witnesses Warren Dacus and George Britton. The Intervenor offered and had admitted into evidence three exhibits. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, called as witnesses Stanley K. Smith, Stephen Williams and Phillip C. Rond. The Department offered and had admitted into evidence 36 exhibits. Respondent's Exhibits 5, 6, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were not admitted for all purposes but were admitted as hearsay for the purpose of corroborating or explaining other admissible evidence in the record. Counsel for each of the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact STANDING The Petitioners and Intervenor are corporations engaged in the business of constructing and operating hospitals in the State of Florida. Humedicenters, Inc. and Humhosco, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of Humana, Inc. Humana, Inc., and its corporate subsidiaries presently have seven (7) pending applications for Certificates of Need for acute care hospital facilities. At least one of those applications for a facility in Jacksonville, Florida, was denied by HRS on the basis that no need existed under the challenged rule methodology. The Intervenor, University Community Hospital, is located in HRS Service District 6A in northern Hillsborough County. On June 29, 1982, University Community Hospital applied for a Certificate of Need for additional medical surgical beds and on December 1, 1982, HRS denied that application. HRS has taken the position that the challenged rule is applicable to that application and under the rule, there is no need for additional medical-surgical beds in District 6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RULE As early as 1976, the Department began its effort to identify alternative approaches to acute care bed need determinations and at that time, the Department contracted with a consultant to review and assess various bed need approaches. An analysis was made of the then current methods or models used for projecting short-term bed requirements. This analysis was provided to a Bed Need Task Force which had been formed to consider appropriate bed-need methodologies. In early 1977, the Bed Need Task Force was appointed to review current bed-need methodologies and to recommend necessary changes to the methodologies in use. The Bed Need Task Force was formed for the primary purpose of recommending a general approach to be used in bed need determinations and to identify key policies to be followed in development of an acute care methodology for the State of Florida. This task force was composed of a variety of representatives from various groups including local planning agencies, hospital associations, the statewide health council, and the health industry itself. An outside consultant was used by the Task Force to aid them in their review. In February 1978, the Final Report of the Bed Need Task Force was issued. Subsequent to the Bed Need Task Force, the Task Force on Institutional Needs, (hereafter TFIN) was established. The purpose of the TFIN was to present a recommended methodology and policies related to that methodology for purposes of the initiation of implementation activities. The TFIN issued its final report in December 1978. This report contained a number of policies to be used in conjunction with the methodology. These policies stated that: The population composition should not include tourists but should include seasonal residents who reside in Florida greater than six months and these migrants who were in Florida on April 1, the date of each census. The methodology should deal with the differences in need for acute care services by age and sex. The use rates utilized should be based on a statewide normative standard. These standards should be based on statewide use rates for which data can be obtained and should be subject to periodic review. Methodology should eventually address need for various levels of care. Need determinations should be for specific geographical areas, the area of the Health Systems Agency (hereafter HSA). These areas are new the HRS districts. Patient flows should be taken into account but should not be binding on future determination in terms of expansion or addition of new facilities. The hospital service area concept should be rejected and a temporal accessibility criterion utilized. At the HSA level, a minimum volume standard should be developed for each service. The standards within the methodology should be applied uniformly all over the state in all HRS districts or service areas. The standards should not be applied to individual facilities. In terms of role and responsibility, the Department of HRS should be responsible for the need methodology with the local health agencies having responsibility for the facilities configuration model for its district. Having developed a recommended methodology and a set of policies to be used in conjunction with that methodology, the Department contracted with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to develop a sampling design to be used in the data collection activity so that the methodology could be operationalized. A second contract was let to implement the data collection necessary to the methodology and to develop statewide estimates based on the data collected. The 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981 State Health Plans each discussed the objective of achieving a certain ratio of nonfederal licensed acute care beds per 1,000 population in Florida. The 1981 State Health Plan adopted a goal to ensure a supply of licensed nonfederal, short-stay beds (including psychiatric beds) in Florida equivalent to 4.24 beds per 1,000 residents. Also, in 1981, the State Health Council adopted a "normative" bed-to-population ratio of 4.24 beds per 1,000 population. "Normative" means a statement of what "ought to be" as opposed to some historical standard. In the Spring of 1982, HRS actually began drafting the rule and in the September 3, 1982, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, HRS gave notice of its intent to adopt Rule 10-5.11(23) relating to acute care hospital beds. That notice also set a time, date and place for a public hearing on that proposed rule. Before a public hearing on that proposed rule was held, however, Petitioners Humana of Florida, Inc., Humedicenters, Inc., and Humhosco, Inc., and others, challenged it in D.O.A.H. Case 82-2561R. The intervenor in this proceeding was also an intervenor in that challenge. A public hearing on that initial rule was held September 20, 1982. Neither the Petitioner nor the Intervenor made any statement at the public hearing in opposition to the rule or in opposition to the expected economic impact. No written comment was submitted by these two parties following the public hearing. At the public hearing, there were eight oral presentations made by interested parties and 14 written comments were received. From the time the initial rule was promulgated until the time it was finally adopted, there were numerous other comments that were received. Two sets of changes were subsequently made to the proposed rule which reflected discussion and input the Department received both from the public hearing process and from challenges to the rule. The first set of changes was published April 1, 1983 in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Several issues were raised which were dealt with by the Department. Psychiatric bed need was removed and placed in a separate rule, the methodology was incorporated into the rule, language regarding the use of the formula was clarified, data updating provisions were added, a provision was made to consider peak demand, the district utilization adjustment procedure was changed and subdistrict bed allocation procedures were changed. Although there was also objection to the use of statewide use rates, the Department because of strong policy considerations, made no change in the statewide use rates. These changes were made in response to the comments at the public hearing, written comments submitted, and other input from the health industry. After the Department published its first set of changes to the initial rule, but before the publication of the second set of changes, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed their rule challenge in D.O.A.H. Case No. 82-2561R. The second set of changes was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 13, 1983. At the time of their voluntary dismissal of their rule challenge and prior to the adoption of the challenged rule, Humana, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Humedicenters, Inc. and Humhosco, Inc. were aware of the economic impact the proposed rule would have on their operations in Florida. THE RULE Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, is founded on a basic methodological approach to projecting the need for health care services which is commonly accepted and utilized among health planners. In its most generic form, this methodological approach may be expressed as follows: The population of the geographic planning unit is projected for some point in the future (usually five years); i.e., how many people will live in the planning area at the end of five years. The projected population is multiplied by a utilization rate in order to project how many days of hospital care the projected population is likely to need during the target year. A utilization rate is the measure by which hospital services are consumed within a given geographic entity and is determined by dividing the total number of hospital patient days in a year in a given area by the total population of that area for that year. Restated, a utilization rate is equivalent to the ratio of the number of days of care received by the population to the population as a whole. As noted above, multiplying a projected population by a utilization rate produces the projected number of-patient days during the target year. This number is then divided by 365 to derive an average daily census i.e., the average number of patients which one would expect to be in area hospitals on any given day of the year. The average daily census is then converted into beds by dividing the average daily census by an optimal occupancy standard for a given service. The optimal occupancy standard contemplates that hospitals cannot and should not operate at 100 percent occupancy in that some reserve capacity is necessary to meet seasonal or even weekly fluctuations and variations in patient characteristics and mix. The product of this generic methodology is the total number of beds needed in the planning area at the end of the planning horizon. Application of the methodology set forth in the rule is basically a three-step process. The initial step is the forecast of the District Bed Allocation (DBA), which is accomplished as follows: The population of each Department service district is forecast by age cohort (a cohort is a given subgroup of the total population) five years into the future. The age cohorts utilized in the rule are: (1) under 65; (2) 65 and older; (3) under 15; and (4) females 15-44. Total patient days are then forecast for each age cohort. Patient days are forecast by applying statewide, service-specific discharge rates and average lengths of stay to the age cohort projections. The specific hospital services included in the Rule are medical/surgical, intensive care, coronary care, obstetrical and pediatric. Projected patient days for persons age 65 and older are adjusted to account for the migration flew of elderly patients both to and from Florida and to and from Department districts within Florida. This flew adjustment is based upon historical migration patterns derived from 1977 Medicare data. The service-specific patient days by age cohort is then converted to projected bed need by dividing each component by 365 to arrive at an average daily census and then by applying a service-specific occupancy standard to derive the total bed need for each given service and age cohort. The sum of the bed need forecasts for each service/cohort is the DBA. The second step is an adjustment to the DBA under certain circumstances based on the projected occupancy of the beds allocated to a given district. This is known as the Adjusted District Bed Allocation (ADBA), and it is composed of the following steps: A Projected Occupancy Rate (FOR) for each district is calculated by multiplying the entire forecast population of the district by a Historic Utilization Rate (HUR), which is derived over the most recent three year period. The product is then divided by 365 times the DBA. The product of this computation is the POR which would result if the district contained the number of beds projected by the DBA and the population continued to utilize hospital services in accordance with the HUR. If the POR is less than 75 percent, the ADBA is determined by substituting a 90 percent occupancy standard in the formulation of DBA instead of the service-specific occupancy standards which would otherwise be applied (ranging from 65 percent for obstetrics to 80 percent for medical/surgical). If the POR is greater than 90 percent, the ADBA is determined by substituting a 75 percent occupancy standard in the calculation of DBA instead of such service- specific standards. In other words, when the POR is less than 75 percent, a a downward bed need adjustment results. When POR is greater than 90 percent, an upward need adjustment results. This part of the methodology is used to make an adjustment for those districts which for whatever reason lie outside the range of-expected utilization. The 75 percent and 90 percent thresholds are based upon an ideal operating range of 80 to 85 percent. The actual standard utilized by HRS is 80 percent, at the low or conservative end of that range. The third step involves the calculation of a Peak Demand Adjustment (PDA) which is accomplished as fellows: The average daily census for a given district is calculated by dividing the total number of projected days by 365. Peak demand is calculated by adding the average daily census to the square root of tic average daily census multiplied by a given standard deviation (1.65 for low peak demand districts or 2.33 for high peak demand districts) referred to as a "Z" value in the methodology: Peak demands utilized as the projected district acute care bed need if it is greater than the bed need for the district reflected by DBA or ADBA as calculated in steps one and two above. The purpose of this peak demand adjustment is to ensure that each district will have sufficient bed capacity to meet service-specific peak demands. Each subdistrict is to be identified by the Local Health Council as having high or low peak demand. These designated as high peak demand utilize a "Z" value; of 2.33 in the methodology in order to assure sufficient capacity to meet 99 percent of their peak capacity. These subdistricts designated as low peak demand areas utilize a "Z" value in the methodology of 1.65 and this assures sufficient total bed capacity to meet 95 percent of the peak demand. The rule also includes an accessibility standard which provides that in each district acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible to 90 percent of the residents within 30 minutes driving time and 45 minutes driving time in urban and rural areas respectively. The rule provides for periodic updating of the statewide discharge rates, average lengths of stay and patient flow factors as data becomes available. The historical use rate used in arriving at the adjusted district bed allocation is updated annually through the use of the most recent three years. Although the rule provides that a Certificate of Need will not "normally" be granted unless need is shown to exist under the methodology in the rule, this need calculation is not determinative of the issue of whether a Certificate of Need should be granted. The rule also provides that even if no bed need is shown to exist under the methodology a Certificate of Need may still be granted if the criteria, other than bed need, under Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. Likewise, the rule states that a Certificate of Need may be denied, where bed need is shown to exist under the rule, but other criteria in Section 381.494(6) are not met. The rule also specifically permits the approval of additional beds in a subdistrict where the accessibility requirements of the rule are not being met. Additional beds may also be approved where there is a need in a subdistrict but a surplus in the district as a whole. The rule utilizes population projections by age cohort in determining the number of hospital patient days by service which will be needed five years in the future. These population projections are based upon the projections made by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (hereafter BEBR) at the University of Florida. BEBR makes three projections--low, midrange, and high-- for each year. The rule utilizes the midrange projection and the inherent margin of error in these projections is typically plus or minus 5 percent. Although these projections have systematically been low in the past, BEBR now uses a different method which utilizes six different techniques in arriving at ten projections which are then averaged. The flow adjustment used in arriving at the DBA is based upon 1977 MEDPAR data. This data was for Medicare recipients 65 years of age and elder and therefore the flow adjustment is only for that portion of the population over 65 years of age. No data was available from which flow factors could be determined for age cohorts or groups from o to 64 years of age. No data for either age group was available after 1977. ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT An economic impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the challenged rule. The EIS contains an estimate of the Department's printing and distribution cost. The EIS was-- prepared by Phillip Rond, an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In preparing the EIS, Mr. Rond did a comparison of the health system plans (HSP) with the results under the rule. This comparison was for projected need for the year 1987 and was done for each HRS District. The comparison generated the following results: HRS DISTRICT HSP RULE 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 87 9 0 137 10 0 0 11 0 0 3 224 The need calculations under the rule do not change substantially the short term projections under prior methodologies. The rule calculations for 1987 showed need for 221 more beds than was shown to exist under the methodologies used in the health systems plans. Mr. Rond also reviewed the background literature that led to the analysis contained in the state health plan as well as the reports from the Hospital Cost Containment Board. With regard to the rule's affect on competition and the open market the EIS notes that the rule will restrain the development of costly excess acute care bed capacity and in doing so will foster cost containment. Where need is indicated by the methodology or other criteria within the rule then competitive new beds will be allowed. In terms of economic benefit to persons directly affected the EIS points out that there will be a positive impact for some facilities and a negative impact for others. The rule will negatively impact facilities which wish to expand or add new beds if no need for those beds exists under the methodology of the rule. Existing facilities, however, will not be exposed to expansion of the bed supply in those districts where no need for additional beds exist. This benefit will be particularly positive for those facilities providing indigent care. It is a general estimate that operating costs for a health facility will be approximately 22 cents for each dollar of capital expenditure. The rule is intended to support a supply of beds to meet need while preventing excess or unused beds, thus reducing annual operating costs. The EIS notes that by reducing operating costs, the operating cost per bed will be lower and should result in a slower escalation of costs to consumers as well as third party payers such as insurers, taxpayers, and employers. Prior to adoption of the challenged rule, the Department considered and evaluated each of the factors listed in Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. There has been traditionally in Florida a surplus of acute care beds. The 1977 medical facilities plan indicated a surplus of beds ever need of 7,253 beds. Using the rule methodology and projecting to 1987, there is a surplus ? 5,562 beds and for 1988, a surplus of 4,044 beds. In both 1980 and 1982, there were significant numbers of licensed beds in the state which were not in use. In 1980, there were 4,923 beds out of the total bed stock in acute care hospitals not in use. This was about 10.7 percent of the total licensed in bed stock. In 1982, there were 5,093 or about 10.6 percent of such beds licensed and not in use. In 1976, the occupancy rate for acute care hospitals in Florida was 60.3 percent. In 1982, the occupancy rate in such facilities was 67 percent. The target occupancy rate under the challenged rule and its methodology is 80 percent.
