The Issue This case involves the issue of whether the certificate of need law applies to Whitehall Boca's intended conversion of 100 beds in an adult congregate living facility to skilled nursing beds. The second issue is, in the event that it is determined that the certificate of need law does apply, whether Whitehall Boca is entitled to convert a limited number of its adult congregate living facility beds to skilled nursing beds without the need for obtaining a certificate of need in accordance with Section 381.494(1)(d), Florida Statutes. At the final hearing Petitioner called Carol J. Wortham, Steve Mulder, and Jeffrey W. Smith. The Respondent called as its only witness Gene Nelson. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence seventeen exhibits. The Respondent offered and had admitted into four exhibits. Subsequent to the final hearing, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this Recommended Order, they were rejected by the Hearing Officer as unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact Whitehall Boca is a 187-bed health care facility located in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. Sixty-nine (69) of Whitehall Boca's beds are licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as skilled nursing beds in accordance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes. One hundred eighteen (118) of Whitehall Boca's beds are licensed by the Department as an adult congregate living facility (hereafter ACLF) in accordance with Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. Whitehall Boca is seeking to convert 100 of its adult congregate living facility beds to skilled nursing beds. Whitehall Boca holds two separate licenses for the nursing home beds and for the ACLF. Whitehall Boca was opened on December 17, 1982, and was the culmination of the owner's goal of attempting to build the finest nursing home that has ever been built. The Whitehall Boca facility has received a superior rating from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' office of licensure. The cost of construction of Whitehall Boca was approximately five and one-half million dollars. The funds for this construction were obtained from 100 percent private funds, which was arranged by Oak Park Trust Bank in Illinois and invested capital provided by the Mulder family. The loans were not guaranteed by the federal government or any governmental entity whatsoever. The 100 existing ACLF beds which Petitioner seeks to convert fully comply with all applicable federal, state and local license requirements for skilled nursing beds in their present condition. Only a few ancillary items such as medicine carts would be needed in order to make the conversion. Such items would involve a capital expenditure of no more than $5,000 to $6,000. The Respondent conceded at the formal hearing that cost of conversion is not an issue. It has been the policy of Whitehall Boca since 1955 not to accept federal funds nor to accept Medicaid or Medicare patients. Whitehall Boca does not accept Medicare and Medicaid patients in any of its homes because they offer an elite type of nursing home care which is not offered in other existing nursing homes. Whitehall Boca did not obtain its initial certificate of need for the 69 skilled nursing home beds by the usual statutory procedure. Whitehall Boca purchased Health Care Corporation, the entity who had originally obtained the certificate of need. However, after Whitehall Boca obtained the certificate of need, it applied for a license from DHRS and specifically informed them in its application that it would not accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. Whitehall Boca, an Illinois limited partnership, owns and operates the 187-bed nursing home complex in Boca Raton, Florida. At present, this is the only home owned by the Petitioner in the State of Florida. Whitehall Boca is owned by a father and a son, Paul and Steve Mulder. They own three nursing homes in Chicago, Illinois. Daily rates for the skilled nursing home beds at Whitehall Boca are $68 per day for three persons to a room, $80 per day for two persons to a room, with private rooms beginning at $125 per day. These rates are substantially higher than most other nursing homes in the area. Whitehall Boca caters to a very small segment of the population that is able to afford the luxuries and amenities available at Whitehall Boca. For most residents who have chosen the luxury accommodations at Whitehall Boca, the only alternative which would provide comparable care and maintenance of their lifestyle, would be private duty nursing arrangements at home. In the alternative to a total exemption from certificate of need review, Whitehall Boca contends it is entitled to convert 18 of its ACLF beds to skilled nursing beds without CON review pursuant to the provisions of Section 381.494(1)(d), Florida Statutes. DHRS does not consider an ACLF a health care facility and contends therefore that Section 381.494(1)(d) is not applicable to Petitioner's request.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services denying an exemption for Petitioner to convert ACLF beds to skilled nursing home beds and requiring that such a request be subject to review under Sections 381.493, et seq., Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire Laramore & Clark, P.A. 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Culpepper, Turner and Mannheimer Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3300 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Forum is a national corporation which owns and operates 16 retirement projects in the United States. These projects generally consist of a complex, including apartments for retirement couples, an adult congregate living facility, a nursing home and accessory facilities to provide meals, laundry and other housekeeping requirements. The same type project is proposed in this application to be built in Lee County, Florida, with the 60 bed nursing home the essential ingredient of the complex requiring prior approval before construction. Such projects offer many advantages for elderly people. The proposed nursing facility would be open to the public as well as to members of retirement living. Pursuant to the bed need formula found in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, the "fixed need pool" when calculated identifies a need for no new beds in the Lee County subdistrict of (District VIII) in the July 1990 planning horizon. Lee County is an appropriate subdistrict in District VIII and is so identified in the District VIII Health Plan. There were 1056 licensed community nursing home beds in Lee County on August 1, 1987, the cutoff date used for determining bed need for the applications submitted in the batching cycle for development and operation in the July 1990 planning horizon. There were also 342 approved, but not licensed beds, in Lee County on August 1, 1987. Including these bed with the licensed beds and calculating bed need in Lee County for the July 1990 horizon shows no need for additional beds. To justify need for additional beds, Forum used a different number as approved beds than was used by DHRS in determining no additional beds are needed in the July 1990 planning horizon. Specifically, Forum challenged CON 4748 issued to Careage for 120 beds contending that zero beds should have been used because no CON for 120 beds was ever issued, and the CON for 60 beds was not published until September 4, 1987, after the August 1, 1987, cutoff date for this batch. The January 23, 1987, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly published the issuance of CON 4748 to Careage Southwest Healthcare Center for a new 120 bed skilled and intermediate care facility in Lee County. Due to changes in personnel at DHRS at this time, this CON was not processed promptly, and Forum Group, among others, filed a petition for hearing to challenge the CON (Exhibit No. 18). Prior to the issuance of CON 4748 to Careage, DHRS discovered that on initial processing of CON 4748, only 60 of the 120 beds requested had been approved, and 60 beds had been denied. This error was not corrected until the publication of Florida Administration Weekly on September 4, 1987, where CON 4748 was corrected to show 60 beds issued to Careage. However, prior to August 1, 1987, Careage was notified that DHRS intended to award it 60 nursing home, beds. A good argument can be made for Forum's position that the notice that 120 beds had been awarded to Careage was a clear error which would ultimately be corrected. If that premise is accepted, it must also be accepted that 60 beds were approved for Careage. Reducing the number of approved beds as of August 1, 1987, by 60 and using the calculations for determining the District Projected Bed Need (A) Table III, Exhibit No. 9, to calculate the SA (Subdistrict Allocation) shows the following: SA = A x LBD (Subdistrict Beds) x (OR (Subdistrict Occupancy Rate) LB (District Licensed Beds) .9 or SA = 5650.9 x 1056 x .9347 = 1286.57 4817 .9 Beds Available = LBD + (.9 x Subdistrict Approved Beds (282) = 1056 + 238 = 1308.8 Subtracting this from SA shows approximately 23 beds needed. Under the fixed pool rule, DHRS will not, for any reason, alter the published fixed pool inventory unless an error is brought to its attention during a grace period that will allow DHRS to notify interested parties through publication. Any errors not corrected in the grace period will be corrected in the next fixed pool batching cycle. The grace period is triggered by a letter of intent which extends the filing deadlines for competitive letters of Intent. Correcting fixed pool errors during the grace period allows other applicants to compete for the same pool of beds. Correcting errors after this grace period would not give prospective applicants adequate notice of the need, and they would be unable to timely compete in the batch. Because no errors were brought to the attention of DHRS that could have been corrected within the grace period, DHRS could not make any changes to its published fixed pool need for Lee County. Forum also reduced 30 beds from those approved for construction by Beverly Enterprises in Lee County in CONS 1991 and 1992. CONS 1991 and 1992 were issued December 5, 1986, to Beverly Enterprises and authorized the construction of a 90 bed nursing facility and a 60 bed nursing facility in Lee County. Both of the CONS were in effect on August 1, 1987, the cutoff date for counting approved beds for use in the bed need rule formula. Subsequent to August 1, 1987, Beverly completed construction on a 120 bed nursing facility, and a CON was issued for 120 beds, CON 1992 (for 60 beds) was rescinded and 30 beds were reallocated. On August 1, 1987, all 150 of these beds were approved beds. DHRS defines approved beds to include those applications that have received CON approval either by issuance of a CON, letter of intent to issue a CON, and where a written settlement agreement has been entered to grant a CON to a certain applicant or applicants. DHRS also considers publication of intent to grant or granting a CON as tantamount to issuing a CON or letter of intent to issue. But for the issue of need, Forum met all statutory requirements for the issuance of the requested CON. Absent a need for the requested beds, granting the 60 beds requested by Forum would adversely affect existing providers and would not be economically feasible. No evidence was submitted that special circumstances exist in Lee County which would justify the granting of a CON to Forum despite the lack of need under the appropriate bed need rule.
Findings Of Fact The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered granting Kensington Manor Inc. CON No. 6430 to construct a 120 bed nursing home and to rehabilitate the existing 147 bed nursing home to an 87 bed nursing home in Sarasota County. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3665 Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except #5. Sentence stating "There are no laundry facilities in the nursing home." is rejected as inconsistent with proposed finding #7. Respondent's proposed findings are also accepted. Most of the defects in the application which Respondent finds to be not in compliance with the statutory requirements were corrected by the testimony at this hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 1725 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Richard Patterson, Esquire 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need ("CON") Application No. 9481 by St. Vincent's Medical Center, Inc. ("St. Vincent's"), for a 10- bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit ("NICU") at the hospital proposed in CON Application No. 9484P should be approved?
Findings Of Fact The Acute Care Cases Pursuant to order rendered March 14, 2002, this case (the "NICU Case") was heard in the same final hearing with DOAH Case Nos. 02-0447CON, 02-0882CON, 02-0943CON, and 02-0971CON, (the "Acute Care Cases"). The Order acknowledged overlap between the Acute Care Cases and this case but did not consolidate the cases so that separate recommended orders are required for the Acute Care Case and for this case. The final hearing in the Acute Care Cases and the NICU Case commenced on May 13, 2002, and concluded on June 20, 2002. (The record was reopened in the Acute Care Cases and the hearing on reopening ended October 9, 2002. The proceeding on reopening did not concern the NICU Case.) A Recommended Order was rendered in the Acute Care Cases on February 5, 2003. To the extent relevant, its findings of fact are incorporated into this order. Obstetrics at St. Vincent's St. Vincent's has a significant obstetrical practice that includes neonatal intensive care services. It operates a 17-bed Labor-Delivery-Recovery-Postpartum ("LDRP") Unit that has an adjacent 23-bed unit for overflow postpartum and gynecology patients. In the same area of the hospital is its 10-bed Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ("NICU"). There are 2,300 to 2,400 births annually at St. Vincent's. The NICU has an average daily census of six. St. Vincent's participates in a family practice residency program in which residents rotate through the obstetrical department and "as far as the nurseries go" (tr. 912) the pediatric program. St. Vincent's operates a program unique to Jacksonville in which postpartum services are provided at no cost: the Seton Center. The center's services can be expanded to St. Luke's if acquired by St. Vincent's. St. Vincent's Level II NICU is staffed by the same neonatologists that staff the Level II NICU at St. Luke's. Obstetrics at St. Luke's St. Luke's has an existing 17-bed LDRP unit with 10 antipartum beds. The Obstetrics ("OB") Program is known as the Family Birth Place. Opened in March of 1998, it had approximately 500 deliveries that year. The number of births increased to 1,600 in 2000 and has remained in the range of 1,500 to 1,800. Not part of the original hospital construction but added later to accommodate the new obstetrical service, the Family Birth Place for security has a separate entrance at the hospital. It uses a strong LDRP concept, "meaning that the mothers are admitted to a room where they labor, they deliver and they usually stay there." (Tr. 971) There are two C-section rooms in the LDRP unit. If an obstetrical patient needs an extra day or two, she may be moved to the overflow unit. If not, as in the typical case of other obstetrical patients, the stay is spent in a "well decorated, [private] room that has the ability to take care of the baby, stabilize the baby and stabilize the mother during the birth process." (Tr. 972) There are both Mayo and community obstetricians on staff delivering babies at St. Luke's. In August of 2000, a 10-bed Level II NICU was opened as part of the Family Birth Place. The CON for the unit at St. Luke's was approved without opposition from Memorial. Obstetrics at Memorial Memorial provides OB and NICU level II services to the residents of District 4 at its Woman's Center. The center offers a complement of OB and Level II NICU services in an integrated, multi-floor, single patient tower on the Memorial Campus. The center includes an admitting area, a lactation consultant's office, multiple operative and post operative discharge areas, operating room suites for women's surgery, holding areas for meetings between candidates for surgery and anesthesiologists and other clinicians, labor and recovery beds, an overflow area, an anti-partum testing and triage area, an inpatient unit for C-section patients, and LDRP suites with a full spectrum of obstetrical and GYN services both inpatient and outpatient and the 10-bed Level II NICU. Memorial has invested in a number of improvements to the center. Rooms have been converted from semi-private to private. Hard wood floors and other improvements have been made to enhance the health care environment for OB and NICU patients. The quality of care at Memorial's Women Center is excellent. Relationship of the Proposed Project to Other Applications The 10-bed Level II NICU proposed by St. Vincent's to be located at St. Luke's is related and contingent upon the approval of two other CON applications. The first is St. Luke's CON No. 9483 for a 214-bed replacement hospital on the Mayo Clinic Campus. The second is St. Vincent's CON Application No. 9494P for establishment of a 135-bed facility to be operated at the existing St. Luke's facility. The two other applications are interdependent. Neither can be implemented unless both are approved. If both are not approved or if either is not approved, St. Luke's will continue to operate a Level II NICU at St. Luke's. The status quo will be unaffected vis-à-vis the Level II NICU at St. Luke's. If the two other applications are both approved and this application is approved the outcome vis-à-vis the number and type of NICU beds at St. Luke's will be no different than if the other two applications are not approved. There will continue to be a 10-bed Level II NICU at the St. Luke's facility. Approval of the all applications means that the operators of the NICU beds will be different (St. Vincent's instead of St. Luke's) but the number and type of beds will remain the same. The transfer in control of the NICU from St. Luke's to St. Vincent's, moreover, will be without interruption in the services rendered to the NICU patients. Only if the other two applications are both approved and this application is not approved will there be a change in the status quo vis-à-vis the number and type of the Level II NICU beds at the St. Luke's facility. In such a case, the Level II NICU beds at the St. Luke's facility will cease to exist.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration dismiss the Petition of Memorial Healthcare Group Inc., d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kathryn F. Fenske, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 8355 Northwest 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33166 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Sean M. Frazier, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0391 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Law Office of R. Terry Rigsby, P. A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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 Respondent properly changed Petitioner's licensure status to conditional on June 23, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a nursing home in Venice, Florida. Respondent conducted a relicensure survey of Petitioner's nursing home on June 12, 1997. On June 23, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a new license, effective June 12, 1997, through October 31, 1997, for a skilled nursing facility. However, as a result of the deficiencies found in this survey, Respondent rated the renewal license as conditional. A resurvey on August 6, 1997, revealed that Petitioner had corrected all of the cited deficiencies, so Respondent issued a standard license, effective August 6. There are three ratings for a license: superior, standard, and conditional. Prior to the June 12 renewal, Petitioner's license was rated superior. The issuance of a conditional license adversely affects a licensee in one and possibly two ways. First, the conditional license hinders marketing and employee recruiting and retention. Second, the conditional license may affect Medicaid reimbursement levels. Even though Respondent rerated the nursing home as standard, the earlier conditional rating remains meaningful because it means that Petitioner cannot gain a superior rating for the next licensing period. Another factor militating against a determination that the present proceeding is moot is Respondent's procedure by which it does not provide licensees with an opportunity for a hearing prior to changing the rating of their nursing home licenses. As an incidental complaint to the issuance of a conditional license, Petitioner also complains of the procedure by which this Respondent issues this conditional license. Without having given Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing based on a proposed or tentative decision to change Petitioner's rating, Respondent simply issued the conditional license and gave Petitioner an opportunity to challenge this action, after the fact, in a formal administrative hearing. A mootness determination on these facts would insulate Respondent's initial action from effective challenge, despite the obvious economic impacts of the initial action. The June 12 survey reports cites three sets of Class II deficiencies, which were identified as Tags F 225, F 309, and F 314. These three tags were the sole bases for the issuance of a Conditional license. Tag F 225 concerns the investigation and documentation of an alleged incident of abuse of a resident by one of Petitioner's employees. The survey report asserts that Petitioner did not satisfy applicable legal requirements by failing, in violation of its own policies, to document in the resident's file the results of an abuse investigation report. Tag F 225 and the testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing are vague as to whether the issue under Tag F 225 is that Petitioner failed to conduct an appropriate investigation or failed to document adequately that it had conducted an investigation. When pressed, Respondent's witnesses chose failure to document, perhaps in deference to the fact that Petitioner's employees clearly conducted an investigation. The alleged incident underlying this issue did not constitute abuse. A staffperson grabbed a resident's arm for an appropriate purpose and did not injure or harm the resident. Petitioner's investigation properly concluded that there was no abuse. As discussed under the conclusions of law, the subsubsubparagraph of the federal regulation allegedly violated under this tag requires only that Petitioner report to appropriate authorities any knowledge of actions by a "court of law" against an employee suggestive of unfitness to serve as facility staff. There is no proof of action by a court of law; this missing fact alone ends the inquiry under this tag. Additionally, Petitioner nonetheless reported the unfounded allegations to the state agency charged with investigating allegations of abuse, and the state agency concluded that the charge was unfounded. Tag F 309 concerns the quality of care received by six residents. As to Resident Number 6, who was in the final stages of a terminal illness, the survey report asserts that Petitioner kept him in isolation and did not offer him opportunities for socialization. Testimony at the hearing revealed that the resident was dying and did not want to socialize, but Respondent's witness opined that this was not an appropriate option. No evidence suggested that the dying resident suffered any diminution of ability to eat or use language. Respondent's witness labored under the misconception that the cited federal regulation addresses socialization (as opposed perhaps to the role of socialization in facilitating the more specific activities actually mentioned by the regulation, which is discussed in the conclusions of law). Even if the federal regulation were so broad, which it is not, the evidence certainly suggests that any diminution in socialization was unavoidable due to the resident's terminal clinical condition. The evidence reveals that Resident Number 6, who had had a gangrenous foot, suffered a staph infection of his gangrenous right foot. He was depressed, fatigued, and in pain; however, he was freely visited by staff and family. As to Resident Number 8, who had had a stroke, the survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide him his restorative therapy of walking and failed to document this therapy. At the time of the survey, Petitioner was short of restorative staff due to a scheduled vacation and an unscheduled bereavement absence due to the suicide of an employee's brother. When a restorative aide, who was on vacation, appeared at the nursing home and attempted to provide Respondent's surveyor with documentation concerning the therapy administered to Resident Number 8, the surveyor rejected the documentation on the grounds that it did not sufficiently identify the resident or therapist. Resident Number 8 suffered some loss of functioning--i.e., the ability to walk 400 feet--but the record does not link this loss of functioning to any brief interruption in his restorative therapy. As to Resident Number 9, the survey report states that, during the two days that surveyors were at the facility, she did not ambulate, even though her restorative nursing plan called for daily ambulation. However, she suffered no harm during this insignificant interruption in her program, from which she was successfully discharged a couple of weeks after the survey. As to Resident Number 13, who was 102 years old, the survey report notes that he was supposed to ambulate in a wheelchair. One of Respondent's surveyors noticed that a staffperson was pushing this resident's wheelchair. However, staff had assumed the responsibility of pushing this resident's wheelchair for him after he had developed pressure sores on his heels. The evidence fails to show that Petitioner's care for the treatment of Resident Number 13 had anything to do with his loss of function. As to Resident Number 26, the survey report asserts that his physician had ordered an increase in dosage of Prilosec, which aids digestion by treating the acidity associated with peptic ulcers. Three weeks passed before Petitioner's staff noticed that the change, which was on the resident's chart, had not yet been implemented. They implemented the change prior to the survey, and notified the resident's physician of the error in medication administration a couple of days later. The survey report states that Petitioner's staff documented, on May 30, 1997, that Resident Number 26 had lost 4.8 pounds, or 5.7 percent of his body weight, in one week. This weight loss occurred during the latter part of the period during which Resident Number 26 was receiving less than his prescribed amount of medication. Two of Petitioner's witnesses testified, without elaboration, that the medication error did not cause the weight loss. The survey report implies otherwise, although Respondent's witnesses were not as pronounced as Petitioner's witnesses in dealing with any link between the medication error and the weight loss. Absent the weight loss, the medication error-- consisting of a failure to raise a digestive medication--would have been insignificant and insufficient grounds for a Class II deficiency on the cited basis. However, there was a serious weight loss while the resident was undermedicated. The lack of evidence in the record proving that there was or was not a causal link between the weight loss and undermedication means that the party bearing the risk of nonpersuasion loses on this issue. As discussed in the conclusions of law, Respondent has the burden of proof; thus, for this reason alone, Petitioner prevails on this issue. As to the last resident under Tag F 309, who was not identified, the survey asserts that a restorative aide commented that he used to walk 440 feet, but does not anymore because he thinks that he does not have to. This scanty allegation provides no basis for citing Petitioner with a deficiency, even if it applies to Resident Number 8, as appears probable. Tag F 314 also concerns a quality-of-care issue-- specifically, the development and treatment of pressure sores in three residents. As to Resident Number 1, who had been in the nursing home for three years, the survey report states that, on May 12, 1997, he had developed a Stage II pressure sore on his right outer ankle. The survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient care to prevent the development of this pressure sore, that Resident Number 1 had suffered pressure sores in 1995, and that Petitioner should have known and treated Resident Number 1 on the basis of his being at risk for developing pressure sores. Despite a failure to document, Petitioner's staff adequately treated Resident Number 1 once the pressure sore developed. Nursing assistants required that he wear silicone pressure booties and that lotion be rubbed on the irritated skin. In addition, Petitioner has shown that the clinical condition of Resident Number 1 made pressure sores unavoidable. One of Petitioner's Assistant Directors of Nursing testified that Resident Number 1 had poor pedal pulses, indicative of poor circulation, and a history of peripheral neuropathy. The resulting decreased sensation in his feet would prevent him from feeling increased pressure and thus the need to move his feet. Despite preventative measures, Resident Number 1 developed pressure sores due to these clinical conditions. As to Resident Number 7, who had been in the nursing home for six years, the survey report asserts that she had a Stage II pressure sore--meaning that the skin was broken--but was allowed to remained seated in the same position for two hours in a position in which the pressure on the sore on her buttock was not relieved. The survey report does not allege that this pressure sore developed while Resident Number 7 resided in the nursing home. Resident Number 7 had severe dementia and was a total-care patient. She could not move independently. In fact, she sat, unmoved, in a chair for at least 4 and 3/4 hours on one of the days of the survey. The failure to move Resident Number 7 raises serious questions about the adequacy of Petitioner's treatment. However, Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing answered these questions when she testified that the one- centimeter pressure sore healed five days after the survey. Thus, Petitioner provided Resident Number 7 with the necessary treatment and services to promote healing. As to Resident Number 13, who had been in the nursing home for less than three months, the survey report alleges that he had developed pressure sores while in the nursing home. Resident Number 13 was the 102-year-old resident who is also discussed in Tag F 309. The survey report alleges that, on April 24, 1997, Resident Number 13 had a red left heel, red right foot, and pink right heel; on May 1, 1997, he had soft and red heels; on May 7 and 14, 1997, his pressure sores could not be staged due to dead tissue surrounding the sores; on May 20, 1997, his left heel was documented as a Stage II pressure sore, but the right heel could not be staged due to dead tissue; and Petitioner's staff did not implement any treatment until May 12, 1997. Respondent proved the allegations cited in the preceding paragraph except for the last concerning a failure to implement any treatment until May 12. Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing testified that Patient Number 13 was frail and debilitated. If this is a clinical condition, it is the only statement of Patient Number 13's clinical condition contained in the record. The Assistant Director of Nursing testified that the pressure sore on the left heel healed by June 3 after the usual treatment measures of turning and repositioning and heel protectors. She testified that the pressure sore on the right heel improved somewhat, but had not healed by the time of his death in January 1998 of presumably unrelated causes. The testimony of the Assistant Director of Nursing rebuts any evidence concerning inadequate treatment of Resident Number 13, but does not establish that the development of his pressure sores was clinically unavoidable. Her testimony as to Resident Number 1 identified clinical conditions that, when coupled with the early implementation of preventative measures, established that Resident Number 1's pressure sore was unavoidable. As to Resident Number 13, the Assistant Director of Nursing also testified of early implementation of preventative measures, but, in contrast to her testimony concerning Resident Number 1, she described little, if anything, of any clinical condition making the pressure sores unavoidable. If the intent of the Assistant Director of Nursing was to imply that old age coupled with frailty and debilitation provide the necessary clinical justification, she failed to establish the necessary causal relationships among pressure sores, advanced age, and frailty and debilitation-- even if the frailty and debilitation were relative to other 102-year-olds, which the record does not reveal, as opposed to the frailty and debilitation, relative to the general population, that one might expect in a 102-year-old. Without more detailed evidence concerning Resident Number 13's clinical condition, Petitioner effectively invites the creation of a safe harbor from liability for the development of pressure sores in 102-year-olds or even 102-year-olds who are frail and debilitated for their age, and the administrative law judge declines either invitation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Petitioner and rating Petitioner's license as conditional for the relevant period. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson Broad and Cassell Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Karel Baarslag Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need Application Number 9099, filed by Columbia/JFK Medical Center, L.P., d/b/a JFK Medical Center, to convert 20 skilled nursing beds to 20 acute care beds, meets the criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact Columbia/JFK Medical Center, L.P., d/b/a JFK Medical Center (JFK) is the applicant for Certificate of Need (CON) Number 9099 to convert a 20-bed hospital-based skilled nursing unit (SNU) to 20 general acute care or medical/surgical beds. The construction cost is approximately $117,000, of the total project cost of $151,668. JFK is an affiliate of Columbia Hospital System (Columbia), the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the state agency which administers the CON program for health care services and facilities in Florida. JFK is a 343-bed hospital located in Atlantis, Florida, in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 5. Pursuant to a previously approved CON, an additional 24 acute care beds are under construction at JFK, along with 12 CON-exempt observation beds, at a cost of approximately $4 million. In August 1998, JFK was allowed to convert 10 substance abuse beds to 10 acute care beds. Other acute care hospitals in District 9 include the Petitioners: St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's), and Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. (Good Samaritan), which are located in northern Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 4, approximately 11 and 9 miles, respectively, from JFK. The remaining hospitals in District 9, Subdistrict 5, in southern Palm Beach County, and their approximate distances from JFK are as follows: Wellington (8 miles), Bethesda (7 miles), West Boca (18 miles), Delray (12 miles), and Boca Raton Community (17 miles). JFK and Delray are both "cardiac" hospitals offering open heart surgery services, with active emergency rooms, and more elderly patients in their respective service areas. The parties stipulated to the following facts: JFK's CON application was submitted in the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") second hospital batching cycle in 1998, and was the only acute care bed application submitted from acute care bed District 9, Subdistrict 5. AHCA noticed its decision to approve JFK's CON 9099 by publication in Volume 25, Number 1, Florida Administrative Weekly, dated January 8, 1999. Good Samaritan and St. Mary's each timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding challenging approval of JFK's CON application. By Order dated March 17, 1999, the cases arising from those petitions were consolidated for the purposes of all future proceedings. JFK has the ability to provide quality care and has a record of providing quality of care. §408.035(1)((c), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application, at Schedule 6 and otherwise, projects all necessary staff positions and adequate numbers of staff, and projects sufficient salary and related compensation. See, §408.035(1)(h). JFK has available the resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. See, §408.035(1)(h), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application proposal is financially feasible in the immediate term. §408.035(1)(i), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application proposal is financially feasible in the long term, except, Good Samaritan and St. Mary's contend as it relates to projected utilization. §408.035(1)(i), Fla. Stat. Schedules 9 and 10 and the architectural schematics in JFK's application are complete and satisfy all applicable CON application requirements. Schedule 1 in the application is complete, reasonable, and not at issue. JFK's proposed construction/renovation design, costs, and methods of construction/renovation are reasonable and satisfy all applicable requirements. See, §408.035(1)(m), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application satisfies all minimum application content requirements in Section 408.037(1), Florida Statutes; except that Good Samaritan and St. Mary's contend that subsection (1)(a), is not satisfied. JFK certified that it will license and operate the facility if its CON proposal is approved. See, §408.037(2), Fla. Stat. JFK's Letter of Intent was timely filed and legally sufficient. See, §408.039(2)(a) and (c), Fla. Stat. Good Samaritan does not provide cardiac catheterization services, angioplasty, or open heart surgery. St. Mary's does not provide elective angioplasty or open heart surgery services. JFK is one of the hospitals to which Good Samaritan and St. Mary's transfer patients in need of inpatient cardiac catheterization services, angioplasty, and open heart surgery. Neither Good Samaritan nor St. Mary's have any present plans to apply for CON approval to add skilled nursing beds or acute care beds. The parties also stipulated that Subsections 408.035(1)(e), (f), (g), (h) - as related to training health professionals, (j), (k), and (2), Florida Statutes, are not at issue or not applicable to this proposal. For the batching cycle in which JFK applied for CON Number 9099, AHCA published a fixed need of zero for District 9, acute care subdistrict 5. In the absence of a numeric need for additional acute care beds in the subdistrict, JFK relied on not normal circumstances to support the need for its proposal, including the following: delays in admitting patients arriving through the emergency room to inpatient beds, delays in moving patients from surgery to recovery to acute care beds, and seasonal variations in occupancy exceeding optimal levels and, at times, exceeding 100%. Good Samaritan and St. Mary's oppose JFK's CON application. In general, these Petitioners claimed that other problems cause overcrowding in the emergency room at JFK, that the type of beds proposed will not be appropriate for the needs of most patients, that "seasonality" is not unique to or as extreme at JFK, and that a hospital-specific occupancy level below that set by rule cannot constitute a special or not normal circumstance. If JFK achieves the projected utilization, experts for Good Samaritan and St. Mary's also projected adverse financial consequences for those hospitals. Rule 59C-1.038(5) - special circumstances During the hearing, the parties stipulated that the numeric need for new acute care beds in the subdistrict is zero. The rule for determining numeric need also includes the following provision: (5) Approval Under Special Circumstances. Regardless of the subdistrict's average annual occupancy rate, need for additional acute care beds at an existing hospital is demonstrated if the hospital's average occupancy rate based on inpatient utilization of all licensed acute care beds is at or exceeds 80 percent. The determination of the average occupancy rate shall be made based on the average 12 months occupancy rate for the reporting period specified in section (4). Proposals for additional beds submitted by facilities qualifying under this subsection shall be reviewed in context with the applicable review criteria in section 408.035, F.S. The applicable time period for the special circumstances provision is calendar year 1997. JFK's reported acute care occupancy was 76.29% in 1997, and 79.7% in 1998, not 80%, as required by the rule. JFK and AHCA take the position that other special circumstances may, nevertheless, be and have been the basis for the approval of additional acute care beds. JFK also maintained that the reported average occupancy levels understated the demand for and actual use of its inpatient beds. Due to seasonal fluctuations caused by the influx of winter residents, JFK reached or exceeded 100% occupancy on 5 or 6 days, exceeded 80% occupancy on 20 days, and averaged 90.9% occupancy, in January 1999. In February 1999, the average was 96.5%, but was over 100% on 8 days, and over 90% on 25 days. In March 1999, the average occupancy was 90.1%, but exceeded 100% on one day, and 90% on 17 days. In recent years, the "season" also has extended into more months, from approximately Thanksgiving to Easter or Passover. It also includes flu season which disproportionately affects the health of the elderly. JFK also demonstrated that occupancy varies based on the day of the week, generally highest on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and lowest on weekends. JFK's acute care beds were also occupied by patients who were not classified as 24-hour medical/surgical inpatients. Others included observation and 23-hour patients, covered by Medicare or health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Some of those patients were classified initially as outpatients to lower reimbursement rates, but routinely subsequently reclassified and admitted as inpatients. In fact, during the applicable time period for determining occupancy, Medicare allowed patients to be classified as outpatients for up to 72-hour hospital stays. Subsequently, Medicare reduced the allowable hospital stay to 48 hours for all "outpatients," according to AHCA's expert witness. When not classified as inpatients, patients are not counted in average occupancy rates which are based solely on the admitted inpatient census, counted each midnight. For example, in February 1999, the average daily census for 23-hour patients was 10.8 patients, which, when combined with 24-hour patients, results in an average occupancy of 99.7% for the month. Due to the Medicare classification system, some but not all of the so- called 23-hour patients affect the accuracy of the inpatient utilization data. According to AHCA's expert witness, however, numeric need cannot be determined because of JFK's failure to quantify the number of Medicare patients who actually affected the acute care bed utilization. The 23-hour or observation patients may use, but do not require CON-approved and licensed acute care beds. Instead, those patients may be held in either non-CON, non-licensed "observation" beds or in licensed acute care beds. As AHCA determined, to the extent that 23-hour patients in reality stayed longer, and adversely affected JFK's ability to accommodate acute care patients, their presence can be considered to determine if special circumstances exist. Combining 24-hour and 23-hour patients, JFK experienced an occupancy rate of 80% in 1996, and 85.7% in 1997. While some of the 23-hour patients were, in fact, outpatients who should not be considered and others stayed from 24 hours up to 3 days and should be considered, JFK's proportion of Medicare services is important to determining whether special circumstances based on acute care utilization exist. With 74% of all JFK patients in the Medicare category, but without having exact numbers, it is more reasonable than not to conclude that the occupancy level is between the range of 76.29% for acute care only and 85.7% for acute care and 23-hour patients. A reasonable inference is that JFK achieved at least 80% occupancy of patients who were in reality inpatients in its acute care beds in 1997. The expert health planner for the Petitioners conceded that bed availability declines, capacity is a constraint, and high occupancy becomes a barrier to service at some level between 80 and 83% occupancy. In a prior CON filed on behalf of Good Samaritan for a 4-bed addition to an 11-bed neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), the same expert asserted that 76% occupancy was a reasonable utilization standard. That occupancy level was based on the desire to maintain 95% bed availability. An exact comparison of the occupancy levels in this and the NICU case, however, is impossible due to the small size of the NICU unit and the fact that the applicant met the occupancy level in that rule for special circumstances. The statistical data on the number patients actually using acute care beds at JFK in excess of 24-hours despite their classification, supports its claim of overcrowding. Emergency Room Conditions JFK described overcrowding in its emergency department as another special circumstance creating a need for additional acute care beds. The emergency room at JFK has 37 bays each with a bed and another 15 to 17 spaces used for stretchers. Eighteen parking spaces are reserved for ambulances in front of the emergency department. It is not uncommon for a patient to wait in the JFK emergency room up to 24 hours after being admitted to the hospital, before being moved to an acute care bed. In February 1999, after having converted 10 substance abuse beds to acute care beds in October 1998, JFK still provided 234 patient days of acute care in the emergency department. The waiting time for patients to receive a bed after being admitted through the emergency department ranged from 10 hours to 5 days in the winter, and from an average of 6 hours up to 24 hours in the summer. While JFK claims that the quality of care is not adversely affected, it does note that patient privacy and comfort are compromised due to the noise, lights, activity, and lack of space for visitors in the emergency room. JFK's patients tend to be older and sicker than the average. As a result, more patients arriving at its emergency room are admitted to the hospital. In the winter of 1998, JFK was holding up to 35 acute care inpatients at a time in the emergency room. Nationally, from 15% to 20% of emergency room patients are admitted to hospitals. By contrast, almost twice that number, or one-third of JFK's emergency room patients become admitted inpatients. Emergency room admissions are also a substantial number of total admissions at JFK. In calendar year 1998, slightly more than 65% of all inpatient admissions to JFK arrived through the emergency room, most by ambulance. Ambulance arrivals at any particular hospital are often dictated by the patient's condition, with unstable patients directed to the nearest hospital. Once patients are stabilized in the emergency room at JFK, those requiring obstetric, pediatric, or psychiatric admissions are transferred from JFK which does not provide those inpatient services. Emergency room patients in need of acute care services provided at JFK, like the neonates at issue in the prior Good Samaritan application, are unlikely candidates for transfer The emergency room at JFK receives up to 50,000 patient visits a year, up from approximately 32,000 annual visits five years ago. JFK operates one of the largest and busiest emergency departments in Palm Beach County. Due to overcrowding in the emergency department at Delray Hospital, in southern Palm Beach County, patients have been diverted to other facilities, including JFK. In terms of square footage, JFK's emergency room does not meet the standards to accommodate the 52 to 54 bays and stretchers and related activities. JFK lacks adequate space for support services which should also be available in the emergency department. The Petitioners asserted that enlarging the emergency room will alleviate its problems. JFK demonstrated, however, that regardless of the physical size of the emergency room, optimal patient care requires more capacity to transfer patients faster to acute care beds outside the emergency department. Conditions in Other Departments Of 343 operational beds at JFK at the time of the final hearing, 290 were monitored or telemetry acute care beds, 30 were critical care beds, and 23 were non-monitored, non-critical care beds. Most of the monitored beds are in rooms equipped with antennae to transmit data from electrodes and monitors when attached to patients. When monitoring is not necessary, the same beds are used by regular acute care patients. The large number of monitored beds located throughout the hospital in various units reflects JFK's largely elderly population and specialization in cardiology. In 1998, 820 inpatient cardiac catheterizations (caths) were performed at JFK. Petitioners Good Samaritan and St. Mary's transferred 90 and 28 of those cath patients, respectively to JFK. In the first five months of 1999, 449 caths were performed, including procedures on 35 patients transferred from Good Samaritan and 16 from St. Mary's. Cath lab patients are held in the lab longer after their procedures when beds are not available in cardiac or the post- anesthesia care units. The Petitioners suggested that cath lab patients could be placed in a 12-bed holding area added to the lab in July 1999; however, that space was expected to be filled by patients being prepared for caths. Open heart surgery is available in Palm Beach County at three hospitals, Delray, JFK and Palm Beach Gardens. Patients admitted to JFK for other primary diagnoses often require cardiac monitoring even though they are not in a cardiac unit. The additional 24 beds which were under construction at the time of the final hearing will also be monitored beds. The 20 beds at issue in this proceeding will not be monitored. The Petitioners questioned whether non-monitored beds will alleviate overcrowding at JFK where so many patients require monitoring. JFK physicians in various specialties testified concerning conditions in other areas of the hospital. A nephrologist, who consults primarily in intensive care units, described the backlog and delay in moving patients from intensive care into acute care beds. A cardiologist noted that patients are taking telemetry beds they do not need because there is no other place to put them. A general and vascular surgeon described the overcrowding as a problem with the ability to move patients from more to less intensive care when appropriate. Elective surgeries have been delayed to be sure that patients will have beds following surgery. The evidence presented by JFK supports the conclusion that the additional acute care beds will assist in alleviating overcrowding in other hospital units, including backlogs in the existing monitored beds. JFK has established as factual bases for special circumstances that its high occupancy exceeds the optimal much of the year, aggravated by seasonal fluctuations; that it has relatively large emergency room admissions over which it has no control; and that its intensive care and monitored beds are not available when needed. Number of Beds Needed With the conversion, in 1998, of 10 substance abuse beds to acute care beds and the 1999 construction of 24 of 40 additional beds requested by JFK, the number of licensed and approved beds at JFK increased to 367. In addition, with CON- exemption, JFK has added observation beds. As a result of AHCA's partial approval of the previous JFK request for new construction and due to unfavorable changes in Medicare reimbursement policies for hospital-based SNUs, JFK now seeks this 20-bed conversion. JFK ceased operating the SNU in October 1998, after Medicare reimbursement changed to a system based on resource utilization groups (RUGs). JFK was unable to operate the SNU without financial losses, that is, unable to cover its patient care costs under the RUGs system. The proposal to convert the beds back to acute care, as they were previously licensed will allow JFK to reconnect existing oxygen lines in the walls and to use the beds for acute care patients. Although Good Samaritan and St. Mary's suggested that JFK can profitably operate a SNU, there was no evidence presented other than its previous occupancy levels which were very high, and the fact that Columbia is not closing all of its SNUs. The Petitioners also question JFK's ability to use its SNU beds for acute care and/or observation patients. AHCA, however, took the position that acute care licensure is required for beds in which acute care patients are routinely treated. Otherwise, the agency would not have accurate data on utilization, bed inventory, and the projected need. In order to demonstrate the number of beds needed, JFK's expert used historical increases in admissions. Some admissions data was skewed because the parent corporation, Columbia, closed Palm Beach Regional in 1996, and consolidated its activities at JFK. Excluding from consideration the increase of 3,707 admissions from 1995 to 1996, JFK's expert considered approximately 800 as reasonable to assume as an average annual increase. That represents roughly the mid-point between the 1996 to 1997 increase of 605, and the 1997 to 1998 increase of 1,076 admissions. A projected increase of 800 admissions for an average 5-day length of stay would result in an increase of 4,000 patient days a year which, at 80% occupancy, justifies an increase of 14 beds a year. Considering the closing of Palm Beach Regional, the number of beds in the subdistrict will have been reduced by 170. At the hearing, JFK's expert also relied on 3.3% annual patient day increase to project the number of beds needed, having experienced an increase of 5.8% from 1997 to 1998. Using this methodology, JFK projected a need for 20 additional acute care beds by 2002, and over 40 more by 2004. That methodology assumed patient growth in the excess of population growth and, necessarily, an increase in market share. JFK's market share increased in its primary service area from approximately 19% in 1993 to 27% in 1997. But the market share also slightly declined from 1997 to 1998. AHCA's methodology for determining the number of beds needed was based on the entire population of Palm Beach County, not just the more elderly southern area. It also assumed that JFK's market share would remain constant. Using this more conservative approach than JFK, AHCA projected a need for 383 acute care beds, or 16 beds added to the current total of 367 licensed and approved beds, at an optimal 75% occupancy by the year 2004. AHCA relied on a projection of 104,959 total patient days in 2004. Using the same methodology, JFK's expert determined that total projected patient days for 1998 would have been 94,225, but the actual total was 98,126 patient days. AHCA's methodology underestimates the number of beds needed, but does confirm that more than 16 additional beds will be needed by 2004. AHCA's reliance on 75% as an optimal future occupancy level as compared to the hospital-specific historical level of 80% was criticized, as was the use of the year 2004 as a planning horizon. The rule requires 80% occupancy for a prior reporting period and does not establish any planning horizon. Good Samaritan and St. Mary's used 80% occupancy in their analysis of bed need. At 80% occupancy, Petitioners projected an average daily census of 265 patients in 331 beds in 2001, or 268 patients in 334 beds in 2002, and 270 patients in 358 beds in 2003, as compared to 367 existing and approved beds. The Petitioners' projection is an underestimate of bed-need based on the actual average daily census of 269 patients in 1998. The Petitioners' methodology erroneously projects a need for fewer licensed beds than JFK has currently, despite the special circumstances evincing overcrowding. At 80% occupancy, based on the special circumstances rule, a hospital exceeds the optimal level and needs more beds. But, according to the Petitioners, 80% is a future occupancy target for the appropriate planning horizon of 2002. As AHCA's expert noted, it is illogical to use 80% as both optimal and as an indication of the need for additional beds. Similarly, it is not reasonable to use a planning horizon which coincides with the time when more beds will be needed. Therefore, the use of 75% for the five-year planning horizon of 2004 is a reasonable optimal target, as contrasted to the need for additional beds when 80% occupancy is reached at some future time beyond the planning horizon. AHCA's underestimate of need at 16 more beds by 2004, and JFK's overestimate of need at 40 more beds by 2004, support the conclusion that the requested addition of 20 beds in this application is in a reasonably conservative range. Rule 59C-1.038(6)(a) and Subsection 408.035(l)(n) - service and commitment to medically indigent; and Rule 59C-1.038(6)(b) - conversion of beds Rule 59C-1.038(6), Florida Administrative Code, also includes the following criteria: Priority consideration for initiation of new acute care services of capital expenditures shall be given to applicants with documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so. When there are competing applications within a subdistrict, priority consideration shall be given to the applications which meet the need for additional acute care beds in a particular service through the conversion of existing underutilized beds. Subsection (a) of the Rule, overlaps with District 9 health plan allocation factor one, which must be considered pursuant to Subsection 408.035(1)(a), and with the explicit criterion of Subsection 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. All three require a commitment to and record of service to Medicaid, indigent and/or handicapped patients. JFK agreed to have its CON conditioned on 5% of the care given in the 20 new beds to Medicaid and charity patients. The commitment for the 24 beds under construction is 3% for Medicaid and charity patients. If charity patients are defined as those with family incomes equal to or below 150% of federal poverty guidelines, JFK provided $2.9 million in charity care in calendar year 1998, and $720,000 as of April for 1999. JFK provided an additional 3% to 5% in Medicaid care. The Medicaid total includes Palm Beach County Health Care District patients, who are also called welfare patients. The charity care provided by JFK is equivalent to approximately 1% of its gross revenue. JFK explained its relatively low Medicaid care as a function of its relatively limited services for people covered by Medicaid, particularly, the young who utilize obstetrics and pediatrics. JFK pointed to the differing demographics in Palm Beach County with more elderly, who have Medicare coverage, located in its primary service area. Excluding pediatric and obstetric care, Medicaid covered 6.7% of patients in southern Palm Beach County as compared to 16.3% in northern Palm Beach County. Of the Medicaid patients, 2.9% in the southern area as compared to 6% in the northern area are adults. On this basis, JFK established the adequacy of its historical Medicaid and indigent care, and of its proposed commitment. Subsection (6)(b) of Rule 59C-1.038 is inapplicable when, as in this case, there are not competing applications to compare. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - other local health plan factors and Subsection 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care District 9 allocation factor 2, favoring cost containment practices, is enhanced by the proposed conversion rather than the new construction of beds. Within the Columbia group of hospitals, there is an effort to avoid unnecessary duplications of services. JFK caters to an elderly population and to providing cardiology, neurology, and oncology services. Columbia's Palms West provides pediatric and obstetric care. Another Columbia facility in Palm Beach County, Columbia Hospital, specializes in inpatient psychiatric services. The elimination of the hospital-based SNU at JFK does eliminate one level of care in the system, contrary to the criteria. District 9 health plan allocation factor 3 requires favorable consideration of plans, like JFK's, to convert unused or underutilized beds. In this case, the JFK SNU was highly utilized but unprofitable. There is no evidence that alternative placements in free-standing nursing homes are inappropriate or unavailable. Minor inefficiencies result from the time lag for transfers during which skilled nursing patients remain in acute care beds. To some extent, the inefficiencies were already occurring while JFK operated the SNU due to its high average census of 18 or 19 patients in a total of 20 SNU beds. Those inefficiencies are outweighed by the low cost conversion of 20 beds for $117,000, particularly as compared to its prior 24-bed construction for $4 million. In general, the applicable local health plan allocation factors support the approval of the JFK application. Rule 59C-1.030 - needs access for low income, minorities, handicapped, elderly, Medicaid, Medicare, indigent or other medically underserved In general, the proposal is intended to increase access to JFK's services by decreasing waiting times for admissions. The services are used by a large number of elderly patients, who are primarily covered by Medicare. JFK demonstrated that the population in its service area also tends to be wealthier than the population in northern Palm Beach County. Medicaid and indigent access to care at JFK is consistent and reasonable given the demographic data presented. Access for elderly Medicare patients will be enhanced by the proposal. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) - accessibility, availability, appropriateness, and adequacy of like and existing services Good Samaritan and St. Mary's argue that hospitals below 75% occupancy are available alternatives to JFK's patients. Yet, those facilities are not viable alternatives for unstable patients admitted through the emergency room. Neither is it appropriate to transfer patients who need services provided at JFK. JFK does not allege that any problems exist at other facilities, but only that it is affected by special circumstances. From January to June 1998, the closest hospitals to JFK experienced wide-ranging occupancy levels from 92% at Delray, the hospital with services most comparable to those at JFK, to 57% at Bethesda, and 47% at Wellington. The wide range in occupancy rate is further indication of uniqueness of the need for patients to access services available only at Delray and JFK. Subsection 408.035(1)(d) - outpatient care or other alternatives Admitted inpatients have no alternatives to their need for acute care beds. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - alternative use of resources and accessibility for residents The continued use of the 20 beds as a SNU was suggested as an alternative. As noted, however, that proved to be financially unprofitable at JFK, in comparison to the low cost conversion to acute care beds. AHCA reasonably rejected the idea that of the beds being designated "observation" beds when used for acute care patients. In addition, in 1996, JFK estimated the cost of moving patients from bed to bed in the hospital due to the shortage of appropriate beds, when needed, at up to $1 million. This project is intended to meet a facility-specific need based on the demand for services at JFK from patients who cannot reasonably initially be sent or subsequently transferred to other hospitals. As such, JFK's additional beds do not meet the criterion for accessibility for all residents of the district. Subsection 408.035(1)(i) - utilization and long-term financial feasibility Good Samaritan and St. Mary's contend that JFK's proposal includes unrealistically high utilization projections for the additional 20 beds. Using 98,000 patient days in 1998, which excludes any days attributable to skilled nursing beds, total utilization projected in the second year is 78.4%. For the additional 20 beds, projected utilization is 77.4%. The expert for Good Samaritan and St. Mary's disagreed with the allocation of patient days between the existing and additional beds. If 80% utilization is assigned to existing 367 beds, as he suggested, then the average annual occupancy of the 20 new beds would be only 50%. The financial break-even point for the project, however, is 50 to 75 patient days, or 10 to 15 patients with average lengths of stay of 5 days. Therefore, even with the lower projected occupancy of 50%, or an average of 10 beds at any time, the project is financially feasible in the long-term. In reality, a separate allocation of patient days to the 20 new beds is somewhat arbitrary. It is also less important than total projected utilization, since the 20 beds do not represent a separate unit in which specialized services will be provided. The additional beds will become a part of the total medical/surgical inventory. By demonstrating that there will be sufficient total occupancy to exceed the financial break-even point in the newly converted beds regardless of the allocation of patient days to any particular bed, JFK demonstrated the long- term financial feasibility of the proposal for CON 9099. Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - impact on costs; effects of competition If the JFK proposal is approved, Good Samaritan anticipates a loss of 255 patients, or 1,392 patient days, which is equivalent to a financial loss of over $1.5 million. St. Mary's anticipates losses of 158 patients or 973 patient days, and in excess of $1 million. Both hospitals were experiencing overall operating losses in 1999. But, the estimates of financial losses for both hospitals did not take into consideration all of the expense reductions associated with serving fewer patients. Excluding pediatrics and obstetrics, which are not available at JFK, JFK's overlapping service areas with Good Samaritan and St. Mary's are minimal. Good Samaritan's market share in JFK's primary service area is 4.8%, and St. Mary's is 9.3%. Pediatrics and obstetrics contribute 30.7% of total patients at Good Samaritan, and 49.5% at St. Mary's. Physician overlap among the hospitals is also limited. Although 357 doctors admitted patients to JFK and 464 to St. Mary's in the first two quarters of 1998, the number of overlapping doctors was 28. With a total of 379 admitting doctors at Good Samaritan for the same period of time, only 21 were included in JFK's 357 admitting physicians. In general, doctors in the northern Palm Beach County acute care subdistrict seldom admit patients to hospitals in the southern subdistrict, and vice versa. The absence of overlapping medical staff also reflected the differences in the services. Most of the top twenty doctors who admitted patients to Good Samaritan and St. Mary's were obstetricians and pediatricians. When obstetricians and pediatricians are excluded, the number of overlapping doctors for JFK and Good Samaritan is reduced to 15, and for JFK and St. Mary's to 22. In addition to providing different services, to different areas of the County, doctors who practice primarily in one or the other subdistrict served patients in different payor classification mixes. In 1997, JFK's patients were 74% Medicare, consistent with the fact that a larger percentage of elderly patients live in JFK's service area. By contrast, Medicare patients were approximately 48% of the total at Good Samaritan, and 32% of the total at St. Mary's. Historically, the addition of acute care beds at JFK has not affected other hospitals in the district or even the same acute care subdistrict. After the conversion of 10 substance abuse beds in the fall of 1998, the acute care patient days at every hospital in the same subdistrict increased in early 1999 over comparable periods of time in 1998. The assumption that additional beds at JFK will take patients from other hospitals includes the assumption that JFK will draw a larger share of an incremental increase of patients. The assumption is, in other words, that all patients will be new to JFK. The expert health planner for Good Samaritan and St. Mary's conceded that facility-specific overcrowding can justify projections that the additional beds will accommodate the existing census plus growth attributable to increasing population, and will not generate new patients. The expert assumed, nevertheless that from 1478 to 1486 new patients (depending on whether the length of stay is rounded off) would be associated with JFK's project. From that total, the proportional losses allocated were 255 patients from Good Samaritan and 158 patients from St. Mary's. Another underlying assumption increase is that all of the new patients would go to other hospitals if JFK does not add 20 acute care beds. That assumption suggests that all of the patients could receive the services they need at the other facilities, which is not supported by the facts or current utilization data. More likely, with the addition of beds due to overcrowding, some patients will come from the existing hospital census at JFK. It is not reasonable to assume that JFK will have all new patients, nor that all patients could be treated at other hospitals in the absence of JFK's expansion. The proportion of emergency room admissions at JFK is reasonably expected to continue. Patients who arrive at JFK requiring open heart surgery, angioplasties or invasive cardiac caths are reasonably expected to continue to receive those services at JFK, including patients who are transferred to JFK from Good Samaritan and St. Mary's. Based on the failure to support the assumptions, and the differences in service areas, medical staff, specialties, and patient demographics, Good Samaritan and St. Mary's have not shown any adverse impact from the JFK proposal. On balance, considering the statutory and rule criteria for reviewing CON applications, JFK established, as a matter of fact, that it meets the special circumstance criteria related to emergency room admissions, pre- and post-surgical and intensive care backlogs, and average annual occupancy projections in excess of optimal levels.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered issuing CON 9099 to convert 20 skilled nursing beds to 20 acute care beds at Columbia/JFK Medical Center, L.P., d/b/a JFK Medical Center, on condition that a minimum of 5% of new acute care patient days will be provided to Medicaid and charity patients. The file of the Division of Administrative Hearings, DOAH Case No. 99-0714 is hereby closed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Thomas A. Sheehan, III, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Kolins, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Terry, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313
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
