Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1981, Certificate of Need No. 1843 was issued to Medical Investment Corp. to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in Tallahassee, Florida. Thereafter, status reports were filed by Medical Investment Corp. at regular intervals; a six-month extension was granted of the time in which the project was to be completed; and Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Petitioner, acquired the assets of Medical Investment Corp. Construction of the nursing home remained on schedule; however, before opening, Beverly Enterprises decided to experiment with the concept of converting some of the rooms to Adult Congregate Living Facilities (ACLF) rooms. Without major structural change, six of the authorized nursing home rooms were converted and two storerooms in the same wing were modified to create a 12-bed ACLF with four private and four semi-private rooms. On or before the scheduled date to open the facility as a nursing home, the facility was sufficiently complete to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the local building official and licenses from Respondent. In accordance with Respondent's desires, a license was issued on June 9, 1984, for a 12-unit ACLF and on July 5, 1983, for a 114-bed nursing home. License No. p-2-37-0224 was issued for the ACLF and License No. 1274 for the 114-bed nursing home. Respondent intended the ACLF to serve Alzheimer's patients in stages 1 and 2 who needed supervision but not the nursing home care that was required as the disease progressed in later stages. These rooms were furnished comparable to that of a nice Holiday Inn (Exhibit 14). Respondent's rates for the ACLF rooms are $50 per day semi-private and $55 per day private. After being notified that the CON for 120 beds had been reduced to the 114 beds licensed by Petitioner because those six beds were not under continuous construction after they were licensed as ACLF beds on June 9, 1983, Respondent filed this petition to contest the conclusion of Petitioner that those six beds had become null and void by reason of not being under construction at the conclusion of the time period authorized for the project. Respondent had not made final payment to the contractor during this period, a punch list of items requiring completion before final payment was provided to the contractor, one additional dryer was installed in the laundry room as required by the plans and specifications, and modifications to two linen lockers were completed after the 114 beds were licensed. As a result of this work, Respondent contends that construction was not complete and was perforce continuing after the license was issued. As a matter of agency policy Petitioner considers construction complete when the facility is ready for occupancy and is licensed to accept patients.
Findings Of Fact Originally, each Petitioner filed an application for a Certificate Of Need for the construction and operation of nursing home facilities in Broward County as follows: HCR - 120 beds, Richmond - 240 beds, Health Quest - 180 beds, and FPM - 240 beds. The applications were reviewed by Respondent comparatively and competitively, and they were denied in a State Agency Action Report on August 12, 1982 solely on the basis that there was no need for additional nursing home beds in Broward County. The formal hearing thereafter requested by all Petitioners was continued several times due to scheduling conflicts and due to the expected promulgation of a new methodology by which the need for nursing home beds is computed. As a result of Respondent's Quarterly Census Report dated November 30, 1983, Respondent determined that in fact there was a need for an additional 101 nursing home beds in Broward County. Accordingly, just prior to the formal hearing and by letter dated January 4, 1984, Respondent's attorney invited each Petitioner to amend its application for the purpose of being eligible to receive a Certificate Of Need for those 101 beds. Each Petitioner so complied. At the final hearing, each Petitioner proceeded on both its original application and its amended application. In spite of the singular ground for denial of each application contained in the State Agency Action Report, Respondent's attorney contended from the inception of this proceeding and into the final hearing that whether any of the applications met all statutory and rule criteria for approval was disputed by Respondent, including the financial feasibility of each proposed project. According to Respondent's only witness, Thomas F. Porter, however, all four applications meet all statutory and rule criteria for approval including financial feasibility. Accordingly, the only facts to be determined herein will relate to the issue of the number of beds needed. Since Respondent stipulated that 101 beds were available to be awarded to one of the applicants in this proceeding (Tr. 17, 36-40, 952), the threshold issue is how many beds in excess of 101, if any, are needed in Broward County. Respondent uses the most recently available information in analyzing applications for nursing home beds, including the Quarterly Census Report which it publishes, and a mathematical methodology contained in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the purpose of which methodology is to project the need for nursing home beds on a three year basis to determine the availability of those beds for award to Certificate Of Need applicants in relation to a projected need. The methodology contains several steps. The first part of the methodology projects the number of beds that will be needed based upon an adjustment of a standard of 27 beds per thousand for the population aged 65 and over to reflect the percentage of those in poverty in the HRS district in relation to those living in poverty in the state. The second part of the methodology contains the present and prospective occupancy rates. Before any of the new beds which are determined to be needed can be added, the average occupancy rate for existing homes must exceed eighty five Percent (85), as the rule is applied to Broward County, the only county in Florida constituting its own HRS district and having no sub-districts. Furthermore, the second part of the formula provides that no additional beds which have been determined to be needed can actually be added if, theoretically, the prospective occupancy rate after the beds are added will be reduced below eighty percent (80 percent). Respondent's determination as to the number of beds needed and the number of beds available for Certificate of Need applicants according to "part two" of the formula is based on its Quarterly Census Reports. The November 30, 1983 Quarterly Census Report revealed that 1,419 community nursing home beds (4,058 needed beds, less 2,789 existing and 300 previously approved but not constructed beds) will be needed in Broward county in 1986, the horizon year for these applicants. The occupancy rate of existing nursing home beds for the six months preceding that report was 91.5 percent. According to that report, since the prospective occupancy rate is 80 percent for Broward County, then the addition of more than 101 beds at the present time will theoretically reduce the prospective occupancy rate below 80 percent. Under normal circumstances Respondent will issue Certificates of Need in accordance with the need methodology set forth above. However, Respondent has discretion to approve applications for nursing home beds which do not conform to the need methodology if the existence of special circumstances can be proven. Special circumstances do exist in Broward County which warrant a determination that more nursing home beds are needed than is demonstrated by a strict application of Respondent's need methodology. One of those special circumstances is the existence in the district comprised of Broward County of an older population than in the other districts in Florida. Broward County's 65 and over population is fairly typical of Florida at the present time, but there is a significant difference in the proportion of the population which is 75 and over and which will be 75 and over in the near future. In 1980 Florida as a whole had 6.5 percent of its 65 and over population in the 75 and over category which was projected to increase to 9 percent by the year 2000. By contrast, according to studies performed by Dr. Robert Weller, in Broward County 35.4 percent of the 65 and over population was 75 and over, and by 1986 this number was projected to increase to 53.6 percent. This difference was classified by Dr. Weller as "very meaningful" to the point where he would be very "uncomfortable" with any attempt to plan for Broward County using statewide averages. This large difference in the composition of the elderly population of the state as a whole and Broward County is a significant special circumstance because the older the population the greater the demand for nursing home beds. In fact, the big predictors of need for nursing home beds are illness and age. The average age of entry into a nursing home is 81. While the population group of 85 and older utilize nursing home beds at a rate 15 times greater than the 65 and older group, the over 75 age category constitutes 70 percent of all nursing home users. Respondent's need methodology does not make an adjustment for differences in the 65 and over category between the various districts. This failure to adjust for an older population may not significantly affect districts with more normal population composition, but since Broward County's population departs substantially from the norm, it is an essential consideration. The failure to consider this situation results in a gross understatement of need in Broward County. Diagnostically Related Groups (hereinafter "DRG") regulations are amendments to the Social Security Act effective in 1983 which alter the method by which hospitals will receive reimbursement for Medicare patients. Under the DRG regulations, which hospitals are required to adhere to by the end of 1984, reimbursement for Medicare patients will be based upon an established length of stay for each type of illness. For example a hospital might be reimbursed for an eight day hospital stay for a coronary by-pass operation whether the patient actually stays in the hospital for seven or for 12 days. The effect of the DRG regulations is the earlier discharge of many patients in need of intensive nursing care. Every expert witness and professional administrator opined at the hearing in this cause that DRG regulations will result in an increased demand for nursing home beds. In addition to the effect the DRG regulations will have in a normal situation, the characteristics of the Broward County will accentuate this effect. The nationwide average for percent of Medicare funding in acute care hospitals is approximately 50 percent while the average for Broward County in last 12 months ranges from 53 percent to about 64 percent. The characteristics of Broward's elderly population also increases the effect of the DRG regulations because the population in Broward County is older than that in the remainder of the state. A study of the effects of the DRG regulations on the need for additional nursing home beds was recently conducted for Palm Beach County. That county has a high percentage of elderly (although not as high as Broward) and a high percentage of Medicaid funding. That study indicated that the DRG regulations would increase demand there by about 225 to 300 beds. Theodore J. Foti, an expert in health planning, utilized the Palm Beach study to estimate that from 325 to 400 additional beds are needed in Broward County to compensate for the DRG regulations alone. In Broward County there are three facilities which Respondent counts as nursing home facilities but which do not provide nursing home services. The Daystar Nursing Home, which contains 44 beds, is a Christian Science facility which does not provide the level of care associated with nursing homes. The Manor Oaks facility, which contains 116 beds, has a hospital license as an extended care facility and is a licensed specialty hospital, not a nursing home. St. Johns Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, which contains 100 beds, is a specialty hospital. Respondent includes the 340 beds in these facilities in computing the total of existing nursing home beds. Since these facilities are not truly nursing homes, they are displacing beds which normally provide nursing home services. The need methodology, therefore, does not include the true number of existing nursing home beds in Broward County, and, therefore, even if all other data used in the methodology be accurate, the bed need as determined by the methodology is understated by 340 beds. Barbara Palmer is employed by Respondent in its Office of Aging and Adult Services. Her job duties include writing proposed rules, manual material and legislative budget requests for Respondent's program known as Community Care for the Elderly (hereinafter "CCE"). CCE services include case management as well as CORE services, adult day care, chore, emergency alert response systems, home delivered meals, home health aid, medical transportation and personal care. Each of these programs is generally designed to provide services to the clients in the client's home. None of these services are provided to persons who are already in nursing homes. In order to compute need for CCE services, Palmer and Respondent rely on research by Dr. Carter Osterbind which identifies the incidence of "homebound" and "bedfast" individuals in the population aged 65 and over. Respondent defines bedfast as a person who, because of physical or other infirmities, remains in bed and is incapable of being in any other place. Similarly homebound individuals are those who cannot leave their homes without assistance. Respondent routinely uses Osterbind's 8 percent incidence factor to calculate the percentage of the population in the State of Florida 65 and over that can be characterized as homebound and bedfast. Subject to revisions, Palmer prepares the budget proposal for Aging and Adult Services which is then approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for submission to the Governor and which then becomes Services for part of the Governor's budget request which is ultimately submitted to the Legislature. Palmer uses two documents to prepare her budget request: Dr. Osterbind's paper "Older People in Florida" and "Florida Decade of the 80's", a technical appendix provided by the Office of the Governor as a reference for population statistics for use in developing legislative budget requests. Using these two documents, a projected need is compared with the historical data of how many people have been served with the money which was received in a previous budget year. By subtracting the historically met need from the projected need, Palmer arrives at the projected unmet need, which is presented in a table depicting the total number of homebound and bedfast clients who will not receive services. Palmer also uses a factor, developed by Respondent's Community Care for the Elderly Program, to determine how many individuals, but for the fact that their need is going to be met, are at risk of institutionalization. Respondent's Office of Evaluation has developed and published a 42 percent factor and utilizes it as a basis to determine how many of those persons in a category whose needs will be unmet because of lack of budget dollars in the future will actually end up in nursing homes if more dollars are not appropriated. In other words, Respondent utilizes a document promulgated in 1981 by its Office of Evaluation which indicates that a 42 percent factor should be applied to an 8 percent statewide percent of the population 65 and older to determine how many are at risk of institutionalization in a nursing home, and this methodology has been used routinely by Respondent to prepare Respondent's budget requests through 1985. Palmer's approach in preparing the budget request has a purpose of persuading the Legislature that unless money is provided, 42 of all homebound and bedfast individuals will have to be institutionalized but for provision for home health care services. Palmer's last budget request shows that in the decade of the 80's Respondent expects a 69.8 percent increase in the population group 65 and over. The 10 year plan for CCE and CORE services gives the estimated percentage of need which Respondent intends to meet with CCE and CORE services for various budget years through 1990. Respondent will only provide those services to 23.84 percent of those persons needing them in 1985-86 and only 26.48 percent in 1986-87. Estimated unduplicated clients that will be served in those same years are 41,448 and 47,869 respectively. Expert witness, Michael Schwartz, used Respondent's population figures for Broward County and Respondent's methodology according to Palmer to determine how many of those individuals aged 65 and over in Broward County will be homebound and bedfast in the planning horizon year of 1986. Multiplying the number of homebound and bedfast by the percentile of persons that are at risk of institutionalization yields the figure of 9,760 persons for the horizon year. The number of persons projected by Respondent's Office of Aging and Adult Services to actually receive the CCE-CORE services in that horizon year is 3,956. Thus, the number of individuals unable to obtain those services and needing a nursing home bed in that year will be 5,802. These people will need nursing home beds for an average length of stay of two and one-half years (national average). The current inventory of nursing home beds in Broward County, including approved but not built beds, is 3,089. When the existing inventory is subtracted from the number of needed beds, as computed by the Aging and Adult Services methodology, the net need is an additional 2,715. Thus, when Respondent's methodology for determining the need for nursing home beds in the absence of alternatives of CCE and CORE services is applied to Broward County for the year 1986, it yields a need for 2,715 beds in addition to existing and approved beds to accommodate the homebound and bedfast who will not receive those services. However, when Respondent's methodology in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is applied to Broward County for the year 1986 it yields a need for 1,419 beds in addition to existing and approved beds. Yet, when the theoretical prospective occupancy feature contained in that rule is applied to Broward County, only 101 beds are needed to be built in time for service in 1986. It is noteworthy that the formula used by Respondent to induce the Legislature to fund programs for the diversion of the elderly from nursing homes yields double the need for nursing home beds in Broward County in 1986 than use of the formula established by Respondent to evaluate applications for new nursing home beds. Schwartz identified the reason for the difference: The CCE funding formula takes into account those below the poverty level as well as those above the poverty level in determining the number of people who are at risk of institutionalization unless CCE services are provided. However, Respondent's bed need methodology uses a poverty ratio (number of impoverished in the county relative to number of impoverished in the state) to adjust the statewide standard of 27 beds per thousand downward to 15.5 beds per thousand in Broward County. Since the first part of the bed need methodology only measures nursing home bed need for the impoverished (by adjusting 27 beds per one thousand by a poverty ratio) while the formula used by Aging and Adult Services contemplates all persons at risk of institutionalization, whether impoverished or not, and since the Aging and Adult Services methodology yields a higher need figure, tie difference between the two figures must represent the extent to which private pay patients (not impoverished) are using, and will continue to use, nursing home beds in Broward County to the exclusion of Medicaid patients. Utilizing the first part of the bed need methodology, Respondent has determined that Broward County will need a total of 4,508 beds in 1986 and that, when licensed and approved beds are subtracted, 1,419 additional beds will be needed. However, the second part of the methodology which purports to determine the prospective utilization of nursing home beds limits the number of beds which can be added to 101. The premise behind the prospective utilization test is that the addition of more than 101 beds will result in the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County being reduced below 80 percent. Because of the particular situation existing in Broward County this premise is not valid. In November 1983, Richmond's newly-constructed Sunrise facility had 120 beds in service, but Respondent counted all 240 approved beds as being in service for determining its occupancy rate. These 240 beds were, therefore, occupied at a rate of 24.4 percent. In November 1982, the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County was 89.8 percent, while a year later after including all 240 licensed beds in Richmond's Sunrise facility, the occupancy rate had only fallen 3 points to 86.7 percent. Expert witness Schwartz concludes that if 240 beds can be added In Broward County and only drop the occupancy rate from 89.8 percent to 86.7 percent, then certainly more than 101 beds can be added before the occupancy rate will drop below 80 percent. He further concludes that when One examines what actually happened in Broward County rather than what could theoretically happen, the prospective utilization test may well be a valid predictor of future occupancy rates under normal circumstances, but it fails to be in Broward County. Rather, Schwartz concluded that approximately 1,000 nursing home beds can be added in Broward County without lowering the occupancy rate below 80. Expert witness Theodore Foti explained the effect of Respondent's bed need methodology when applied to Broward County. The methodology is based on the premise that the only people who need nursing homes in Florida are the impoverished since the standard 27 beds per one thousand is adjusted only by the poverty ratio. However, nursing home providers prefer private patients because they pay more. In Broward County there are facilities that only accept private pay patients. The provider receives about 25 percent more profit than he would if he had two individuals to care for in the same room when the difference between private and semi-private rates and the decrease in staffing that is possible with the lesser number of patients are taken into consideration. Because of the shortage of supply and the ever-growing demand in Broward County, it is economically beneficial to a 60 bed nursing home for example to take 20 beds out of service and operate with 40 beds because the owner can increase the rates and lower the costs simultaneously. According to Foti, a review of the occupancy rates in Broward County shows that beds in certain facilities have been taken out of use over a period of time by those facilities. Those providers have chosen to serve primarily the private paying individual since it is to their financial benefit to do so. The corresponding result is that the demand for nursing home beds by the medicaid recipient cannot be satisfied because the private pay patient has "squeezed out" the Medicaid patient. The existence of this phenomena in Broward County rises to the level of an exceptional circumstance since Respondent uses a formula to prescribe prospective occupancy rates which are directly controlled by the number of beds that the existing owners place in service or take out of service. Considering the "private pay phenomena" in Broward County, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in Broward County is the lowest in the state, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in the state is the lowest in the country, Foti calculates a need currently in Broward County to be an additional 800 beds as a minimum figure even without considering the DRG regulations which clearly will accentuate that need. Respondent's witness Porter acknowledged that Respondent would look favorably upon applications for Certificates of Need for additional beds in an area where indications are that Medicaid patients are being denied access to beds although Respondent's bed need methodology simultaneously shows that no new beds are needed. He explained that as an extenuating circumstance if there is evidence that a particular population group is being denied access and that Respondent would look favorably upon applications proposing substantial Medicaid beds (such as those under consideration herein) if accessibility for Medicaid clients is limited. He further acknowledged that the Medicaid program office of the division of Adult and Aging Services would be an appropriate authority upon which he would rely in making such a determination. He further acknowledged that the accessibility to Medicaid beds would be increased in Broward County by issuing Certificates of Need with a Medicaid bed condition attached to them since the Medicaid utilization rate has been increasing in Broward County even though the total number of beds has remained constant. Lynn Raichelson as the supervisor of Respondent's Adult Payments Unit for Broward County is responsible for gathering data reflecting the number of people placed in Medicaid beds during the month in Broward County for Medicaid payment purposes. Both her reports admitted in evidence and her testimony at the final hearing noted an overall difficulty in finding placements in Broward County for Medicaid patients. Her reports indicate a number of entries where all Broward County and Dade County nursing homes were contacted but there were no nursing home beds available. The number of days for placement ranged from 23 to in excess of 83 days. Most of the patients were in acute care hospital beds while awaiting nursing home beds. Several health care professionals testified as to the actual need in Broward County as opposed to the projected need based upon Respondent's mathematical formula. One hospital administrator had no problem placing private pay patients but found that Medicaid placements are extremely difficult to make in Broward County. His hospital alone holds 8 to 12 patients on any given day who should have been discharged into a nursing home. The executive director of the North Broward Hospital District which encompasses three hospitals encounters difficulty in placing Medicaid and Medicare patients in nursing homes in Broward County since the nursing homes are at full operational occupancy. Approximately 25 percent of the patients discharged from hospitals in the District are referred to and placed in nursing homes. Of this 25 percent, the District encounters difficulty in placing 10 to 15 percent of the patients. The problems persist year round but are especially difficult during the winter "peak" season. Alan Mahar is the administrator of the Primary Health Care Division of the Health and Public Safety Department for Broward County. He was the supervisor of nursing home placement from 1975 to 1981 when Broward County was making nursing home placements. Between June 1981 and September 1983 he participated in a Medicaid demonstration project called Pentastar which was sponsored by Respondent's District 10 Aging and Adult Program Office. The purpose of the project was to determine if an alternative existed to keep persons out of nursing homes. An important part of the program was the identification of persons aged 60 and over who were potentially at risk of being placed into a nursing home within one year. Those enrolled in the program had to qualify for Medicaid payments. Although he expected he would need to interview approximately 300 to find 150 persons for the program, everyone he interviewed qualified. At the conclusion of the program, none of the persons who received services through pentastar were any less at risk than they were before those services commenced. Services under that program terminated in September 1983. Since Broward County does not have a publicly operated nursing home, Mahar experienced extreme difficulty in placing Medicaid patients and found that it frequently took weeks and sometimes months to find an available nursing home bed for a Medicaid patient. Mahar's opinion that there is not a sufficient number of beds available to Medicaid patients in Broward County is also based on his identification of the trend over the last three years he has been involved in auditing Medicaid matching funds. The money which Broward County has been paying for hospital care for Medicaid persons has almost doubled in the last three years, while the Medicaid match money for nursing home care has gone up only 15 or 20 percent during that same period. The poverty ratio included in Respondent's bed need formula results in an underestimation of bed need for wealthy counties such as Broward County where the majority of nursing home patients are private pay patients. Broward County is the wealthiest county in the state and has the lowest Medicaid usage in the state. The poverty ratio results in a calculated bed-need ratio in Broward County of 15.5 beds per thousand whereas the statewide need ratio is 27 beds per thousand. There is overwhelming competent substantial evidence to show an actual need for community nursing home beds in Broward County currently and in 1986 for in excess of the 780 beds Petitioners collectively seek herein. Substantial competent evidence was presented to show several special circumstances, and respondent's sole witness acknowledged that one of those was sufficient for the grant of all applications filed by the four Petitioners in this cause. The overwhelming need proven herein was uncontroverted by Respondent, and the special circumstances prohibit Respondent from applying the bed need methodology in Broward County at this time. In view of the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence, there is no need to determine which of the applicants herein is best qualified for the award of the 101 beds in issue in this cause. Additionally, the evidence in this record is insufficient to proclaim any of the applicants to be best qualified. At the final hearing there were a few attempts at a comparative analysis, and none was credible. The attempts at comparative analysis simply resulted in a further substantiation of the fact that all of the applicants are equally qualified. Respondent's witness gave his personal opinion that one of the applicants was preferable but was unable to assign any weight to any of the factors utilized in reaching that individual opinion. Rather, the one factor that he did testify to at length in the hearing as the most important - accessibility by Medicaid patients - was the one item that that applicant would not guarantee. HCR's application for the 101 beds indicated that it would not commit to the number of Medicaid patients that it would serve. In short, the testimony at the hearing and the evidence presented provide very little basis, if any, for choosing one applicant over another. Rather, all applicants meet all criteria, and the need for the number of beds originally requested clearly exists.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Granting to Richmond Healthcare, Inc. a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America a Certificate of Need 120 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Quest Corporation a Certificate of Need for 180 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; and Granting to Federal Property Management a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire 1107 South East Fourth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jean Laramore, Esquire and Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601-1568 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Lewis State Bank Building, Suite 464 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or before July 15, 1985 Petitioner timely filed an application for a certificate of need (CON No. 4179) to add 42 beds to an existing nursing home in Lee County, Florida. Petitioner's application was denied by Respondent, subject to the right to a hearing, by letter dated December 6, 1985 for the sole stated reason that: Application of Chapter 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, to Lee County shows no need for additional beds in the County through 1988. The letter further states that the "basis of the above decision" is contained in the State Agency Action Report. Petitioner timely sought a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing concerning Respondent's notice of its intention to deny this application. The parties filed a Pre-Hearing Stipulation on December 3, 1986 which states that the only statutory criteria at issue in this proceeding are those contained in Sections 381.494(6)(c)1, 2 and 12, as well as the criterion at Section 381.494(6)(c)9, Florida Statutes, insofar as it relates to the need for the proposed additional nursing home beds. Further, the parties stipulated that the only rule criteria at issue are found at Rules 10-5.11(1), (3) and (6), as well as the criterion at Rule 10-5.11(5), Florida Administrative Code, insofar as the long-term financial feasibility of the project is related to the need for the services being proposed. It is readily apparent that the parties have stipulated to issues in this proceeding which may be beyond the scope of the sole reason for denial of this CON application set forth in Respondent's letter of December 6, 1985. The parties' stipulation has been accepted, however, and will therefore define the issues to be determined in this case. Petitioner has an existing 78 bed nursing home in the vicinity of Ft. Myers, Florida. This is located in Respondent's District 8, Subdistrict Lee- County. Previously, Petitioner received approval to construct 120 beds at this facility but was only licensed to use 78 beds. In fact, Petitioner has already constructed, equipped and furnished the additional 42 beds, and now seeks approval to use these beds. No additional capital expenditures would be necessary to place these beds in service. The methodology for calculating need for community nursing home beds is set forth in Rule 10-5.l1(21)(b)1-9, Florida Administrative Code. As more particularly set forth in Findings of Fact 7 through 23, this methodology can be summarized as follows: Determine the planning horizon to which an application is directed. Determine the district's age adjusted number of beds in the horizon year by applying the current bed rates for population age groups 65-74 and 75 + to the district's horizon year population. Determine the gross allocation of beds to the applicable subdistrict by multiplying the district's age adjusted number of beds by the ratio of licensed beds in the subdistrict to licensed beds in the district, and also by the ratio of the average occupancy rate in the subdistrict to .90. For purposes of this calculation in this case, licensed beds are determined as of June 1, 1985 and occupancy rates are those that existed from October, 1984 to March, 1985. Determine the net allocation of beds to the applicable subdistrict by subtracting the total number of licensed beds in the subdistrict at the time of hearing plus 90 percent of approved beds in the subdistrict at the time of hearing from the subdistrict gross allocation. The first step in calculating need pursuant to Respondent's methodology set forth in Rule l0-5.11(21)(b)1-9, Florida Administrative Code, is to establish a planning horizon. Subparagraph (b) of the rule states: the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds three years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10. (Emphasis supplied.) The Respondent interprets this to mean that the planning horizon is established by counting three years into the future from the filing deadline, established by rule, for a particular application. This is a reasonable interpretation and is consistent with the plain meaning of the rule. Thus, in this case the planning horizon to which Petitioner's application is addressed is July 15, 1988. The next step in applying the need methodology is to determine what is meant by "current population" as that term is used in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)2. The Respondent interprets this to mean the population current on the application filing deadline which in this case was July 15, 1985. This is also a reasonable construction of the rule, and is therefore accepted. However, the Respondent further contends that the "current population" estimates to be used in applying the rule methodology are those that were available from the Office of the Governor when this application was submitted, and that more recent updates of those estimates should not be considered. Since all population estimates and projections are only approximations, rather than actual counts, it is more reasonable to use updated revisions of "current population" which may be available at the time of hearing. These are still estimates of the population current as of the date an application is filed (in this case July, 1985), but they can reasonably be expected to be more accurate than the prior estimate. In the same manner, estimates of the planning horizon year population (July, 1988) available at the time of hearing should also be used rather than July, 1985 estimates of that population. Respondent's interpretation which is hereby rejected and which would require the use of population estimates available when the application was submitted, excluding all revisions and updates, is not set forth by rule. Additionally, Respondent offered only the testimony of its consultant, Joyce Farr, to explicate this "incipient policy" but she was neither involved in, nor part of, the decision making process which lead to this announced policy. Further, the position advocated by Farr is at variance with Respondent's prior application and interpretation of its rule, and is contrary to the interpretation used when Petitioner submitted this application. At the time of hearing, Farr did not know of any Final Order of Respondent, nor was any policy memoranda introduced, which set forth and adopted the interpretation she espoused as Respondent's policy. The only explanation offered for her interpretation was that she had been told by her supervisor that Respondent would take this position in all cases as a result of the Recommended Order in Case Number 86-0051, dated October 10, 1986, but not yet acted upon by Respondent at the time of hearing. No other evidence was presented by Respondent in support of Farr's interpretation, or to otherwise explicate this non-rule policy. Before applying the need methodology rule, a determination must also be made as to how "occupancy rates" will be measured, as used in Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)4. As recently as May 8, 1986, Respondent's Administrator of Community Medical Facilities concurred in an interpretive memo prepared by Reid Jaffe, consultant supervisor, which indicated that at the time of hearing the latest available six months occupancy rates would be used. Yet, at hearing Joyce Farr again announced a change of policy to freeze everything, including occupancy rates, to the time of the original application. Under this interpretation, "occupancy rate" in this case would be based on the six months' data for October, 1984 through March, 1985. Petitioners urge the use of "occupancy rate" data from April, 1986 to September, 1986, the latest six months' occupancy data available at the time of hearing. The interpretation announced by Farr at hearing is reasonable, and although in apparent conflict with the interpretive memo dated May 8, 1986, it is consistent with the plain meaning of Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 which requires the review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle (in this case July, 1985) to "be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle" (October, 1984 through March, 1985). Petitioner's position regarding the data to be used in determining "occupancy rate" is therefore rejected as contrary to, and inconsistent with, the plain meaning of the applicable rule. Next, the number of "licensed beds" in District 8 for purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 of the need methodology calculation must be determined. The district licensed bed figure is explained by Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 as follows: Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle should be based upon the number of licenses (sic) beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding that cycle; applications for the January batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and- LBD) as of December 1 preceding that cycle. Petitioner urges that licensed beds be based on June, 1986 data and Respondent urges data from June 1, 1985. Petitioner's position is again contrary to the plain meaning of the rule, and is therefore rejected. For purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4, LB and LBD are determined as of June 1, 1985. Petitioner contends that its 78 community nursing home beds previously authorized by CON 1616 were licensed on May 31, 1985, and should therefore be counted as "licensed beds." Respondent's witness testified that these beds were actually licensed on June 3, 1985, and therefore should not be considered "licensed beds" for purposes of applying subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 of the need methodology calculation in this case. Petitioner has the burden of proof, but has not offered competent substantial evidence to support its position. It has not established that these 78 beds should be considered "licensed beds" for purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 since it has not been established that they were actually licensed on or before June 1, 1985. The provisions of Rule l0-5.1l(21)(b)1-4 and 7 can therefore be applied to calculate gross bed need for Lee County using July 15, 1988 as the applicable planning horizon, updated estimates of "current population" for July 15, 1985 and for the planning horizon which were introduced by Petitioner, the "occupancy rate" as determined by data from October, 1984 through March, 1985 which was introduced through exhibit by Respondent, and the number of "licensed beds" in District 8 and the Lee County subdistrict on June l, 1985, as also introduced through exhibit by Respondent. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive BA, the current bed rate for the age group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph (b)2 of Rule 10-5.11(21) as follows: BA = LB / (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The district licensed bed figure (LB) is then defined by subparagraph (b)7 as follows: Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle should be based upon the number of licenses (sic) beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding that cycle; applications - for the January batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of December 1 preceding that cycle. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)2 to this case produces the following calculation: BA = LB / (POPC + (6 x POPD) BA = 4,005 / (131,642 + (6 x 79,661) BA = 4,005 / (131,642 + 477,966) BA = 4,005 / 609,608 BA = .0065698 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB", the current bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph (b)3, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0065698 BB = .0394188 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A", the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph (b)1 as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future . . . Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)1 to this case produces the following calculation: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) A = (142,791 x .0065698 + (90,467 x .0394188) A = 938.10831 + 3,566.1006 A = 4504 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA", the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community home beds" (gross bed need in this case). This calculation is defined by subparagraph (b)4 as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle . . . . The subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is defined, consistently with LB, by subparagraph (b)7, supra. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)4 to this case produces a gross need in July 1988 of beds, as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) SA = 4504 x (808/4005) x (.9689/.90) SA = 4504 x .20174 x 1.0766 SA = 978. The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph (b)9, this need is derived as follows: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant depart- mental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under sub- paragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8). . . (Emphasis added.) In order to apply subparagraph (b)9 and thereby determine "net" need, it is necessary to decide on what date the licensed bed inventory should be calculated. Respondent asserts that "licensed beds" for purposes of subparagraph (b)9 is the same as LB and LBD used in subparagraph (b)2 and 4, as defined in (b)7. The rule, however, is silent as to how licensed bed inventory should be calculated for purposes of subparagraph (b)8. Respondent did not explicate the reasons for its interpretation. Respondent's position that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory for subparagraph (b)9 ignores not only the clear link between (b)7 and the gross need methodology, but also the plain language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9 which is to derive a realistic estimate of net (or actual) need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles will serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it is only reasonable to include these beds when calculating net need. It would be unreasonable not to count any beds licensed or approved after June 1, 1985 in the calculation of net need. In fact, subparagraph (b)9 itself addresses "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not just beds that existed on June 1 1985. Petitioner's 78 beds should therefore be counted as "licensed" for purposes of applying the net need methodology calculation in subparagraph (b)9 of Rule 10-5.11(21), and the 143 beds reserved pursuant to the decision in-Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) should be counted as "approved beds". Net need is then calculated under subparagraph (b)8 as follows: Subdistrict allocation for Lee County = 978 Less Licensed beds = 996 Less 90 percent of 143 approved beds = 129 Surplus in Lee County = 148 Therefore, according to Respondent's need methodology as established in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) there is a surplus of beds in Lee County for the planning horizon to which Petitioner's application is directed. Petitioner has not established that there is a need for the beds sought in CON 4179 under review in this case. The source in the record of the data used in the above calculations is as follows: LB, LBD, OR - Respondent's Exhibits 1,2 POPC, POPD, POPA, POPS - Petitioner's Exhibit 4 It has not been established that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but are unable to access services currently available. The need for services which have been denied has not been documented by attending physicians' plans of care or orders, or assessments by either Respondent or attending physicians, as required by Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10. Petitioner has not established that a geographic or economic accessibility problem exists in Lee County which would warrant approval of this application notwithstanding the lack of need under the methodology of Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent issue a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for CON 4179. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0047 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3, 4. Although true, rejected as unnecessary as a separate Finding of Fact. 4. Rejected in Findings of Fact 12, 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 6-23. Rejected as simply a quote from an exhibit and not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 9-11 Rejected in Findings of Fact 6-23. 12-19 Rejected in Findings of Fact 26, 27 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 20 Rejected in Findings of Fact 10, 11. 21-22 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings of fact 26, 27 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Although true, rejected as unnecessary as a separate finding of fact. 25-32 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 33-36 Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and statement of position rather than a finding of fact; otherwise cumulative and unnecessary. 37-38 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 39-44 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 45-47 Rejected in Findings of Fact 12, 13 and otherwise irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6-23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise rejected in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7-9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, but rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Fl 32314-6507 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, a nursing home, committed the offenses alleged in the three-count administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a skilled nursing home in Stuart, Florida, and is licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to the provisions of Part I of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to license and regulate nursing home facilities in Florida. V.S. is a female born July 13, 1963, who was admitted to Respondent's nursing home with the diagnoses "osteomyelitis to hip and pelvis" and "quadriplegic" [sic]. V.S. was a patient at Respondent's nursing home between March 29, 2002, and April 26, 2002. On April 27, 2002, Mary Kristen Morris, a registered nurse employed by a home health care agency, examined V.S. and filled out a form styled Skin Assessment and Care on which she charted the areas on the patient's body that contained wounds and described each wound. At issue in this proceeding is what Ms. Morris referred to as wound "B", and which she described as being a "tunnel wound" that was one and a half centimeters long, one tenth centimeter wide, and four to five centimeters deep. Ms. Morris testified that she used the term "tunnel" because the wound had a very small opening on the surface of the skin, but it had more depth than one can see without probing the wound. Ms. Morris believed the wound was consistent with a prior surgical procedure that occurred before the patient was admitted to Respondent's nursing home. Ms. Morris did not describe the wound as being a pressure sore or as a bed sore. While it was clear that Ms. Morris did not think this was a new wound, her testimony fails to establish that the wound was visible to caregivers during the time V.S. was a patient in Respondent's nursing home. A copy of the Skin Assessment and Care form completed by Ms. Morris on April 27, 2002, was provided Respondent and became a part of the medical chart for V.S. James Eric Johnson is a registered nurse specialist employed by Petitioner to conduct surveys of nursing homes. Mr. Johnson, on behalf of Petitioner, conducted a survey of Respondent's nursing home on May 8, 2002. Mr. Johnson reviewed the medical chart for V.S., which included the Skin Assessment and Care form prepared by Ms. Morris. Mr. Johnson noted that there was no reference to what Ms. Morris charted as wound "B" in the medical records prepared by Respondent's staff. Based on that failure and his assumption that the wound observed by Ms. Morris on April 27, 2002, existed and should have been observable to Respondent's staff prior to the patient's discharge, Mr. Johnson prepared the survey report containing the alleged violations at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Morris did not talk to any of Respondent's staff that had provided care to V.S. prior to her discharge on April 26, 2002. Nancy Calise, a registered nurse employed by Respondent's nursing home during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, observed the patient's buttocks on April 24 and 25, 2002, during her shift. Following the patient's bath, Ms. Calise applied a barrier cream to the patient's buttocks. Ms. Calise testified, credibly, that V.S. did not have a wound on her buttocks on either April 24 or April 25, 2002. Elizabeth McConnell, a licensed practical nurse employed by Respondent's nursing home during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, observed the patient's buttocks on April 25, 2002. Ms. McConnell testified, credibly, that V.S. did not have a wound on her buttocks on April 25, 2002. Elma Callaway, a certified nursing assistant, employed by Respondent's nursing home during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, bathed the patient on April 26, 2002, the date she was discharged. Ms. Callaway testified, credibly, that V.S. did not have a wound on her buttocks on April 26, 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 2nd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Nelson Rodney, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 8355 Northwest 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33166 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The central issue for disposition is whether Certificate of Need no. 7750, for 24 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds should be awarded to Petitioner, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s). To resolve that issue it is necessary to resolve factual issues regarding the need for the proposed beds and a legal issue regarding the impact of Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America v. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. 671 So.2d 217 (Fla 1st DCA 1996) (Tarpon Springs) on the fixed need pool published in the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994 in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) is a not- for-profit hospital which has operated in the Tampa, Florida area for over fifty years. It is currently licensed for 883 acute- care beds; it owns John Knox Village, which includes an adult congregate living facility and medical center nursing home; and it offers other services in a continuum of health care. St. Joseph’s also has a 19-bed, in-hospital skilled nursing care unit which became operational in early 1995. The Agency for Health Care Administration (agency or AHCA) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the certificate of need (CON) process described in sections 408.031 through 408.045, Florida Statutes (“the Health Facility and Services Development Act”). The Process The fixed need pool published by AHCA in vol. 20, number 15, April 15, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly, projected a need for 94 additional nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the January 1997 planning horizon. There is no evidence that this fixed need pool was challenged. Approximately eleven health care providers, including St. Joseph’s, responded to the fixed need pool notice with applications for CON’s ranging from 10 to 94 beds. Some of those applicants, like St. Joseph’s, were hospitals seeking hospital- based skilled nursing beds. After comparative review of the applications, AHCA issued its state agency action report (SAAR) on September 16, 1994, denying some and granting others, and explaining the basis for its intended actions. Some of the beds were awarded for a hospital-based skilled nursing unit; St. Joseph’s application for 24 in-hospital beds was denied in the comparative review that determined St. Joseph’s application was inferior to others in meeting statutory and rule criteria. The applicants’ petitions for formal hearing were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by AHCA and were consolidated in a single proceeding relating to the 94 beds in District 6, Subdistrict 1. On October 19, 1995, during the pendancy of appeal of the DOAH Final Order in Tarpon Springs, all of the parties in the consolidated cases executed and filed a stipulation which disposes of 93 out of the 94 available beds in the fixed need pool. The stipulation provides that all of the applicants, except St. Joseph’s, withdrew their petitions for formal hearing. As to St. Joseph’s, the stipulation provides: St. Joseph’s has previously withdrawn its opposition to the applications of all other parties to this proceeding by its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petitions for Administrative Hearing and Notice of Lack of Opposition, dated September 13, 1995. St. Joseph’s and AHCA stipulate that Case No. 94-6236, wherein St. Joseph’s challenged the denial of its application for certificate of need 7750 to add 24 skilled nursing unit beds, should be held in abeyance pending the final judicial determination of Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, et al. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Proceeding below DOAH Case Nos. 94-0958RU and 94-1165RU, reported at 16 FALR 3420, presently on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal). St. Joseph’s acknowledges that the terms of this settlement will deplete the fixed bed need pool determined to be available for this application cycle, assents to the same, and maintains its position that its application should be approved notwithstanding the lack of availability of community nursing home beds within the fixed bed need pool. All other parties to this agreement except for AHCA hereby withdraw their petitions filed in this proceeding in opposition to the application of St. Joseph’s for certificate of need 7750 and waive any challenge or protest that they may have to the issuance of certificate of need 7750. St. Joseph’s hereby agrees not to oppose the transfer of up to seven (7) beds from this application cycle to TGH. After remand of all of the consolidated cases except St. Joseph’s (DOAH no. 94-6236), AHCA entered its final order on December 13, 1995, awarding CON’s for 93 beds to various of the applicants. Some of those 93 beds were awarded for hospital- based skilled nursing units. This final order depleted the fixed need pool of all but one bed. In their prehearing stipulation filed on August 29, 1996, AHCA and St. Joseph’s admitted these relevant facts: The appropriate planning area is Hillsborough County; The appropriate planning horizon for the application is January 1997. Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code was appropriately used in determining the bed need for Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994; and The numbers used to derive the project pool of 94 beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1 for the January 1997 planning horizon were accurate and appropriate. At the hearing and in its proposed recommended order, St. Joseph’s concedes that it did not apply for beds under “not normal” circumstances. The Project St. Joseph’s proposes to establish a 24 bed, hospital- based skilled nursing unit in an area of its main hospital building by converting 24 acute care beds to this use. The project involves 19,600 square feet of renovation at a total project cost of $684,731, including conversion costs of $331,940. Actual out-of-pocket costs for the project are $352.791. The skilled nursing beds within the hospital facility are intended to contribute to St. Joseph’s goal of providing a full continuum of care for its patients, with services provided at different levels for a medically-appropriate and cost- effective outcome. St. Joseph’s anticipates that the patient using the skilled nursing (also called “subacute care”) unit would be one coming from the acute care setting and requiring less-acute care, but a more intensive level of care and a shorter length of stay than generally offered in a typical nursing home. All ancillary services and therapies will be available at the hospital seven days a week. Rehabilitative services, which are critical to the patient likely to use the skilled nursing beds, include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and recreation therapy. Need Analysis/Impact on Existing Programs Virtually all of the referrals to the proposed new beds will come from within St. Joseph’s. This is the experience of the new 19 bed unit. The hospital’s doctors and their patients prefer to not transfer to an outside facility and they plan in advance, as part of their treatment goals, that the subacute rehabilitative phase of treatment will be in St. Joseph’s own skilled nursing unit. The multi-discipline health care team evaluates and identifies patients who will benefit from such treatment; patients are not automatically shifted down to the unit. The existing unit enjoys a near-100 percent occupancy rate and has a waiting list for patients. Sometimes patients are held in an acute care bed while awaiting transfer to a vacant bed in the skilled nursing unit. This is an inappropriate use of the acute care bed. Few, if any patients would come from other hospitals. Since many hospitals now have their own skilled nursing units, there is little exchange of patients. In the experience of St. Joseph’s staff, other hospitals generally fill their own units from within in their own “continuum of care” system. John Knox Village is not an alternative for patients who need to “step-down” from acute to subacute care. John Knox is eleven miles from St. Joseph’s and does not provide the intensity of care that is offered in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. There are subacute care, or skilled nursing care, beds in Hillsborough County in free-standing, not hospital-based units. These alternative facilities are not all fully occupied and some offer similar services and treat patients comparable to those treated in the hospital-based units. Evidence that the free-standing skilled nursing facilities are not appropriate alternatives to St. Joseph’s new beds was largely anecdotal. Although Dr. Wasylik, St. Joseph’s chief of orthopedics, is generally familiar with facilities in which he has patients, his observation that transfer of patients from St. Joseph’s would not be appropriate is based on his concern that the “continuity of care” would be disrupted. In other words, even before surgery and admission to an acute care bed, a “critical pathway” in the patient’s rehabilitation is developed. Another facility might have a different pathway that would disrupt the rehabilitative process. Better continuity of care, in Wasylik’s view, translates into quicker, and thereby more cost-effective, recovery. Financial Considerations Although the agency found some inconsistencies in the financial data included in St. Joseph’s application, those inconsistencies affected only the scoring of the application in a competitive batching cycle. The agency witness who provided financial review of the application conceded there was no problem with funding the project, and due to the small size of the project in relation to the size of St. Joseph’s, the project would not have a significant impact on the cost of other services provided by St. Joseph’s. The proposed project would generate a positive financial return for St. Joseph’s. In the proforma financial statement included with the application, the hospital used an occupancy rate of 74%; the actual occupancy rate experienced in the new 19 bed unit is higher. Some of the problems the agency found when reviewing St. Joseph’s application were adequately explained at hearing. For example, the actual cost of the project is less than what the agency found in the financial projections in the application. Also, if, as the agency contends, St. Joseph’s has over-stated its projection of Medicaid patients, a lower Medicaid utilization rate will actually inure to the benefit of St. Joseph’s, since the Medicaid reimbursement rate is lower than for other payor sources. While not obvious on the face of the application, the financial assumptions provided by St. Joseph’s were sufficient to extrapolate valid projected salary expenses in the second year of operation. In summary, a CON application, by necessity, includes estimates and projections of expenses and revenue generated by the proposed project. St. Joseph’s now has the experience, which it did not have when the application was prepared, of the actual expenses and revenue from its 19 bed unit. That actual experience helps validate its prediction of financial feasibility for the proposed 24 beds. Architectural Issues At hearing, St. Joseph’s clarified its intent to not delicense nor relocate acute care beds to make room for the proposed 24 bed skilled nursing unit. Nor does it intend to “phase in” the skilled nursing beds, if approved. Neither of these intentions is clear from the face of the application and the architectural review by the agency raised questions on these issues. The questions affected St. Joseph’s overall standing in a competitive review process, but are not serious enough to foreclose approval if the application is considered on its own merit. The application states that the new beds would be co- located with the existing 19 beds. But if there is not sufficient room, as long as St. Joseph’s can accomplish the project at or below the approved project cost, and as long as St. Joseph’s obtains agency approval for placing the beds elsewhere (which approval is routinely granted), the precise location of the beds within St. Joseph’s facility is not a problem. The beds may not, nor are they intended to be, co-mingled with acute care beds in the hospital. Upon construction, the 24 beds will meet all of the licensure, building code and other regulations applicable to a skilled nursing unit within an acute care hospital. Balancing the Criteria and Summary of Findings There is little dispute that St. Joseph’s has the financial resources to complete the approved project and to operate it successfully. Nor is quality of care, either in the existing facility and projected in the future, an issue of dispute. The questions raised in the financial review and architectural review are not impediments to approval. There are two significant problems with St. Joseph’s proposal. St. Joseph’s serves the entire planning district, and the impact of new beds must be considered in that district-wide health-planning perspective. St. Joseph’s generates enough patients from within its own hospital to fill the beds close to capacity. Other facilities providing similar services in the district are not at full capacity. The possibility of those existing facilities serving as an alternative to new beds was not adequately explored by St. Joseph’s, but was rejected out of an abundance of pride in its own fine services, or physician and patient loyalty. Patient and physician preference does impact “real world” utilization of health care facilities but cannot drive the health planning decisions that are made in the CON process. The second, and most significant impediment to St. Joseph’s application is that only one bed remains in the fixed need pool established for the relevant planning horizon. As discussed below, Tarpon Springs did not invalidate that fixed need pool. St. Joseph’s application does not reflect a willingness to accept any fewer than the requested beds, much less an award of only one single bed. (See, Respondent’s Exhibit 12, CON application, p. 34)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order denying CON number 7750 to St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1997. MARY CLARK 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 23rd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Baker & Hostetler Suite 2000 100 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That Manor Care be issued a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Palm Bay Care Center be awarded a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Forum Group be awarded a CON for a 40 bed nursing home and Courtenay Springs be awarded a CON for 36 nursing home beds. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-99675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas B. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 180 Orlando, Florida 32802 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Suite 100 Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan G. Tuttle, Esquire 402 South Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Suite B 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties herein. 1-13 Accepted. 14 & 15 Accepted. 16-18 Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. 19-23 Accepted. 24 Accepted. 25-29 Accepted. 30 & 31 Accepted. 32 Irrelevant. 33-34 Accepted. 35-37 Accepted. 38-46 Accepted. 47 & 48 Accepted. 49 & 50 Accepted. 51 Discussion, not Finding of Fact. 52-56 Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted to the fact that there were no sheltered beds in existence. Irrelevant. 61-63 Accepted but not of substantial positive value. 64 & 65 Accepted. Opinion not Finding of Fact. Accepted. 68-75 Accepted. 76-80 Irrelevant based on part operation and evidence shows facility is to be sold. 81-85 Irrelevant - see next 86-90 Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a Finding of Fact. 91 Not a Finding of Fact. 92-94 Accepted. 95 Irrelevant as to local district. 96-103 Accepted. 104-105 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman supported. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman indicated. 108-110 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact. 114-118 Accepted. 119&120 Not a Finding of Fact. 121&122 Accepted. 123 Accepted as to the one facility currently operated. 124-127 Accepted. Speculation insufficient to support a Finding of Fact. Argument, not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 131-133 Accepted. 134 Not a Finding of Fact. 135-137 Accepted. 138 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 139-147 Accepted. 148&149 Not a Finding of Fact. 150-164 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony, not a Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. 167-176 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence Rejected as a summary of testimony. Accepted. 180&181 Accepted. 182 Irrelevant. 183&184 Accepted. 185 Rejected as a conclusion. 186&187 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. As to Manor Care 1 Accepted. 2&3 Rejected as not a part of the case. 4 Accepted. 5-7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 10-11 Accepted. 12 Accepted. 13-19 Accepted. 20-22 Accepted. As to Forum 1-13 Accepted. 14-16 Accepted. 17-22 Accepted. 23&24 Accepted. 25-27 Accepted. 28-31 Accepted. 32 Accepted. 33-35 Accepted. 36 Rejected as speculation. 37-42 Accepted. 43 Accepted. 44-47 Accepted. 48&49 Accepted. 50-55 Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion not consistent with the evidence. Accepted. 58&59 Accepted. 60-64 Accepted. 65-69 Accepted. 70&71 Irrelevant. 72&73 Accepted. 74-76 Accepted. Accepted as to the first sentence. Second sentence is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. As to PBCC 1&2 Accepted. 3 Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. 46 Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. 10-12 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence except for the first sentence which is accepted. Rejected. 15-20 Accepted. 21-27 Accepted. 28 Rejected as an overstatement and not supported by the evidence. 29&30 Accepted. 31 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 32-38 Accepted. 39-43 Accepted. 44-50 Accepted. 51-57 Accepted. Accepted except for the first sentence which is unsupported by credible evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. As to Courtenay This party failed to number or otherwise identify its Findings of Fact individually. Therefore, no specific ruling as to each Finding of Fact is hereby made. In light of the ultimate recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the party's CON be approved, no prejudice to this party can be said to have occurred. As to DHRS 1-4 Accepted 5 Summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 6-1 Is an argument of the party's position, not a Finding of Fact. 12-14 Rejected as matters not a part of the party's position at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 19-22 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 25-28 Accepted. 29-31 Accepted.
Findings Of Fact On November 17, 1987, Petitioner was awarded CON 3746 to construct a 60-bed addition to its existing facility, Suwannee Health Care Center, in Live Oak, Florida. On July 14, 1988, Petitioner filed the application in the instant case. Petitioner proposes to transfer the 60 beds authorized by CON 3746 to Florida Land Trust Number Seven (the Land Trust). The Land Trust is the owner of a 60-bed nursing home in Live Oak, Florida, called Surrey Place Nursing Center of Live Oak (Surrey Place). Surrey Place is operated by Health Care Associates (HCA), which is owned by the beneficiaries of the Land Trust. The construction of Surrey Place was authorized by CON 3395 and Surrey Place opened in January, 1988. The application for CON 3395 was filed on July 16, 1984. Petitioner's proposal is for the 60 beds to be constructed as a 60-bed addition to Surrey Place. By letter dated August 11, 1988, HRS returned the application for expedited review of the transfer to Petitioner. The letter states that the proposal by Petitioner "is not merely a transfer of a CON, but rather an addition of beds to an existing facility which would change the scope and operation of the existing nursing home. Therefore, the addition of beds requires a full batched review." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. HRS did not review the application on its merits prior to issuing the August 11, 1988 letter. Suwannee Health Care Center and Surrey Place are both located in the same planning subdistrict and are located within one-half mile of each other. Transfer It is HRS's policy that a "transfer" occurs only when a new owner agrees to take over a project and implement it exactly as originally approved. Also, it is HRS's policy that the transferee should be the applicant for a transfer. In the past, however, HRS has accepted for review and approved transfers where the application was filed by the transferrer. Also, HRS in the past has approved transfers which involved more than just a mere change of ownership. These transfers resulted in the combination of the beds approved by the CON to be transferred with the beds approved by other CONs with the end result being the construction of a larger nursing home facility than was contemplated under either CON. Combination During the 1988 Session of the Florida Legislature, Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest) advocated to the Legislature that certain legislation amending Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, be enacted. Health Quest drafted the proposed legislation and lobbied for its enactment. Health Quest wanted the amendment because it had a CON for a 180-bed nursing home to be built in Sarasota County which it wanted to divide into a 120-bed freestanding facility and a 60-bed addition to an existing facility in Sarasota County. During the 1988 Legislative Session, HRS and Health Quest entered into an Agreement. The entire Agreement provides that: AGREEMENT This Agreement is made between Health Quest Corporation ("Health Quest") and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") this 31st day of May, 1988. RECITALS Health Quest holds CON No. 3278 ("the CON") authorizing a 180-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. Health Quest operates a 53-bed nursing home ("the Facility") adjacent to the Lake Pointe Woods retirement complex in Sarasota. On September 29, 1987, Health Quest filed with HRS an application seeking expedited review for its proposal to divide the CON into a 60-bed component and a 120-bed component. As set forth in the application, the 60-bed component is for an addition to the Facility and the 120-bed component is for a freestanding facility. Since on or before September 4, 1987, it has been the Department's position that such division or consolidation could be accomplished only through batched comparative review. Currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") is a Section 120.57(1) petition filed by Health Quest contesting the refusal of HRS to review Health Quest's September 29, 1987 application as a project subject to expedited review. The Florida Legislature is considering the enactment of the Affordable Health Care Assurance Act of 1988 ("the Act"). The Act would amend Section 381.706(2), Florida Statutes, to add subsections (j) and (k), providing for expedited review of applications to divide a single approved facility or to consolidate two or more approved certificates of need into a single facility. The Act would also add Section 381.705(3) to limit the criteria for review of certain applications filed under Section 381.706(2)(j) or 381.706(2)(k) and would add Section 381.710(2)(d) providing for extension of the validity period of CONs for which applications under Section 381.706(2)(j) or 381.706(2)(k) are filed. Contingent upon passage of the Act, HRS and Health Quest wish to settle the DOAH proceeding and other litigation involving the September 29, 1987 application to divide CON 3278. TERMS HRS acknowledges that an applicant would be entitled, under the Act, to expedited review of applications not only to divide or consolidate CONs but to do both at the same time, e.g., divide 60 beds from CON 3278 and consolidate these beds into the existing beds at the Facility now operated by Health Quest. At such time as the Act becomes law and Health Quest files an application substantially similar to its September 29, 1987 application, HRS agrees that the validity period of CON 3278 shall, due to litigation involving the division and consolidation of CON 3278 commenced on February 17, 1988, be extended 168 days to January 17, 1989. This Agreement does not constitute a waiver on the part of Health Quest of any right to additional extension of the validity period after August 2, 1988 if the Department fails to approve the application on or before said date. Upon approval of the application, Health Quest shall dismiss the DOAH proceeding and the District Court of Appeals proceeding involving the division of CON 3278. The Agreement was signed by J. Robert Griffin, M.A., J.D., HRS's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, and Charles M. Loeser, Health Quest's Vice President and General Counsel. The amendments referred to in the Agreement were enacted by the Legislature and are now codified in Sections 381.706(2)(j) and (k), 381.705(3) and 381.710(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). On July 1, 1988, Health Quest submitted to HRS a second application for expedited review of its proposal to divide 60 beds from a 180-bed CON and add the 60 beds to an existing 53-bed facility which it owned. HRS reviewed the application using the review criteria set forth in Section 381.705(3), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), approved it, and issued CON 5655 on August 5, 1988. Notwithstanding the passage of the 1988 Amendments, the Agreement, and the issuance of CON 5655, HRS's interpretation of Section 381.706, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), is that the addition of beds to an existing facility requires full comparative batched review and, therefore, cannot be approved by expedited review. HRS interprets the provisions of Section 381.706(2)(j) as requiring that at least two CONs be in existence at the time of the proposed combination. In HRS's view two CONs can only exist if the two facilities approved by the CONs have not been built, since it is HRS's policy that a CON ceases to exist when a license is issued for the facility to begin operation. Review Criteria The proposed addition of 60 beds to Surrey Place is financially feasible. The Land Trust and its principals have the financial resources to complete the project and are capable of developing and managing the project. The Land Trust and its principals have previous experience successfully operating nursing homes in Florida and have a history of providing quality care. Surrey Place was built with the expectation that it would eventually consist of 120 beds. Except for the addition of the 60 beds, the scope and operation of Surrey Place will not change.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a Final Order approving Petitioner's application. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-10. Accepted. Some of these proposed findings of fact are subordinate to facts found. 11. Irrelevant. 12.-27. Accepted. Some of the proposed findings of fact are subordinate to facts found. 28.-30. Accepted, except to the extent they imply that the approval was for the addition of beds to an existing facility. 31-34. Rejected as irrelevant; what final action HRS would have taken is unknown. Irrelevant. True but irrelevant; HRS is free to change its policy if it can explicate it at hearing. 37.-39. Accepted. 40.-42. Accepted, except last sentence of 42 which is rejected. The Careage transfer was for an addition of beds to a facility not yet built. 43.-47. Rejected as irrelevant. 48-54. Accepted. 55.-59. Accepted. 60.-61. Accepted, but the policy manual describes HRS's past unwritten policy. 62. Rejected as argument. Rulings on HRS'S Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate to facts found. Accepted. However, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Land Trust through its trustee and beneficiaries will be able to fund the project. Accepted. 5.-6. Accepted that this is HRS's policy and interpretation of the statutes. However, see Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted that this is HRS's basis for its interpretation. However, in this case, the competitive environment is not changed. Rejected. The Department was directed to issue the CON because there was need in the area and not because of the uniqueness of the facility. First sentence accepted to the extent that Petitioner did not specifically mention Section 351.706 in its application. However, by the time of hearing the applicability of the statute was not in question and an issue in the case was whether the proposal met the language of the statute. Rest of paragraph accepted as HRS's policy. 11.-14. Accepted as HRS's policy. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as argument. Irrelevant, since no final action on the merits was taken. Accepted that this is HRS's policy, but see Conclusions of Law. Accepted that this is HRS's current policy. However, HRS has in the recent past accepted and approved transfer applications filed by the transferee. First two sentences accepted. Last sentence rejected; HRS knew enough to enter into the agreement and failed to present any evidence that what it knew then somehow changed. Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant and argument. Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Boone, Boone, Klingbeil and Boone, P.A. Stephen K. Boone, Esquire 1001 Avenida del Circle Venice, Florida 34284 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
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
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The parties' stipulation The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Forum and Amedex timely filed their respective letters of intent and applications with the Department and the District Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. The Department ultimately deemed the applications complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the applications. Forum and Amedex each timely filed a petition requesting a formal hearing on the denial of their application. With regard to the Forum application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Forum's project financially unfeasible, that the project is not the best use of Forum's resources, and that Forum fails to meet the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Forum's 60-bed proposal. With regard to the Amedex application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Amedex's project financially unfeasible, and that the project is not the best use of Amedex's resources. The Department further contends that Amedex has not demonstrated that it can provide quality of care, that it has not demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the short or long term, that it has not provided long range plans and that, even assuming minimal need, the size of Amedex' proposed project will cause difficulty in meeting projected utilization needs based on Broward County's past utilization rates. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Amedex' 240-bed proposal. As between the applicants, they agree that a comparative review is appropriate to determine the best applicant. Further, they agree for purposes of this proceeding that the other meets all statutory and rule criteria, at least minimally, except the following: need beyond 60 beds, ability to provide quality of care, and availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation. The parties have further agreed that there are no special circumstances existent in this case upon which a certificate of need is being sought. The Amedex Proposal In July 1986 Amedex filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a 240-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. The total project cost is projected to be $9,040,228. At hearing, Amedex failed to offer any competent proof to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposed project, that it could provide quality care, or that it had available the necessary funds for project accomplishment and operation. 1/ While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Amedex's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health services would be a more appropriate use of the resources. The Forum Proposal In July 1986, Forum also filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. Forum's application sought leave to construct a 60-bed facility. The estimated cost for construction of Forum's proposed nursing home is $2,39,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Forum's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resources. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops, and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Broward County that would consist of 120 apartments for independent living, a 30-bed adult congregate living facility, and the proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home. Forum has packaged its centers to provide these three levels of service to meet the desires of retired persons they hope to attract to their retirement community. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum would offer a wide range of services for its residents including: 24-hour skilled and intermediate nursing care, physical therapy services, and other restorative services. Additionally, Forum proposes to offer, as needed, subacute services such as: intravenous care, continuous bladder irrigation, oxygen therapy, nastrogastric tube feeding, ventilator care, insulin treatment, sterile dressing changes, and sterile care of tracheotomies. Forum also proposes to offer in the future, if need is identified and if any necessary agreements can be reached, respite care, adult day care, meals on wheels and hospice care. Forum proposes to seek medicare and medicaid certification, and will dedicate 25 of its beds to medicaid patients. Forum has a history of providing quality care at its existing facilities, and will provide quality care at the proposed facility. Forum has demonstrated the immediate and long term financial feasibility of its proposed project. Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. Due to the excellent growth potential in Broward County for retirement living centers, Forum should be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible. However, in view of the lack of numeric need for such facility as discussed infra, Forum's success will be to the detriment of existing and approved facilities. Numeric need The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2, Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology ... the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i... The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case, establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2 a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict (in this case the district and subdistrict are the same--Broward County) in the horizon year. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA," the estimated bed rate for the population age-group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA = LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB) is calculated based on the number of licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986, and that there were 3,226 licensed beds in the district on that date. 2/ The parties do not, however, agree as to the date on which POPC and POPD should be derived. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Forum contends that the appropriate date to establish the "current population" for POPC and POPD is January 1, 1986. The Department contends that the appropriate date is the date of application. In the opinion of David Warner, which opinion is credited, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that date, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of the Department. Between December 1984 and December 1986, the Department routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. That three and one half year spread was adopted by the Department for the same reasons expressed by Dr. Warner. In the batching cycle of January 1987, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2b to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + (6 x 110,217) BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + 661,302) BA = 3,226 / 820,180 BA = .0039332 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB," the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0039332 BB = .0235992 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A," the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. The parties concur that POPA and POPB are, respectively, 165,533 and 128,250 for the horizon year. Accordingly, application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a produces the following calculation: A = (165,533 x .0039332) + (128,250 x .0235992) A = 651.07439 + 3,026.5974 A = 3,677.67 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA," the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds" (gross bed need in this case. 3/ This calculation is defined by subparagraph 2d as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept. Accordingly, the parties agree that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d, but, rather is defined by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In Broward County (District X) LB and LBD are the same since the county has not been divided into subdistricts. Application of the foregoing methodology to the facts of this case produces a gross need in July 1989 of 3,453 beds, computed as follows: 4/ SA = 3,677.67 x (3226/3226) x (.845/.9) SA = 3,677.67 x 1 x .938888 SA = 3452.92 The net need calculation The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net reed from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed need allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for certificate of need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental sub- district from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. Notably, former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 comports with the new rule in all material respects. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts, through application of "policy," that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 for calculating LB and LBD), and the number of approved beds as of December 1, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). Forum would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no proof to expose and elucidate its policy choice. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and Forum for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. 5/ The inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph 2i, as well as former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's policy choice concerning the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational since it could result in some nursing home beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed in June 1, 1986, but licensed before the supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report (SAAR), they would not be counted in either inventory. Since the purpose of subparagraph 2i is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures, to the greatest extent possible, that the horizon population will not be over or underserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated by reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds, from previous batching cycles, existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing, there were 3,226 licensed beds and 695 approved beds in the district/subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a surplus of 399 community nursing home beds in the district for the June 1989 planning horizon. Consistency with State and local health plans The parties have stipulated that both proposals are consistent with the State and local health plans except for Forum's facial failure to comply with the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. Pertinent to this issue, the local health plan provides: In addition to controlling capacity in order to discourage the construction of unneeded beds, the certificate of need program addresses cost containment by encouraging efficiencies in operation as a criteria to certificate of need approval. A number of operational models have historically proven to be positive influences on efficiency. Licensure laws, for instance, require nursing home staffing patterns to be structured in minimum modules of 30 bed configurations. As a result, the construction of nursing homes with beds totalling numbers not divisible by 30, has the capability of encouraging over staffing. Similarly, experience has shown that freestanding nursing homes constructed at less than 120 beds also are less cost efficient compared to larger facilities. Likewise, since construction and corresponding debt service retirement is greater for freestanding facilities than for new construction on existing facilities, expansion and conversion as an alternative to new construction frequently acts to reduce costs. The basis for the 120-bed minimum size for a "freestanding" facility in the local health plan is to insure efficiency and economy of scale. The 60- bed project proposed by Forum is not "freestanding" but is an integral part of a retirement center which also includes 120 independent living units and a 30-bed adult congregate living facility. Under the circumstances, the economies and efficiencies contemplated by the local health plan will be achieved, and Forum's proposal is consistent with such plan. The local health plan also provides, as a recommendation, that: ... applications for certificates of need to construct additional nursing home beds should be approved so as to support the State policy of 27 beds/1000 population over age 65 in Broward County. Considering the population over age 65 at the applicants' planning horizon, as well as the number of licensed and approved beds in the district, calculates a 14.36 beds/1000 population over age 65 for July 1989. Accordingly, the applicants' proposal is consistent with state and local health plans regarding bed to population ratio. Comparative Review As between the competing applicants, the proof demonstrates that Forum is the superior applicant, and that were the award of a certificate of need appropriate in this case that its application would be the one of choice. Under no circumstance does the proof support an award to Amedex, since it failed to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, failed to demonstrate that it would provide quality care, and failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient resources for project accomplishment and operation. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications of Amedex and Forum, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1987), or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. In the case of Amedex, the lack of need in the district, as well as its failure to demonstrate compliance with relevant criteria as discussed in paragraph 46, demonstrates that, on balance, its application should be denied. In the case of Forum, its application meets all relevant statutory and rule criteria except need. Need is the key criteria in the instant case. Forum's failure to satisfy that criterion by proof of numeric need or special circumstances is dispositive of its application for licensure, and such failure is not outweighed by any other, or combination of any other, criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the applications for certificate of need filed by Amedex and Forum be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988.
