The Issue The issue in this case is whether Venice Hospital, Inc., (Venice) meets the statutory and rule criteria for a Certificate of Need (CON) to operate an open heart surgery program, and therefore, whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) should approve its CON Application Number 5715.
Findings Of Fact The Parties 1. Venice is a 342 bed general hospital located in Venice, Florida, which is in south Sarasota County and is a part of the Department's Service District There are no subdistricts in District 8 for open heart surgery. The majority of patients served by Venice are from 50-55 years of age or older, and 22%-25% of patients admitted to Venice have a primary diagnosis of heart disease. If patients with heart disease as a secondary diagnosis are considered along with those who have this as their primary diagnosis, the total represents over 40% of all patients admitted at Venice. Of the cardiac catheterization patients treated at Venice in 1988, 78% were Medicare patients. Venice is a Medicaid provider, projecting 1.6% of its total revenue from Medicaid. It has a critical care center with 32 beds capable of invasive monitoring, multi-infusion of medications, pacemakers, Swans Ganz catheters, and care of post- catheterization patients. A separate 8-bed unit has been designated for use by open heart patients, with the same monitoring capability as the remainder of the unit. Memorial is an acute care hospital located in Sarasota, Florida, and is governed by the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board, which is elected to provide health care services to all residents of Sarasota County. It provides a full range of services, including an open heart surgery program, and is the largest provider of services to medically indigent and Medicaid patients in Sarasota County. Medical Center is a 208 bed not-for-profit hospital located in Punta Gorda, Florida, which has provided cardiac catheterization since 1985, and has been approved to initiate an open heart surgery program which is scheduled to open in late 1989. It has a 5% Medicaid payor mix. The primary service area for Medical Center is Charlotte County. Its secondary service area includes south Sarasota County. Both Memorial and Medical Center are also located in District 8, with Venice located between these facilities. Venice is approximately 35 miles to the north of Medical Center, and about 25 miles to the south of Memorial. There are two existing open heart programs in District 8, one at Memorial and the other at Southwest Regional Medical Center in Ft. Myers. In addition, there are two approved, but not yet operational, open heart programs, one at Medical Center and the other at Lee Memorial in Ft. Myers. The Department is the state agency which is responsible for administering Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes, the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", under which applications for Certificates of Need (CON) are filed, reviewed, and either granted or denied by the Department. The Application On or about September 27, 1988, Venice filed an application with the Department for a CON to implement an open heart surgery program at its hospital in Venice, Florida, with a capital expenditure of $665,500. This application was designated as CON Application Number 5715. The Department reviewed this application, and in October, 1988, forwarded an omissions letter to Venice. Venice responded to the omissions letter, and addressed not only the items noted by the Department in its omissions letter, but also provided additional materials, information, and corrections not requested in the omissions letter. Effective on November 14, 1988, the Department deemed Venice's application complete. A public hearing was held on this application at the request of Memorial on November 18, 1988. Thereafter, the Department reviewed and considered all material received from the applicant, as well as the information received at the public hearing, and prepared its State Agency Action Report (SAAR) noticing its intent to grant CON 5715. Memorial and Medical Center timely filed petitions to challenge the Department's notice of intent to issue this CON. Venice is relying upon its application which was deemed complete and reviewed by the Department in its SAAR, and not upon its original application that was filed prior to the omissions letter. Additionally, the applicant is not relying upon a "not normal circumstance" justification for its application, but rather urges that it meets the statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of this CON. The Department's CON Manual HRSM 235-1, dated October 1, 1988, is irrelevant to this proceeding since it has not been adopted by, or incorporated in, a rule, and was not applied in the batching cycle in which Venice's application was filed, or in the subsequent batch. It has not yet been applied to any hospital CON application. Therefore, the matters contained within this Manual concerning what is a permissible response to an omissions letter have not been considered. As part of its originally filed application, Venice included a document prepared by Ernst & Whinney entitled, "Audited Financial Statements and Other Financial Information, Venice Hospital, Inc., June 30, 1987." Through a clerical error in the copying process, page one of this twenty-four page document was omitted. At the time it filed its omissions response, Venice included this missing first page which is signed on behalf of Ernst & Whinney, and which states that the examinations contained therein were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. It expresses the opinion that these financial statements present fairly the financial position of the applicant. An auditor's opinion letter is an essential part of the audited financial statement which must be included with the CON application. However, Venice provided this inadvertently missing page prior to its application being deemed complete. Thus, it was available to, and was reviewed by, the Department in the preparation of the SAAR on this application. Venice's application did raise concerns which it was seeking to address concerning availability and accessibility by addressing the current practice of transferring patients requiring open heart surgery to other facilities. Patient costs for such transport, as well as patient risk, inconvenience and comfort for the patient and family members, were all referenced in the application. Additionally, testimony at the public hearing held on November 18, 1988, which the Department considered in the preparation of its SAAR, dealt with concerns and problems arising from patient transport, including delay, risks to the patient from ambulance or helicopter transfers, and adverse effects which may occur on quality of care through this practice which is inconsistent with the concept of a continuum of care. The SAAR specifically notes that Venice contends its proposal will improve geographic access in its immediate service area, and that from July, 1987 through June, 1988, it transferred 144 of its cardiac patients from its facility for open heart surgery and an additional 125 were transferred for angioplasty procedures. The application did not specifically address or identify any adverse impact which its approval would have on existing providers. However, evidence on this issue is admissible at hearing since it is relevant to the issue of the standing of Memorial and Medical Center, and also because it is relevant to establish whether approval of this application would be consistent with statutory and rule review criteria, and provisions of the Local Health Plan that require assessment of any such impact. The SAAR notes that Venice did contend that approval of this CON will not affect the economy or quality of existing services in the District. Stipulations The parties stipulated that: The project is financially feasible in the short term; Venice has a record of providing quality care and this record is not an issue in this case; Other than for open heart services, other facilities are adequate and available to act as alternatives; The size and cost of construction for Venice's proposal are appropriate; Open heart surgery programs currently exist within a two hour drive time under average driving conditions for at least 90% of the District's population; The type and cost of equipment in the application are reasonable; If approved, Venice will provide the services required by Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)3a and 3b, Florida Administrative Code, and does provide the services shown at paragraph 3c of said Rule. State Health Plan Objective 4.2 of the State Health Plan applicable to this application is to "maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990." (Emphasis Supplied.) The goal set forth in the State Plan relative to open heart surgery programs is to ensure the appropriate availability of such services at reasonable costs. Venice's application is not consistent with Objective 4.2. If Venice's application were to be approved, there would be five programs in the District. The number of procedures projected for 1990 is 1683, and if 1683 is divided by 5 programs, the result is an average of only 337 procedures per program. The two existing providers in District 8 are currently performing over 1600 procedures annually, and as is discussed below, it does not appear that Venice itself will be able to achieve an acceptable level of service at any time established by the record in this case. Approval of this application will also significantly and adversely impact the ability of the two approved programs to achieve an acceptable level of service. In the State Health Plan narrative, it is recognized that "quality of patient care is a primary concern in open heart surgery programs due to the potential consequences to the patient of poorly trained and/or skilled staff.11 In order to ensure quality, and in recognition of the relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures and quality, the State Plan references the Department's requirement, set forth by Rule, that a minimum of 200 adult procedures be performed within 3 years of initiation of an open heart program. The narrative also notes that a broad range of services must be provided to fulfill the requirements of an open heart surgery program. Venice's application is partially consistent with these narrative statements in the State Health Plan since the parties have stipulated that it has a record of providing quality care, and it offers a complete range of services with departments within the hospital where a broad range of diagnostic techniques and expertise are available. However, it was not established that a minimum of 200 adult open heart surgical procedures will be performed at Venice within three years of initiation of this program. Local Health Plan Even though an applicant does not include within its application every element in a Local Health Plan which is relevant to its application, the Department itself will look at the applicable Local Plan to determine if an application is consistent therewith. The applicable District 8 Health Plan recommends that "existing facilities should be afforded the opportunity for expansion before developing a new cardiac surgical center." However, if a numeric need for an additional program is shown, and if existing facilities do not seek to expand their existing programs to meet such need, an application for a new program would not be inconsistent with this portion of the Local Health Plan. Under the facts of this case where there are no competing applications from hospitals with existing open heart surgery programs, and where a numeric need for one additional program in District 8 is projected by the Department's need methodology, Venice's application is consistent with this recommendation. The Local Plan also recommends that preference be given to applications for new or expanded programs which clearly document the impact of the proposed new service on existing providers in the District and adjacent Districts. As found above, Venice did not specifically address any adverse impact its proposal would have on existing providers, and therefore, its application is not consistent with this recommendation. The Department's Need Methodology and the "35O Rule" Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Department's methodology for calculating the numeric need for additional open heart surgery programs It provides a formula by which the number of open heart procedures for the horizon year, in this case 1990, are to be estimated. Pursuant to the formula, there are projected to be 1683 open heart surgery procedures performed in 1990 in District 8. This number of projected procedures is then divided by 350 procedures in order to determine the number of programs which will be needed. See Rule l0-5.011(1)(f)11b. Using this methodology, the Department has identified the need for 4.8, rounded to 5, programs in the District in the horizon year. Since there are currently 2 existing and 2 approved programs in District 8, the Department and Venice have concluded that there is a projected numeric need for Venice's additional program in 1990. There is a direct relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures performed at a facility and the quality of care provided at such facility, with lower mortality rates generally at hospitals with higher volumes than those with low volumes. Therefore, in addition to its numeric need calculation, the Department has also developed a "350 standard" to address patient safety and quality of care concerns by ensuring that each existing and approved open heart surgery program achieves a volume sufficient to assure quality and efficiency prior to approval of a new program. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)11aI, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the establishment of new open heart surgery programs unless: the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart cases per year. Memorial and Medical Center urge an interpretation and application of the 350 standard in a manner which would require each existing and approved program to actually operate at the level of 350 cases per year. Since approved programs are not yet operational, and therefore cannot operate at the 350 level, they argue that the intent of this standard, as set forth in the above-cited Rule, is to preclude the approval of any additional programs while there are approved programs, or existing programs which are not meeting the 350 standard. To the contrary, the Department and Venice urge that the 350 standard be applied by averaging the actual number of cases at existing programs, and the number of cases which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs. Under this interpretation, as long as the average between cases which are performed at existing, and which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs exceeds 350, then the further approval of an additional program is not prohibited. Having considered the testimony and evidence presented by the parties, and in particular the testimony of Eugene Nelson and Elizabeth Dudek, which is found to be more credible, consistent, and reasonable than the testimony of Michael Carroll and Harold Luft, it is found that the Department's interpretation and application of the 350 standard is reasonable and consistent with the terms of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)11aI. It is also noted that if the interpretation urged by Memorial and Medical Center were to be followed, it is inexplicable how there could presently be two approved, but not operational, open heart programs in District 8. The Department has consistently applied this 350 standard since its adoption in 1983 by averaging caseloads at existing programs and reasonably projected caseloads for approved programs. To interpret this standard as urged by Memorial and Medical Center would impose a moratorium on new open heart surgery programs while there is an already approved, but not operational, program in a District, or while a newly operational program has not yet attained the 350 standard. There is no basis for this prohibitory interpretation which would not only reduce competition, but would also be inconsistent with sound health planning and the State Health Plan Objective 4.2, as discussed above. Quality of Care Venice is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Facilities for special care units, and it has been stipulated that it has a record of providing quality care in its existing programs and departments. On average, hospitals performing greater than 200 open heart procedures per year have superior surgical outcomes than hospitals doing less than 200 procedures. Mortality rates are significantly lower at hospitals performing more than 200 procedures annually than at those performing less. It was established that there is a direct relationship between volume of open heart surgical procedures and quality of care at facilities with open heart surgery programs. Therefore, the existence of more open heart programs than are truly needed in an area may result in some existing programs not achieving sufficient volume to assure patient safety and quality of care. Certainly, not every hospital should have an open heart program, but as long as there is sufficient volume to assure quality, the competition among programs will encourage quality care, and result in an overall increase in the quality of care provided at all departments in a hospital with an open heart program. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)5d, Florida Administrative Code, was adopted by the Department in order to set forth the minimum volume deemed necessary to assure quality of care, and provides, in part: There shall be a minimum of 200 adult open heart procedures performed annually, within 3 years after initiation of service, in any institution in which open heart surgery is performed for adults. Although Venice urges that it will be able to meet this threshold level within three years, it failed to establish by competent substantial evidence that it would actually attract the patients necessary to perform either the number of open heart procedures projected in its application, or this minimum number of 200 procedures required by the Department to assure quality of care in its third year of operation, given the current pattern of physician referrals in the area, its market share in relation to those of Memorial and Medical Center, and actual utilization levels for the existing District 8 programs at Memorial and Southwest Regional Medical Center, as is more fully discussed below. Without the assurance of sufficient volume to meet the 200 procedure threshold established by the Department by Rule, the validity of which is not at issue in this case, Venice has failed to show that it will be able to achieve and maintain a patient volume in its proposed program which will assure quality of care in its proposed open heart surgery program. Availability and Access While the addition of the Venice program would obviously increase the availability of services in the District, open heart surgery services are already reasonably available in District 8, especially in view of there being two approved programs which will become operational before 1990, the horizon year in this case, in addition to the two existing programs. The two hour travel time standard is already being met in District 8, as stipulated to by the parties. Geographic accessibility will not be appreciably or significantly increased by this proposal since Venice's facility lies approximately midway between Memorial and Medical, which are sixty miles apart. There is significant excess capacity in existing and approved open heart surgery programs in District 8 during most of the year, especially at Memorial. Therefore, there is ready access to, and availability of open heart surgery services to patients in the District. Venice did not establish that approval of its application would enhance access to open heart surgery services for the medically indigent. Despite its assertion in its application that its program would be available to the underserved, there is no definite commitment to serve charity care patients as a percentage of total patient days or of total revenue. Venice has proposed to serve Medicaid patients at the level of 1.5% of total patient days, but Medicaid patients are currently receiving services through existing programs at substantially higher levels of commitment. The applicant has reserved the right to refuse non-emergency care to indigents. While it was established that unstable patients who have to be transferred from one hospital to another face increased risks, and that members of the medical staff at Venice feel that there are unacceptable delays in transferring patients who need open heart surgery from Venice to other facilities due to an asserted lack of available beds, it was not shown that such delays have actually jeopardized the safety of patients or resulted in a reduction in the quality of care received by patients to an unacceptable level. A delay in transferring a patient from one facility to another of from 6 to 8 hours is reasonable, and in line with experience nationally. The anecdotal evidence presented by Venice on this point was not competent and substantial, and in fact shows that the number of delays exceeding 8 hours has increased only slightly from 1986 to 1988, a condition that may be addressed in any event when the two approved programs become operational. Additionally, the applicant never formally shared any concerns about transfer delays with existing facilities in an effort to reduce such delays or to document extreme cases of delay. Transfer delays are exacerbated by seasonal increases in population in District 8, but there continues to be a reasonable likelihood that patient transfers can be accommodated, even during seasonal population increases, without adverse impacts to patient care. However, a large majority of open heart surgery cases are non- emergency that can be scheduled for surgery within 6 to 48 hours after diagnosis without any compromise in patient care. Emergency patients are given priority, and there are sufficient available beds to accommodate emergency patients, regardless of seasonal delays. Recent studies have shown that even emergency patients benefit from a delay of up to 24 hours in order to stabilize their condition rather than rushing them to surgery. In any event, such seasonal delays do not establish that there is a lack of available beds in District 8 which would require the approval of this application, especially with two approved programs already in the District which will become operational by 1990. Alternatives Considered Venice did not fully explore alternatives, including less costly alternatives, to a new program at its facility, such as a joint or shared program with an existing provider. In fact, a consultant retained by Venice recommended on September 8, 1988, that Venice pursue a joint program with Memorial, but Venice never approached Memorial to ascertain if its administrators or medical staff would be interested in such a joint effort, even though these two hospitals have previously cooperated in providing joint services in obstetrics, shared nursing services, and jointly provided emergency services to the Town of North Port. Memorial previously loaned Venice 24 nursing full time equivalent positions (FTE) to fully staff a 35 bed unit at Venice during a critical nursing shortage. There are existing or approved open heart surgery programs at Tampa General Hospital, Manatee Memorial Hospital in Bradenton, Memorial, Medical Center, and Southwest Regional Medical Center in Ft. Myers. In addition, there are additional approved programs at HCA Blake Memorial Hospital in Bradenton and at Lee Memorial in Ft. Myers. Venice did not consider these existing and approved programs as alternatives to its proposed new program. It was not established that Venice has attempted, or proposed to establish a joint open heart surgery program with any of these facilities, or to secure staff privileges for its cardiologists at Memorial, or any of these other hospitals. Regionalization of health care services for open heart surgery patients is being encouraged and reviewed by the Medicare program. Under this concept, primary care hospitals would treat common diagnoses and offer common treatments, while regional referral hospitals would provide specialized care and offer more complex services referred to as tertiary level services. Open heart surgery is a specialized, tertiary care service. Venice did not consider regionalization or establish why it would not be appropriate in District 8. Personnel Availability and Costs There has been a long-term shortage of nurses, particularly in intensive care and open heart surgery, which even Venice's expert in nursing administration recognized and acknowledged. This shortage is present in Sarasota County not merely for nursing staff, but also for technical support staff, and is particularly acute in operating room and critical care personnel. While Venice does have nursing staff with open heart surgery experience, it would have to recruit additional nurses to fully staff this new program. It is not always possible to fill open heart surgery or critical care nursing positions with trained personnel. Memorial presently has 32 registered nursing vacancies, including 5 open heart surgery and 3 open heart critical care RN positions, despite a full-time nurse recruiter and an aggressive recruiting program. Because of this critical shortage, Memorial has been forced to use "traveler" or temporary nurses in its open heart surgery unit. In contrast to Venice's lack of actual experience in attracting and training open heart surgery and critical care nurses, Memorial established that in Sarasota County, it takes 6 to 8 months and costs $15,000 to $16,000 to train open heart surgery nurses, and 6 to 8 weeks to- train open heart critical care nurses. Venice will compete with Memorial and Medical Center in attracting open heart surgery nursing and technical staff. There has been a recent instance of a nurse leaving Venice to join Memorial, being trained as an open heart surgery nurse at Memorial, and then leaving to return to Venice. With the limited pool of available, trained open heart surgery nurses, and in view of the two approved open heart surgery programs in District 8 which need to be staffed and become operational prior to 1990, the implementation of the Venice program will have an adverse impact on the ability of existing and approved programs to attract and maintain trained open heart surgery nursing and technical staff, and can reasonably be expected to increase personnel costs for these providers. Venice proposes to add two cardiovascular surgeons to its medical staff prior to opening its open heart surgery program, and to retain a consulting firm to assist in recruiting these physicians. However, the consulting firm contacted by Venice has not agreed to accept this recruiting assignment. Memorial has been trying to recruit an additional open heart surgeon for over a year, without success. Venice has been trying to recruit a neurosurgeon, neurologist or cardiologist for almost a year, without success. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that Venice will have difficulty recruiting two cardiovascular surgeons in less that one year. The salaries and benefits in Venice's application are generally reasonable, including the proposed salary for a perfusionist, although it did slightly underproject open heart surgery nursing salaries. However, its estimate of the number of additional positions, or FTE, which would be required throughout the hospital to accommodate the workload resulting from an open heart surgery program is incomplete. For example, an additional 3.5 FTE that would be needed for the clinical lab and donor center is not reflected in the application, although the costs associated therewith are included. Venice does have a record of successfully staffing critical care services, such as its open heart catheterization and thoracic surgery programs, without attracting staff from other hospitals in the District. It does propose to have a training program for open heart surgery personnel, and has an affiliation with nurse training programs at four universities. Financial Feasibility In its application, Venice projects that it will perform 125 open heart surgery procedures in its first year of operation, 175 in its second year, and 211 in its third year of operation. However, it is specifically found that these projections are not reasonable, based upon the testimony and evidence received. The testimony and exhibits prepared by Mark Richardson and Michael Carroll, who were accepted as experts in health planning, as well as the testimony offered by Rick Knapp, an expert in health care finance, was more credible and persuasive than, and outweighs the testimony and exhibits prepared by Eugene Nelson, an expert in health care planning, Dr. Henry W. Zaretsky, an expert in health care economics and planning, and Michael Rolph, who was accepted as an expert in health care finance and accounting. Initially, Venice relies upon the Department's Rule for determining the numeric need for additional programs, discussed above, and divides the Department's number of projected procedures in District 8 (1683) by 350 to arrive at the need for an additional program in 1990 by rounding 4.8 up to 5. However, Venice has conducted no analysis of market share or physician referral patterns to test the reliability of this projected need. Thus, this projection of numeric need is made in a vacuum, without any reference to the actual number of procedures already being performed, or actual market shares and referral patterns which are critical to an understanding of patient and physician preferences which have existed, and are likely to continue to be experienced, in the future. Venice's administration and members of its medical staff consider Memorial's open heart surgery program to be excellent and convenient to Venice's patients. It is unlikely that all five of Venice's cardiologists will refer all of their open heart surgery patients to Venice, and in fact, a member of Venice's medical staff who supports this application testified that he would only refer about half of his patients to Venice. Since most open heart patients are referred, and since there is no apparent dissatisfaction with the quality of Memorial's program, existing market share and referral patterns would likely continue and should have been considered in any meaningful analysis presented by the applicant. For the July, 1990 horizon in District 8, the Department's numeric need methodology projects that there will be 1683 open heart surgery procedures. With referral patterns in place and two existing providers with operational and well regarded programs, it is unlikely that Venice will have an automatic, equal share of the District's pool of open heart patients, or even that it will perform the 125 procedures in its first year, and 175 procedures shown on its pro forma for the second year of operation. In fact, the two existing providers, Memorial and Southwest Regional Medical Center, already performed 1637 procedures in 1988, leaving fewer than 50 procedures projected through the Department's numeric need methodology for the two already approved programs and Venice, if it were to be approved. Memorial has been performing over 600 procedures per year from 1986 through 1988, and has the capacity to perform up to 1,000 procedures annually. Thus, the existing and approved programs have more than sufficient capacity to absorb growth in open heart surgery volumes which are being projected. A second method Venice uses to justify its projected number of open heart procedures is to quantify the population of Venice's service area, and then apply the Department's open heart surgery use rate to that population. This assumes that virtually all of Sarasota County's population growth will occur in the south county area, which is an inaccurate assumption, and also assumes that Venice will capture all of the open heart surgeries in its service area, which is unreasonable given existing market shares and referral patterns. Memorial presently has a 42% market share of District 8 open heart surgery patients. To perform 200 procedures in its third year of operation, Venice would have to capture an 83% market share, and there is no basis to find that it would be successful in attracting this unreasonably high market share in its primary service area. In fact, Venice projects that it will only achieve a 45% and 61% market share in the first and second year of operation, respectively. Applying these percentages, Venice will perform 99 procedures in its first year, not 125, and 140 in its second year, not 175. It must be noted that Venice's consultant, which had recommended that it explore a joint or shared program with Memorial, had projected market shares of only 29% in the first year, 35% in the second year, and 45% in year three. Using these figures, Venice would only perform 63 procedures in its first year of operation, 81 in the second year, and 102 in the third. Given this level of operation in its second year of operation (81 procedures), the Venice program would lose $334,000 in its second year, and therefore, not be financially feasible. The third method used by the applicant to support its projection of the number of procedures it will perform, which is the basis of its assertion of financial feasibility, is based upon its assessment of cardiac catheterization volumes and applies a conversion factor to determine the number of open heart surgery procedures that will result. This analysis again assumes that it would receive a 100% market share, and does not take into account referral patterns and satisfaction with existing programs. In addition, while the growth of Venice's cardiac cath volume has stabilized, and may even be decreasing, this analysis incorrectly uses a l5%-16% annual growth rate in cardiac caths through 1990, which is unrealistic and not supported by the record. Venice relies upon the expert testimony of Eugene Nelson to establish that the use rate for open heart surgery has been increasing since 1985, and will continue to increase. The use rate increased over 53% between 1985 and 1988, and Nelson projects a continued 15.3% annual increase in the use rate through 1991. Under his projections the use rate per 100,000 population will be 235.79 in 1990, and 257.97 in 1991. Nelson's projected continued annual increase in the use rate of over 15%, and the use rates he projects for 1990 and 1991, are unreasonable. He has ignored the fact that annual increases in the use rate have been steadily decreasing from 17.5% between 1985 and 1986, to 13% between 1987 and 1988, as testified to be all health planners, and as even he acknowledged. Applying this decrease in the annual use rate increase, it would be increasing only 9% in 1990, and this would result in a total of 2108 procedures that could be projected to be performed in 1990. With the two existing programs in District 8 already performing 1600 procedures, a figure that will reasonably grow by 1990, there will be less than 444 procedures for the two already approved programs and Venice, if it were to be approved. Given this fact, which is even acknowledged by Venice, it is unlikely that Venice will be able to reach its projected number of cases in its first two years of operation in order to achieve financial feasibility. As recognized by Harold Urschel, Jr., M.D., who was called by Venice as an expert in cardiovascular surgery and open heart surgery programs, for the next five years open heart surgery volumes nationally will be "stable", although they "probably" will go up some. Open heart use rates have plateaued on a national level, with an average national use rate of l80~per 100,000 population. This use rate compares favorably with the Department's current use rate of 183 for District 8, and further questions the reasonableness of Nelson's projected use rates of almost 236 and 258 in 1990 and 1991, respectively. These use rates have stabilized and shown a marked decrease in their rates of increase due to the development of acceptable alternatives to open heart surgery, and close review of the necessity of this treatment by third party payors. As testified to by Nelson, there is a danger that an excess of open heart surgery programs in an area will exacerbate an already stabilized or flattened use rate, and may cause it to decline. He cited both the Miami and Jacksonville areas as examples of Districts in which there appear to be an excess of programs, with a resulting decline in the District's use rate, and inability of a substantial number of programs to even achieve the requisite level of 200 procedures per year to maintain quality of care. When it comes to open heart surgery programs, more is not necessarily better and may actually result in less, according to Nelson. Even applying Nelson's inflated use rate of 236 per 100,000 population in 1990 to the Venice service area population, the applicant will not achieve its projected number of procedures when the market share of 29% in 1990 predicted by Venice's consultant is considered. Applying its consultant's projected market shares, Venice will realize only 81 procedures in the first year, 98 in year two, and 126 procedures in the third year. Since Venice's pro forma bases its assessment of financial feasibility upon its projections of 125 procedures in year one, and 175 in year two, and since the applicant has not established the reasonableness of these projections, the long- term financial feasibility of this project has not been shown. Further, Venice has also failed to establish that it can reasonably be expected to achieve the level of 200 procedures in its third year, and therefore, it has also failed to show that it can achieve that minimum level which the Department, by Rule, requires to ensure quality of care. In other respects, the assumptions used by Venice in its pro forma are reasonable, including its 2% inflation factor for income, bad debt, payor mix and utilization by class of pay, projected charges, expenses, and depreciation. Effect on Competition and Costs There will not be a significant difference between the charges proposed by Venice and the actual charges at Memorial. The applicant projects that 80% of its open heart surgery will be reimbursed through Medicare, which reimburses on a fixed fee basis to which hospital charges have no direct relevance. Therefore, there would be no appreciable impact on costs in the health care community if this application is approved. As previously discussed, there would be greater competition among existing and approved programs in District 8 for trained open heart surgery and critical care nurses, which are in short supply. While Venice has projected open heart surgery nurses' salaries at a somewhat unrealistically low level, it can reasonably be expected that greater competition for trained personnel who are in short supply will eventually result in higher salaries and health care costs. If this application is approved, the cost to transport patients who require open heart surgery from Venice to another facility would be eliminated. This would mean that patients could avoid a $235 to $250 ambulance charge for transfer to Memorial, a $450 charge for ambulance transport to Tampa General, or a $1,000 to $1,300 helicopter charge for transport to Tampa General Hospital. This savings is not significant when compared to total charges for open heart surgery procedures. Impact on Existing and Approved Programs As discussed above, approval of the Venice application will adversely affect the ability of existing providers to attract and retain trained open heart surgery and critical care RNs due to the already existing shortage of personnel to fill these positions, and the fact that two already approved programs will become operational prior to Venice's program, if it were to be approved. Although Memorial has the capacity to perform 1,000 open heart surgery procedures annually, Venice's expert, Eugene Nelson, projects that if the Venice program is approved, Memorial will experience only a 12% growth between 1988 to 1991, and will only perform 771 cases in 1991. Curiously, he then concludes that this represents no impact on Memorial. The proposed primary service area for the Venice program and Memorial's primary service area completely overlap, and they are, therefore, competing for the same open heart surgery patients. Venice has been referring 85%-87% of its patients who require open heart surgery to Memorial. If Venice had its own open heart surgery program, the need for transfer and referral would be obviated. In the second year of operation, Venice projects on its pro forma that it will perform 175 cases. Using its own projection of 85%, 149 to 150 of these cases would have been transferred to Memorial, but for the Venice program. If the more realistic number of 81 procedures in the second year of operation for the Venice program is used, 69 cases which would have otherwise been transferred to Memorial would stay at Venice. Rick Knapp, who was accepted as an expert in health care finance, provided a reasonable estimate of financial impact upon Memorial, given these projected losses in patient referrals. He concluded that Memorial would experience a net income reduction of approximately $1.4 million if Venice's projection of 175 cases in its second year is correct, and Memorial lost 149 to 150 referrals. Even Michael Rolph, who was called as an expert in health care finance by Venice, testified that Memorial would loose $2 million in net revenue if it lost 100 open heart surgery patients. If the more realistic figure of 81 cases in the second year were used, there would also be a net income loss for Memorial, but more importantly for purposes of this case, it was established through Knapp's testimony that Venice's program would lose $334,000, and not be financially feasible. It is, of course, recognized that Memorial would still experience a growth in its absolute number of open heart procedures due to population increases and increases in the use rate. However, any such increase in the absolute number of procedures performed at Memorial through growth does not obviate the fact that the total number of procedures it would have performed will be significantly reduced by the loss of referrals from Venice, if this application is approved. This is particularly noteworthy given its excess capacity. Memorial's most recent annual gross income was $160 million, with an operating margin (profit) of between $3.5 and $3.9 million. Therefore, losses which would result from the Venice program would not threaten the financial viability of Memorial, but would be significant in terms of its open heart surgery program. Jerry Sommerville, an expert in hospital finance, estimated that 9% of Medical Center's open heart surgery cases would come from the Venice area, which is included in Medical Center's secondary service area. If these cases are lost to Medical Center with the opening of the Venice program, Medical Center's projected 150 cases in 1990 would be reduced by 13.5, and in 1991 its projection of 200 cases would be reduced by 18. These reductions would result in a net revenue loss for Medical Center of $254,000 with a gross marginal loss of $62,800 in 1990, and a net revenue loss of $329,500 with a gross marginal loss of $95,200 in 1991. This represents a significant reduction in income for this open heart surgery program in its first years of operation. Medical Center's most recent annual profit margin was approximately $1 million.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order which: (l) Denies Memorial's Motion for Summary Adjudication; Dismisses Medical Center as a party due to a lack of standing; and Denies Venice's CON Application Number 5715. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NOS. 89-1412 & 89-1413) Rulings on the Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 6, 17. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Findings 6, 9. Rejected as a conclusion of law. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 15; Rejected in Finding 16. Adopted in Finding 17. Rejected in Finding 41, as otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 41, 42. Rejected as irrelevant. 15-18. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 42. 19. Adopted in Finding 43. 20-21. Rejected in Finding 43. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 53. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 55. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 55, 56. Adopted in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 57. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings 12, 20 and 39; Rejected in Findings 53, 55 and 56. Adopted in part in Finding 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 44. Adopted in Finding 44. Adopted in Finding 37; Rejected in Findings 38-47. Rejected in Finding 41. Rejected in Finding 25. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 43. Adopted in Finding 34, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 35. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 34, 35. 50-54. Adopted in Finding 48. 55-61. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 31. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 35. Adopted in Finding 36; Rejected in Finding 35 and otherwise as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 36; Rejected in Finding 33. Adopted in Finding 35. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Finding 31. Adopted in Finding 6. Rejected as unnecessary. 73-75. Rejected in Finding 27 and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 22. Rejected in Finding 27 and otherwise as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 51. 80-81. Rejected in Findings 28, 29. 82-85. Rejected in Finding 49 and otherwise as irrelevant. 86. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 87-94. Rejected in Finding 49 and otherwise as irrelevant. 95. Adopted in Finding 22. 96-97. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary, and simply a summation of and argument on the evidence. 98. Adopted in Finding 11; Rejected in Finding 24. Rulings on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 17. 7-9. Adopted in Finding 18. 10. Adopted in Findings 18, 22. 11-12. Adopted in Finding 22. 13-14. Rejected in Finding 20. 15-17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 18. Adopted in Finding 18. 19. Adopted in Finding 22; Rejected in Finding 20. 20. Adopted in Finding 30. 21. Adopted in part in Finding 13, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 22-23. Adopted in Findings 15, 16. 24. Adopted in Findings 4, 25. 25. Adopted in Findings 25, 39. 26. Adopted in Finding 26. 27-34. Adopted in Finding 27. 35. Adopted in Findings 22, 23 and 24. 36. Adopted in Findings 28, 29. 37. Rejected as unnecessary. 38-43. Adopted in Findings 28, 29. 44. Adopted in Findings 31, 32. 45. Rejected as unnecessary. 46-49. Adopted in Finding 34. 50. Adopted in Finding 24. 51. Adopted in Findings 24, 37. 52-55. Adopted in Finding 38. 56. Adopted in Finding 39. 57-61. Adopted in Finding 40. 62-64. Adopted in Finding 41. 65-66. Adopted in Findings 42, 43. 67. Adopted in Finding 44. 68-69. Adopted in Finding 46. 70. Adopted in Finding 47. 71. Rejected in Finding 48. 72. Adopted in Finding 40. 73. Adopted in Finding 47. 74-75. Adopted in Finding 49. 76. Adopted in Findings 55, 57. 77. Adopted in Findings 50, 52. 78. Adopted in Findings 31, 50 and 52. 79-82. Adopted in Finding 32. 83. Adopted in Findings 33, 50 and 52. 84. Adopted in Finding 33. 85. Adopted in Finding 32. 86-87. Adopted in Findings 33, 50 and 52. 88. Adopted in Findings 28, 29. 89. Adopted in Findings 24 through 27. 90. Adopted in Finding 6. 91-92. Rejected in Finding 7. 93. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 8. 94. Rejected in Finding 14 and otherwise as unnecessary. 95. Adopted in Findings 15, 16. 96. Rejected in Findings 14, 15. 97-99. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 12, 13. 100. Rejected in Finding 9. 101. Adopted in Findings 6, 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore C. Eastmoore, Esquire A. Lamar Matthews, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 3258 Sarasota, FL 33577 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Charles A. Stampelos, Esquire P. O. Box 2174 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Winter Haven Hospital, Inc.`s application for a certificate of need to establish an open heart surgery program at its health care facility in Winter Haven, Florida should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On September 26, 1988 respondent/applicant, Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. (WHH), filed its application for a certificate of need (CON) with respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), seeking authorization to establish an adult open heart surgery program at its facility located at 200 Avenue F, Northeast, Winter Haven, Florida. According to the application, WHH proposed to implement an open heart surgery program in an existing operating room with a project expenditure of $714,000. After reviewing the application, HRS found certain items to be either incomplete or missing and requested WHH to furnish such data by November 20, 1988. After such items were timely submitted, HRS deemed the application to be complete on November 14, 1988. A further review of the application followed, and, despite noting at least ten deficiencies in the application, HRS issued its state agency action report and letter of intent to grant the application on January 13, 1989. This preliminary action was followed by a notice of intention to grant the CON published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 3, 1989. After notice of HRS's preliminary decision was published, petitioner, Hillsborough County Hospital Authority d/b/a Tampa General Hospital (TGH), a 947-bed acute care hospital located at Davis Island, Tampa, Florida, filed a petition for formal hearing challenging the proposed agency action. A similar petition was also filed by petitioner, Lakeland Regional Medical Center (LRMC), a 897-bed acute care hospital in Lakeland, Florida. Both petitioners contended that WHH's request, if approved, would adversely affect their existing open heart surgery programs in contravention of state law and agency rules. The parties have stipulated to the standing of petitioners. The Omissions Process When WHH filed its application with HRS on September 26, 1988, it inadvertently failed to submit (a) one page of the balance sheet of the financial statements and (b) the opinion letter of the certified public accounting firm that prepared the financial statements. During the initial review of the application, HRS noted that the financial statements were incomplete and requested WHH to file such data during the so-called omissions process. This process is authorized by statute and rule and affords an applicant the opportunity to supply missing or incomplete information after the initial application has been filed. Pursuant to HRS's request, WHH supplied the two missing documents, and other requested information, by the specified due date. After receipt of this data, the agency deemed the application to be complete. According to agency personnel, when the application was filed HRS had a policy of permitting this type of information to be routinely filed during the omissions process. Shortly thereafter, HRS changed its policy and required complete financial statements to be filed with the initial application. If complete financial statements were not initially filed, the application was deemed to be incomplete and rejected without further review or opportunity to supply the missing data. However, this policy was recently ended, and the agency has now reverted to the policy in effect at the time WHH filed its application. Thus, the filing of such data by WHH during the omissions process was consistent with then existing agency policy as well as HRS's governing rules and statutes. The Parties The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Health Facility and Services Development Act, also known as the Certificate of Need (CON) law. In this proceeding, and consistent with its proposed agency action, HRS supported WHH's application. Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. is a non-profit community hospital licensed for 579 long-term and psychiatric beds. Of that total, 259 are designated as medical/surgical beds while 36 are classified as intensive care unit (ICU) beds. Established more than fifty years ago, WHH has two campuses, a 160-member medical staff with a broad range of medical specialties, and provides all major medical services with the exception of open heart surgery, comprehensive burn treatment, and Level III neonatal intensive care. In August 1988 WHH opened a cardiac catherization laboratory with the intention of later adding an open heart surgery unit. The facility treats Medicaid and Medicare patients and indigents and has contracts with local health management and preferred provider organizations and other groups. Although not disclosed in the letter of intent, WHH is a subsidiary corporation of Mid-Florida Medical Services, Inc., a holding company for WHH and various other affiliated entities. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority is a public agency created in 1980 by the Florida Legislature for the express purpose of operating Tampa General Hospital. Licensed for 947 beds, the facility serves as a major teaching and tertiary referral hospital providing a complete range of services twenty four hours per day, including open heart surgery. In addition, TGH is the primary teaching hospital for the University of South Florida medical school. By law, TGH is required to provide indigent care. Lakeland Regional Medical Center operates a large, regional referral acute care facility at 1324 Lakeland Hills Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. Of its licensed 897 beds, approximately 700 are licensed medical/surgical and ICU beds. LRMC has historically provided a wide range of acute care services, including open heart surgery and diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catherization, and is a major tertiary referral center. According to Health Care Cost Containment Board data, LRMC treats twice as many patients, including those acutely ill, as does WHH and has a substantially larger operating budget. District 6 Open Heart Programs The facilities of WHH, LRMC and TGH are located in district 6, a geographic area composed of Hillsborough, Polk, Manatee, Hardee and Highlands Counties and artificially created by HRS for, among other things, the purpose of determining need for new or additional health facilities within that area, including open heart surgery programs. In addition to TGH and LRMC, there are four other existing adult open heart surgery programs in district 6. These include St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, a well established program, and Manatee Memorial Hospital (Bradenton), L. W. Blake Hospital (Bradenton) and University Community Hospital (Tampa). The latter three programs opened in February 1988, March 1989 and June 1989, respectively. None have intervened in this proceeding. When WHH's application was reviewed, a seventh open heart surgery program within the district (Humana- Brandon) had been preliminarily approved, but that approval was subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, Humana- Brandon will not be considered as an existing or approved program. According to the state agency action report made a part of this record, the programs and number of open heart procedures performed during the twelve month period ending June 30, 1988 were as follows: Program Procedures St. Joseph's 933 TGH 1230 University Community Hospital 0 L. W. Blake 0 Manatee Memorial 70 LRMC 503 Total 2736 For the twelve months ending September 30, 1988, there were 2,672 procedures performed by district 6 programs, or a decline of 64 procedures when compared to the total performed during the year ending June 30, 1988. Of that amount, 1614 procedures were performed on district 6 residents while 1058 procedures were performed on non-district 6 residents. The latter number included 541 residents from district 5 of whom 473 were Pasco County residents. The service area of TGH's open heart surgery program encompasses a nine-county area with a range of seventy miles. It receives 42% of its open heart patients from district 6, with 34% from Hillsborough County and 5% from Polk County. As to the patients from outside district 6, TGH receives 33% from district 5 and 14% from district 3. Approximately 75% of LRMC'$ open heart surgery patients are Polk County residents. Indeed, of 496 Polk County residents having open heart surgery during the year ending September 30, 1988, approximately 73% of those residents had surgery at LRMC. The remainder used facilities outside the county, such as TGH. In 1986 approximately 200 patients came to LRMC from locations outside of the City of Lakeland but within Polk County, and some 67 cases per year have been referred by WHH to LRMC. The service area of WHH is not as clearcut. In its application, WHH designated all of Polk County as its primary service area, and Highlands and Hardee Counties as the secondary service area for its proposed program. However, in its answers to interrogatories, WHH represented that its primary service area was eastern Polk County. At hearing, the service area was redesignated as eastern Polk County, Hardee County and Highlands County. Since over 90% of WHH's patients reside in Polk County, it is found that Polk County is its primary service area. For the year ending September 30, 1988 one hundred twenty-five residents of Highlands County had open heart surgery. Only 8% used LRMC while 74% went to a facility in Orlando. For the same time period, sixteen Hardee County residents had open heart surgery, of whom approximately 63% used LRMC's facility. Applicable Statutory and Rule Criteria By prehearing stipulations the parties agreed that, except for the criteria contained in Subsections 381.705(1)(g), (j), and (2)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), all other relevant statutory criteria must be satisfied. These include subsections 381.705(1)(a)-(f), (h) and (i), (k)-(n), and (2)(a)- (d). 1/ In addition, the criteria in Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code (1987) are in issue. Of special concern in this proceeding is the appropriate manner in which to satisfy the requirements of subpart 11.a.(I) of the rule. To demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the criteria, the parties presented a number of expert witnesses. As might be expected, the testimony on this issue is sharply conflicting. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony on the issue, and that testimony is embodied in the findings below. Subsection 381.705(1)(a), F. S. - The first statutory criterion requires that HRS consider "the need for the health care facilities and services . . . being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan arA state health plan." In this regard, the parties have offered into evidence copies of the relevant portions of the two plans. The 1988 District VI Health Plan has application in this proceeding. That plan requires, among other things, that (a) all existing programs in a particular service area must be operating at 350 procedures per year, (b) the proposed unit must be able to reach a level of 200 procedures within three years, and (c) the proposed program cannot reduce the average utilization in the applicant's service area below 350 procedures per year. In addition, the plan expresses a preference for applicants which have an historical commitment to the provision of indigent care and those hospitals with documented status as major regional referral centers. Finally, the plan expresses a preference for applicants from subdistricts not having existing and/or approved programs. Notwithstanding WHH's contention that the foregoing objectives apply only to comparatively reviewed applications, it is found that these objectives must be taken into account in determining whether the proposal is consistent with the plan. The evidence reflects that not all of the existing programs in the service area are operating at 350 procedures per year. Indeed, University Community Hospital, L. W. Blake and Manatee Memorial Hospital are operating at substantially below that number. The record also indicates that the applicant has not reasonably demonstrated that it will reach a level of 200 procedures within three years. Further, unless 700 procedures per year can be generated by LRMC and WHH, which is highly questionable, the requirement that the new program not reduce average utilization in the applicant's service area (Polk County) below 350 will not be met. As to the requirement that an applicant have a historical commitment to the provision of indigent care, WHH's historical commitment, while substantially less than some providers such as TGH, is marginally sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Next, even though the district is not apportioned into subdistricts for the purpose of determining open heart surgery program need, it is noted that WHH's proposed facility would lie within fifteen miles of LRMC. Finally, WHH is considered a community hospital rather than a major regional referral center and thus it falls short on that objective. Even if WHH was a step above a community hospital, it must still be recognized that open heart surgery is a specialized tertiary service which should be regionalized and performed in a limited number of institutions. Therefore, it is found that the proposal is inconsistent with the local health plan. Chapters 4 and 5 of the state health plan contain various objectives and goals for specialized services such as open heart surgery programs. Goal 1 of chapter 4 of the plan establishes an objective of developing "acute-care resources in quantity and mix which appropriately meet population needs in the most cost-efficient manner." Goal 4 of chapter 5 provides an objective of insuring "the appropriate availability of cardiac catherization and open-heart services at a reasonable cost." In addition, objective 4.2 of chapter 5 provides that its goal is "to maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990." The parties have not relied upon or cited any other applicable portions of the state plan. Since the existing programs within the district are not operating at capacity, the approval of the application would be inconsistent with goal 1 of chapter 4 which provides that acute-care resources should be developed in the most cost-efficient manner. The evidence further supports a finding that as to goal 4 of chapter 5, the approval of another program within the district will drive up costs at existing programs. The bases for this finding is set forth in findings of fact 43-46. Thus, the proposal is inconsistent with the plan in this respect. Finally, the proposal is found to be consistent with objective 4.2 of chapter 5 since an average utilization of 350 procedures per program should be maintained through 1990 even with the addition of a new program. Given the above two shortcomings, it is found that the proposal is inconsistent with the state plan. Subsections 381.705(1)(b), (2)(a),(b) and (d), F.S.- These criteria require that HRS consider the "availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant," whether less costly and more efficient and appropriate services are available, and whether patients will experience "serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service." To put these criteria in perspective, it is noted that when the application was reviewed by HRS, there were four existing open heart surgery programs within the district. At time of hearing, two other approved programs had commenced operations. The areas with highest population densities, such as Lakeland, Tampa and Bradenton, all have open heart programs in the vicinity. Thus, the existing programs in the district are geographically distributed consistent with the relative population distribution within the district. There are no programs in either Hardee or Highlands Counties, but they have a very small population base. Indeed, HRS acknowledged in the state agency action report that a new program at WHH would not enhance access to residents of those two counties. According to traffic engineering studies introduced into evidence, open heart surgery services currently are available to 90% of the population of district 6 within a two hour drive time, as required by subparagraph 4.a. of rule 10- 5.011(1)(f). The City of Lakeland is only fifteen miles, or thirty minutes drive time, from Winter Haven. Therefore, the addition of a new program in Winter Haven will not materially enhance geographic accessibility. Further, there is no demonstrated accessibility problem by residents of the district. The existing facilities in the district have sufficient excess capacity to perform additional open heart surgery cases. This projected growth can be accommodated without any additional capital expenditures. Indeed, greater utilization of the existing programs would be a less costly alternative to the establishment of a new program at WHH. Also, there is no evidence that cardiac patients in the district will experience serious problems in obtaining open heart surgery services in the absence of a program at WHH. Therefore, it is found that the applicant has failed to show that the existing programs are inadequate or unavailable, that residents have an accessibility problem to existing facilities, that the quality of care, efficiency, utilization and appropriateness of other programs are less than satisfactory, that less costly, more efficient alternatives are not available, that patients will experience a serious problem in obtaining care in the absence of the proposed new service, or that existing facilities are being used in an inappropriate or inefficient manner. Subsections 381.705(1)(c) and (h), F.S. - These two criteria go hand in hand and require HRS to consider "the ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care," and whether the applicant has sufficient resources, including manpower, to accomplish and operate the project. Petitioners suggest that WHH will be unable to offer adequate quality of care because the new program will not attract a sufficient number of patients and because of a lack of adequate planning. They also contend that WHH will not be able to recruit and hire the necessary personnel to support its program. To ensure quality of care, WHH intends to enter into a contract with The Watson Clinic in Lakeland to provide a surgical team. Since those physicians are performing surgeries at LRMC, WHH proposes that the team would split its time between the two facilities. The team now performs more than 500 procedures per year at LRMC. Thus, WHH asserts that the team can easily maintain its proficiency even if it does not meet its projected level of procedures. For that matter, WHH points to a suggested standard by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) that 150 procedures per year is a reasonable standard, a goal that WHH obviously believes it can reach. It goes on to contend that the surgical team, and not the hospital, performs the procedure, and that as long as the combined efforts of the surgical team surpasses the 500 threshold, the quality of care will be maintained. As to the resources and manpower needed to accomplish the project, WHH projected in its application the need to hire two scrub technicians, two registered nurses and one perfusionist for a single surgical team in one operating room. However, it projected no incremental staffing needs for additional ICU nurses or technicians. The applicant concedes it may "encounter some difficulty in hiring the necessary personnel" for its program but points to a good track record in hiring other personnel and the fact that the perfusionist may be provided by the surgical team from The Watson Clinic. It further posits that aside from the five positions, it is unlikely that any other personnel must be hired. This is because it already has some experienced personnel in the employ of the hospital who can be transferred to the open heart surgery program and others can be readily trained. The evidence establishes the fact that there is a direct relationship between the volume of open heart surgery performed at a hospital and the quality care afforded open heart surgery patients. In other words, as the volume of cases increases, mortality rates generally decrease. As demonstrated in studies introduced by LRMC witness Luft, hospitals performing between 20 and 100 coronary artery bypass graft procedures per year had a risk adjusted mortality rate of 5.2%. This rate decreased to 4.1% for hospitals with annual volumes of between 201 and 350 procedures, and dropped even farther for facilities performing in excess of 350 procedures per year. This measure has proven to be accurate at LRMC, for as the volume at the hospital has increased, mortality has decreased. The above statistics are accepted as being a more reliable measure than the ACS standard of 150 procedures per year suggested by WHH. The more credible evidence reflects that WHH will not be able to perform 200 adult open heart surgery procedures annually within three years of initiating its program. This level could only be achieved if WHH gains a substantial share of Highland County's market. However, the vast majority of Highland patients are currently migrating out of the district to a church sponsored facility in Orlando. This suggests that these patients are motivated by factors other than proximity since they are already bypassing the closest facility, LRMC. In addition, LRMC's cardiovasular surgeons, who WHH plans to use, receive no referrals from that county, and only 4% of LRMC's total hospital discharges come from that county. Further, there is no evidence that WHH would be able to change existing referral patterns. Finally, although WHH projected 164 procedures in its first year, 206 the second year and a minimum of 200 by year three, it made no credible market share analysis to support those projections. Indeed, existing use rates of Polk County residents, which are another good indication of the future demand for a new service, belie WHH's projections and suggest that only 30 additional open heart surgery cases will be generated in 1990 beyond current volumes. This is consistent with the fact that LRMC has experienced the smallest growth in open heart surgery volume of any district 6 program over the last three years. It is noted that HRS projects a growth in volume of less than 200 cases by 1990 for the entire district with much of that growth being accounted for at the new programs. A more credible and reasonable projection shows that by 1993 there will be 2,700 open heart procedures available for the six existing facilities in district 6, which is only 28 procedures more than performed by the four operational programs in district 6 during the year ending September 30, 1988. It should be noted here that WHH's recently initiated cardiology program has been facing slow growth, market saturation and potential decline. All parties recognize the critical shortage of nursing personnel that exists nationally, and particularly in the areas of cardiovascular surgery and intensive care. Even today, LRMC has a number of nursing vacancies, including vacancies in its intensive care unit, despite having a full time recruiter and an aggressive recruiting program. Thus, LRMC's fear of losing skilled personnel to WHH should the application be granted are well-founded, particularly since it has lost staff to WHH in the past. In addition, qualified perfusionists are extremely difficult to hire. Indeed, The Watson Clinic has been attempting, unsuccessfully, to hire an additional perfusionist for the LRMC program for almost a year. Current salaries for a perfusionist range from $70,000 to as high as $100,000 per year. This contrasts with the unrealistic projection of WHH that it could hire a perfusionist for $40,000 per year. A back-up open heart surgery operating room fully equipped and staffed will be necessary in order for WHH to assure patient safety and to be able to provide angioplasties. Additional ICU space is also required. Because WHH has made no provision for an additional operating room or ICU space, and the necessary related staffing, it is apparent that WHH has not adequately planned and demonstrated the intensive care capacity necessary to serve open heart surgery patients. The applicant must have more than one surgical team so as to allow for vacations, sick days, 24-hour coverage, and emergencies. However, table 11 of the application reflects that WHH intends to provide for only one assembled surgical team. With the proposed limitation of one operating room and one surgical team, WHH would not be able to handle emergency cases that arise during normal hours when a scheduled procedure is in progress. It should be noted here that The Watson Clinic now employs only three cardiovascular surgeons. One of those surgeons is leaving, and the clinic has been attempting, unsucessfully so far, to recruit another surgeon. Until a replacement is recruited, the clinic will have only two surgeons who ostensibly would work at both WHH and LRMC if the application was approved. The application does not provide for the additional intensive care staff necessary to care for 200 open heart patients per year. A 1:1 patient to nurse ratio for the first twenty-four hours following surgery is desirable. Even if WHH utilized a less desirable 2:1 ratio, at least four additional intensive care nurses would be required to handle the incremental patient load. During the start-up period for a new open heart surgery program, a hospital cannot be expected to perform the number of cases necessary to achieve the desired low mortality rates. This reality has been taken into acount by HRS by giving new programs three years in which to reach the 200 procedure threshold. Even with this grace period, the evidence supports a finding that WHH will not be able to reach that threshold within the required three year time period. Given this fact, and the shortcomings in applicant's planning for staff and equipment, it is found that WHH has failed to demonstrate that it can ensure the requisite quality of care required by the law. It is further found that applicant has failed to demonstrate that it will have the necessary resources, including manpower, to accomplish and operate the project. Subsections 381.705(1)(d) and (2)(c), F.S. - These criteria require a consideration of alternatives, including sharing arrangements, to the proposal under review. Except for existing facilities, there are no alternatives to open heart surgery. In this regard, HRS determined that "less costly alternatives to the proposal would be greater utilization of the existing open heart surgery programs in District VI." As noted in finding of fact 27, the existing facilities have sufficient excess capacity to handle the projected growth in the district. Although LRMC has offered to explore a cooperative, shared open heart surgery program with the applicant, WHH officials have so far declined. The Watson Clinic, from which the surgical team will be obtained, has also indicated a willingness to support such an arrangement. In light of WHH's unwillingness to consider this alternative, it is found that the statutory criteria have not been ftet. Subsection 381.705(1)(i), F.S. - An applicant for a CON is required to demonstrate the short and long-term financial feasiblility of the project. In this case, the long-term financial feasibility of the project is dependent in large measure upon the reasonableness of WHH's projections. The pro forma financial projections contained in the application are flawed and unreliable. This was borne out by WHH's own financial expert who rejected four of the five assumptions underlying the pro formas. To overcome these deficiencies, at hearing WHH's expert offered a new financial analysis which was substantially different than the pro formas submitted with the application and reviewed by HRS prior to deeming the application complete. As such, the new analysis constituted an impermissible amendment to the application. Even if it was not construed to be an amendment to the application, the projected utilization of 206 procedures by the second year of operation, and upon which the financial projections are premised, was not supported by the evidence. Because of this, it is found that applicant has not demonstrated that the project is financially feasible in the long term. Subsection 381.705(1)(1), F. S. - This criterion requires HRS to consider the "probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant". The statute also speaks of competition and its effect on the ability of the applicant's competitors to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Initially, it is noted that in recent years there has been increasing competition for open heart patients in district 6. This is because three new programs have recently become operational. In addition, a new program was just authorized in Pasco County which will reduce the inflow of Pasco County residents into district 6. Most of the Pasco County patients were utilizing the facility of TGH. The authorization of another program will inevitably draw patients from the existing facilities and the expected loss will serve to increase costs both to patients and hospitals. Although WHH intends to charge lower fees for open heart patients than do LRMC and TGH, HRS concedes that this would not likely have the effect of causing those providers to decrease their charges. At the same time, the competition between LRMC and WHH for the skilled personnel necessary to operate an open heart surgery program would have the effect of driving up costs at both institutions. If approved, the application would directly and adversely impact LRMC. This is because approximately 75% of LRMC's open heart patients are residents of Polk County. The historical overall hospital primary Service area of WHH, which is projected by WHH to mirror the primary service area of its open heart surgery program, directly overlaps LRMC'S primary service area for open heart surgery. In addition, cardiologists and surgeons at LRMC currently receive referrals of surgical, angioplasty and diagnostic cardiac catherization cases from Winter Haven physicians, and those referrals will likely be reduced with the approval of a new program at WHH. This is supported by the fact that when WHH opened its cardiac catherization laboratory in August 1988, LRMC experienced a substantial drop in cases referred from Winter Haven physicians. Further, if WHH achieves its projected level of 206 cases by the second year of operation, LRMC would likely lose 133 open heart referrals and 128 angioplasty cases. This in turn would result in an annual financial loss of $1,652,640 for LRMC. If the number of procedures reached 350, LRMC could likely lose 226 cases per year, a number that WHH's own expert conceded was reasonable given the fact that some 200 patients per year come to LRMC from points outside of Lakeland but within Polk County. Given LRMC's declining operating margins in recent years, and a projected operating margin of only $300,000 in 1990, LRMC would be forced into a deficit position thereby adversely impacting its current level of services, quality of care and ability to provide indigent care. Tampa General Hospital's indigent load is substantial, and for the current fiscal year it anticipates providing $45 million worth of indigent care net of any reimbursement. Indeed, approximately 43% of TGH's patients are in the medically needy category, and it projects a deficit in 1990 of $4.3 million. To offset these losses, TGH relies on revenues from paying patients, of which the open heart surgery program is a major source. In 1988, this source provided 15% of its net patient services revenue. The approval of a program at WHH would further reduce the availability of open heart patients to TGH. If a new program caused only a 10% loss of open heart surgery patients, TGH's gross service revenue would decrease by over $4 million per year. Even the 5% to 6% loss that WHH predicts will occur would equate to a not insubstantial sixty-two patients per year. Accordingly, it is found that the introduction of a new program at WHH would have an adverse impact on TGH, although not as profound as on LRMC. Subsection 381.705(1)(n), F. S. - This subsection requires HRS to consider the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Recent data indicates that only 2.7% of WHH's total patient days were Medicaid days. Also, its total charity uncompensated care was $410,176. When the Hill-Burton compulsory contribution is excluded, WHH's net voluntary indigent and uncompensated care was only $133,950, which was two-tenths of one percent of gross revenue for the year. This contrasts with TGH's total uncompensated care in 1987 of 4.5% of gross revenue. According to Health Care Cost Containment Board data for 1988, WHH's total uncompensated care was approximately one-tenth the amount incurred by LRMC during the same time period. Also, the applicant has had a policy of requiring major surgery patients to demonstrate financial capability before being admitted. Even so, WHH has represented to HRS that it intends to dedicate 2% of open heart services to Medicaid patients which is comparable to the level historically reported by existing providers in the district. Given this representation, which was not contradicted, it is found that the application is in compliance with this criterion. The remaining statutory criteria - Petitioners have not seriously contested WHH's ability to satisfy the remaining statutory criteria. It is specifically found that the remaining relevant statutory criteria have been satisfied. To the extent the rule criteria, except rule 10-5.011(1)(f), apply, they are also deemed to have been satisfied but only where the comparable statutory criteria have been met. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), F. A. C. - This rule sets forth additional criteria against which applications for open heart surgery programs are evaluated. Of some significance is the admonition in subparagraph 2. which states that "(t)he Department will not normally approve applications for open heart surgery programs in any service area unless the conditions of Sub- paragraphs 8. and 11., below, are met." Since WHH does not rely on "not normal" circumstances, a major controversy has arisen over the manner in which MRS has deemed subpart 11.a.(I) to have been satisfied. To determine the numeric need for new programs within a service area, HRS utilized the formula embodied in subparagraph 8. of the rule. Under this formula, a use rate was calculated for the service district based upon the number of open heart surgery procedures per 100,000 population for the year ending June 30, 1988. The use rate was then applied to the projected population for the horizon year of 1990, the year the program is expected to begin. This calculation produced a projected number of 2,914 procedures for 1990. After dividing that number by 350, MRS determined that 8.3 programs were needed in the district by 1990. Since the district already has six existing or approved programs, which must be subtracted from the projected need, the formula produced a net need of two additional programs. According to MRS's expert, the formula calculation merely provides an opportunity, and not a requirement, for MRS to approve an additional program since the applicant's conformity with other rule and statutory criteria must also be considered. It should be noted that the rule projects a need on a district-wide basis and has no provision for projecting the number of cases within various geographic areas of the district such as the service area defined in WMM's application. In this regard, WHH made no claim that it would attact patients from anywhere in district 6 other than Polk, Mardee and Highlands Counties. Subparagraph 11. of the rule reads in part as follows: There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs unless: the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year . the conditions specified in Sub- paragraph 5.4, above, will be met by the proposed program. b. No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which would reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart surgery procedures annually for adults . . . The above rule was adopted in substantially its present form in February 1983. Under the plain language in subparagraph 11.a., even if a numeric need is shown, a new program shall not be established unless each existing and approved program within the district is operating at and is expected to operate at a minimum of 350 procedures per year. The agency's expert acknowledged that the plain language of the rule requires that each existing and approved program be operating at the 350 threshold before a new program may be approved. She also acknowledged that if the words "and approved" were not in subpart 11.a.(I), the agency would interpret the provision in the manner suggested by petitioners. Nonetheless, HRS interprets the rule as requiring that each existing and approved program must in the future maintain an average of 350 procedures if a new program is approved. No determination is made as to whether the existing programs are currently averaging 350 procedures annually. According to HRS's expert, this interpretation is based upon a reading of the entire subparagraph 11. Applicant's expert, who was formerly in charge of HRS's CON program, also supported the agency's practice of "averaging" and concluded that subparagraph authorized this interpretation. Even so, the word "averaging" is not found in any provision within subparagraph 11. In addition, the proponents of the averaging policy rely upon another portion of the rule to support their position. More specifically, they rely heavily upon subparagraph 7. of the same rule which provides that "(t)he provision of open heart surgery in the service area shall be consistent with the needs reflected in the local health plan and the Florida State Health Plan." One objective of the state health plan is to maintain an average of 350 procedures per program in the district through 1990. It is noted, however, that the state health plan applicable to this proceeding was adopted more than two years after the rule in question became effective, and thus could not have supported HRS's interpretation during the rule's first two years of operation. Moreover, that objective is directly at odds with the provisions in subpart 11.a.(I). Finally, the proponents argue that if the rule is interpreted in the manner suggested by LMRC and TGH, a new program could never be authorized if a district had an approved program since an approved program is not yet operational and obviously could not achieve the 350 threshold. They argue that such a construction would be illogical and absurd. However, it is noted that the rule provides that a new program can be authorized by HRS if not normal circumstances are shown even if the 350 threshold is not being satisfied. Indeed, HRS has granted at least three open heart CONs based on not normal circumstances. In November 1982 HRS was in the process of considering changes to the rules pertaining to CON applications for both cardiac catherization laboratories and open heart surgery programs. In response to a staff suggestion, HRS amended its cardiac catherization laboratory rule by changing the existing utilization provisions to require that an average of 600 adult catherizations be used as a utilization threshold for the review of applications rather than a requirement that each laboratory in the district be performing 500 adult catherizations. This amendment was made because HRS recognized that by using the word "average", the authorization of new laboratories would "not be impeded by a few or even one laboratory which is operating below the required minimum". In contrast, however, HRS chose not to amend its open heart rule to make a corresponding change. This was perhaps due to the fact that HRS initially interpreted the open heart rule to mean what it literally says and early on denied at least one application because each existing program in the service district was not performing 350 or more procedures per year. Expert testimony established good health planning reasons why the rule should be applied as written and why the incipient policy being used by HRS is improper. Given the undisputed relationship between the quality of an open heart surgery program and its volume, it is gold health planning to allow newly approved providers to become operational and reach the 350 procedure level as soon as possible and before new programs are authorized. If the 350 averaging procedure was used, new programs could be approved even though there were existing programs in the area, as here, maintaining an annual volume substantially below 350 procedures. The inevitable result would be to drive down the utilization in most or all of the programs. Indeed, HRS undertook no formal analysis in this proceeding to determine if the approval of a new program would force the utilization rate of any existing provider below the 350 threshold. In the absence of not normal circumstances, it is found that the provisions of subpart 11.a.(I) have not been met. Amendments or Updates? At issue in this proceeding is the admissibility of certain information proffered by WHH at hearing which was not contained in the original application. This includes (a) certain pro forma financial projections and (b) proposed changes to the staffing and equipment. These are discussed in greater detail below. It should be noted here that any changes to facilities, beds or staffing outlined in the application would be a "significant" amendment to the proposal from a health planning perspective as it would change the projected costs of the operation in both the long-term and short-term. Moreover, HRS's expert agreed that WHH is bound by the projections in the application and omissions response. The original application contained pro forma financial projections to justify the financial feasibility of the project. This is the same "detailed financial projection" that is statutorily required to be filed with the application. At hearing, WHH introduced into evidence, subject to petitioners' objections, new pro formas to demonstrate that the program would be financially feasible. This new analysis was substantially different than the pro formas submitted to HRS by WHH and was not reviewed by HRS prior to deeming the application complete. In the application reviewed by HRS, WHH represented that it intended to hire five additional personnel, including two scrub technicians, two registered nurses, and one perfusionist for a single surgical team. At hearing, WHH presented several proposed changes in its staffing and equipment plans. First, WHH suggested that The Watson Clinic would supply the perfusionist and certain other personnel for its surgical team, although it projected no costs for those personnel. Secondly, WHH suggested it could equip and staff a back-up operating room and could train surgical and ICU nurses currently employed at WHH to become proficient in the care of open heart patients, rather than hiring additional nurses. Again, no additional costs were submitted with these new proposals. These changes were not reviewed by HRS prior to deeming the application complete. The applicant was made aware that its proposal did not provide for adequate facilities, beds, or staffing prior to the filing of its application. This advice was conveyed to WHH by its own consultant in September 1988. For whatever reason, at that time WHH chose not to adopt the more costly recommendation of its consultant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. for a certificate of need to authorize the establishment of an open heart surgery program be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of December, 1989.
The Issue Petitioner, St. Mary's, and Intervenor, BRCH contend that Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons more specifically set forth in St. Mary's Amended Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of a Rule. Respondent, HRS, and Intervenors, JFK, PBGMC, and Florida Hospital, contend that Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner, St. Mary's, presented the oral testimony of Philip Rond, W. Eugene Nelson-Michael L. Schwartz, and James McElreath. Petitioner submitted 9 exhibits at formal hearing, 8 of which were admitted in evidence. Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, St. Mary's subsequently had admitted an after- filed deposition of Frank R. Sloan. Intervenor BRCH had admitted in evidence 1 exhibit but called no witnesses. Respondent HRS presented the oral testimony of Elfie Stamm and Reid Jaffe. Respondent HRS had 4 exhibits admitted in evidence. At formal hearing, Intervenors JFK and PBGMC presented the oral testimony of Mark Richardson which was also adopted by HRS as its own. Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, JFK and PBGMC subsequently had admitted an after- filed deposition of Harold B. Luft which was also adopted by HRS. Official recognition of JFK's Petition in DOAH Case No. 86-4368 was granted. PBGMC had 1 exhibit admitted in evidence at formal hearing. Intervenor Florida Hospital, submitted no exhibits and adopted the testimony of HRS' witnesses. The Hearing Officer received two documents into evidence as Hearing Officer Exhibits, the Prehearing Stipulation between the parties in this proceeding and a copy of Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Official recognition was taken of the Final Order dated July 27, 1987, in St. Francis Careunit v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., DOAH Case No. 84-2918. Subsequent to the filing of the transcript herein, and pursuant to time waivers and stipulations among the parties, St. Mary's and BRCH filed their joint proposed final order; JFK and PBGMC filed their joint proposed final order; and HRS and Florida Hospital filed individual respective proposed final orders. The parties' respective proposed findings of fact are ruled upon in the Appendix to this Final Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Additionally HRS' Motion to Strike Portions of the Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of St. Mary's and Intervenor BRCH, and JFK's Motion to Strike are ruled upon within this Final Order and its Appendix.
Findings Of Fact St. Mary's is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, West Palm Beach, Florida. St. Mary's has pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings DOAH Case No. 86-4368 concerning its certificate of need (CON) application for an open heart surgery program at St. Mary's which was preliminarily denied by HRS (CON Action No. 4551). Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, was utilized by HRS in evaluating St. Mary's CON application and was relied upon by HRS in its decision to deny CON Action No. 4551. Pursuant to that HRS review, there is no numerical need for the St. Mary's proposed program, based upon HRS' application of the quantitative need methodology contained in the Rule. St. Mary's is substantially affected by Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, and consequently has standing to seek administrative determination of the validity of said rule through this present cause. BRCH is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, Boca Raton Florida. BRCH has pending before HRS a CON application for an open heart surgery program at BRCH (CON Application No. 5194) which is currently being reviewed by HRS in accordance with Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. BRCH is substantially affected by Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, and consequently has standing to seek administrative determination of the validity of said rule through this present cause. JFK is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, Lake Worth, Florida, which has in place its open heart surgery program. JFK's open heart surgery program opened and closed in 1986. On the date of formal hearing, JFK had scheduled to reopen its open heart surgery program in August, 1987. The program is subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes, (1985), and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. JFK is an Intervenor in opposition to St. Mary's application in DOAH Case No. 86-4368 alleging that due to the service area and medical staff overlaps between St. Mary's and JFK, there will be adverse staffing, economic, availability, and quality impacts upon JFK. PBGMC is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which has in place an open heart surgery program. Its program is likewise subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes (1985), and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. PBGMC is an Intervenor in opposition to St. Mary's application in DOAH Case No. 86- 4368 alleging that due to the service area and medical staff overlaps between St. Mary's and PBGMC, there will be adverse staffing, economic, availability and quality impacts upon PBGMC. Florida Hospital is an existing general acute care hospital in Service District 7, Orlando Florida, which has in place an open heart surgery program. It is subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes (1985), and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Section 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. It may be inferred that a determination of invalidity of the Rule wall impact upon Florida Hospital if, as a result thereof CONs are granted for other open heart surgery programs in that District, but there is no direct evidence to that effect. No direct threat of revocation of Florida Hospital's existing CON or of economic or other impact of this rule challenge upon Florida Hospital was demonstrated by Florida Hospital at formal hearing. Respondent, HRS, is responsible for the administration of Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes, (the CON statute) and Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Code, (the CON rules). The initial development of the Rule was undertaken in 1982 and 1983 in a manner consistent with HRS internal policy. HRS reviewed the relevant literature relating to open heart surgery programs and services. Included among the literature reviewed were the National Guidelines for Health Planning (National Guidelines or Guidelines) and the standards for review of applications for certificates of need (CON) for open heart surgery services proposed by several Health Systems Agencies. At the time those standards were developed, the Health Systems Agencies were responsible for the first level of review in the state certificate of need process. Originally, the companion to the open-heart surgery rule, was Rule 10- 5.011(15), now codified as Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, which rule sets forth criteria for cardiac catheterization lab CON applications. Considerably more emphasis was accorded the development of the companion rule initially, but even expert witnesses for Petitioner's view acknowledge that the rule promulgation process relative to the adoption of the open heart surgery rule was thorough, rational, and essentially non-remarkable in the scope of promulgation of numerous CON rules drafted and implemented for the first time during a period in which HRS was also developing other rules dealing with a broad range of services and facilities to comply with new legislation eliminating Health Systems Agencies and requiring HRS to adopt uniform methodologies to be used in the CON program. Subsequent to its review of the literature, HRS formed a work group to assist in the development of the Rule. HRS prepared a draft of the proposed Ruled which was sent to over fifty experts in the field of cardiology. HRS received extensive comments on the draft rule. The final proposed Rule was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. A public hearing on the proposed Rule was held in December, 1982, during which extensive public comment was received. The public comments were reviewed by and discussed among the HRS' health planning staff and administration. Upon consideration of all the input received, the final draft of the initial rule abandoned a proposal to rely on 1979 utilization data and substituted 1981 data. Additionally, provision was made to allow for consideration within the Rule's need formula of approved, but not yet operational, open heart surgery programs. The Rule was then filed for adoption and went into effect February 14, 1983. Because it was deemed prudent, and because the National Guidelines provided for it, HRS intended, at the time the initial open heart surgery rule was promulgated, to revisit the components of the Rule every 2-3 years. The Rule was next amended in 1986. At that time, in response to public comment, "Uc" of Subparagraph 8 of the Rule, which prescribes the base period to be used in the calculation of a service area use rate, was substantially revised. In its initial form, element "Uc" was based on the 1981 service area actual use rate. As amended, "Uc" measures the actual use rate in the service area for a 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the batching cycle at issue, or the most recent use rate available to HRS. There have been no other substantial amendments which impinge upon the instant Rule challenge. Among other allegations, Petitioner asserts that because the Rule is silent as to which or however many exceptional circumstances would have to exist in order to justify approval of a CON application for an open heart surgery program in the absence of numerical needs the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. The evidence and applicable case law do not support such a premise. The Rule provides that HRS will consider applications in the context of applicable statutory and rule criteria. See 10-5.011(1)(f)2. The Rule further provides that HRS will "not normally" approve applications for new open heart surgery programs unless the conditions of subparagraphs 8 and 11 of the Rule are met. Also 10-5.011(1)(f)2. The very nature of "not normal" circumstances is that all possible "not normal" circumstances cannot be enumerated within a rule because in the attempt, some exceptionalities would inevitably be excluded. Of the four applications proposing new open heart surgery programs which have been approved in the recent past, three were approved under "not normal" circumstances, that is, where one or both provisions of Subparagraphs 8 and 11 were not met. The applicable state agency action reports (SAARS) which reflect HRS' preliminary position on CON applications, demonstrate that HRS routinely considers all relevant statutory and regulatory criteria in its review of open heart surgery program CON applications. There is no competent substantial evidence to show that HRS' evaluation of applications proposing new open heart surgery programs are prohibited by the Rule from entailing a balanced consideration of the statutory and regulatory criteria relevant to CON review. As a corollary of the foregoing allegation, it is alleged that because the Rule does not specifically address what has come to be known in CON practice as "the in-migration/out-migration" phenomenon, while at least one other CON rule does specifically address this phenomenon, a balanced consideration of all statutory criteria is frustrated, thereby resulting in understating the need for open heart surgery programs in one District/service area while enabling unnecessary, costly duplication of programs within other Districts/service areas. The use rate (discussed infra) purports to capture that in- and out- migration which can be standardized within the 12 month base period. At hearing, it was tenuously demonstrated that an unmeasured in-/out-migration phenomenon may exist within 2 out of 11 HRS Districts, but the degree to which it exists, if at all, is purely speculative. Even if these two Districts clearly possessed extraordinary timeframe, geographical, or transportation uniqueness, these access abnormalities would not justify declaring the Rule invalid. Rather, in the event the use rate for some reason does not measure them, these exceptionalities would be just the sort of "not normal" aberration for which it would be appropriate to resort to balancing of all statutory and rule criteria. Petitioner also contends that because this Rule does not define "service area" as the respective HRS Service District, it leaves each applicant free to designate, virtually at will, its own service area. Apparently, the initial Rule drafters intended that the service area be defined in the open heart surgery Rule as the HRS Service District. In finalizing Section (1)(e)(its companion cardiac catheterization lab rate rule), this definition was indeed included. However, in the open heart surgery rule, it was omitted. No witness recommended or even seriously considered that any service area less than the relevant HRS District should be designated, and the evidence is unrefuted and substantial that District lines have always been uniformly applied by HRS in interpreting the open heart surgery Rule. This interpretation is consistent with the agency's application of similarly silent rules. Petitioner alleges that because there is no Rule requirement or uniform manner for hospitals to report their open heart surgery utilization data to Local Health Councils or to HRS, the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. Authorized HRS representatives and others testified that data for the most current 12-month period, with a 2 month lag time are the most appropriate data to use. Testimony by St. Mary's experts that the data necessary to derive the rule methodology is not available, was directly refuted by evidence from authorized HRS representatives and others that HRS is able to collect all necessary data even though some councils report at different intervals from each other, and even though some hospitals report in "cases," others in "procedures" and one in "minutes." Because of these procedures of reporting, it may be necessary to make certain mathematical conversions or interpretations in preparing an agency SAAR or in presenting evidentiary proof in a Section 120.57 hearing, but even if one accepts that it is difficult to collect and interpret the necessary data, that concept does not support the conclusion that the Rule itself is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise fatally flawed. Subparagraph 8 of the Rule defines Year X as the year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service but no more than two years into the future. St. Mary's contentions with regard to this provision are that the triggerpoint cannot be determined and that by allowing applicants in the same batching cycle to elect varying dates of initiating service, similarly batched applicants may select different horizons within the two year outside limit and therefore those two applicants could not be comparatively reviewed. It was shown that in the last batching cycle all applications were reviewed from the same trigger date and that HRS' implementation of the CON rules is guided by legal precedent. HRS' shifting of trigger dates in past batches is accounted for by shifting legal precedents. Therefore, assuming applicants in the same batch may unilaterally select different planning horizons within the traditional two year range permissible under the Rule, that is not sufficient to invalidate the Rule as arbitrary and capricious. The Rule establishes a need formula. Entitlement of applicants to "comparative review" is set forth in other statutory, ruled and case law authority. Applicants in the same batching cycle who elect significantly different horizon dates under the Rule probably ought not to be comparatively reviewed, but that problem is to be addressed within the context of "all statutory and rule criteria" both at the agency level in the case of initial review, and, when necessary, in the case of litigation before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by appropriate motion. The remainder of Petitioner's challenge addresses, in one form or another, the Rule's numerical need formula. The Rule establishes three thresholds which apply to utilization of open heart surgery programs. Subsection 3.d. requires that each program shall be able to provide 500 open heart operations per year." Each program is required to provide a minimum of 200 adult open heart procedures annually within 3 years of the initiation of service, with no additional programs to be approved in a service area until each existing program is operating at a minimum of 350 adult open heart cases. Subparagraphs 8 and 11 are the cornerstones of the numerical need formula provided in the Rule. Specifically, Subparagraph 11 of the Rule provides: There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless; The service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year; and, The conditions specified in Sub- subparagraph 5.d., above, will be met by the proposed program. b. No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which would reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. The standard found at Subparagraph 11 of the Ruled which provides that there should be no additional open heart surgery units initiated in a service area unless each existing and approved unit is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric open heart cases per year, is based upon a substantially similar standard enunciated in the National Guidelines published in 1978 and in effect at the time the Rule was initially promulgated. The National Guidelines were developed by the Federal Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) pursuant to an extensive process of public consultation, including receipt of recommendations and comments for Health Systems Agencies (HSAs), State Health Planning and Development Agencies (SHPDAs) Statewide Health Coordinating Councils, associations representing various health care providers, and the National Council on Health Planning and Development. The federal process of promulgation encompassed over two years of consultation, public notices, public meetings, and related activities. There were strong incentives to SHPDAs to develop local standards consistent with the National Guidelines and the National Guidelines contain a provision which permitted HSAs and SHPDAs pursuant to detailed local analyses, to deviate from the standards contained in the National Guidelines. The Florida Rule deviates from the National Guidelines in that it does not require facilities which offer cardiac catheterization services to also offer open heart surgery service. Florida's rationale supporting the 350 standard in its Rule is that of the National Guidelines which assumes that each facility can provide an average of seven operations a weeks a schedule HEW judged to be feasible in most institutions which provide open heart surgery services. As a matter of health planning policy, HEW established the 350 standard in an effort to prevent duplication of costly services which are not fully utilized, both as to facility resources and manpower. This goal is reiterated in the 1985 Florida State Health Plan. Reasonableness of the 350 case requirement is supported by testimony regarding the purposes behind the hours of operation standards portion of the Rule. See 10-5.011(1)(f)4.b. That subparagraph mandates that open heart surgery programs be available for procedures 8 hours per days 5 days per weeks for a total of 40 available hours of surgery per week, and capable of rapid mobilization of the surgical and medical support team for emergencies 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Since it is estimated that each open heart procedure requires an average of 4 hours of operating room time, including cleanup, and operations go forward 50 weeks per year, then each program can, over time, attain the goal of 500 annual open heart operations which is set in Subsection 3.b. Considering both elective and unscheduled services, HRS arrived at a 75 percent of maximum as a reasonable utilization figure, and Petitioner has in no way refuted the reasonableness of these hours of operation requirements or of HRS' 75 percent figure for reasonable utilization. The 350 threshold figure is primarily intended to ensure an appropriate utilization level of every open heart surgery unit. In fact, the minimum quality standard is set forth in Subparagraph 5 of the Rule as "200" and is supported in reason and logic upon the facts set forth, infra. The 350 figure here is intended to result in greater efficiency which results in economic benefits to the hospital which may ultimately be passed on to patients. I accept Dr. Luft's expert opinion and analysis that the economic benefits of a 350 threshold are derived primarily from clinical economies of scale which result from improved proficiencies in the provision of service rather than solely in the classic economy of scale of a greater division of fixed costs. One clinical economy of scale demonstrated by Dr. Luft is that shorter average lengths of hospital stay result from high volume facilities. The shorter lengths of stay translate into patient or third party payor dollars saved. Admittedly, the 350 standard also secondarily encompasses consideration of the relationship of the volume of open heart surgery services and patient mortality, thus peripherally impinging on the volume of a 200 minimum threshold for quality of care purposes. Except for one study by Dr. Sloan, the evidence consistently supports existence of a negative relationship between volume and outcome, e.g., facilities performing higher volumes of open heart surgery have lower mortality rates. Obvious empirical problems inherent in Dr. Sloan's study impair its credibility. In light of his deposition testimony concerning how his several studies were conducted and how empirical data was converted by him for use in those studies, and due to his superior education, training, and experience, I find more credible Dr. Luft's determination that hospitals which perform low volumes of open heart surgery, particularly with respect to coronary artery bypass graft surgery, have substantially higher mortality rates than hospitals performing higher volumes of such surgery. Moreover, those areas of analysis in which the opinions of these two health care economic experts, Dr. Luft and Dr. Sloan, are consistent with one another and with the other literature and experts in the field whom they each cite as accepted and relied upon by them, strongly suggest that Dr. Sloan's unusual conclusion that low volume hospitals more often fit his unique categorization of "low mortality" should not be relied upon for purposes of formulating, drafting, and promulgating standard rules. The 350 standard does not appear to have impeded either competition or quality of care. There is also no competent substantial evidence to establish that there are too few open heart surgery programs in Florida at this time. At present, no District/Service Area has fewer than two open heart surgery programs, and 8 of the 11 Districts have 3 or more programs. Although many individual programs fall below the 350 thresholds on average, open heart surgery programs in operation in Florida perform close to 350 cases per year apiece. Between 1985 and 1986 the percentage of Florida programs performing 350 or more cases annually climbed from 24 percent to 35 percent. Petitioner never directly attacked the 200 procedure standard for quality, however, some evidence was presented to show that a lesser figure could still uphold quality considerations. This evidence was neither substantial nor credible. In lieu of the 350 utilization threshold, a variety of possible optimal threshold numbers were suggested by Petitioner's expert witnesses, among them 130 (the same utilization figure as for pediatric cases), 150, and 200 (the same figure as presently used to insure adult quality of care). Even if the highest of these suggested figures were selected as a utilization standard, that is, 200 cases per year substituted for the 350 utilization standards a minimum additional 31 open heart surgery programs would be "needed" on a statewide basis. This would nearly double the current number. Assuming there would emerge therefrom a normal distribution of programs around the substituted 200 standard, there could be the result that half the State's programs would then be operating below 200 and half above 200, so that half the programs would operate below the 200 quality of care standard now in effect. Even assuming arguendo that Petitioner's expert, Mr. Schwartz, is correct that 72 percent of current programs meet or exceed the 200 procedure levels and that that 72 percent would remain constant, more than one quarter of the state's programs would be below the 200 quality of care level. This is clearly not a desirable health planning goal. Such a proliferation of straight numbers of programs would doubtless impact adversely on all existing approved providers' utilization, concomitantly forcing up individual consumer costs. The testimony is more credible that the improvement curve "flattens out" anywhere from 333 to 350, but even if one were to accept St. Mary's witnesses position that the improvement curve "bottoms out" (that is, utilization and quality optimums meet) at 200 open heart surgeries, there is evidence that there is still some minimal improvement in outcome (quality) in operations performed in hospitals exceeding the 200 figure. The 350 standard reduces the number of institutions over which a given number of procedures is spread and in general will result in higher volume per hospital, reducing the likelihood that outcomes would be worse than they might be otherwise. To the extent that witnesses support the position that the 350 figure is not reasonably or rationally related to the CON statutes, is arbitrary, or is unduly restrictive of the initiation of new open heart surgery programs, their testimony is unpersuasive in light of the foregoing determinations with regard to the hours of operation standards, the National Guidelines, and the statutory goal to avoid proliferation of such programs at the expense of efficiency, economy, and quality. Subsection 8 of the Rule provides as follows: Need Determination. The need for open heart surgery programs in a service area shall be determined by computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination: Where: N = Number of open heart procedures projected for Year X; U = Actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand population) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent deadline for the batching cycle. P = Projected population in the service area in Year X; and, Year X = The year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future. Subparagraph 8 of the Rule provides a formula by which numerical need for open heart surgery programs within a service area may be calculated. The use rate therein is based upon the number of procedures per 100,000 population in the District/Service Area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the applicant. If a District does not have 12 months' experience, the statewide use rate is used. This use rate is based upon the most recent utilization data available to HRS. The data necessary to calculate the use rate is accessible and available to HRS as set out supra. The base period employed in the calculation of the use rate is appropriate for use in the numerical need methodology. It provides the most current picture of utilization of open heart surgery services within each District/Service Area which the agency has been able to devise. The Rule's base period essentially provides what health planners describe as a "realistic" or "rolling" use rate. Such a component permits consideration of facility number increases and volume fluctuations within facilities within the District/Service Area. Increased number of facilities and volume increases and decreases within specific facilities are quickly reflected by such a use rate and may be quickly considered in projecting need for the future. Such reality based use rates are customarily employed by health planners in projecting need for new open heart surgery services. The use rate minimally approaches the differences in population utilization of open heart surgery facilities occurring across age differential groupings. Although there is some evidence that the use rate formula contained in the Rule is not optimal in providing accessibility where there occasionally is clustering of "aged aged" population centers or clustering of heart surgery optimal age groups, the evidence in favor of such a rolling use rate establishes that as a statewide rule component, it is reasonable, not arbitrary, and not capricious. No witness offered a more reasonable substitute base period and the agency is not required to promulgate an optimal one, merely a reasonable one. St. Mary's and BRCH's witnesses suggestion that the Rule is ambiguous for a discernible number need methodology is not substantiated by credible competent evidence, and is generally rejected. Ms. Stamm, testifying for Respondent, had trouble with applying basic arithmetic under stress but not with the methodology. Mr. Schwartz, on behalf of the Rule's opponents, had some difficulty in determining whether the 200 or 350 standard was the appropriate figure for need determination. No other witness experienced Mr. Schwartz' confusion. When called to work Subparagraph 8 calculations, all witnesses were in agreement as to the mechanics of the Rule. No witness, including those who attacked the Rule as facially inconsistent due to the Rule's use of undefined terms of "programs," "procedures," and "cases" and/or those who complained about difficulty of obtaining raw data for the base time period had any difficulty in applying the Rule's numerical need formula, and indeed, Mr. Rond testified that HRS' interpretation of the numerical need formula was the most straightforward interpretation (TR-115) and the way he would logically do it. (TR-98-100) Each witness who was asked to use the Rule's formula in order to determine numerical need, consistently offered the following approach: First Derive Nx, as provided in Subparagraph 8. (Nx is the number of open heart procedures projected for year X). Second: Divide Nx by 350 (from Subparagraph 11) to obtain the gross projected need. Third, subtract from the gross projected needs the numbers of existing and approved programs within the applicable district so as to obtain the net need. The Rule's provision for subtraction of approved as well as for subtraction of operating programs from gross need so as to determine net need was investigated and adopted in the rational approach to rule promulgation. This is an accepted health planning component utilized in numerous CON rules. For these reasons and for all of the foregoing reasons related to the value of retaining 350 utilization and 200 quality thresholds, this provision for subtracting approved facilities from the gross need is found neither arbitrary nor capricious. The evidence presented by St. Mary's and BRCH is insufficient to demonstrate that HRS has not, subject to evolving legal precedent, consistently used the formula's interpretation set forth in Finding of Fact 33, at least as modulated by universally accepted common mathematical principles such as rounding results to the nearest whole number and considering "not normal" circumstances in light of all statutory and rule criteria on a case by case basis. In any case, if the agency misapplies its own Rule, applicants have recourse to a Section 120.57 proceeding and misapplication is not cause to invalidate the rule applied. I also reject as speculative and not credible St. Mary's allegation that a "sinister" conspiracy among existing and authorized providers within a given District may unnaturally reduce a single facility below the 350 threshold in order to thwart new program applications. Mr. Rond and Mr. Schwartz also promoted the premise that this result might occur unintentionally as well. HRS has not interpreted the Rule in such a peculiar manner and has approved new programs in districts where individual existing programs were not performing at the 350 level. I specifically reject as not credible the testimony of the St. Mary's and BRCH's witnesses professing concern that persons applying the Rule may be confused about how to work the formula and whether or not the pediatric population within a service area or the 130 pediatric procedures are to be subtracted at some point. Px is defined in the Rule to mean "the projected population in the service area in Year X." The Rule's language is plain and unambiguous. Nothing in the language of the Rule suggests the "projected population in the service area" is intended to exclude the pediatric population. Petitioner offered evidence that in certain instances HRS has applied Px to include the pediatric population. This, on its face, is an erroneous application of the Rule but without more, will not invalidate the Rule itself. Should HRS fail to implement the Rule according to the plain meaning of its languages an affected party may contest that agency action in a Section 120.57 hearing. In the case of former HRS employees concerned with drafting, promulgating amending and/or applying the Rule over a period of several years, their credibility is impaired by their never attempting to correct the alleged flaws and by their expressed perception of the necessity for a rule challenge as a strategic litigation move in anticipation of St. Mary's contested CON action.
The Issue Whether any of the applications of Oak Hill Hospital, Citrus Memorial Hospital, or Brooksville Regional Hospital for adult open heart surgery programs should be granted?
Findings Of Fact District 3 Extended across the northern half of the state with a reach from central Florida to the Georgia line, District 3 is the largest in land area of the eleven health service planning districts created by the Florida Legislature. See Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. Sites of the three hospitals whose futures are at issue in this proceeding are in two of the sixteen District 3 counties: Citrus County and at the southern tip of the district, Hernando County. The three hospitals aspire to join the ranks of District 3's six existing providers of adult open heart surgery programs. Three of the existing providers are in Alachua County, all within the incorporated municipality of Gainesville: Shands at Alachua General Hospital, Shands at the University of Florida, and North Florida Regional Medical Center. Two of the existing providers are in Marion County: Munroe Regional Medical Center and Ocala Regional Medical Center. The sixth provider, opened in November of 1998 as the most recently approved by AHCA in the district, is in Lake County: the Leesburg Regional Medical Center. The CON status of the two Ocala providers is somewhat unusual. Located across the street from each other in downtown Ocala, they share virtually the same medical staff. Pursuant to a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the State of Florida, the two have offered adult open heart surgery services since 1987 under a single certificate of need issued for a joint program that reflects their proximity and identity of medical staff. The Agency's view of the arrangement has evolved over the years. It now holds the position that Munroe Regional and Ocala Regional operate independent programs. Accordingly, AHCA lists each as separate programs on its inventory of adult open heart services in District 3. Nonetheless, the two operate as a joint program pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and under state sanction reflected in the agreement, that is, they derive their authority to offer adult open heart surgery services from a single certificate of need. Other than a change of attitude by the Agency, there is nothing to detract from the status they have enjoyed since the agreement reached with the state in 1987: two hospitals operating a joint program under a single certificate of need. The three Gainesville providers all operated at an annual volume of less than 350 procedures during the reporting period that was most current at the time of the filing of the applications by the three competitors in this case. Those competitors are: Citrus Memorial, Oak Hill, and Brooksville Regional. Citrus Memorial, Oak Hill, Brooksville Regional Citrus Memorial Health Foundation, Inc., is a 171-bed, not-for-profit community hospital located in Inverness, Florida. HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Oak Hill Hospital is a 204-bed hospital located in Oak Hill, Florida. Hernando HMA, Inc., d/b/a Brooksville Regional is a 91- bed hospital located in Brooksville, Florida. Hernando HMA, Inc. (the applicant for the program to be sited at Brooksville Regional) also operates a second campus under a single hospital license with Brooksville Regional. The 75-bed campus is in southern Hernando County in Spring Hill. Citrus and Hernando Counties Citrus Memorial is in Citrus County to the south of the cities of Gainesville and Ocala, the sites of five of the existing providers of adult open heart surgery in the district. Further south, Oak Hill and Brooksville Regional are in Hernando County. Although adjacent to each other along a boundary running east-west, the county line is a natural divide, north and south, with regard to service areas for open heart surgery. Substantially all Citrus County residents, including Citrus Memorial patients, receive open heart surgery and angioplasty services at one of the two Ocala providers to the north. In contrast, almost all Hernando County residents (94 percent) receive open heart services at Bayonet Point, a provider in Health Planning District 5 to the south of Hernando County. The neatness of this divide would be disrupted by the approval of the application of Brooksville Regional. Brooksville's application includes part of south Citrus County in its designated primary service area, an appropriate choice because of Brooksville Regional's location on Route 41 with good access to Citrus County. At present, however, the divide between north and south along the Citrus/Hernando boundary remains a Mason-Dixon line of open heart surgery service areas. During the year ended September 1999, for example, 408 Citrus County residents received open heart surgery in Florida. Of these, 85 percent received them in Ocala at one of the two providers there. During the same period, 618 Citrus County residents underwent angioplasty, with 89.7 percent of them going to the two Ocala providers. During the year ended March 1999, 698 Hernando County residents underwent open heart surgery at Florida Hospitals. Of the 663 residents of Oak Hill's primary service area, 94.3 percent received services at Bayonet Point in District 5. Similarly, of the 779 Oak Hill primary service area residents receiving angioplasty, 93.8 percent went south to Bayonet Point. Brooksville Regional projects that 10 percent of its OHS/angioplasty volume will be from Citrus County. Still, 90 percent of the volume is projected to be from Hernando County. Thus, even with the threat posed by Brooksville's application to the divide at the Citrus/Hernando boundary, the overwhelming percentage of Brooksville's patients will be from south of the Citrus-Hernando boundary. In sum, there is de minimis competition between would- be-provider Citrus Memorial and the providers to the north vis- a-vis would-be-providers Oak Hill and Brooksville Regional and the providers to the south in the arena of open heart surgery services needed by residents of the district. Bayonet Point Under the umbrella of HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., Bayonet Point is a provider of open heart surgery services in Pasco County. Only thirty minutes by road from its sister HCA facility Oak Hill and 45 minutes from Brooksville Regional, Bayonet Point captures approximately 94 percent of the open heart surgery patients produced among the residents of Hernando County. Although its location is in a county that is only one county to the south of the two Hernando County hospitals, Bayonet Point is in a different health planning district. It is in District 5 on its northern edge. The residents of Hernando County who receive open heart surgery services at Bayonet Point, a premier provider of adult open heart surgery services in the state of Florida, are well served. Operating at far from capacity, the quality of its open heart program is excellent to the point of being outstanding. Position of the Parties re: "not normal" circumstances The Agency's Open Heart Surgery Rule, Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code (the "Rule") establishes a need methodology and criteria applicable to review of certificate of need applications for the establishment of adult open heart surgery programs. The Rule also governs a hospital's ability to offer therapeutic cardiac catheterization interventional services (i.e., coronary angioplasty). Pursuant to Rule 50C- 1.032, Florida Administrative Code, a cardiac catheterization program that includes the provision of coronary angioplasty must be located within a hospital that provides open heart services. Applying the methodology of Rule 50C-1.033 (the "Rule"), AHCA determined that a "fixed need pool" of zero existed in District 3 for the July 2002 planning horizon. Calculation under the formula in the Rule produced a fixed need pool of one. Several District 3 programs, however, did not have an annual case volume of 350 or more procedures. The Rule's methodology requires that calculated numeric need be zeroed out whenever there are existing programs in a district with a sub- 350 annual volume. (See Section (7)(a)2., of the Rule.) As required, therefore, the Agency published a numeric need of zero for the applicable planning horizon. The determination of zero numeric need was not challenged and so became final. Their aspirations confronted with a numeric need of zero, Citrus Memorial, Oak Hill and Brooksville Regional, nonetheless, each filed applications seeking the establishment of adult open heart surgery programs. As evidenced by the Agency's initial decision to grant Citrus Memorial's application and by its change of position with regard to Oak Hill's application, the Agency is in agreement that "not normal" circumstances exist to justify granting the applications of both Citrus Memorial and Oak Hill. Thus, while the parties may differ as to the precise identification of those circumstances, all agree that there are circumstances that support the approval of at least one application (and perhaps two) for an adult open heart surgery in District 3 for the July 2002 planning horizon. It is undisputed that a new OHS program in Hernando County would have no effect on the three existing programs located in Gainesville that perform less than 350 procedures annually. This circumstance is a "not normal" circumstance, as previously found by the Agency. It allows an application's approval in the face of the Rule's dictate that the Agency will not normally approve an application when an existing provider falls below the 350 watermark. It is not, however, a circumstance that compels the award of a CON to any of the parties as in the case of "not normal" circumstances typically recognized by the Agency. (An example of such a circumstance would be an access problem for a specific population.) Rather, it is a circumstance that allows the Agency to overcome the zeroing-out effect of the Rule that demanded a fixed-need pool of zero. It is a circumstance that allows AHCA to award an adult open heart surgery CON to one of the Hernando County hospitals provided there is a demonstration of need. There are no typical "not normal" circumstances that support any of the applications. There are no geographic, economic or clinical access problems for the residents of the any of the primary service areas of the three applicants that rise to the level of "not normal" circumstances. Nor would granting the applications of any of the three support cost efficiencies. In the case of Oak Hill, moreover, granting its application would both reduce the operating efficiencies at Bayonet Point and increase the average operating cost per case at Bayonet Point. Approval of an application is not compelled by the "not normal" circumstance that exists in this case. The "not normal" circumstance simply clears the way for approval provided there is a demonstration of need. Stipulated Matters The parties stipulated that all applicants have a good record of providing quality of care and that all sections of the respective applications addressing that issue be admitted into evidence without further proof so as to establish record of quality of care. Accordingly, the parties stipulated that each application satisfies Section 408.035(1)(c) as to "the applicant's record in providing quality of care." The parties stipulated that, subject to proving their ability to generate the open heart surgery and angioplasty volumes projected in their respective applications, each applicant has the ability to provide adequate and reasonable quality of care for those proposed services. Accordingly, subject to the proof involving service volume levels, each application satisfies Section 408.035(1)(c) as the "ability of the applicant to provide quality of care . . .". The parties stipulated that all applicants have available and adequate resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures in order to implement and operate their proposed projects. Furthermore, they stipulated that all sections of their respective applications relating to those proposed projects and all sections of their respective applications relating to those issues were to be admitted into evidence without proof. Accordingly, all applications satisfy that portion of Section 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1999) related to the availability of resources. The parties stipulated that all applications satisfy, and no further proof is required to demonstrate, immediate financial feasibility as referenced in Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1999). The parties stipulated that the costs and methods of proposed construction, including schematic design, for each proposed project were not in dispute and were reasonable, and that all sections of each application related to those issues were to be admitted into evidence without further proof. (Stip., p.3.) Accordingly, each application satisfies Section 408.035(l)(m), Florida Statutes (1999). The parties stipulated that each application contained all documentation necessary to be deemed complete pursuant to the requirements of Section 408.037, except that Section 408.037(b)3. is still at issue regarding operational financial projections (including a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services provided by the applicant). The parties stipulated that each applicant satisfied all of the operational criteria set forth in the Rule (those operational criteria being encompassed in subsections 3, 4, and 5). Accordingly, it is undisputed that each applicant will have the support services, operational hours, open heart surgery team mobilization, accreditation, availability of health personnel necessary for the conduct of open heart surgery, and post- surgical follow-up care required by the Rule in order to operate an adult open heart surgery program. The Hernando County Hospitals Oak Hill Oak Hill is located on Highway 50, in the southern part of Hernando County, between the cities of Brooksville and Springhill. Oak Hill's licensed bed compliment includes 123 medical/surgical beds, 24 ICU beds, 50 telemetry beds, and 7 beds for obstetrics. Oak Hill provides an array of medical services and specialties, including: cardiology, internal medicine, critical care medicine, family practice, nephrology, pulmonary medicine, oncology/hematology, infectious disease treatment, neurology, pathology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, radiation oncology, and anesthesiology. Board certification is required to maintain privileges on the medical staff of Oak Hill. Oak Hill's six-story facility is situated on a large campus, and has been renovated over time so that the hospital's physical plant permits the provision of efficient care for patients. Oak Hills's surgery department has five operating rooms, plus a cystoscopy room. The department performs approximately 7,800 surgeries annually, a figure that demonstrates functional efficiency. Oak Hill is JCAHO accredited, with commendation. Recently named one of the nation's top 100 hospitals for stroke care by one organization, it has also received recognition for the excellence of its four intensive care units. Oak Hill's cancer program is the only one to have received full accreditation from the American College of Surgeons within a six-county contiguous area. Oak Hill recently expanded its emergency department and implemented a fast track program called Quick Care. The program is designed to treat lower acuity patients more rapidly. Gallup Organization surveys reflect a 98 percent patient satisfaction rate with the emergency department, the eighth best rate among the approximately 200 HCA-affiliated hospitals. During 1999, the emergency department treated 24,678 patients. During the same period, 376 patients presented to Oak Hill's emergency department with an acute myocardial infarction, and there were 258 such patients during the first eight months of 2000. Oak Hill operates a mature cardiology program with ten Board-certified cardiologists on staff. Eight of the ten perform diagnostic cardiac catheterizations in the hospital's cath laboratory. Oak Hill's program is active with regard to both invasive and non-invasive cardiology. The non-invasive cardiology laboratory offers a variety of services, including echocardiography, holter monitoring, stress testing, electrocardiography, and venous, arterial and carotid artery testing. The invasive cardiology laboratory has been providing inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterization services since 1991. During calendar year 1999, Oak Hill saw 1,671 diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures and transferred 619 cardiac patients to Bayonet Point, 258 for open heart surgery, 311 for angioplasty, and 50 patients for cardiac catheterization. The volume of catheterization procedures at Oak Hill has led to the construction of a second "cardiac cath" laboratory suite, scheduled for completion in May of 2001. The cath lab's medical director (Dr. Mowaffek Atfeh, the first interventional cardiologist in Hernando County) has served in that capacity since inception of the lab in 1991. The cath lab equipment is state-of-the-art. Oak Hill's cath lab provides excellent quality of care through its Board-certified cardiologists and the dedication and experience of its well- trained nursing and technical staff. Brooksville Regional Originally a 166-bed facility operated by Hernando County, 75 of the beds at Brooksville Regional were moved in 1991 to create a second facility at Spring Hill. A few years later, the facilities went into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy proceeding concluded in 1998, with operational control of both facilities being acquired by Hernando HMA, Inc. ("Hernando HMA"). The CON applicant for the adult open heart surgery program to be sited at Brooksville Regional, Hernando HMA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Health Management and Associates, Inc. ("HMA"), a corporation located in Naples, Florida, and whose shares are traded publicly. Under the arrangement produced by the bankruptcy proceeding, Hernando County retained ownership of the buildings and the land. Hernando HMA, in turn, operates the facilities per a long-term lease with the County. Hernando HMA operates the Brooksville Regional and Spring Hill Campuses under a single hospital license issued by AHCA. The two campuses therefore share key administrative staff, including their chief executive officer. They share a single Medicare provider number and they have a common medical staff. HMA (Hernando HMA's parent) operates 38 hospitals throughout the country, many in the State of Florida. Among the 38 is Charlotte Regional Medical Center in Charlotte County, an existing provider of adult open heart surgery and recently recognized as one of the top 100 OHS programs in the country. Charlotte Regional will be able to assist Brooksville Regional with staff training and project implementation if its application is approved. An active participant in managed care contracting, Hernando HMA is committed to serving all payer groups, including Medicaid and indigent patients. It recently qualified as a Medicaid disproportionate share provider. It also serves patients without ability to pay. In fiscal year 2000, it provided $5 million of indigent care. Under the lease agreement Hernando HMA has with Hernando County, it must continue the same charity care policies as when the facilities were operated by the County. Hernando HMA must report annually to the County to show compliance with this charity care obligation. Also under the lease, Hernando HMA is obliged to invest $25 million in renovations and improvements to the two facilities over a 5-year period. About $10 million has already been invested. If the adult open heart surgery program is granted this would nearly satisfy the $25 million obligation. The County reserves to itself certain powers under the lease. For example, the County reserves the authority to pre- approve the discontinuation of any services currently offered at these facilities. Also, if Hernando HMA seeks to relocate either of the two, the County retains the authority whether to approve the relocation. The Spring Hill facility is located in the southwest portion of Hernando County, very near the Pasco County line. It is a general acute care facility, offering a full range of cardiology and other acute care services. Spring Hill was recently approved to add the tertiary service of Level II Neonatal Intensive Care. The Brooksville facility is located in the geographic center of Hernando County. Its service area is all of Hernando County and southern Citrus County. Brooksville is a full- service, general acute care facility. It offers services in cardiology, orthopedics, general surgery, pediatrics, ICU, telemetry, gynecology, and other acute services. Brooksville Regional has 91 acute care beds. Normally, the beds are used as 12 ICU beds, 24 telemetry beds, and 55 medical/surgical beds. During its peak annual period of occupancy, Brooksville has the capability to use up to 40 beds for telemetry purposes. The hospital has ample unused space and facilities associated with its 91 beds that resulted from the move of the 75 beds to create the Spring Hill campus. Brooksville Regional offers full scope cardiology services and technologies, including diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Just as in the case of Oak Hill, the cardiac cath lab is state-of-the-art. The only cardiac services not offered at the hospital are open heart surgery and angioplasty. The quality of cardiology and related services at Brooksville Regional are excellent. The equipment, the nursing staff, the allied health professional staff, and the technology support services are very good. The medical staff is broad- based and highly qualified. Brooksville Regional offers substantial educational and training programs for its nursing staff and other personnel on staff. Brooksville Regional routinely treats patients in need of OHS or angioplasty services. Nearly 400 patients per year receive a diagnostic cardiac cath at Brooksville Regional and are then transferred for open heart surgery or angioplasty. The vast majority of these patients are transferred to Bayonet Point, about 45 minutes away. In addition to transfers of patients following diagnostic catheterization, Brooksville Regional transfers about 120 patients per year to Bayonet Point who have not had such services. These patients fall into two categories: (1) high- risk patients, and (2) persons presenting at Brooksville's emergency room in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. The Proposals Citrus Memorial By its application, Citrus Memorial proposes to establish a program that will provide adult open heart surgery and angioplasty services. There is no dispute that Citrus Memorial has the ability to provide adequate and reasonable quality of care for the proposed project (just as per the stipulation of the parties, there is no dispute that all of the applicants have such ability.) There is also no dispute that each applicant, including Citrus Memorial, will have all of the staff, equipment and other resources necessary to implement and support adult open heart surgery and angioplasty services. The ability to provide high quality care stems, in part, from Citrus Memorial's contract with the Ocala Heart Institute. Under the contract the Institute will provide supervision of the implementation and ongoing operations of the Citrus Memorial program. This supervision will be provided under the leadership of the president of the Institute, cardiovascular surgeon Michael J. Carmichael, M.D. The contract between Citrus Memorial and the Ocala Heart Institute is exclusive. Citrus Memorial will not extend medical staff privileges to any cardiovascular surgeon not affiliated with the Ocala Heart Institute unless approved by the Institute. The Ocala Heart Institute (whose physician members include not only cardiovascular surgeons, but also cardiovascular anesthesiologists and invasive cardiologists) has similar exclusive contracts for the operation of adult open heart surgery programs at Monroe Regional Medical Center and at Ocala Regional Medical Center and at Leesburg Regional Medical Center. At these three hospitals, the Institute's physicians have consistently produced excellent outcomes. The Ocala Heart Institute produces these results not just through the skills of its physicians but also through the use of the same clinical protocols at each hospital governing the provision of open heart surgery. Citrus Memorial proposes to follow identical protocols at its facility. Excellent open heart surgery outcomes for the Institute's physicians are also the product of standardized facility design, equipment and supplies. The standardization of design, equipment, supplies, and protocols has the added benefit of clinical efficiencies that reduce costs and shorten lengths of stay. Beyond supervision of the initial implementation of the program, the Ocala Heart Institute will provide the medical directorship for Citrus Memorial's program. In cooperation with Munroe Regional, the directorship's 24-hour-a-day, 7-days-a-week coverage of the program will include scheduled case, emergency case, and backup coverage by cardiovascular surgeons, cardiovascular anesthesiologists, perfusionists, and interventional cardiologists. The Ocala Heart Institute will provide education and training to Citrus Memorial's medical staff and other hospital personnel as appropriate. The Institute's obligations will include continually working to improve the quality of, and maintain a reasonable cost associated with, the medical care furnished to Citrus Memorial's open heart surgery and angioplasty patients, consistent with recognized standards of medical practice in the field of cardiovascular surgery. The contract with the Ocala Heart Institute ensures to the extent possible that Citrus Memorial will have a high- quality adult open heart surgery program. Oak Hill Through approval of its application to establish an adult open heart surgery program at its facility, Oak Hill hopes Hernando County residents who now must travel outside the county to receive open heart and angioplasty services will be better served. In particular, Oak Hill hopes to provide these services to the residents of the six zip code area that comprise its primary service area ("PSA"). Containing 75 percent of the county's population, Oak Hill's PSA also encompasses the county's concentration of recent growth. Oak Hill's administration is committed to the proposal contained in its application. It has the support of the hospital's Board of Trustees and medical staff. Not surprisingly, the proposal enjoys a measure of popularity in the county. A petition in support of a program at Oak Hill drew 7,628 signatures from residents of Hernando County. This popularity is based in the fact that residents now must leave District 3 (albeit Bayonet Point in District 5 is close to Oak Hill and closer for many residents of south Hernando County) to receive open heart and angioplasty services. The number of affected residents is substantial. In 1999, for example, over 600 cardiac patients were transferred by ambulance from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point. A greater number of patients traveled on a scheduled basis to Bayonet Point for cardiac care. The vast majority of Hernando County residents and Oak Hill primary service area residents in need of OHS services receive them at Regional Medical Center-Bayonet Point. HCA Health Services of Florida, a subsidiary of HCA-The Healthcare Company ("HCA") holds the Bayonet Point license. It also is the licensee of Oak Hill and other hospitals in Florida including North Florida Regional and Ocala Regional. Bayonet Point (Regional Medical Center-Bayonet Point) is an acute care hospital in Hudson. Hudson is in Pasco County, the county immediately to the south of Hernando County. Although in a separate health planning district (District 5), Bayonet Point is relatively close to Oak Hill, 17 miles to the south. Bayonet Point's open heart surgery program experiences the fourth highest case volume in the state. The program is recognized as one of the top two programs in the state. It enjoys a national reputation. For example in July of 1999, it was ranked 50th in the nation in cardiology and heart surgery in U.S. News and World Report's list of "America's Best Hospitals." Oak Hill, as a sister hospital of Bayonet Point under the aegis of HCA, plans to develop its program in cooperation with Bayonet Point and its cardiovascular surgeons so as to bring the high quality program at Bayonet Point to Oak Hill's community and patients. A prospective operational plan for the adult open heart surgery program has been initiated by Oak Hill with assistance from Bayonet Point. Oak Hill, unlike Citrus Memorial, did not present evidence concerning the specific duties to be imposed on each physician group under contract. Nor did Oak Hill present evidence as to whether and how those groups would create and implement the type of standardization of protocols, facility design, equipment, and supplies that Citrus Memorial's program will rely upon for high quality and reduced costs. Nonetheless, it can be expected that the cooperation of Oak Hill and Bayonet Point, as sister HCA hospitals, will continue through the development and implementation of appropriate staff training, policies, procedures and protocols in the establishment of a high quality program at Oak Hill. Oak Hill's achieved volume in its open heart surgery program, if approved, will be at the direct expense of Bayonet Point. Its approval will increase the operating costs per case at Bayonet Point. Patients transferred from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point for OHS and angioplasty receive excellent outcomes. Patients are transferred to Bayonet Point for OHS and angioplasty smoothly and without delay particularly because Bayonet Point operates a private ambulance system for the transport of cardiac patients to its hospital. Two groups of cardiovascular surgeons are the exclusive cardiovascular/thoracic surgeons at Bayonet Point. Although, at present, there are no capacity constraints at Bayonet Point, both groups support a program at Oak Hill and are committed to participate in an open heart surgery program at Oak Hill. If approved, Oak Hill will enter similar exclusive contracts with the two groups. Raymond Waters, M.D., a cardiovascular surgeon, heads one of the groups. He has performed open heart surgery at Bayonet Point since its inception and is largely responsible for the development of the surgery protocols used there. Dr. Waters has consulting privileges at Oak Hill. In addition to consulting there, Dr. Waters presents medical education programs at Oak Hill. Forty to 50 percent of Dr. Waters' patients come from Hernando County and Oak Hill Hospital. Dr. Waters and his group strongly support initiation of an open heart surgery ("OHS") program at Oak Hill. Their support is based, in part, on the excellence of the institution, including its physical structure, cath labs, intensive care units, nursing staff, medical staff, and the state of its cardiology program. Dr. Waters and his group are prepared to assist in the development of an open heart surgery program at Oak Hill, and to assure appropriate surgery coverage. Oak Hill will create a Heart Center at the hospital to house its OHS program. All diagnostic and invasive cardiac services will be located in one area of the hospital to ensure efficient patient flow and access to support services. The center will occupy existing space to be renovated and newly constructed space on the first floor of the facility. Two new cardiovascular surgery suites, with all support spaces necessary, will be constructed, along with an eight-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. The hospital's two state- of-the-art cardiac catheterization laboratory suites are available for diagnostic procedures and angioplasty procedures. A large waiting area and cardiac education/therapy room will also be constructed. Open heart surgery patients will progress from the OR to the new CVICU for the first 24-28 hours after surgery. From the CVICU, the patient will be admitted to a thirty-bed telemetry monitored progressive care unit, located on the second floor. Currently a 38-bed medical/surgical unit, thirty of the beds will remain as PCU beds. Eight beds will be relocated to create the CVICU. The PCU will provide continued care, education and discharge planning for post open heart surgery and angioplasty patients. Oak Hill will also implement a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation program for both inpatients and outpatients. Brooksville Regional Like Oak Hill, part of the purpose of the Brooksville Regional proposal is to provide more convenient OHS and angioplasty services to Hernando County residents in need of them, 94 percent of whom now travel to Bayonet Point in Pasco County for such services. In addition to proposing improvements in patient convenience and access, Brooksville Regional sees its application as increasing patient choice and competition in the delivery of the services. Indeed, patient choice and competition for the benefit of patients, physicians and payers of hospital services are the cornerstone of Brooksville Regional's application. There is support for the proposed program from the community and from physicians. For example, Dr. Jose Augustine, a cardiologist and Chief of the Medical Staff at Oak Hill since 1997, wrote a letter of support for an open heart program at Brooksville Regional. Although he believes Hernando County would be better served by a program at Oak Hill, he wrote the letter for Brooksville Regional because, "if Oak Hill didn't get it, [he] wanted the program to be here in Hernando County." (Oak Hill No. 12, p. 43.) Consistent with his position, Dr. Augustine finds Brooksville Regional to be an appropriate facility in which to locate an open heart program and he would do all he could to support such a program including providing support from his cardiology group and encouraging support other physicians. But Brooksville Regional offered no evidence regarding the identity of its cardiovascular surgeons. Hernando HMA proposes to construct a state-of-the-art building of 19,500 square feet at Brooksville Regional to house its OHS program. Two OHS operating rooms will be built. Eight CVICU beds will be used for the program, to be converted from other licensed beds. A second cath lab will be added. The total project cost is nearly $12 million. Brooksville Regional proposes to serve all of Hernando County. In addition, 10 percent of its volume is expected to come from Citrus County. Brooksville Regional commits to serving all payer groups with the vast majority projected to be Medicare, Medicare HMO/PPO and non-Medicare managed care. Brooksville lists two specific CON conditions in its application. First, it commits to over 2 percent for charity care and 1.6 percent for Medicaid. Second, it commits to establishing the OHS program at Brooksville's existing facility, located at 55 Ponce de Leon Boulevard in the City of Brooksville. The second of these two was reaffirmed unequivocally at hearing when Brooksville introduced testimony that if Brooksville's CON application is approved, its OHS program will be located at Brooksville's existing facility. Need In Common One "not normal" circumstance exist that supports all three applications: the lack of effect any approval will have on the sub-350 performers in the district. Which, if any, of the three applicants should be awarded an adult open heart surgery program, therefore, is determined on the basis of need and that determination is to be made in the context of comparative review. Benefits of Increased Blood Flow Lack of blood flow to the heart caused by narrowed arteries or blood clots during a heart attack, results in a loss heart of muscle. The longer the blood flow is disrupted or diminished, the more heart muscle is lost. The more heart muscle lost, the more likely the patient will either die or, should the patient survive, suffer a severe reduction in the quality of life. The key to prevent the loss of heart muscle in a heart attack is to restore blood flow to the heart through a process of revascularization as quickly as possible. Cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists make reference to this phenomenon through the maxim, "time is muscle." The faster revascularization is accomplished the better the outcome for the patient. Those who treat heart attack patients seek to restore blood flow within a half hour of the onset of the attack. Revascularization within such a time frame maximizes the chance of reducing permanent damage to the heart muscle from which the patient cannot recover. Achievement of revascularization between 30 minutes and 90 minutes of the attack results in some damage. Beyond 90 minutes, significant permanent damage resulting in death or severe reduction in quality of life is likely. The three primary treatment modalities available to a patient suffering from a heart attack are: 1) thrombolytics; 2) angioplasty and 3) open heart surgery. Thrombolytic therapy is the standard of care for the initial attempt to treat a heart attack. Thrombolytic therapy is the administration of medication, typically tissue plasminogen ("TPA") to dissolve blood clots. Administered intravenously, the thrombolytic begins working within minutes in an attempt to dissolve the clot causing the heart attack and, therefore, to prevent or halt damage to the heart muscle. Thrombolytic therapies are successful in restoring blood flow to the affected heart muscle about 60 to 75 percent of the time. In the event it is not successful or the patient is not appropriate for the therapy, the patient is usually referred for primary angioplasty, a therapeutic cardiac catheterization procedure. Cardiac catheterization is a medical procedure requiring the passage of a catheter into one or more cardiac chambers with or without coronary arteriograms, for the purpose of diagnosing congenital or acquired cardiovascular diseases, and includes the injection of contrast medium into the coronary arteries to find vessel blockage. See Rule 59C-1.032(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Primary angioplasty is defined as a therapeutic cardiac catheterization procedure in which a balloon-tipped catheter inflated at the point of obstruction is used to dilate narrowed segments of coronary arteries in order to restore blood flow to the heart muscle. Rule 59C-1.032(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. More often now, in the wake of cardiac care advances, a "stent" is also placed in the re-opened artery. A stent is a wire cylinder or a metal mesh-sleeve wrapped around the balloon during an angioplasty procedure. The stent attaches itself to the walls of the blocked artery when the balloon is inflated, acting much like a reinforced conduit through which blood flow is restored. Its advantage over stentless angioplasty is improved blood flow to the heart and a reduction in the likelihood that the artery will collapse in the future. In other words, a stent may prevent substantial re-occlusion. The development of stent technology has led to dramatically increased angioplasty procedure volumes in recent years and the trend is continuing. Based on mortality rates, studies suggest that immediate angioplasty, rather than thrombolytic treatment, is the preferred treatment for revascularization. When thrombolytic therapy is inappropriate or fails and a patient is determined to be not a candidate for angioplasty, the patient is referred for open heart surgery. Under the Open Heart Surgery Rule, Rule 59C-1.032, Florida Administrative Code, a cardiac catheterization program that includes the provision of angioplasty must be located within a hospital that also provides open heart surgery services. Open heart surgery is a necessary backup in the event of complications during the angioplasty. The residents of Citrus Memorial's primary service area (and those of Oak Hill's and Brooksville Regional's), therefore, do not have immediate access (that is access to a hospital in their county of residence) to not just open heart surgery services but to angioplasty services as well. In addition to increased benefits to the residents of the proposed service areas, much of the need in this case is based on a demonstration of geographic access problems. For example, population concentration and historical utilization of open heart surgery services in the district demonstrate that the open heart surgery programs in the district are maldistributed. At the same time, the Bayonet Point program's service by virtue of both superior quality and proximity to Hernando County ameliorates the effect of the maldistribution of the programs intra-district particularly with regard to the residents of Hernando County. The four southernmost of the 16 counties in the district (Citrus, Hernando, Sumter and Lake) account for approximately 41 percent of the total adult population and 53.5 percent of the population aged 65 and over within District 3 as a whole. The super majority of aged 65 and over population in these counties is of great significance since that population is the primary base of those in need of adult open heart surgery and angioplasty. This same base accounts for 57 percent of the total annual open heart surgeries performed on district residents. For District 3 as a whole, 27 percent of the adult population is aged 65 and older. In comparison, 38.2 percent of Citrus County residents fall within that age cohort, 37.2 percent of Hernando County residents and 33.3 percent of residents in Lake and Sumter Counties combined fall within that age cohort. In contrast, in the northern part of the district, the counties closest to the three Gainesville open heart surgery programs (Columbia, Hamilton, Suwanee, Alachua, Bradford, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Levy, and Union) contain a combined basis of 32.4 percent and Putnam County contains 24.7 percent of the District 3 population aged 65 and over. The overall District 3 open heart surgery use rate (number of surgeries per 1,000 population age 15 and over) is 3.47. Yet, the combined use rate for Columbia, Hamilton, and Suwanee Counties is 1.96, the combined use rate for Alachua, Bradford, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Levy, and Union Counties is 1.55, and the Putnam County use rate is 2.05. More specifically, the northern county use rates are significantly below the use rates for the remainder of District 3 counties. Marion County is 4.12. Citrus County is at 4.26. Hernando County is at 6.41. Lake and Sumter Counties are at 4.31. Transfers Drive time is but one component of the total time necessary to effectuate a patient transfer. Additional time is consumed in making transfer and admission arrangements with the receiving hospital, awaiting arrival of an ambulance to begin transport, and preparing and transferring the patient into and out of the ambulance. Time delays that necessarily accompany hospital-to-hospital transfers can be critical, clinically. The fact that a facility-to-facility transfer is required means that the patient is at relatively high risk. Otherwise, the patient would be sent home and electively scheduled later. The need to travel outside the community carries other adverse consequences for patients and their families. Continuity of care is disrupted when patients cannot receive hospital visits from their regular and trusted physicians. Separation from these physicians increases stress and anxiety for many patients, and patients heal better with lower levels of stress and anxiety. Further, most OHS patients are elderly, and travel by their spouses to another community to visit is stressful and difficult at best, sometimes impossible. The elderly loved ones of the patient also tend to have health problems and, even when able, the drive to the hospital is stressful. District 3 Out-migration A high volume of OHS patients leave District 3 for OHS services. During the year ended March 1999, there were a total of 3,520 District 3 residents discharged from Florida hospitals following OHS. Only 2,428 of those OHS cases were reported by hospitals located within District 3. An outmigration rate of 31 percent, on its face, is indicative of a district geographic access problem. The problem is mitigated, however, by an understanding that most of the outmigration is of Hernando County residents who are able to travel or are transferred to Bayonet Point, a provider within 30 to 45 minutes driving time from the two Hernando County applicants in this proceeding. Citrus Memorial Volume Projections and Financial Feasibility Citrus Memorial reasonably projects an open heart surgery case volume of 266 for the first year of operation, 313 for the second year, and 361 for the third year. Citrus Memorial reasonably projects an angioplasty case volume of 409 for the first year of operation, 481 for the second year, and 554 for the third year. The Citrus Memorial program is financially feasible in the long term. It will generate approximately $1 million in not-for-profit income by the end of the second year of operation ($327,609 from open heart surgery cases, and $651,323 from angioplasty cases). Increased Access in Citrus County The two Ocala hospitals are approximately 30 miles from Citrus Memorial. With traffic, the normal driving time from Citrus Memorial to the hospitals is 60 minutes. The driving time from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point is normally 29 minutes or about half the time it takes to get from Citrus Memorial to one of the Ocala providers. The drive time from Brooksville Regional to Bayonet Point is approximately 45 minutes, 25 percent faster than the driving time from Citrus Memorial to the Ocala hospitals. Myocardial infarction patients for whom thrombolytic therapy is inappropriate or ineffective who present to the emergency room at Citrus Memorial, on average, therefore, are exposed to greater risk of significant heart muscle damage than those who present to the emergency rooms at either Oak Hill or Brooksville Regional. The delay in transfer for a Citrus Memorial patient in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery can be compounded by the ambulance system in Citrus County. There are only 7 ambulances in the system. If one is out of the county, the provider of ambulance services will not allow another to leave the county until the first has returned. Citrus Memorial presented medical records of 17 cases in which transfers took more than an hour and in some cases more than 3 hours from when arrangements for transfers were first made. There was no testimony to explain the meaning of the records. Despite the status of the records as admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule and therefore the ability to rely on them for the truth of the matters asserted therein, the lack of expert testimony diminishes the value of the records. For example in the first case, the patient presented at the emergency room on June 14, 1999. Treatment reduced the patient's chest pain. In other words, thrombolytics appeared to be beneficial. The patient was admitted to the coronary care unit after a diagnosis of unstable angina, and cardiac catheterization was ordered. On June 15, the next day, at about 11:40 a.m., "just prior to going down to Cath Lab, patient developed severe chest pain." (Citrus Memorial Ex. 16, p. 1017.) Following additional treatment, the chest pains were observed half an hour later to be "better." (Id.) Several hours later, at 1:45 p.m., that day, transfer to Ocala Regional was ordered. (Id., p. 1043). The patient's progress notes show that the transfer took place at 3:45 p.m., two hours after the order for transfer was entered. Whether rapid transfer was required or not is questionable since the patient appears to have been stabilized and had responded to thrombolytics and other therapy. In contrast, the second of the 17 cases is of a patient whose "risk of mortality [was] . . . close to 100%." The physician's notes indicate that at 1:10 p.m. on August 8, 1999, "emergency cardiac cath [was] indicated [with] a view toward revascularization." (Citrus Memorial Ex. 16, p. 1093). The same notes indicate after discussion between the physician and the patient and his spouse "that transfer itself is risky, but that risk of mortality [if he remained at Citrus Memorial] . . . is close to 100 percent." Although these same notes show that at 1:10 p.m., the patient's transfer had been accepted by the provider of open heart surgery, it was not until 3:30 p.m., that the "Ocala team" (id., at 1113) was shown to be present at Citrus Memorial and not until 3:45 p.m., that the patient was "transferred to Ocala." (Id.) Given the maxim that "time is muscle," it may be assumed that the 2-hour and 45- minute delay in transfer from the moment the patient was accepted for transfer until it occurred and the ensuing time thereafter for the drive to Ocala contributed to significant negative health consequences to the patient. Whatever the value of the 17 sets of medical records, they demonstrate that transfers from Citrus Memorial on occasion take up time that is outside the 30-minute and 90-minute timeframes for avoiding significant damage to heart muscle or minimizing such damage to heart attack patients for whom angioplasty or open heart surgery procedures is indicated. Citrus Memorial also presented twenty sets of records from which the "emergent" nature of the need for angioplasty or open heart intervention was more apparent from the face of the records than in the 17 cases. (Compare Citrus Memorial Ex. No. 16 to No. 17). These records reveal transport delays in some cases, lack of immediate bed ability at the Ocala hospitals in others, and in some cases both transport delays and lack of bed availability. In 16 of the cases, it took over 90 minutes for the patient to reach the receiving hospital and in 13 of the cases, it took 2 hours or more. It would be of significant benefit to some of those who present to Citrus Memorial's emergency room with myocardial infarctions to have access to open heart surgery services on site should thrombolytic therapy be inappropriate or prove ineffective. Other Access Factors Besides time considerations, there are other factors that provide comparisons related to access by Citrus Memorial service area residents on the one hand and Hernando County residents to be served by either Oak Hill or Brooksville Regional on the other. Among the other factors relied on by Citrus Memorial to advance its application is a comparison of use rate. The use rate per 1,000 population aged 15 and over for Hernando County is 6.08, compared to 4.13 for Citrus County. "[B]y definition" (tr. 458), the use rates show need in Hernando County greater than in Citrus County. But the use rates could indicate an access problem financially or geographically. In the end, there are a lot of components that make up the use rate. One is obviously the age of the population and underlying heart disease, two, . . . is the physician practice patterns in the county. [S]tudies . . . show that [in] two equivalent populations, . . . one with a very conservative medical community that . . . hospitalizes more frequently . . . [versus] another . . . where the physicians hospitalize less frequently for the same situation or who use a medical approach versus a surgical approach. (Id.) While there may be one possible explanation for the lower use rate in Citrus County than in Hernando County that favors Citrus Memorial, a comparison of use rates on the state of this record is not in Citrus Memorial's favor. Other factors favor Citrus Memorial. In support of its open heart surgery and angioplasty volumes, for example, Citrus Memorial reasonably projects an 80 percent market share for such services from its primary service areas. In contrast, Oak Hill projected a much lower market share from its primary service area: 58 percent. The lower market share projection by Oak Hill is due to the proximity of the Bayonet Point program to Hernando County. The difference in the two projections reveals greater demand for improved access in Citrus County than in Hernando County. This same point is revealed by projected county outmigration. Statewide data reveals that the introduction of open heart surgery services within a county causes a county resident generally to stay in the county for those services. Yet with a new program in Hernando County, Bayonet Point is still projected reasonably to capture one-half of the open heart surgeries and angioplasties performed on Hernando County residents, further support for the notion that Hernando County residents have adequate access to open heart surgery services through Bayonet Point's program. As to angioplasty demand, Oak Hill projected an angioplasty/open heart surgery ratio of 1.3. Citrus Memorial's ratio is 1.5. Geographic access limitations also adversely affect continuity of care. To have open heart surgery performed at another hospital, the patient will have to travel for pre- operative, operative, and post-operative follow-up services and duplication of tests. This lack of continuity of care often results in the patient's primary and specialty care physicians not following the patient and not being involved with all phases of care. In assessing travel time and access issues for open heart surgery and angioplasty services, travel time and distance present not only potential hardship to the patient, but also to the patient's family and friends who accompany and visit the patient. These issues are of particular significance to elderly persons (be they the patient, family member or friend) who do not drive and must rely on others for transport. Financial Access - Indigent Care Consistent with its mission as a community not-for- profit hospital, Citrus Memorial will accept any patient who comes to the hospital regardless of ability to pay. In 1999, Citrus Memorial provided approximately $4.9 million in charity care, representing 3.6 percent of its gross revenues. Citrus County provided Citrus Memorial with $1.2 million dollars in subsidization, part of which was allotted to capital construction and maintenance, part of which was allotted to charity care. Subtracting all $1.2 million, as if all had been earmarked for charity care, from the charity care, the dollar amount of Citrus Memorial's out-of-pocket charity care substantially exceeds the dollars for the same period provided by Oak Hill ($1.3 million) and by Brooksville Regional ($935,000). The percentage of gross revenue devoted to charity care is also highest for Citrus Memorial; Brooksville Regional's is 1.1 percent and tellingly, Oak Hill's, at 0.6 percent is less than one-quarter of Citrus Memorial's percentage of out-of- pocket charity care. "[C]learly Citrus has a much stronger charity care credential than does either Oak Hill or Brooksville Regional." (Tr. 241). But this credential does not carry over into the open heart surgery arena. As a condition to its CON, Citrus Memorial committed to a minimum 2.0 percent of total open heart surgery patient days to Medicaid/charity patients. The difference between Citrus Memorial's commitment and that of Oak Hill's and Brooksville Regional's, both standing at 1.5 percent, is not nearly as dramatic as past performance in charity care for all services. The difference in the comparison of Citrus Memorial to the other applicants between past overall charity care and commitment to future open heart services for Medicaid and charity care is explained by the population that receives open heart and angioplasty services. That population is dominated by those over 65 who are covered by Medicare. Competition Citrus Memorial's current charges for cardiology services are significantly lower than comparable charges at Oak Hill or Brooksville Regional. A comparison of the eight cardiology-related DRGs that typically have high volume utilization reveals that Oak Hill's gross charges are 62 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's gross charges. A comparison of gross charges is not of great value, however, even though there are some payers that pay billed charges such as "self-pay" and indemnity insurance. When managed care payments are a function of gross charges then such a comparison is of more value. On a net revenue per case basis for those DRGs, Oak Hill's net revenues are 10 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's. A 10 percent difference in net revenues, a much narrower difference than the difference in gross charges, is significant. Furthermore, it is not surprising to see such a narrowing since most of the utilization is covered by Medicare which makes a fixed payment to the provider. A comparison of projections in the applications reveals that Oak Hill's gross revenue per open heart surgery cases will be 164 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's gross revenue per such case. Oak Hill's net revenue per open heart surgery case will be 32 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's net revenue per such case. A comparison of projections in the applications also reveals that Oak Hill's gross revenue per angioplasty case will be 74 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's and that Oak Hill's net revenues per angioplasty case will be 13 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's. If a program is established at Oak Hill, there will be a hospital within District 3 with a new open heart surgery program. But what Oak Hill, under the umbrellas of HCA, proposes to do in reality is to take a quarter of the volume from [Bayonet Point, a] premier facility to set up in a sense a satellite operation at a facility . . . 16 miles away . . . [when] those patients already have an established practice of going to the premier tertiary facility . . . [ and when the two enjoy] a very strong positive relationship. (Tr. 1434). Such an arrangement will do little to nothing to enhance competition. Comparing Citrus Memorial and Brooksville Regional gross revenues on the basis of the same cardiology-related DRGs reveals that Brooksville's gross charges are 83 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's charges. A comparison of projections in the applications reveals that Brooksville Regional's gross revenue per open heart surgery case will be 147 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's and the Brooksville's net revenue per open heart surgery case will be 45 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's. A comparison of projections in the applications reveals that Brooksville's gross revenue per angioplasty case will be 36 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's and that Brooksville's net revenue per angioplasty case will be 7 percent lower than Citrus Memorial's. Impact of a Citrus Memorial Program on Existing Providers Citrus Memorial reasonably projected that by the third year of operation, a Citrus Memorial program will take away 100 cases from Ocala Regional. In 1999 Ocala Regional had an open heart surgery volume of 401 cases. In 2000, its annual volume was 18 cases more, 419. This is a decline from both the immediately prior two-year period, 1997 to 1998 and the two-year period before that of 1995 to 1996. The volume decline for the two-year period 1999 to 2000 compared to the previous two-year period, 1997 to 1998 is not at all surprising because of "two big factors." (Tr. 97). First, in 1997 and 1998, Ocala Regional was used as a training site for the development of Leesburg Regional's open heart surgery program that opened in December of 1998. In essence, Ocala Regional enjoyed an increase in the volume of cases in 1997 and 1998 when compared to previous years and a spike in volume when compared to both previous and subsequent two-year periods because of the 1997-98 short-term "windfall.) (Id.) Second, Ocala Regional was a Columbia-owned facility. In 1999 and thereafter, "Columbia developed a lot of bad publicity because of some federal investigations that were going on of the Columbia system." (Id.) The publicity negatively affected the hospital's open heart surgery volume in 1999 and 2000. The second factor also helps to explain why Ocala Regional's volume in 1999 and 2000 was lower than in 1995 and 1996. There are other factors, as well, that help explain the lower volume in 1999 and 2000 than in 1995 and 1996. In any event if impact to Ocala Regional, alone, were to be considered for purposes of the prohibition in Rule 59C- 1.033(7)(c), that a new program will not normally be approved if approval would reduce 12-month volume at an existing program below 350, then the impact might result in veto by rule of approval of a program at Citrus Memorial. But Ocala Regional is but one hospital under a single certificate of need shared with another hospital across the street from its facility: Munroe Regional. Annualization for 1999 of discharge data for the 12 months ending September 30, 1999 shows that Munroe Regional enjoyed a volume of 770 cases. There is no danger that the program carried out by Ocala Regional and Munroe Regional jointly under a single certificate of need will fall below 350 procedures annually should Citrus Memorial be approved. Oak Hill Need for Rapid Interventional Therapies and Transfers A high number of residents of Oak Hill's proposed service area present to its emergency room with myocardial infarctions. Many of them would benefit from prompt interventional therapies currently made available to them at Bayonet Point. Over 600 patients annually, almost two patients every day, must be transferred by ambulance from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point for cardiac care. A significant number of them would benefit from interventional therapy more rapidly available. The travel time from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point is the least amount of time, however, of the travel time from any of the three applicants in this proceeding to the nearest existing open heart provider; Brooksville Regional to Bayonet Point or Citrus Memorial to one of the Ocala providers. The extent of the benefit, therefore, is difficult to quantify and is, most likely, minimal. As with the other two applicants, thrombolytic therapy is the only method of revascularization currently available to Oak Hill's patients because Oak Hill is precluded by Agency rule and clinical standards from offering angioplasty without on-site open heart surgery backup. The percentage of MI patients who are ineligible for thrombolytic therapy, coupled with the percentages of patients for whom thrombolytic therapy is ineffective, are extremely significant given the high number of MI patients presenting to Oak Hill's emergency room. During 1998, 418 patients presented to Oak Hill's ER with an MI, and 376 MI patients presented in 1999. During the first eight months of 2000, 255 MI patients presented to Oak Hill's ER, an annualized rate of 384. Conservatively, thrombolytic therapy is not effective for at least 10 percent of patients suffering from an acute MI, either because patients are ineligible to receive the treatment or the treatment fails to clear the blockage. Accordingly, it may be conservatively projected that at least 104 patients who presented to Oak Hill's ER between 1998 and August 2000 (10 percent of 1049) suffering an MI were in need of angioplasty intervention for which open heart surgery backup is required. Most patients are diagnosed as in need of OHS or angioplasty as a result of undergoing a diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Oak Hill performs an extremely high volume of cardiac cath procedures for a hospital that lacks an OHS program. In 1999, for example, it performed 1,641 cardiac catheterizations. This is a higher volume than experienced by any of six hospitals during the year prior to which they recently implemented new OHS programs. If Oak Hill had an OHS program, most of the patients at Oak Hill determined to be in need of angioplasty or OHS could receive those procedures at Oak Hill. Such an arrangement would avoid the inevitable delay and stress occasioned by a transfer to Bayonet Point or elsewhere. Furthermore, if Oak Hill had an OHS program then those patients in need of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and angioplasty sequentially would have immediate access to the interventional procedure. The need is underscored for those patients presenting to Oak Hill's ER with myocardical infarctions who do not respond to thrombolytics because, as stated earlier in this order, access to angioplasty within 30 minutes of onset is ideal. Oak Hill transfers an extremely high number of cardiac patients for angioplasty and open heart surgery. In 1999, Oak Hill transferred 258 patients to Bayonet Point for open heart surgery, and 311 for angioplasty/stent procedures. Of course, most OHS patients are scheduled on an elective basis for surgery, rather than being transferred between hospitals, as is evident from the fact that during the 12-month period ending March 1999, 698 Hernando County residents underwent OHS. For now, Oak Hill patients determined to be in need of urgent angioplasty or open heart surgery must be transferred by ambulance to an OHS provider which for the vast majority of patients is Bayonet Point. Approximately 17 miles south, the average drive time to Bayonet Point from Oak Hill is 30 minutes but it can take longer when on occasion there is traffic congestion. Once the transfer is achieved and patient receives the required procedure, the drive can be difficult for the patient's family and loved ones. Community members often express to physicians and hospital staff their support and desire for an OHS program at Oak Hill. Many believe travel outside Hernando County for those services is cumbersome for loved ones who are important to the patient's healing process. The community support and demand for these services is evidenced by the 7,628 resident signatures on petitions in support of Oak Hill's efforts to obtain approval for an OHS program. While a program at Oak Hill would be more convenient, Oak Hill did not demonstrate a transfer problem that would rise to the level of "not normal" circumstances. Because of Oak Hill's relationship with Bayonet Point, Bayonet Point's proximity and excess capacity, coupled with the high quality of the program at Bayonet Point, Oak Hill's case is more in the nature of seeking a satellite. As one expert put it at hearing, [Oak Hill] is, in fact, a satellite. And my question is, [']What's the wisdom of doing that if you don't have the problems that normally are being addressed when you grant approval of a program?['] In other words, if you don't have transfer issues [that rise to the level of "not normal" circumstances], if you don't have access issues, if you're not achieving any price competition, if it's not particularly cost effective, why would you [approve Oak Hill]? (Tr. 1537-38). Oak Hill's Projected Utilization Oak Hill projected a range of 316 to 348 OHS cases during its first year, and by its third year a range of between 333 and 366 cases. Those volumes are sufficient to ensure excellent quality of care from the beginning of the program, particularly with the involvement of the Bayonet Point surgeons. Oak Hill defined its primary service area (PSA) for OHS based on historic MDC-5 cardiology related diagnosis discharges from its hospital. For the 12-month period ended March 1999, over 90 percent of Oak Hill's MDC-5 discharges were residents of six zip codes, all in the vicinity of Oak Hill Hospital and within Hernando County. Accordingly, that area was chosen as the PSA for projecting OHS utilization. Out-of-PSA residents accounted for only 8.9 percent of Oak Hill's MDC-5 discharges, and of these, 1.5 percent were out-of-state patients, and 4.9 percent were residents from other parts of District 3. For the year ending ("YE") March 1999, Oak Hill had an MDC-5 market share of 40.9 percent within its PSA, without excluding angioplasty, stent, and OHS cases. If angioplasty, stent, and OHS cases are excluded, Oak Hill's PSA market share was 52.7 percent. In order to project OHS service demand, Oak Hill examined the population projections for 1999 and 2004 for District 3, and for Oak Hill's PSA. The analysis was based on age-specific resident populations and use rates, to serve as a contrast to the Agency's projections. The numeric need formula in the OHS Rule utilizes a facility based use rate derived by totaling all of the reported OHS cases performed by hospitals within a District during a given time period, and then dividing those cases by the adult population aged 15 and over. While a facility-based use rate measures utilization in those District hospitals, however, it does not measure out-migration. Nor does it reflect the residence of the patients receiving those services. On the other hand, a resident-based use rate identifies where patients needing OHS actually come from, and permits development of age specific use rates. For example, the resident-based use rates reflects that the southern portion of District 3 has a much higher concentration of elderly persons than does the northern portion of the District, and reveals extremely high migration out of the District for OHS services. Oak Hill's PSA is more elderly than the District 3 population as a whole. In 1999, 32.8 percent of the Oak Hill PSA population was aged 65 or over, as opposed to only 21.5 percent for District 3 as a whole, with similar results projected for the population in 2004, the projected third year of operation of Oak Hill's program. Based on the district-wide use rate resulting from the OHS Rule need methodology, Hernando County would be expected to generate 276 OHS cases in the planning horizon of July 2002 (use rate of 2.3 per 1000 adult population). Application of this OHS Rule use rate to Hernando County clearly understates need if resources to meet the need are considered within the isolation of the boundaries of District 3. For example, the OHS Rule based projection of 276 OHS cases in 2002, is far below the actual 664 Hernando County resident OHS discharges during YE March 1998, and the 698 OHS cases during YE March 1999. While the facility-based district-wide use rate was 2.3, the Hernando County resident-based use rate was 6.45 per 1000 population. The fact of increasing use rates with age is demonstrated by the Hernando County resident use rate of 6.95 for ages 55-64, increasing to 12.01 for ages 65-74, and increasing again to 14.95 for age 75 and over. But focusing on Hernando County use rates within District 3 ignores the reality of the proximity of an excellent program at Bayonet Point. Oak Hill reasonably projected OHS demand in its PSA by examining the age-specific use rates of residents in the southern portion of District 3, which experienced an overall use rate of 4.55 for the year ending March 1999. Those age-specific use rates were then applied to the age-specific population forecast for each of the three horizon years of 2002 through 2004, resulting in an expected PSA demand for OHS of 547 cases in 2002, 561 cases in 2003, and 575 cases in 2004. Those projections are conservative given that 663 actual open heart surgeries were reported among PSA residents during the YE March 1999. The same methodology was used to project angioplasty service demand in the PSA, resulting in an expected demand ranging from 721 cases in 2002 to 758 cases in 2004. Oak Hill then projected its expected OHS case volume by assuming that its first year OHS market share within its PSA would be the same as its MDC-5 market share, being 52.7 percent. Oak Hill next assumed that by the third-year operation its market share would increase to equal its current cardiac cath PSA market share of 57.9 percent. It further assumed that it would have a non-PSA draw of 8.9 percent, which is equal to its current non-PSA MDC-5 market share. Oak Hill reasonably expects that 91.1 percent of its OHS cases would come from within its six zip code PSA, with the remaining 8.9 percent expected to come from outside that area. Oak Hill then projected an expected range of OHS discharges during its first three years of operation by using both a low estimate and a high estimate. The resulting utilization projections reflect a low range of 316 OHS cases in 2002, 324 cases in 2003, and 333 cases in 2004. The high range estimate for the same years respectively would be: 348, 357, and 366 cases. The same methodology was used to project angioplasty cases, resulting in the following low range: 417 cases in 2002; 428 in 2003; and 438 in 2004. The expected high range for the same respective years would be: 458, 470, and 482. Oak Hill's OHS and angioplasty utilization projections are reasonable. Long-term Financial Feasibility Long-term financial feasibility is defined as a demonstration that the project will achieve and maintain financial self-sufficiency over time. Oak Hill's projected gross charges were based on Bayonet Point's charge structure. The projected payer mix was based on Oak Hill's cardiac cath experience. Projected net reimbursement by payor source was based on Oak Hill's experience for Medicare, Medicaid, and contractual adjustment history. Oak Hill's expenses were projected on a DRG specific basis using information generated by the cost accounting system at Bayonet Point. The use of Bayonet Point's expense experience is a reasonable proxy for a number of reasons. Its patient base is comprised of patients who are reasonably expected to be the base of Oak Hill's patients. Management there is similar to what it will be at an Oak Hill program. And, as stated so often, the two facilities are relatively close in location. To account for differences between Bayonet Point's expenses and Oak Hill's project costs, interest and depreciation, adjustments were made by Oak Hill as reflected in its application. As a means of compensating for fixed costs differentials between the two hospitals, Oak Hill added its salary costs projected in Schedule 6 to the salary expenses already included in Bayonet Point's costs. (Schedule 6 nursing, administration, housekeeping, and ancillary labor costs exceeded $3 million in the first year of operations.) This counting of two sets of salary expenses offsets any economies of scale cost differential that may exist between the OHS programs at Bayonet Point and Oak Hill. A reasonable 3 percent annual inflation factor was applied to both projected charges and costs. The reasonableness of Oak Hill's overall approach is supported by Citrus Memorial's use of a substantially similar pro forma methodology in modeling its proposed program on Munroe Regional Medical Center. Oak Hill reasonably projects a profit of $1.38 million in the first year of operation, and that profitability will increase as the case volumes grow thereafter. An Oak Hill program will cost Bayonet Point (a sister HCA hospital) patients and may diminish the corporate profits of the two hospital's parent corporation, HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc. It is clear from the parent's most recent audited financial statements, however, that it has ability to absorb a lower level of profit from Bayonet Point without jeopardizing the financial viability of Oak Hill. Brooksville Regional argues that the financial impact to Bayonet Point of an Oak Hill program demonstrates that the Oak Hill application is nothing more than a preemptive move to stifle competition. Oak Hill, in turn, characterizes its proposal as a sound business judgement to compete with non-HCA hospitals in District 3. Whatever characterization is applied to the Oak Hill proposal, it is clear that it is financially feasible in the long term. Other Statistics The AHCA population estimates for January 1, 1999, show a Hernando County population of 108,687 and a Citrus County population of 98,912. The same data sources show the "age 65 and over" population (the "elderly") in Hernando to be 40,440 and in Citrus to be 37,822. During the year 2000, there were 2,545 more people aged 65 and over in Hernando County than in Citrus County. By the year 2005, the difference is expected to be 3.005. The total change in the elderly population between 2000 and 2005 is projected to be 4,109 in Citrus County and 4,614 in Hernando County. Generally, the older the population, the older the OHS use rate. Comparatively, then, Hernando County has the larger population to be served both now, and in all probability, in the foreseeable future. Oak Hill has the largest cardiology program among the applicants. For the 12-month period ending September 1999, MDC- 5 discharges were 1,130 at Brooksville Regional, 2,077 at Citrus Memorial and 2,812 at Oak Hill. The combined Brooksville and Spring Hill Regional Hospital MDC-5 case volume of 2,238 is below Oak Hill's MDC case volume for the same period. Oak Hill is the largest cardiac cath provider among the applicants. For the 12-month period ending September 2000, Citrus Memorial reported 646 cardiac catheterization procedures and Brooksville Regional reported 812. Oak Hill reported 1,404 such procedures, only sixty shy of a volume double the combined volume at the other two applicants. The level of ischemic heart disease in an area is indicative of the level of open heart surgery needed by residents of the area. The number of ischemic heart disease cases by county during the 12-month period ending September 1999 were: 1,038 for Alachua; 1,978 for Citrus; 2,816 for Marion; and, Hernando, 3,336. During the 12-month period ending September 1999, 657 Hernando County residents underwent OHS at Florida hospitals, while only 408 residents of Citrus County did so. Similarly, 948 Hernando County residents had angioplasty, while only 617 Citrus County residents underwent angioplasty. For the year ending June 30, 1999, the Citrus County OHS use rate was 4.26 per 1,000 population, substantially lower than the Hernando County use rate of 6.41. A comparison of the use rates for the year ending September 30, 1999, again shows Hernando County's use rate to be higher: 4.13 for Citrus, 6.08 for Hernando. Hernando County also experiences a higher cardiovascular mortality rate than does Citrus County. During 1998, the age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality rate per 100,000 population for Citrus was 330.88 and 347.40 for Hernando. During 1999, those mortality rates were 304.64 in Citrus and 313.35 in Hernando (consistent with the decline between 1998 and 1999 for the state as a whole). The Hernando mortality rates greater than Citrus County's indicate a greater prevalence of heart disease in Hernando County than in Citrus County. Most importantly, during 1999, Oak Hill transferred 619 patients to Bayonet Point for cardiac intervention - 258 for open heart surgery, 311 for angioplasty/stent, and 50 for cardiac cath. Brooksville Regional transferred a combined 383 patients after diagnostic cardiac catheterization to other hospitals for either angioplasty or OHS. Brooksville Regional has 91 licensed beds, Citrus Memorial has 171 beds and Oak Hill has 204 beds. Although with Spring Hill one could view Brooksville Regional as "two hospital systems with 166 beds under common ownership and control" (Tr. 1544), at 91 beds, Brooksville would become the smallest OHS program in the state in terms of licensed bed capacity, Hospitals of less than 100 beds are not typically of a size to accommodate an OHS program. There might be dedicated cardiovascular hospitals of 100 beds or less with capability to support an open heart surgery program, but "open heart surgical services in [a general, surgical-medical hospital of less than beds] would overwhelm the hospital as far as the utilization of services." (Tr. 126). Oak Hill's physical plant, hospital size, number of beds, medical staff size, number of cardiologists, cath lab capacity, number of cath procedures, number of admissions, and facility accessibility to the largest local population are all factors in its favor vis-à-vis Brooksville Regional. In sum, Oak Hill is a hospital more ready and appropriate for an adult open heart surgery program than Brooksville. Alternatives As an alternative to its CON application, Oak Hill considered the possibility of seeking approval of a program to be shared with Bayonet Point. Learning that the Agency looks with disfavor on inter-district shared adult open heart surgery programs, Oak Hill decided to seek approval of a program independent of Bayonet Point but one that would rely on Bayonet Point's experience and expertise for development, implementation and operation. Bed Capacity Brooksville contends that Oak Hill lacks sufficient bed capacity to accommodate the implementation of an OHS program in conjunction with its projected-related increased admissions. Brooksville relied on an Oak Hill daily census document, focusing on the single month of January, arguing that the document reflected that Oak Hill exceeded its licensed bed capacity on 5 days that month. The licensed bed capacity, however, was not exceeded. Observation patients, who are not inpatients, and not properly included in the inpatient count, were included in the counts provided by Brooksville. Seasonal peaks in census during the winter months, particularly January, are common to all area hospitals. Similarly, all hospitals experience a higher census from Monday through Thursday, than on other days. Oak Hill has adequate capacity and flexibility to accommodate those rare occasional days during the year when the number of patients approaches its number of beds. Patients are sometimes hospitalized for "observation," and when so classified are expected to stay less than 24 hours. Typically, Oak Hill places such patients in a regular "licensed" bed, so long as such beds are available. There are other areas in the hospital suitable for observation patients, including: 12 currently unused and unlicensed beds adjacent to the cardiac cath recovery area; six beds in the ER holding area; eight beds in the ER Quick Care Unit; and additional beds in the same day surgery recovery area. Observation patients can be cared for appropriately in these other areas, a routine hospital practice. Peak season census is "a fact of life" for hospitals, including Oak Hill and Brooksville. Oak Hill has never been unable to treat patients due to peak season demands. January is the only month during the year when bed capacity presents a challenge at Oak Hill. If necessary, Oak Hill could coordinate patient admissions with Bayonet Point to ensure that all patients are appropriately accommodated. Oak Hill can successfully implement a quality OHS program with its current bed capacity. In fact, all parties have stipulated to Oak Hill's ability to do so. Moreover, should it actually come to pass in future years that Oak Hill's annual average occupancy exceeds 80 percent, it may add up to 20 licensed beds on a CON exempt basis. Brooksville Regional Factors favoring Brooksville over Oak Hill Bayonet Point is the dominant provider of OHS/angioplast to residents of Hernando County. As a non-HCA hospital, a Brooksville program (in contrast to one at Oak Hill) would enhance patient choice in Hernando County for hospitals and physicians, and would create an environment for price and managed care competition. Other health planning factors that support Brooksville Regional over Oak Hill are the locations of the two Hernando County hospitals and the ability of the two to transfer patients to Bayonet Point. Patient Choice and Competition Of the OHS/angioplasty services provided to Hernando County residents, Bayonet Point provides 94 percent, the highest county market share of any hospital that provides OHS services to residents of District 3. Indeed, it is the highest market share provided by any OHS provider in any one county in the state. The importance of patient choice and managed care competition has been acknowledged by all the parties to this proceeding. If Brooksville Regional's program were approved, Hernando County residents would have choice of access to a non- HCA hospital for open heart and angioplasty services and to physicians and surgeons other than those who practice at Bayonet Point. This would not be the case if Oak Hill's program was approved instead of Brooksville's. Price Competition Although Brooksville is not a "low-charge provider for cardiovascular services" (tr. 1347), approving Brooksville creates an environment and potential for price competition. A dominant provider in a marketplace has substantial power to control prices. Adding a new provider creates the motivation, if not the necessity, for that dominant provider to begin pricing competitively. A dominant provider controls prices more than hospitals in a competitive market. Bayonet Point's OHS charges illustrate this. Approving Brooksville's application creates an environment for potential price competition with Bayonet Point, whereas approving Oak Hill's application, whose charges are expected to be the same as Bayonet Point's, does not. Managed Care Contracting Just as competitive effects on pricing are reduced in an environment in which there is a dominant provider, so managed care contracting is also affected. Managed care competition depends not just on competition between managed care companies but also on payer alternative within a market. If a managed care company is forced to deal with one health care provider or hospital in a marketplace, its competitive options are reduced to the benefit of the hospital that enjoys dominance among hospitals. "[T]he power equation moves much more strongly in that type of environment towards the provider [the dominant hospital] and away from the managed care companies." (Tr. 1471). Managed care companies who insure Hernando County residents have no alternative when it comes to open heart surgery and angioplasty services but to deal with Bayonet Point. With a 94 percent share of the Hernando County residents in need of open heart and angioplasty services, there is virtually no competition for Bayonet Point in Hernando County. The managed care contracting for both Bayonet Pont and Oak Hill is done at HCA's West Florida Division office, not at the individual hospital level. Approving Oak Hill will not promote or provide competition for managed care. Approving Brooksville, on the other hand, will provide managed care competition over open heart and angioplasty services in Hernando County. Ability to Transfer Patients While transfers of Hernando County patients always produce some stress for the patient and are cumbersome as discussed above for the patient's loved ones, there is no evidence of transfer problems for Oak Hill that would rise to the level of "not normal" circumstances. Outcomes for patients transferred from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point on the basis of morbidity statistics, mortality statistics, length of stay, patient satisfaction, and family satisfaction are excellent. It is not surprising that sister hospitals situated as are Oak Hill and Bayonet Point would enjoy minimal transfer delays and access problems encountered when patients are transferred. Transfers between unaffiliated hospitals are not normally as smooth or efficient as between those that have some affiliation. Unlike Oak Hill's patients, Brooksville patients, for example, are never transported for OHS/angioplasy by Bayonet Point's private ambulance. Other than in emergency cases, Bayonet Point decides the date and manner when the patient will be transferred. But just as in the case of Oak Hill, there is no evidence of transfer problems between Brooksville Regional and Bayonet Point that would amount to an access problem at the level of "not normal" circumstances. Outmigration As detailed earlier, there is extensive outmigration of Hernando County residents to District 5 for open heart and angioplasty procedures. The outmigration pattern on its face is in favor of both applications of Oak Hill and Brooksville. The outmigration from Hernando County, however, is of minimal weight in this proceeding since Bayonet Point is so close to both Oak Hill and Brooksville. The patients at the two Hernando hospitals have good access to Bayonet Point, a facility that provides a high level of care to Hernando County residents in need of open heart surgery and angioplasty services. The relationship is inter-district so that it is true that there is outmigration from District 3. Outmigration statistics showing high outmigration from a district have provided weight to applications in other proceedings. They are of little value in this case. Location of the Two Hernando Hospitals Brooksville is located in the "dead center" (Tr. 1290) of Hernando County. With good access to Citrus County via Route 41, it is convenient to both Hernando County residents and some residents of Citrus County. It reasonably projects, therefore, that 90 percent of its open heart/angioplasty volume will be from Hernando County with the remaining 10 percent from Citrus. Oak Hill is located in southwest Hernando County, closer to Bayonet Point than Brooksville. Oak Hill's primary service area is substantially the same as that part of Bayonet Point's that is in Hernando County. Oak Hill does not propose to serve Citrus County. Brooksville, then, is more centrally located in Hernando County than Oak Hill and proposes to serve a larger area than Oak Hill. Financial Feasibility (long-term) Brooksville has operated profitably since its bankruptcy. In its 1999 fiscal year, the first year out of bankruptcy, Hernando HMA earned a profit of $3 million. In fiscal year 200, Brooksville's profit was $6 million. OHS programs are generally very profitable. There is no OHS program in Florida not generating a profit. Brooksville's projected expenses and revenues associated with the program are reasonable. Schedule 5 in the Brooksville application contains projected volumes for OHS/angioplasty. The payer mix and length of stay were based on 1998 actual data, the most recent data for a full year available. The projected volumes are reasonable. The projected volumes are converted to projected revenues on Schedule 7. These projections were based on actual 1998 charges generated for both Hernando and Citrus County residents since Brooksville proposes to serve both. These averages were then reasonably projected forward. Schedule 7 and the projected revenues are reasonable. These projected volumes and revenues account for all OHS procedures performed in Hernando and Citrus Counties in 1998 even though effective October 1, 1998, the DRG procedure codes for OHS procedures were materially redefined. Thus, when Brooksville's schedules were prepared using 1998 data, only 3 months of data were available using the new DRG codes. Brooksville opted to use the full year of data since using a full year's worth of data is preferable to only 3 months. Similarly, the DRGs for angioplasty both as to balloon and with stent were re-classified. Again, Brooksville opted to use the full year's worth of data. Brooksville's expert explained the decision to use the full year's worth of data and the effect of the DRG reclassification on Brooksville's approach, "We've captured all the revenues and expenses associated with these open heart procedures and just because the actual DRGs have changed, doesn't . . . impair the results because both revenues and expenses are captured in these projections." (Tr. 1651). Schedule 8 includes the projected expenses. It included the health manpower expenses from Schedule 6 and the project costs from Schedule 1. The remaining operating expenses were based upon the actual costs experienced by all District 3 OHS providers generated from a publicly-available data source, and then projected forward. As to these remaining operating costs, consideration of an average among many providers is far preferable to relying on just one provider. Schedule 8 was reasonably prepared. It accounts for all expense to be incurred for all types of OHS and angioplasty procedures. It is based on the best information available when these projections were prepared and are based on 12 months of actual data. Even if the projections of the schedules are not precise because of the re-classification of DRGs, they contain ample margins of error. Brooksville's financial break-even point is reached if it performs 199 OHS and 100 angioplasty procedures. This low break-even point provides additional confidence that the project is financially feasible. Brooksville demonstrated that its proposed program will be financially feasible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order that grants the application of Citrus Memorial (CON 9295) and denies the applications of Oak Hill (CON 9296 )and Brooksville Regional (CON 9298). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. East College Avenue Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1838 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell and Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 James C. Hauser, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John F. Gilroy, III, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether proposed rule amendments to Rule 59C- 1.033(7)(c) and (7)(d), Florida Administrative Code, published in the Notice of Change on June 15, 2001, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether the proposed rule is invalid due to the absence of a provision specifying when the amendments will apply to the review of certificate of need applications to establish open heart surgery programs.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is responsible for administering the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. The goals of the Act are containment of health care costs, improvement of access to health care, and improvement in the quality of health care delivered in Florida. AHCA initiated the rulemaking process by proposing amendments to existing Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code, the rule for determining the need for adult open heart surgery (OHS)1 services, which currently provides, in part, that: Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. a new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the district. One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; or One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for less than 12 months during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 29 adult open heart surgery operations per month. Provided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) and (7)(c) do not apply, the agency shall determine the net need for one additional adult open heart surgery program in the district based on the following formula: NN =((Uc x Px)/350)) -- OP>=0.5 Where: NN = The need for one additional adult open heart surgery program in the district projected for the applicable planning horizon. The additional adult open heart surgery program may be approved when NN is 0.5 or greater. Uc = Actual use rate, which is the number of adult open heart surgery operations performed in the district during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool, divided by the population age 15 years and over. For applications submitted between January 1 and June 30, the population estimate used in calculating Uc shall be for January of the preceding year; for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31, the population estimate used in calculating Uc shall be for July of the preceding year. The population estimates shall be the most recent population estimates of the Executive Office of the Governor that are available to the department 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. Px = Projected population age 15 and over in the district for the applicable planning horizon. The population projections shall be the most recent population projections of the Executive Office of the Governor that are available to the department 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. OP = the number of operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district. Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in paragraph (b) above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for a district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 350 open heart surgery operations. In determining whether this condition applies, the agency will calculate (Uc x Px)/(OP+1). If the result is less than 350 no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved. Based on the issues raised by the Petitioner, Bethesda, and the factual evidence presented on these issues, AHCA must demonstrate that its proposed amendments to the existing OHS rule are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority or, more specifically, that it (a) followed the statutory requirements for rule-making, particularly for changing a proposed rule; (b) considered the statutory issues necessary for the development of uniform need methodologies; (c) acted reasonably to eliminate potential problems in earlier drafts of the proposed rule; (d) used appropriate proxy data to project the demand for the service proposed; (e) appropriately included county considerations for a tertiary service with a two-hour travel time standard; and (f) was not required to include a provision advising when CON applications would be subject to the new provisions. Rule challenges and rule development process The existing rule was challenged by IRMH on June 27, 2000, in DOAH Case No. 00-2692RX. Martin Memorial intervened in that case, also to challenge the rule. Like IRMH, Martin Memorial was an applicant for a certificate of need (CON), the state license required to establish certain health care services, including OHS programs, in Florida. Both are located in AHCA health planning District 9, as is the Petitioner in this case, Bethesda. AHCA entered into a settlement agreement with IRMH and Martin Memorial on September 11, 2000, which was presented when the final hearing commenced on September 12, 2000. Prior to the rule challenge settlement agreement, staff at AHCA had been discussing, over a period of time, possible amendments to the OHS rule to expand access and enhance competition. Issues raised by AHCA staff included the continued appropriateness of OHS as a designated tertiary service and the anti-competitive effect of the 350 minimum volume of OHS cases required of existing providers prior to approval of a new provider in the same district. The staff was considering whether the rule was too restrictive and outdated given the advancements in technology and the quality of OHS programs. The relationship of volume to outcomes was considered as various studies and CON applications were received and reviewed, as was the increasing use of angioplasty also known as percutaneous coronary angioplasty, referred to as PTCA or simply, angioplasty, as the preferred treatment for patients having heart attacks. Angioplasty can only be performed in hospitals with backup open heart services. During an angioplasty procedure, a catheter or tube is inserted to open a clogged artery using a balloon-like device, sometimes with a stent left in the artery to keep it open. Discussions of these issues took place at AHCA over a period of years, during the administrations of the two previous Agency heads, Douglas Cook and Reuben King-Shaw. In August 2000, AHCA published notice of a rule development workshop to consider possible changes to the OHS rule. Because it could not get the parties to settle DOAH Case No. 00-2692RX at the time, rather than proceed with the workshop while defending the existing rule, AHCA cancelled the workshop. As a result of the September 11, 2000, settlement agreement, on October 6, 2000, AHCA published a proposed rule amendment and notice of a workshop, scheduled for October 24, 2000. That version of a proposed rule would have changed Subsection (7)(a) of the OHS Rule to allow approval of "additional programs" rather than being limited to approval of one new program at a time in a district. The October proposal would have also eliminated OHS from the list of tertiary health services in Rule 59C-1.002(41). Tertiary health services are defined, in general, in Subsection 408.032(17), Florida Statutes, as follows: "Tertiary health service" means a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost-effectiveness of such service. Examples of such services include, but are not limited to, organ transplantation, specialty burn units, neonatal intensive care units, comprehensive rehabilitation, and medical or surgical services which are experimental or developmental in nature to the extent that the provision of such services is not yet contemplated within the commonly accepted course of diagnosis or treatment for the condition addressed by a given service. The agency shall establish by rule a list of all tertiary health services. With this statutory authority, AHCA adopted Rule 59C- 1.002(41), Florida Administrative Code, to provide a more specific and complete list of tertiary services: The types of tertiary services to be regulated under the Certificate of Need Program in addition to those listed in Florida Statutes include: Heart transplantation; Kidney transplantation; Liver transplantation; Bone marrow transplantation; Lung transplantation; Pancreas and islet cells transplantation; Heart/lung transplantation; Adult open heart surgery; Neonatal and pediatric cardiac and vascular surgery; and Pediatric oncology and hematology. As an additional assurance that tertiary services are subject to CON regulation, the tertiary category is specifically listed in the projects subject to review in Subsection 408.036, Florida Statutes. The October 2000 version included a proposal to increase the divisor from 350 to 500 in the formula in Subsection (7)(b), to represent the average size of existing OHS programs, but to decrease from 350 to 250, the minimum number required of an existing provider prior to approval of a new program in Subsection (7)(a)2. The definition of OHS would have been amended to add an additional diagnostic group, DRG 109, to delete DRG 110 and to eliminate the requirement for the use of the heart-lung by-pass machine during the surgery. Most controversial in the October version was a separate county- specific need methodology for counties which have hospitals but not OHS programs, in which residents are projected to have 1,200 annual discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. On October 24, 2000, AHCA held a workshop on the proposed amendments. At the workshop, AHCA Consultant, John Davis, outlined the proposed changes. As a practical matter, eight Florida counties are not eligible to provide OHS because they have no hospitals. When Mr. Davis applied the county-specific need methodology, as if it were in effect for the planning horizon of January 2003, six Florida counties demonstrated a need for OHS: Hernando, Martin, Highlands, Okaloosa, Indian River, and St. Johns. Two of these, Martin and Indian River are in AHCA District 9. AHCA has already approved an OHS program for Martin County, at Martin Memorial. Mr. Davis also presented a simplified methodology for reaching the same result. In support of the proposed rule, AHCA received data, although not adjusted by the severity of cases, showing better outcomes in hospitals performing from 250 to 350 OHS, as compared to larger providers. Although the majority of heart attack patients are treated with medications, called thrombolytics, for some it is inappropriate and less effective than prompt, meaning within the so-called "golden hour," interventional therapies. In these instances, angioplasty is considered the most effective treatment in reducing the loss of heart muscle and lowering mortality. Opposing the proposed rule at the October workshop, Christopher Nuland, on behalf of the FSTCS, testified that OHS is still a highly complex procedure, that it requires scarce resources, equipment and personnel, and should, therefore, be available in only a limited number of facilities. In general, however, the opponents complained more about process rather than the substance of the proposal. Having petitioned on October 13, 2000, for a draw-out proceeding instead of the workshop, those Petitioners noted that AHCA had obligated itself to predetermined rule amendments based on the settlement agreement, regardless of information developed in the workshop. The draw- out Petitioners were the Florida Hospital Association, Association of Community Hospitals and Health Systems of Florida, Inc., Delray, Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Punta Gorda HMA, Charlotte Regional Medical Center, JFK, HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point; Tampa General and the FSTCS. While agreeing that OHS is complex and costly, supporters of the proposed rule, particularly the declassification of OHS as a tertiary service, noted that many cardiologists are now trained to do invasive procedures. In support of fewer restrictions on the expansion of OHS programs in Florida, other witnesses at the October workshop discussed delays and difficulties in arranging transfers to OHS providers, possible complications from deregulated diagnostic cardiac catheterizations at non-OHS provider hospitals, and hardships of travel on patients and their families, especially older ones. On December 22, 2000, AHCA published another proposal, which retained most of the October provisions, continuing the elimination of OHS from the list of tertiary services, the addition of DRG 109, the deletion of DRG 110, the elimination of the requirement for the use of a heart-lung by-pass machine, and the authorization for approval of more than one additional OHS program at a time in the same district. The minimum number of OHS performed by existing providers prior to approval of a new one continued from the October 2000 version, to be decreased from 350 to 250, and the divisor in the numerical need formula continued to be increased from 350 to 500. As in the October version, the requirement that existing providers be able to maintain an annual volume of 350 OHS cases after approval of a new program was stricken. The separate need methodology for counties without an OHS program was simplified, as proposed by Mr. Davis, and was as follows: Regardless of whether need for additional a new adult open heart surgery programs is shown in paragraph (b) above, need for one a new adult open heart surgery program is demonstrated for a county that meets the following criteria: None of the hospitals in the county has an existing or approved open heart surgery program; Residents of the county are projected to generate at least 1200 annual hospital discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, as defined by ICD-9- CM codes 410.0 through 414.9. The projected number of county residents who will be discharged with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease will be determined as follows: PIHD = (CIHD/CoCPOP X CoPPOP) Where: PIHD = the projected 12-month total of discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease for residents of the county age 15 and over; CIHD = the most recent 12-month total of discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease for residents of the county age 15 and over, as available in the agency's hospital discharge data base; CoCPOP = the current estimated population age 15 and over for the county, included as a component of CPOP in subparagraph 7(b)2; CoPPOP = the planning horizon estimated population age 15 and over for the county, included as a component of PPOP in subparagraph 7(b)2; If the result is 1200 or more, need for one adult open heart surgery program is demonstrated for the county will not normally be approved for a district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 350 open heart surgery operations. In determining whether this condition applies, the agency will calculate (Uc X Px)/(OP + 1). If the result is less than 350 no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved. County-specific need identified under paragraph (c) is a need occurring because of the special circumstances in that county, and exists independent of, and in addition to, any district need identified under the provisions of paragraph (b). A program approved pursuant to need identified in paragraph (c) will be included in the subsequent identification of approved and operational programs in the district, as specified in paragraph (a). On January 17, 2001, a public hearing was held to consider the December amendments. Opponents complained that the proposals resulted from a private settlement agreement rather than a public rule development workshop as required by law. They noted that declassification of OHS as a tertiary service is contrary to the recommendations of AHCA's CON advisory study group and the report of the Florida Commission on Excellence in Health Care, co-chaired by AHCA Secretary Reuben King-Shaw, created by the Florida Legislature as a part of the Patient Protection Act of 2000. The risk of inadvertently allowing some OHS procedures to become outpatient services was also raised, because of the statute that specifically states that tertiary services are CON-regulated. The reduction from 350 to 250 in the annual volume required at existing programs prior to approval of new ones was criticized for potentially increasing costs due to shortages in qualified staff, including surgical nurses, perfusionists, recovery and intensive care unit nurses, who are needed to staff the programs. The potential for approval of more than one program at a time, under normal circumstances, was viewed as an effort to respond to the needs of two geographically large districts out of the total of eleven health planning districts in Florida. That, in itself, one witness argued demonstrated that more than one approval at a time should be, as it currently is, a not- normal circumstance. The combination of the district-wide and county- specific need methodologies was criticized as double counting. The district formula which relied on the projected number of OHS, overlapped with the county formula, which used projected ischemic heart disease discharges, to the extent that the same patient hospitalization could result in first, the diagnosis, and then the OHS procedure. Approximately, eighteen percent of diagnosed ischemic heart disease patients in Florida go on to have OHS. The county-specific methodology was also characterized as inappropriate health planning based on geo- political boundaries rather than any realistic access barriers. Although 500, the average size of existing programs was the proposed divisor in the formula, and 250 was the threshold number existing providers, the proposal included the deletion of any provision assuring that existing programs maintain some minimum annual volume, which is 350 in subsection 7(e) of the current rule. AHCA representatives testified that the proposal to delete a minimum adverse impact was inadvertent. The combined effect of a district-wide need methodology, an independent but overlapping county need methodology, and the absence of an adverse impact provision, created concern whether approvals based on county need determinations could reduce volumes at providers in adjacent counties to unsafe levels. Some health planners predicted that, as a consequence of adopting the December draft, like the October version, a number of new OHS programs could be coming into service at one time, seriously draining already scarce resources. One witness, citing an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, testified that higher volume OHS providers, those over 500 cases, do have better outcomes, and that the relationship persists for angioplasties, including those performed on patients having heart attacks. Florida has 63 or 64 OHS programs. Of those, 25 to 30 percent have annual OHS volumes below 350 surgeries a year. The demand for OHS is increasing slowly and leveling off. AHCA was warned, at the January public hearing by, among others, Eric Peterson, Professor of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center (by videotaped presentation); and Brian Hummel, M.D., a Cardiothoracic Surgeon in Fort Myers, President of the Florida Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons, that simultaneously easing too many provisions of the OHS rule was a risk to the quality of the programs and the safety of patients. Among other specific comments made at the January public hearing related to the December proposal were the following: This change would authorize a county- specific methodology to support approving a program on the theory that that county needs better access to open heart surgery program. Yet there is no inquiry under the proposed provision into how accessible adjacent programs are or, indeed, how low the volumes of adjacent programs are. Most blatantly, the county provision requires double counting and double need projections. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 14, by Elizabeth McArthur). The proposed rule creates an exemption for counties that are currently without open heart surgery programs. One can only surmise that the purpose of this exemption is to improve access, and certainly improving access is an appropriate goal and it is possible that there are few situations around the state where access to open heart surgery is a concern, but the proposed rule is completely inadequate and a thoroughly inappropriate way to identify which situations those are . . . (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 26, by Carol Gormley). With the county exemption provision, the Agency has stumbled on an entirely new method for estimating need. In fact, the only good thing about this provision is that it demonstrates that the Agency actually can look at some alternative ways to estimate need, and the use of data about incidence of ischemic heart disease might be one of those. Certainly it should be explored if there is ever a valid planning process that addresses open heart surgery. However, the proposed rules cobble together the county- based epidemiology with the district-wide demand based formula, and I believe that this method is not applicable for evaluating access to care. It is not applicable because the provision only considers the population's rate of ischemic heart disease and does not even attempt to assess the extent to which county residents with ischemic disease are, in fact, already receiving open heart surgery. Therefore, a determination that county residents generate at least 1,200 ischemic heart disease discharges annually does nothing to indicate whether or not they experience any barriers to obtaining that needed service. * * * Another problem with county exemption permission [sic: provision] is that the addition of this assessment, quote "regardless of the results of the district need formula," end quote, constitute double counting of a need in districts where counties without programs are located. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 27-30, by Carol Gormley). * * * As further evidence of the benefits of limiting open heart surgery to a few high volume programs, the Society would like to place into record the following articles. The first one you've heard on several occasions is the Dudley article, "Selective referral to high volume hospitals." The second, from Farley and Osminkowski, is, "Volume-outcome relationships and in- hospital mortality: Effective changes in volume over time," from Medicare in January of 1992. There's another article from Grumbach, et al., "Regionalization of cardiac surgery in the United States and Canada," again from JAMA. Another article from Hannon, et al., "Coronary artery bypass surgery: The relationship between in-hospital mortality rate and surgical volume after controlling for clinical risk factors," Medical Care. Hughes, et al., "The effects of surgeon volume and hospital volume on quality care in hospitals," again from Medical Care; finally, Riley and Nubriz, "Outcomes of surgeries among Medicare aged: Surgical volume and mortality." Each of these scholarly articles comes to the same inevitable conclusion: outcomes improve as the volume of cardiac surgeries in any given program and hospital increases, therefore increasing the number of hospitals in which these services are provided inevitably will lead to an increase in morbidity. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 83-84, by Christopher Nuland). * * * On or before the January public hearing, AHCA also received the following written comments: Martin Memorial supports the exception provision for Counties that do not have an open heart surgery program and have a substantial number of residents experiencing cardiovascular disease. This provision ensures an even dispersion of programs, and that adequately sized communities are not denied open heart surgery. (Martin Memorial Ex. 6, Letter of 10/24/2000, from Richard M. Harman, Chief Executive Officer, Martin Memorial, to Elizabeth Dudek) * * * Adding new open heart surgery programs to counties that currently lack programs will increase geographic access to coronary angioplasty services as well as open heart surgery. Primary angioplasty is now the treatment of choice for a significant percentage of patients presenting in the emergency department with acute myocardial infarction (patients who would otherwise be treated with thrombolytic drugs to dissolve blood clots in occluded coronary arteries). Thus, the provision of the proposed regulations that addresses the need for open heart surgery at a county level will also increase access to life-saving invasive cardiology services. The effect of the proposed rule changes is to slightly broaden the circumstances in which the Agency would see presumed need for new programs. Initially, the increase in the number of programs presumed to be needed would be only five. These potential new approvals would be in counties which currently have no programs. This is consistent with the reasoning that supports removing open heart surgery from the list of tertiary procedures. All else equal, distributing new programs to counties where they already exist is reasonable in light of the goal of improving geographic accessibility of advanced cardiology services. As with the other draft proposed rule changes, there is no certainty that any programs will be approved on the basis of the county-specific need formula in (7)(c). These proposed programs would still have to meet the statutory and rule criteria. As discussed above, a number applications for programs have been ultimately denied even when presumed need was shown by the need formula. We recommend adoption of this additional formula for demonstrating need. (IRMH Ex. 1, p. 25, Comments of Ronald Luke, J.D., Ph.D., 10/24/2000) In what could be interpreted as an admission that the process resulting in the development of the earlier drafts was flawed, Jeff Gregg, Chief of the AHCA CON Bureau, concluded the January public hearing by saying, . . . in terms of the analysis that the Agency did about the proposed rule, I would simply have to tell you that CON staff was not involved in that analysis, and that's CON staff including myself. So I cannot elaborate on what went into it. But having said that, I do want to assure you that CON staff will be involved in further analysis and we will do our best to consider all the points that have been made and present them as clearly and concisely as we can in assisting the Agency to formulate its response to this hearing. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 86). The December draft was also challenged by a number of Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 01-0372RP, filed on January 26, 2001, and ten other consolidated cases. In response to the criticism that the adverse impact provision should not have been deleted and because that omission was unintended, AHCA published another proposed amendment to the OHS rule, on May 4, 2001, reinstating a minimum adverse impact volume, this time set at 250 OHS operations, down from 350 in the existing rule. On May 31, 2001, AHCA and the other parties to DOAH Case No. 01-0372RP and the consolidated cases entered into another settlement agreement, which provided: that in an effort to avoid further administrative proceedings, without conceding the correctness of any position taken by any party, and in response to materials received in to the record on or before the public hearing, the Agency for Health Care Administration agrees to publish and support . . . The Notice of Change . . . (Bethesda Ex. 34, p. 2-3). In upholding that agreement, AHCA superseded or revised all prior drafts and published a notice of change on June 15, 2001. In this final version, AHCA limited normal approval of a new OHS program to one at a time, used 500 as the numeric need formula divisor, increased the required prior-to-approval OHS minimum volume at mature existing providers from 250 in the October version to 300 (down from 350 in the existing rule) and for non- mature programs from a monthly average of 21 in the October draft to 25 (down from 29 in the existing rule), retained the classification of OHS as a tertiary service, and altered the separate, independent county need methodology to make it a county preference. The June 15th version, containing Subsections 7(c) and 7(d), which are challenged in this case is as follows: Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. An additional open heart surgery programs shall not normally be approved in the district if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the district; One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 300 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for less than 12 months during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 25 adult open heart surgery operations per month. * * * Provided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) do not apply, the agency shall determine the net need for an additional adult open heart surgery programs in the district based on the following formula: NN=[(POH/500)-OP]> 0.5 where: NN = the need for an additional adult open heart surgery programs in the district projected for the applicable planning horizon. The additional adult open heart surgery program may be approved when NN is 0.5 or greater. POH = the projected number of adult open heart surgery operations that will be performed in the district in the 12-month period beginning with the planning horizon. To determine POH, the agency will calculate COH/CPOP x PPOP, where: COH = the current number of adult open heart surgery operations, defined as the number of adult open heart surgery operations performed in the district during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. CPOP = the current district population age 15 years and over. PPOP = the projected district population age 15 years and over. For applications submitted between January 1 and June 30, the population estimate used for CPOP shall be for January of the preceding year; for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31, the population estimate used for CPOP shall be for July of the preceding year. The population estimates used for COP and PPOP shall be the most recent population estimates of the Executive Office of the Governor that are available to the agency 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. OP = the number of operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district. In the event there is a demonstrated numeric need for an additional adult open heart surgery program pursuant to paragraph (7)(b), preference shall be given to any applicant from a county that meets the following criteria: None of the hospitals in the county has an existing or approved open heart surgery program; and Residents of the county are projected to generate at least 1200 annual hospital discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, as defined by ICD-9- CM codes 410.0 In the event no numeric need for an additional adult open heart surgery program is shown in paragraphs (7)(a) or (7)(b) above, the need for enhanced access to health care for the residents of a service district is demonstrated for an applicant in a county that meets the criteria of paragraph (7)(c)1. and 2. above. An additional adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for the district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 300 open heart surgery operations. Bethesda objects to Subsections 7(c) and 7(d) as invalid. It challenges the rule promulgation process as a sham, having resulted from settlement negotiations rather than from statutorily mandated considerations and processes. That charge was, in effect, conceded by AHCA, as related to the October draft. That version carried over into the December draft, essentially unchanged, but did gain support at the October workshop. The October and December versions are not at issue in this proceeding. The proposed rule amendments at issue in this proceeding must have been supported by information provided to AHCA before or during the January public hearing. The proposal at issue differs substantially from the terms of the September settlement agreement, but is precisely what was attached to the May 31, 2001, settlement agreement. For example, the settlement agreement of September 11, 2000, included a proposal to reduce the prior minimum volume of cases at existing OHS providers from 350 to 250, but in May and June, that number was set at 300. AHCA, in the September settlement agreement, was to eliminate any limitation on the number of additional programs approved at a time, but the May and June version retains the one-at-a-time provision of the existing rule. AHCA agreed to determine county numeric need independent of and in addition to district numeric need, in September, but that provision is, in the May 31st and June 15th version, a preference. In September 2000, AHCA agreed to delete adult OHS from the list of tertiary services in Rule 59C-1.002(41), but it is a tertiary service in the May and June version. Bethesda is correct that the records of the October workshop and January public hearing contained criticisms of the county need methodology but no specific proposal to modify it into a preference. The first draft of that concept is the May 31, 2001, settlement agreement. (See Findings of Fact 26 and 27). Statutory rule-making issues Subsection 408.034(3), Florida Statutes, provides that: The Agency shall establish, by rule uniform, need methodologies for health care services and health facilities. In developing uniform need methodologies, the agency shall, at a minimum, consider the demographic characteristics of the population, the health status of the population, service use patterns, standards and trends, geographic accessibility, and market economics. As required by statute, AHCA considered the demographics and health status of the population and examined, as a part of the rule adopting process, age-specific calculations of ischemic heart disease. AHCA relied on statistical evidence of the relationship of ischemic heart disease and OHS. In 1999, for example, there were 33,027 OHS in Florida, and 25,257 of those patients had a primary diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Consideration of service use patterns, and standards and trends related to OHS led AHCA to increase the divisor in the numeric need formula to maintain the average size of 500 surgeries for existing providers. The availability of more reliable data than that collected when the existing rule was promulgated allowed AHCA to propose reliance on residential use rates. The trend towards the use of angioplasty, as a preferred treatment for heart attack patients, and the need for timely geographical access to care are major factors for AHCA's proposal to consider a county services within the normal need analysis or as a not normal indication of a need for enhanced access when a county has a critical mass of heart disease patients. Geographical accessibility is also addressed in the travel time standard in the existing rule, which the proposal would not change. AHCA received testimony on the issue of market economics and health status, related to care for indigent and minority patients in not-for-profit, county-funded hospitals, and related to reimbursement formulas. The record demonstrates that AHCA was provided with evidence on the effect of scare resources on the costs of operating OHS programs. County-specific need methodology in earlier drafts as compared to the county preference in 7(c) and the need for enhanced access in 7(d) Bethesda alleges that the county preference in the June version is essentially another need methodology, like the county-specific need methodology in the earlier versions of the proposed rule. Bethesda also contends that a preference for a hospital because it is in a county which does not have an open heart program over a reasonably accessible facility in an adjoining county in the same district is irrational health planning which could lead to a maldistribution of programs. The county-specific need methodology was first included in the September settlement agreement, and the preference in 7(c) and need for access in 7(d), originated after the January 17, 2001, public hearing. During the public hearing, counsel for the Florida Hospital Association complained that the county-specific need methodology precluded any inquiry into accessibility and volumes at adjoining programs. Another representative of the Florida Hospital Association surmised that the goal of the county exemption was improved access but explained that it was an inappropriate means to identify access concerns. For example, while Hernando County would qualify for need with the separate methodology, most of its residents, 97 percent receive OHS services at a hospital in another district which is only 13 miles from the population center. (See Finding of Fact 26). The preference under normal circumstances in Subsection 7(c) and finding of need for enhanced access in Subsection 7(d), must be supported by evidence that county boundaries, in general, do create valid access issues. On or before the January workshop, information provided to AHCA indicated that some special inquiry into access issues related to CON applications for programs in counties without OHS programs is warranted. See Finding of Fact 27). AHCA found correctly that counties matter for several reasons. First is the fact that emergency services are funded and organized by counties, in general, and operated by municipal and county agencies. Approximately 60 percent of heart attack patient discharges in Florida are admitted through emergency rooms. Emergency heart attack patients who live in counties with OHS programs are twice as likely to be taken to a hospital with OHS as those who live in counties without an OHS provider. Second, whether a patient is taken to an OHS provider affects the care received. The probability of having an angioplasty performed is almost 50 percent greater for residents of counties with OHS programs as compared to those in counties without an OHS program. Third, some health care reimbursement plans and health care districts are operated within counties, limiting financial access to out-of-county hospitals. AHCA has always considered whether or not a county has an OHS program as a part of access issues. The issue of greater access to OHS was the basis for AHCA's initial consideration of the possibility of easing the OHS rule. With the May and June draft, it has codified and specified when that policy will apply. AHCA's deputy secretary noted that geographic access in the absence of numeric need was the basis for approvals of OHS CONs for Marion County, and for hospitals located in Naples and Brandon. In each instance, the applicants argued a need for enhanced access. AHCA has experience in applying preferences as a part of balancing and weighing criteria from statutes, rules and local health plans, particularly to distinguish among multiple applicants. In the totality of the review process, other factors which Bethesda's expert testified should be considered, including financial, racial and other potential access barriers, are not precluded. Preferences related to specific locations within health planning areas are included in CON rules governing the need for nursing home beds and hospices. Bethesda noted that these are not tertiary services, suggesting that a county location preference is inappropriate for tertiary services, but similar preferences for OHS exist in some of the local health plans. In AHCA District 1, the CON allocation factors for OHS and cardiac catheterization services include a preference for applicants proposing to locate in a county which does not have an existing OHS program. In District 4, the preference favors an applicant located in a concentrated population area in which existing programs have the highest area use rates. District 5 is similar to District 4, supporting OHS projects in areas of concentrated population with the highest use rates. The District 8, like District 1, preference goes to the applicant located in a county without an OHS program. There is no evidence that the existing preferences have been difficult to apply within the context of other CON criteria for the review of OHS applications. In effect, the proposed amendments establish an uniform state-wide county preference which is more concrete in terms of the requirements for a potential patient base. Bethesda has questioned the rationale for standards which are, in effect, different in Subsection 7(c) as compared to Subsection 7(d). The lower requirement, according to Bethesda, 1200 ischemic heart diagnoses, in 7(d), applies when there is no numeric need. But, the 500 divisor and 300 minimum at existing providers, when combined with 1200 ischemic heart diagnoses is a heavier burden to meet in 7(c), although under normal circumstances. Bethesda did not adequately explain reasons for this objection to the proposed rule. In addition, it is not inconsistent logically for AHCA to require applicants to demonstrate lower numeric need in situations in which AHCA has determined that these will be, in general, a greater need for enhanced access. Bethesda also raised a concern for the eventual maldistribution of programs as a result of the county preference. In 1999, Palm Beach county residents received 2700 OHS, or an average of 900 cases for each of the three programs. The total for District 9 was 3800 cases in 1999. When 500 St. Lucie County resident cases, in which Lawnwood is an OHS provider, are combined with 2700 Palm Beach resident cases, that leaves only 650 resident cases from Okeechobee, Indian River and Martin Counties. If programs are approved in all three, then the total will be inadequate for each to reach 300 cases, while, presumably, the demand in Palm Beach could be increasing disproportionately and not be met adequately. Disproportionate need, the appropriate dispersion of programs, and the benefits of enhanced competition are among the factors which AHCA can consider along with county need when choosing among competing applicants. 1200 ischemic heart disease discharges The proposed amendments require a projection that residents will reach a threshold of 1200 cases of ischemic heart disease discharges as a condition for the entitlement to the numeric need preference or to demonstrate a not normal need for enhanced access. In general, ischemic heart disease, which is also known as coronary heart disease, is characterized by blocked arteries which, in turn, limit blood to heart muscles causing first the onset of angina from acute coronary syndrome, progressing on to acute myocardial infarction, or a heart attack. The use of heart disease as a proxy for OHS utilization is consistent with AHCA's use of live births in pediatric open heart surgery and pediatric cardiac catheterization rules, deaths in the hospice rule, and related diagnoses in organ transplantation rules rather than actual utilization. It was supported by information received during or before the January workshop (See Finding of Fact 26 and 27). Bethesda's criticism of the use of a proxy per se is also not well-founded because any single statistical approach could be misleading. For example, historic use rates can understate future use with a growing service or an artificially imposed access limit. Using heart disease data in a preference or a need for enhanced access as opposed to a need formula or conclusive finding allows more flexibility in determining need in conjunction with other significant factors. One of Bethesda's expert health planners was also critical of the use of 1200 ischemic heart disease diagnoses as inadequate for projecting OHS cases, and for not equating to approximately 300 annual OHS cases, the minimum required of existing providers in Subsection 7(a) and the minimum adverse impact allowed in Subsection 7(e). Based on actual historical Florida data, 1200 ischemic heart disease diagnoses on average resulted in 207 OHS in 1997, 203 in 1998, and 203 in 1999. Ischemic heart disease has approximately an 18 to 20 percent conversion rate to OHS, and results in a total of 76 to 80 percent of all OHS cases. OHS cases from other diagnoses added statistically another 54 OHS in 1997, 59 in 1998, and 61 in 1999, to those from ischemic heart disease, giving, in each year a total less than 300. Bethesda presented evidence of wide variations in the ischemic heart disease to OHS conversion ratios from county-to- county. For example, only 14 percent of Bradford County ischemic heart diseases converted to OHS, and only 11 percent of the 700 cases in Columbia County converted to OHS. In Columbia County, the average state conversion rate of 20 percent yields 140 cases but, in reality, there were only 78 OHS cases from Columbia County in 1999. Bethesda's expert concluded that conversion ratio discrepancies resulting in the approval of a program that cannot achieve 300 OHS, as required in Subsection 7(a)2. and 7 (e), of the proposed rule, could bar the approval of new programs when needed in the district and would not be of minimum required quality. Bethesda also proved that the accuracy of projected OHS cases can also be affected by patterns of patient migration for health care, particularly if in- and out-migration do not offset each other. In counties with OHS programs, the average out-migration for acute care is 10.7 percent, varying widely from 3.8 percent in Alachua County to 70 percent in Seminole County. In counties without an OHS provider, average out- migration for acute care is 44 percent, but ranges from 17.6 percent in Indian River County to 98 percent in Baker County. An average of 18 percent of the residents of Florida counties with OHS programs have their surgeries performed elsewhere. Like out-migration, in-migration for acute care, for ischemic heart disease care, and for OHS varies from county to county in Florida. Counties without OHS programs have acute care in-migration from lows of 5.3 percent for Flagler County up to highs of 40 percent for Columbia County. In counties with OHS, in-migration for acute care is as low as 8 percent for Brevard and Polk, and as high as 60 percent for Alachua County. Similarly, in-migration, as determined by ischemic heart disease discharges averages 19.4 percent in counties without OHS programs and approximately 25 percent in those with OHS. In-migration for OHS, averages 35.7 percent for the state, but that is derived from a range from 9.2 percent in Pinellas County to 74 percent in Alachua and Leon Counties. Bethesda demonstrated, patterns of migration for health care vary throughout Florida, but there are trends due to the presence of OHS programs. Average net in-migration to counties with OHS is 29 percent, and is positive in sixteen of the twenty-four counties with OHS programs. All of these differences can be considered within the regulatory scheme proposed by AHCA. The issue of whether 1200 residential ischemic heart disease diagnoses is, in fact, the critical mass of prospective OHS patients needed or is deceptive due to migration patterns, due to access to alternative providers or any other review criteria listed in rule or statutes can be considered on a case-by-case basis with the proposed amendments. Bethesda's specific concern is that Indian River with well over 1200 ischemic heart disease discharges could be approved even though that represented only 255 OHS cases, and that if Indian River is approved under the county preference provision, then Bethesda would not be approved under normal circumstances until Indian River achieved and was projected to maintain 300 OHS cases a year. That Bethesda may be delayed in meeting the requirements for normal need is likely, but that appears to be a function of its location as compared to existing providers as much as it is the result of the county preference. Bethesda is not precluded, however, under either the existing or proposed rules from demonstrating not normal circumstances in District 9 for the issuance of an OHS CON to Bethesda. Bethesda's assumption that 300 is the minimum volume required for adequate quality is not supported by studies from various professional societies. The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons set minimums of 200 to 250 annual hospital cases as the volumes necessary to maintain the skills of the staff. The American College of Surgeons, in 1996, published their opinion that 100 to 125 cases per hospital is sufficient for quality, while at least 200 cases a year are needed for the economic efficiency of a program. AHCA has never used the required and protected volumes as the volume which must also be projected for a new programs. In the current OHS rule, the volume required is 350 a year for existing programs but that has not been required of applicants. In the recent approval of an OHS CON for Brandon Regional Hospital, the applicant projected reaching 287 cases in the third year of operation. County preference, tertiary classification and travel time Bethesda argued that the tertiary classification, suggesting a regional approach, is inconsistent with having a county access provision. Bethesda correctly noted that the county provision first appeared in a draft which included the elimination of OHS from the list of tertiary services. But AHCA proposes to establish the county preference and to maintain OHS on the list of tertiary services under Rule 59C-1.002(41), and to maintain the two-hour drive time standard in Rule 59C- 1.033(4)(a). Substantial information, mostly from medical doctors and studies linking morbidity to low volume, supports the view that OHS continues to be a complex service. Obviously, those services in the tertiary classification range in complexity and availability from OHS at the lower level to organ transplantation at the upper level. The tertiary classification is justified to assure AHCA's continued closer scrutiny of OHS CON applications. It is also consistent with the increase in the need formula divisor to 500, which together serve as restrains on the approval of additional programs. AHCA reasonably concluded, based on case law and precedents with local health plan that it is not inconsistent to apply county preferences to OHS while it is classified a tertiary service. The two-hour travel time standard, is as follows: Adult open heart surgery shall be available within a maximum automobile travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the district's population. The counties most likely qualify for the preference, based on meeting or exceeding 1200 residential ischemic heart disease diagnoses, are Citrus, Martin, Hernando, St. Johns, Highlands, Indian River, and Okaloosa. The population centers in each of these counties are well within two hours of an existing provider. Citrus County, in which there is an approved but not yet operational OHS program, is about an hour's drive from Marion County. Hernando is approximately 25 minutes from the Pasco County provider. The population center of St. Johns County is approximately 40 minutes away from Duval County OHS providers. Okaloosa County is approximately a one-hour drive away from Escambia County OHS providers. In District 9, Indian River is approximately a 30- minute drive from the Lawnwood OHS program. Martin Memorial, is an approved provider, is approximately 20 miles or 35 minutes from Lawnwood and 30 miles or 40 minutes from Palm Beach Gardens, another existing OHS provider. In the next three to five years, it is foreseeable that Okeechobee County in northwestern District 9 could qualify for the county preference. Adjacent to Okeechobee, Highlands County's population can drive either an hour and thirty minutes to a Charlotte County OHS program or an hour and twenty minutes to a Polk County facility. The evidence related to travel times, according to one of Bethesda's experts, demonstrates that the county preference is not needed to assure access which is already provided for each and every likely qualifying county. But the population centers in the entire state of Florida are all within the two- hour travel standard, and there has been no suggestion that Florida cease approval of new OHS programs. Bethesda's contention that no need exists for enhanced access if the travel time standard is met, and its claim that the rule is internally inconsistent with a county preference and two-hour drive time are rejected. Two hours is, as the rule clearly states, a "maximum" not a bar, and has never been interpreted by AHCA as a bar, to more proximate locations. Any other interpretation is an impossibility considering the numerous counties across the state with multiple programs, including Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Orange, Volusia, Duval, and Escambia, among others. AHCA can appropriately and consistently establish reasonable guidelines for choosing among applicants to enhance access within the maximum travel standard. There is no language in the proposed rule indicating when it will take effect. Although the issue was raised in Bethesda's petition, it failed to provide evidence or legal arguments at hearing or subsequently to support its objection to the omission. AHCA's deputy secretary testified that the agency reviews applications using need methodology rules in effect when the applications are filed. Before new rules are applied, applicants are given the opportunity to reapply to address new provisions in a rule.
Findings Of Fact St. Anthony's is a 434 bed nonprofit acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida. On September 15, 1987, St. Anthony's filed an application for a CON to establish and implement an open heart surgery program in its facility. The Department filed a notice of intent to deny the application in January, 1988, and thereafter, St. Anthony's filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to contest the denial. Intervenors, All Children's and Bayfront sought and were granted leave to intervene in the proceeding. By Pre-hearing Stipulation, the parties have agreed to the following Findings of Fact: Each of the parties has a record of providing good quality of care. The licensure and accreditation of each party is not at issue and need not be proven. The equipment proposed by St. Anthony's in its application is adequate and the costs projected for that equipment are reasonable. The staffing levels and related salaries as proposed by St. Anthony's in its application are appropriate and reasonable. The architectural plans and related costs for St. Anthony's proposed project are appropriate and reasonable. The total project costs proposed by St. Anthony's in its application are appropriate and reasonable. St. Anthony's has the ability to finance the project costs. Projected revenues and expenses set out in the pro forma financial projections by St. Anthony's are reasonable. St. Anthony's presently provides a full range of acute, general, medical, and surgical services, and surgical subspecialties including neuro- surgery, maxillofacia surgery, thoracic surgery, and peripheral vascular surgery. It also offers broad psychiatric, substance abuse, and obstetrical services and a full time emergency room capability. It also provides cardiology services including cardiac catheterization. It has a historic commitment to cardiology services, establishing a cardiac catheterization lab in 1961, a coronary care unit in 1968, and a holter monitor service in 1973. In 1975, it established the community's first echocardiography laboratory, and as early as 1965, seriously considered establishing an open heart surgery program at the facility. This program was not, however, developed at the time. St. Anthony's continued its involvement in the area of cardiography and its program covers a full array of diagnostic services including echocardiography, nuclear cardiography, and basic electrocardiography, and possesses a magnetic resonance imaging unit which can be used in the diagnosis of heart problems. Additionally, it has a well equipped vascular laboratory and peripheral vascular disease program as well as a cardiac rehabilitation program and a wellness center that is aimed at early identification and prevention. St. Anthony's is also the site of the Rogers Heart Foundation, a nonprofit, privately funded foundation established in the late 1950's to perform research, education, and clinical diagnostic studies in the field of cardiovascular diseases. As a result of the activities of the foundation, St. Anthony's is well known by physicians in the area as a center for cardiac training and expertise, and until recently, was a participant with Emory University in that institution's cardiac fellowship training program. St. Anthony's has a long tradition in the service area for providing indigent services and is one of the major providers of charity and indigent care in Pinellas County. This care is provided through direct free care to patients as well as discounted charges and the write-off of bad debts. It also provides services through Medicaid and through write-off of Medicare deductible and coinsurance portions of patients' charges. All Children's Hospital is a 113 bed children's hospital located in St. Petersburg approximately two miles from St. Anthony's. It is a full service tertiary facility which serves as a referral center for children from throughout the State of Florida and currently has an approved CON for an additional 55 beds. Following construction, which is due to begin in February, 1989, All Children's will have 6 operating rooms, 2 cardiac catheterization labs, and 5 additional surgical intensive care unit beds for a total of 13 ICU beds. At the present time it has 2 operating rooms used for open heart surgery and 2 cardiac catheterization labs. The hospital has a strong affiliation with the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa. All Children's open heart program began several years after the hospital opened its first cardiac catheterization lab for children in the early 1970's. This came about when several cardiologists whose patients were primarily adult, and who were unable to utilize the facilities at the Rogers Heart Foundation because of its closed status, asked to make use of All Children's cardiac catheterization unite. Since this was consistent with All Children's efforts to increase the quality of its program through higher volume, All Children's began making its services available to adults admitted to Bayfront Hospital, a neighboring facility, with cardiac catheterization done by the patient's cardiologist in the All Children's facility. All Children's currently has 3 pediatric cardiologists and approximately 12 to 15 adult cardiologists on staff. The primary cardiac surgical team consists of Drs. Daicoff and Botero. At the present time, approximately 34% of the adult and pediatric patients treated at All Children's are Medicaid patients. Uncompensated indigent care provided at All Children's ranged from 16.52% in 1986 to 18.03% in 1987 and Medicaid patient days ranged from 30.4% in 1986 to 34.2% in 1987. Bayfront's uncompensated care was 22.15% in 1986 and 23.93% in 1987 while Medicaid patient days for that facility were 7.6% in 1986 and 8.9% in 1987. St. Anthony's devoted 1.2% of its total patient days in 1986 to Medicaid patients and 2.3% of it's total patient days in 1987. Bayfront is a 518 bed not-for-profit, full service acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg adjacent to All Children's. It was founded prior to 1968 as Mound Park Hospital, owned by the City of St. Petersburg, but in 1968, separated from city ownership and became known as Bay front Medical Center. Its mission is to provide care to all citizens in St. Petersburg and the surrounding area regardless of their ability to pay, and it offers a full range of services with the pediatric component provided by its neighbor, All Children's. It has 450 physicians on medical staff. Bayfront serves as a teaching hospital working in conjunction with the University of South Florida Medical School and providing a residency program in Pinellas County covering the entire spectrum of health care training at the facility. Bayfront runs a comprehensive cancer service approved by the American College of Surgeons and its obstetrical and gynecological women's service accounts for approximately 4,500 births per year. With All Children's, it participates in a prenatology program for high risk mothers and infants as part of a regional care program. Bayfront provides helicopter emergency coverage for its trauma center which averages 50,000 emergency room visits per year. The trauma service, staffed on a 24 hour a day basis by a full complement of surgeons, includes open heart surgery capability available for trauma related heart surgery needs. All Children's and Bayfront are connected to each other by an enclosed passageway. Taken together, the primary service area of the three hospital parties to this action is the southern half of Pinellas County up to approximately Ulmerton Road. Because of their geographical proximity to each other and their diverse but complementary populations, All Children's and Bayfront have developed working programs on a shared service basis in an effort to hold down the cost of health care in the community and to avoid unnecessary duplication of service. The Department has recognized and continues to recognize the shared nature of the All Children's/Bayfront open heart surgery program and the Boards of Directors of both institutions, as early as 1975, agreed to share open heart surgery services. The shared program for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery are now known as the "Cardiac Center of Excellence". Under the "Center" concept, diagnostic services are shared. All Children's Hospital's previously described cardiac catheterization laboratory and its non-invasive diagnostic study equipment is complemented by Bayfront's cardiac catheterization laboratory and its non-invasive diagnostic services including EKG, 2-D echo color flow doppler, magnetic resonance imaging, holter monitoring, and stress testing. Not only are diagnostic services shared by the two facilities but therapeutic services are shared as well. All Children's provides 2 open heart surgery operating suites, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, laser angioplasty, and intensive care units for children and adult post operative patients. Bayfront provides laser angioplasty and its cardiac catheterization laboratory has the capability to do emergency angioplasty procedures. Once these have been accomplished, Bayfront has a coronary care unit, a surgical unit for post operative patients, and a progressive care unit for its adult patients progressing toward discharge. Transportation services are also shared as are rehabilitation services. All Children's mobile intensive care unit is available to provide ground transportation for adults and children and it has entered into appropriate cardiac transportation protocols with outlying hospitals. Bayfront provides helicopter transportation for children and adults to its trauma center and, too, has appropriate cardiac transportation protocols similar to those entered into by All Children's. This joint program, which has grown to provide up to date, sophisticated, high quality cardiac care to both adults and children, minimizes operating costs and capital investment. An entire range of cardiac services is available with highly trained physicians and professional staff and state of the art equipment and facilities to both adult and pediatric patients. When an adult patient requires open heart surgery at the "Center", he is admitted to Bayfront the day prior to surgery where preliminary preparation is accomplished. On the day of surgery, the patient is prepared and Bayfront personnel transport the patient through the underground connection to All Children's where the actual surgery takes place. Subsequent to the surgery, the patient will normally be kept over night at All Children's in a surgical ICU whereupon, barring complications, he is then transferred by Bay front personnel back to Bay front to continue recovery in a cardiac surgical ICU. The remainder of the recovery period, usually lasting about one week for an uncomplicated case, is accomplished at Bayfront, and upon completion of recovery, the patient is discharged from that hospital, returning there for out patient treatment in Bayfront's cardiac rehabilitation program. In an emergency situation, when an adult patient is presented directly to All Children's for angioplasty, All Children arranges with Bayfront to admit the patient there within 24 hours. For non-Medicare patients, each facility bills the appropriate insurance carrier or patient for the charges for services rendered by each hospital. The Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement mechanisms by which All Children's and Bayfront are paid for providing open heart surgery differ substantially from the norm. The Health Care Finance Administration, which administers thee Medicare program recognizes the Bayfront/All Children's shared open heart surgery program for adults and has structured its reimbursement mechanism in an appropriate manner to accommodate that shared status. The normal method of fixed DRG payments is not followed. Because of accreditation requirements, the process becomes somewhat complicated in that the patient must be discharged from one facility and admitted to the other for surgery and vice-versa for recovery. However, representatives of both facilities claim, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that this procedure does not impose any burden on the patient or his family nor does it affect the quality of care. In fact, under the program, both facilities have been able to maintain an excellent quality of care. The physicians who practice there and who testified for St. Anthony's, indicated some scheduling problems relating to the availability of operating rooms at a time desired by the surgeon, but these problems have not affected quality of care and are being resolved through more acute scheduling and the addition of the 2 new surgical suites at All Children's. Between the two facilities, there are 15 cardiologists on both staffs who refer open heart patients for surgery. There are also 3 cardiovascular surgeons on staff at the two facilities, all of whom are members of the same physician group which exclusively performs open heart surgery under the shared program and which provides backup for all angioplasties in the "Center" program. One of these, Dr. Daicoff, indicated that although he would prefer the development of a single state of the art heart institute to serve the future needs of southern Pinellas County, he and his group would provide angioplasty backup as well as do surgery at St. Anthony's if the capability were approved and if he could be convinced that the St. Anthony's program would achieve the same level of high quality currently enjoyed by Bayfront and All Children's. Recognizing that the likelihood of a centralized heart institute is remote, Dr. Daicoff favors the approval of St. Anthony's program. Open heart surgery is currently being performed at two other hospitals in HRS District V, (Pinellas and Pasco Counties). These are the Largo Medical Center and Morton F. Plant Hospital, both of which are located close to the Ulmerton Road dividing line in the center of Pinellas County. These two facilities provide the majority of open heart surgery in the northern portion of Pinellas County and in Pasco County. Nonetheless, an open heart program at Bayonet Point Hospital in Pasco County was approved in December, 1987, not because of numerical need for the project, but because the applicant also sought approval for cardiac catheterization services. In that case, a need was shown for cardiac catheterization services in Pasco County, and a lab at Bayonet Point was approved. Because of the Department rule requiring open heart surgery backup within 30 minutes of a cardiac catheterization lab, no such backup otherwise being available for the Bayonet Point facility, its program was approved as well. The service area for open heart surgery for the three hospital parties to this proceeding is the St. Petersburg, Florida area. At the present time there are no major referrals to All Children's for open heart surgery from outside this area to the adult program operated in conjunction with Bayfront. The adult program at All Children's/Bayfront is centered around southern Pinellas County, an area in which the rate of growth is somewhat constant and not significant. The majority of growth in the county is located in the north end. For the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, 268 adult open heart surgery procedures were performed at All Children's. During the same period, 160 children's cases were performed. During 1984, 257 adult and 48 pediatric open heart surgeries were performed at All Children's; during 1985, 215 adult and 75 pediatric; during 1986, 258 adult and 46 pediatric; and during 1987, 268 adult and 72 pediatric. If all theatres at All Children's were operated on a capacity basis, as many as 520 open heart procedures could be accomplished. This would require performing 2 surgeries per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year. At the present time, nowhere near this load is being carried. St. Anthony's contends this would not be realistic. However, additional capacity exists at All Children's to accommodate increased open heart surgery if required. The proper time frame for determining the "actual use rate" referenced in the Department's rule for determining need assessment for new open heart surgery services is July, 1986 through June, 1987. During that period, 299 procedures, including pediatric, were performed at All Children's with 432 total procedures being performed at Largo and 392 at Morton F. Plant. This constitutes a total of 1,123 open heart procedures within the District. St. Anthony's contends that open heart surgery procedures by themselves, however, are net the only factor for consideration. Cardiac catheterization is no longer merely a diagnostic procedure but constitutes a place for acute intervention. Cardiac catheterization practice has increased radically and has carried with it an increase in open heart surgeries. St. Anthony's cannot fully implement a cardiac catheterization program by adding angioplasty without the concomitant open heart surgery capability required for the full operation of angioplasty and its related programs. Without an open heart capability at St. Anthony's, it's ability to provide a full array of non- open heart cardiac catheterization services is constrained. It urges that from a medical standpoint, it would be beneficial to the patient to have acute intervention and angioplasty available at that hospital rather than , as is presently the case, disrupting cardiac care and courting the danger of additional coronary problems, the risk of which is increased when a patient must be transported to another hospital for the angioplasty and acute intervention procedures. St. Anthony's asserts that it will lose its reputation, built up over a period of 40 years, for a continuum of quality care if it is not permitted to provide the required surgical background for acute intervention and angioplasty. This is, however, only speculation not supported by any evidence of record. Rule 10-5.011(f), F.A.C. contains a methodology for determining numerical need for new programs and utilization guidelines for existing and approved programs which the Department uses when assessing the need for new open heart surgery services. Under the terms of the rule, the Department is to consider applications in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria and will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in a service area unless the conditions of subparagraphs 8 and 11 are met. Subparagraph 8 provides a formula for computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area for the year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service. This is to be not more than two years into the future. This number, projected for the target year, is determined by multiplying the actual use rate, (the number of procedures per 100,000 population) in the service area for the twelve month period beginning fourteen months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the batching cycle, by the projected population in the service area in the year service is to be initiated. As was stated above, the proper time frame for determining actual use was July, 1986 through June, 1987, and during that period, a total of 1,123 procedures, including pediatric procedures, were performed at the three existing facilities in District V. Midway through the fiscal year cited above, the total population in District V was 1,082,797, resulting in an actual use rate of 103.7 procedures per 100,000 population. The population projection for the planning horizon is 1,135,819 persons as July 1, 1989, and when the actual use rate of 103.7 per 100,000 is applied, it is anticipated that 1,178 will be performed by July, 1989, the first projected year for the St. Anthony's program, if approved. Once one has arrived at the projected number of procedures in the target year by applying the methodology contained in paragraph 8 of the rule, one turns to the provisions of subparagraph 11 of the rule which provides for no additional open heart surgery programs unless: ... the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year; Subparagraph 11b provides: No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which will reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. In the state agency action report, the Department, in computing need for additional open heart programs, utilized a figure of 1,065 procedures in determining actual use rate which excluded surgeries performed upon children within the district at All Children's. At the hearing, the Department's representative, Mr. Jaffe, agreed that it would be more appropriate to utilize the entire number of procedures, including pediatric, (1,123), in order to develop a more accurate use rate. That is the figure which was used in the analysis in this Recommended Order. From a review of the provisions of subparagraph 11 of the rule, the 350 procedure standard is to be applied once estimated procedures during the target year are established. Since subparagraph 11a(I) provides for service volume of existing and approved programs, utilization of that figure results in a need for 3.4 programs based on the 1989 estimated procedures. Since 3 programs currently exist, (All Children's/Bayfront, Largo, and Morton F. Plant), and Bayonet Point's program has been approved, this results in a .6 open heart surgery program surplus. Even if Bayonet Point's program is not considered, then a need exists for only .4 programs which, when rounded down, is not sufficient to approve an additional program. Turning to the utilization provisions of subparagraph 11, it has been the Department's policy to determine utilization of existing programs for the time period over which the use rate is computed, here, July, 1986 through June, 1987. During that period, only 241 adult open heart procedures were performed at Bayfront/All Children's, and in the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, the combined program accounted for 268 adult procedures. These numbers are not inconsistent with those used by St. Anthony's when adjustments are made to account for that portion of the total surgery figure which pertains to pediatric patients. They are also below the cutoff figure of 350 adult procedures for all existing or approved facilities in the District. St. Anthony's expert witness, Dr. Kolb, advanced an alternative theory that the "actual use rate" in the methodology established by rule should be adjusted to account for the out-migration of residents of District V to facilities outside the District for open heart surgery. She contended that the actual use rate had to account for all open heart surgeries performed on District residents regardless of where that surgery took place. If that theory were to be applied, then the total number of surgeries for the relevant time frame would have to increased from 1,123 to 1,883, and if that figure is incorporated in the rule computation, utilizing the 350 procedure unit of division, the calculation would show a 2.6 new program need if Bayfront Point were not taken into consideration. If it were, then the need, according to the expert, would be 1.6. Utilizing the Department's policy of rounding up or down as appropriate, even taking into account Bayonet Point, there would be a need for 2 new programs. However, St. Anthony's position is not well taken here. There is nothing in the Department's rule which by any reasonable interpretation can include an adjustment for out-migration. The Department has consistently applied its own rule to include only procedures performed at facilities in the district to determine actual use rate and this interpretation is both reasonable and justified. By statute, the Department is required to apply a uniform methodology. The data base available from all of the various districts within the state is not conducive to an application of an adjustment since double counting and the lack of uniformity appear inherent in any non-specified adjustment attempt. Another flaw in the expert's theory is that out-migrating patients would be recaptured by the development of additional programs within the district. This is not a justified assumption in that the out-migration occurs even though there is currently an underutilized capability within the district and it becomes obvious that many out-migrators go elsewhere for reasons totally unrelated to the availability of quality care within the district. Further, there is a substantial question as to the reliability of the data relied upon by St. Anthony's expert in her calculation of an assumed out-migration percentage. The expert relied upon Med Par data which reports on Medicare patients constituting 55 to 60 percent of the District V population. The expert's assumption that the same percentage of non-Medicare patients would out-migrate as Medicare patients do, is erroneous because experience has established that Medicare referral patterns do not necessarily match those appropriate to the rest of the population. Another factor to consider is that a substantial number of the people who make up the District V population are seasonal residents and many of these individuals return for major surgery, especially of an elective or non-emergency nature, to those areas from which they have come and with which they are most familiar and comfortable. St. Anthony's expert, in addition to suggesting an alternative to actual use rate, also suggests that instead of using a 350 procedure figure in calculating numerical need, a 200 procedure figure be used because of the independent pediatric program at All Children's Hospital. The Department urges that this be rejected on the basis that it ignores certain salient factors. One of these is that for the purpose of applying rule standards, All Children's/Bayfront's shared service qualifies as a single existing open heart surgery program. Also, open heart procedures, by their nature highly specialized and complex, require costly, highly specialized manpower and facility resources and the application of the rule procedure standard is, even in the eyes of Petitioner's planner, designed to limit unnecessary duplication of resources while maintaining a high quality of care. Petitioner shows no legitimate health care planning purpose for using any figure other than that called for by the rule and applied by the Department, which is found to be reasonable and appropriate. Moreover, there is a limited pool of nurses available to staff the specialized functions of an open heart surgery program or a CCU incident thereto. The nursing staff which works in these units is made up of specially trained individuals critical to the success of the program and it is generally difficult to recruit this caliber of nurse. In the event an additional facility, Petitioner, is authorized to establish its own separate program, it will have a substantial adverse impact on the staff situation at the existing facilities, and if basic economic principles apply, could result in an increase in nursing costs and a related increase in health care charges. Another factor to be considered is the potential for loss of patients at Bayfront/All Children's if the St. Anthony's operation is begun. One witness estimates a 42 percent (110 adult procedure) loss to Bayfront/All Children's based on the reasonable assumption that several of the cardiologists on staff at St. Anthony's, who currently refer patients to the group performing open heart surgery at All Children's, would begin to refer their patients to the "in house" capability at St. Anthony's where the surgery, now being performed at All Children's, would henceforth be accomplished. It is reasonable to expect that a substantial, if not 42 percent, loss will occur, and taken together, the loss of referrals and the loss of staff to St. Anthony's by the opening of that program would have a substantial adverse impact on the open heart surgery program at All Children's/Bayfront. This potential diminishment in the efficiency and quality of care in the existing open heart surgery program at All Children's/Bayfront, which may come about as the result in the reduction in number of adult patients treated there is not justified in that there is no showing that any group in District V, including the medically indigent, are receiving less than adequate treatment. Even assuming there 1:3 no need established utilizing the Department's numerical methodology, an applicant can successfully apply for a certificate of need if it shows there are "not normal" circumstances justifying award of the certificate. It has long been the Department's position that these "not normal" circumstances be raised by the applicant in the application prior to the completeness deadline in order for them to be legitimately heard, considered, and resolved at hearing. Review of the application submitted by St. Anthony's in this case fails to reveal that the applicant alleged or demonstrated any "not normal" circumstances and even that which might be so considered, the out- migration theory previously discussed herein, was not raised in the application, but only in the testimony of St. Anthony's expert at the hearing. Petitioner has shown no problems regarding financial accessibility nor has it shown that any identifiable subgroup within the district is having difficulty obtaining open heart services. Indigent patients are being served effectively and it was demonstrated that, as currently constituted, All Children's and Bayfront both provide a higher percentage of indigent care than does applicant, St. Anthony's. Assuming approval of St. Anthony's application, there is no indication it will increase its percentage of indigent care in the open heart surgery area above that which it already provides in the other services offered. Rule 10-5.011(f)4(a), FACE requires access to open heart surgery services within two hours for at least 90 percent of the service area population. There is no evidence offered by Petitioner to indicate that this standard is not being met by the existing facilities. St. Anthony's has not established by competent evidence its ability to recruit and maintain adequate, experienced staff to implement its open heart program if approved though, in reality, this may well be one of the lesser problems involved and, as was stated previously, there was no showing that approval of its program would, by enhancing competition, lower costs for health care services. Quite the contrary, it appears that St. Anthony's program would constitute an unnecessary duplication of a specialized service and would have an adverse impact upon the All Children's/Bayfront program and, possibly, the others within the district. Petitioner's evidence of prospective charges for open heart surgery, showing it to anticipate lower charges than Largo and Plant, is somewhat irrelevant in that those two facilities are located in an area of the district which does not fall within the primary service area considered here. Petitioner contends that the Department's approval of a CON for open heart surgery by Humana-Brandon, in District VI, and its approval of a certificate for open heart surgery for Tallahassee Community Hospital, in District III, are inconsistent with its denial of its application in District V. For a variety of reasons, other than the fact that the districts are different and the conditions dissimilar, there is little inconsistency involved. Granting approval of a CON for open heart surgery to St. Anthony's creates a legitimate concern that approval would cause the currently existing All Children's/Bayfront program to drop well below the 200 annual procedures considered necessary for quality of care. Further, in the Tallahassee area, a "not normal" situation existed which does not exist here. The geographical separation of alternative facilities in the Tallahassee area is substantially different and creates an entirely different picture that which exists in the District V/District VI area. Taken together, then, it is found that application of the numerical need and ancillary provisions of rule 10-5.011, F.A.C. demonstrates no numerical need for a new program and approval and implementation of St. Anthony's application would likely result in a diminishment, as opposed to enhancement, of the quality of open heart surgery care in the District as well as an increase rather than a decrease in health care costs. Further, it is found that there are no "not normal" circumstances, aliunde the numerical need, to justify approval of Petitioner's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Anthony's Hospital for approval of a certificate of need to establish and operate an open heart surgery program at its facility in St. Petersburg, Florida be denied. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0637 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 to this case. By St. Anthony's Hospital: Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted in so far as open heart surgery is not done at Bayfront. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein 14. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein 23. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as not proven Rejected Rejected & 31. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected & 34. Accepted and incorporated herein Last sentence rejected. Balance accepted. & 37. Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected. There was no showing any patient from St. Anthony's has been harmed by transfer to All Children's nor that patients or their families are dissatisfied. - 42. Rejected as not supported by evidence of record. 43. - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein 48. & 49. Accepted 50. & 51. Accepted as to total procedures in District V but rejected as to the conclusion that-all existing providers are performing at a level of more than 350 adult open heart surgeries per year. While Largo and Plant may, All Children's/Bayfront is not. 52. & 53. Accepted Rejected as not supported by the evidence Accepted as a cite to the pertinent rule - 59. Rejected. Out-migration is not a proper factor for consideration under statute or rule Accepted as to the rule not addressing mixed programs. - 63. Rejected as not consistent with the rule and proper implementation of the need methodology thereunder. The conclusion that all existing programs in District 10 are currently operating at more than 350 procedures annually is rejected. All Children's is not. Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein & 68. Rejected. Use of figures attributable to out- migration is not provided for or permitted by the rule. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Irrelevant. Even if true, there is no showing of the reason or that petitioner would capture these patients. Accepted Accepted Accepted & 76. Rejected. Cited provision of application stated "may" indicate, not "did' indicate. In addition, MEDPAR data relates only to Medicare patients and an extrapolation of that figure is not necessarily reliable. Accepted Accepted but not considered controlling in that the rule provides time reference for use in the methodology. Not established & 81. Accepted 82. Rejected as not supported by any independent evidence of record. Accepted - 87. Accepted 88. & 89. Rejected. Bayfront's application was withdrawn. 90. Accepted By the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1.-18. Accepted and incorporated herein 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein 27. - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein 30. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein 33. & 34. Accepted and incorporated herein 35. Accepted and incorporated herein 36. & 37. Accepted 38. - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein 41. No ruling. Not understood. 42. Accepted and incorporated herein 43. Accepted and incorporated herein 44. Accepted and incorporated herein 45. - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein 48. Accepted 49. - 55. Accepted and incorporated herein 56. Accepted 57. Accepted and incorporated herein 58. & 59. Accepted and incorporated herein 60. & 61. Accepted and incorporated herein 62. Accepted and incorporated herein 63. & 64. Accepted 65. Accepted and incorporated herein 66. Accepted 67. Accepted and incorporated herein 68. Accepted 69. Accepted By All Children's Hospital 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein 4. & 5. Accepted 6. & 7. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact 8. & 9. Accepted 10. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein 20. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein 23. & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein 28. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein 31. & 32. Accepted Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein By Bayfront Medical Center 1. - 3. Not Findings of Fact 4. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein 11. & 12. Not Findings of Fact 13. - 49. Accepted and incorporated herein 50. & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein 52. & 53. Accepted and incorporated herein 64. - 56. Accepted and incorporated herein 57. - 68. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein - 72(c). Accepted and incorporated herein 72(d). Argument, not Finding of Fact 72(e).- 72(1). Accepted and incorporated herein Not a Finding of Fact Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 77. Accepted Not a Finding of Fact - 81. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein - 86. Accepted and incorporated herein 87. & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein Merely a comment on the evidence Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 95. Accepted Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein & 99. Accepted 100. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Wood, Lusksinger & Epstein Four Houston Center 1221 Lamar, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77010 John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven M. Presnell, Esquire Lee Elzie, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison and Kelly 804 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire H. Darrell White, Jr., Esquire McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley and Cassedy, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Lawnwood Regional Medical Center is a 225 bed community hospital in Ft. Pierce, Florida. It currently holds a CON to add an additional 50 beds. Lawnwood is owned and operated by Hospital Corporation of America, (HCA). On October 14, 1985, Lawnwood submitted a CON application for authorization to provide cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery programs at the facility. The project for both services would involve a total of approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of construction consisting of both new construction and renovation of the present facility, with a project cost of approximately $3.6 million. Lawnwood developed the project because it found a need therefor as a result of various visits to the administrator by physicians practicing in the area who indicated a growing demand for the services. The physicians in question indicated they were referring more and more patients to facilities out of the immediate area and the services in question were very much needed in this locality. The main service area for Lawnwood consists of the northern four counties of DHRS District IX, including St. Lucie, Martin, Okeechobee, and Indian River Counties. The majority of the cardiology practitioners in this service area find it necessary, because of the lack of cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery programs, to transfer patients to facilities either in Palm Beach County, which are from one to two hours away, or to facilities outside the District, primarily in Miami or the University of Florida area, which are even further. While many heart patients are not severely impacted by this, one specific class of patient, the streptokinase patient is. This procedure, involving the use of a chemical injected by catheter to dissolve a clot causing blockage must he done within a relatively short period of time after the onset of the blockage to be effective. However, this can he done outside a cardiac cath lab. A representative sampling of doctors testifying for Lawnwood indicated that during the year prior to the hearing, one doctor, Kahddus, sent 140 patients outside the district for catheterization procedures and 90 additional patients for open heart surgery. Other physicians referring outside District IX included Dr. Hayes - 4; Dr. Marjieh - 240; and Dr. Whittle - 12. Doctors indicated that the situation was so severe that some physicians practicing in the Palm Beach area, who have cardiac catheter and open heart surgery services available to them in the immediate locale are nonetheless referring patients outside the District for these procedures. No physician who does this testified, however. St. Mary's Hospital is a 358 bed not for profit hospital located in Palm Beach County. It has been issued a CON for a cardiac catheterization lab expected to come on line in April, 1987. Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center is a 204 bed acute care hospital which currently operates a cardiac catheterization laboratory and an open heart surgery program. It, too, is located in Palm Beach County. A second cardiac catheterization laboratory was scheduled to open at this facility in February, 1987. An additional cardiac catheterization laboratory is operating at Delray Community Hospital and this facility, as well as the currently existing facility at PBGMC are the only two currently operating cardiac catheterization laboratories within DHRS District IX. There are, however, other cardiac catheterization labs approved for District IX. These include the aforementioned second PBGMC lab, the aforementioned St. Mary's lab, one at JFK Hospital and one at Boca Raton Community Hospital. These latter four facilities are not yet operational. As to open heart surgery programs, only PBGMC and Delray Community Hospital have open heart surgery programs on line. JFK has been approved for an open heart surgery program. DHRS has promulgated rules for determining the need for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery programs. These rules are found in Section 10-5.11(15) and (16), F.A.C. and establish methodologies based on use rates to determine need. The use rate for the applicable time period here, July, 1984 through June, 1985, is to be multiplied by the projected population for the District in the planning horizon, (July, 1987) which figure is then divided by 600 procedures per laboratory to determine the need for catheterization labs or 350 open heart procedures to determine the need for additional open heart surgery programs. The difficulty in applying this methodology to the current situation is in the calculation of the "use rate" used to measure the utilization of a service per unit of population. For the rule here, it is expressed as the number of procedures per 100,000 population. There is more than one way to calculate a use rate and the DHRS rules do not specify the method of calculation. An "actual use rate" is determined by applying the actual number of procedures performed within a particular geographical area in a particular time period. Data to determine an actual use rate for catheterization services or open heart surgery is not currently available in District IX, however. Applying the formula cited above to the existing figures, however, reflects a use rate of 62.3 procedures per 100,000 population in District IX. This is far below the 409.7 procedures per 100,000 population statewide. Lawnwood proposes to apply the statewide use rate rather than the District IX use rate because District IX is currently in a start up phase and does not have sufficient historical information available to provide an accurate use rate for the purpose of the need methodology. The lower the use rate, the lower the need will be shown to be. If the lower District IX rate is applied, in light of the numerous other laboratories coming on line approved already, there would clearly be no need for any additional services in either the catheterization or open heart surgery areas. Some experts offer as a potential substitute for the actual use rate a "facility based use rate" which involves determining the number of procedures performed in all hospitals within a particular geographic area for the applicable time period and dividing that number of procedures by the population of that area. DHRS evaluators employed this "facility based use rate" in their need calculations. At least one expert, however, contends that the "facility based use rate" is appropriate only when certain conditions exist. These include an adequate supply of facilities or providers in the area; historical, long-standing experience rather than start-up programs; and a lack of a high number of referrals outside of the particular area. Since these three conditions are not met here, it would seen that the "facility based use rate" would not be appropriate. In determining the statewide use rate of 409.07, Mr. Nelson, consultant testifying on behalf of Lawnwood, derived that figure by compiling utilization data for all hospitals in the state providing cardiac catheterization during the time period in question divided by the statewide population as of January 1, 1985. The resulting figure was thereafter converted into a rate per unit of population. A statewide figure such as this includes patients of all ages and it would appear that this is as it should be. Catheterization and open heart surgery services would be open to all segments of the state population and it would seem only right therefore that the entire population be considered when arriving at figures designed to assess the need for additional services. On the other hand, experts testifying on behalf of the intervenors utilized statistical manipulation which tended to indicated that the need, reflected as greater under Mr. Nelson's methodology, was in fact not accurate and was flawed. He that as it may, it is difficult to conclude which of the different experts testifying is accurate and the chances are great that none is 100 percent on track. More likely, and it is so found, the appropriate figure would be one more extensive than the population figures and resultant use rate for District IX alone and closer to the statewide rate across a broad spectrum of the population. When the fact that the older population of the District IX counties, the age cohort more likely to utilize catheterization and open heart surgery services, is greater in the District IX counties than perhaps in other counties north of that area, the inescapable conclusion must be reached that a use rate significantly higher than 62.3 would be appropriate. This may not, however, require the use of a statewide rate of 409.7. Utilizing, arguendo, the statewide use rate of approximately 409 procedures per 100,000 population results in a projected number of procedures of 4,576 in District IX if the projected population figure of slightly more than 1.1 million holds true. When that 4,576 figure is divided by the minimum number of procedures required by rule prior to the addition of further cardiac catheterization labs, (600),a need for 7.63 labs in District IX is shown. With six labs existing or approved, a net need of two additional labs would appear to exist since DHRS rounds upward when the number is .5 or higher. A similar analysis applied to open heart surgery, using a statewide use rate of 120.94 per 100,000 population results in a procedure number of 1,353 for the same population. Utilizing the DHRS rule minimum of 350 procedures per lab for open heart surgery procedures, a net yield of 3.87 programs would be needed in District IX in January, 1988. Subtracting the three existing or approved programs now in the district, and rounding up, would show a need of one additional open heart surgery program. These are the figures relied upon by Lawnwood. Accepting them for the moment and going to the issue of financial feasibility, DHRS apparently has agreed that the project costs for this facility are reasonable. Lawnwood has shown itself to be a profitable hospital and HCA is a large, well run corporation not known for the establishment of non- profitable operations. If one accepts that the actual utilization will approximate the projected utilization figures, then the operation would clearly be financially feasible. Both intervenors challenged the Petitioner's pro forma statement of earnings, but their efforts were not particularly successful. If Lawnwood can perform a sufficient number of procedures, then it should be able to break even without difficulty. Turning to the question of the impact that the opening of Lawnwood's facilities would have on the other providers or prospective providers in the area, both PBGMC and St. Mary's contend that there would be a substantial adverse impact on their existing services as well as on the prospective units already approved. Lawnwood proposes to service a portion of the indigent population with its two new operations. Were this to be done, indeed an impact would be felt by St. Mary's which is currently a substantial provider of indigent and Medicaid treatment and St. Mary's will be particularly vulnerable since it is in the start-up phase of its cardiac catheterization lab. Currently, PBGMC draws patients in both services from Martin and St. Lucie counties as well as from Palm Beach County. The percentage of patients drawn from these more northern counties is, while not overwhelming, at least significant, being 14 percent from Martin County and 9 percent from St. Lucie. Taken together, this constitutes 23 percent of the activity in these areas. St. Mary's anticipates a loss of 25 percent of its potential catheterization cases and if this happens, it will lose approximately $719,000.00 of its gross revenue in catheterization cases alone. St. Mary's further predicts that if Lawnwood's facility is opened, it will have difficulty recruiting and maintaining qualified personnel. PBGMC, figuring it's loss to be approximately $492,000.00, estimates that a layoff of nursing and other staff personnel or the redirecting them into other areas of the hospital would be indicated. PBGMC also refers to the cumulative impact not only of Lawnwood's proposal but of the other cardiac programs in the District which have been approved but are not yet on line. If all come into operation, PBGMC estimates it could lose as much as 69 percent of its activity in these areas. These negative predictions are not, however, supported by any firm evidence and are prospective in nature. From a historic perspective, it is doubtful that any lasting significant negative impact would occur to either PBGMC or St. Mary's overall operation by the opening of Lawnwood's facility. Turning to the question of staffing and its relationship to the issue of quality of care, there is little doubt that Lawnwood could obtain appropriate staffing for both its services if approved. Of the physicians already on staff at the facility, many are now certified and the hospital and the medical community plans training programs for those who are not. As to nurses and other support personnel, Lawnwood is satisfied that it can recruit from other HCA facilities and will recruit from the open market. It has a full time recruiter on staff. Quality of care is of paramount concern to the administration of Lawnwood. It has a current three year accreditation from the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation. It also has a quality control committee made up of both physicians and other staff members and the laboratory is approved by appropriate accrediting agencies. These same types of quality control programs would be applied to both new requested services as well. The rules in question governing the approval of cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs set down certain criteria for the approval of additional services which, as to the question of cardiac catheters states at subparagraph 15(o)1a that there will be no additional adult cardiac catheterization laboratories established in a service area unless the average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area is greater than 600. Much the same qualification relates to open heart surgery programs except that in that latter case, the minimum number would be 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 for pediatric heart procedures annually. Ms. Farr, consultant for DHRS, feels that Petitioner's application would be inconsistent with the minimum standards set forth in the rule because she does not believe the Petitioner would do enough procedures in either cardiac catheterization or open heart surgery to meet the 600/350 criteria. She also contends that the proposal is not consistent with the District Health Plan, because the District plan requires the rule which addresses need be followed. Since, in her opinion, the application of the rule shows no need, there would be a violation of the District Health Plan if these proposals were approved. In the area of cardiac catheterization laboratories, of the six licensed and approved labs in District IX, only that existing currently at PBGMC is presently performing more than 600 procedures per year. Substantial testimony tending to indicate that a well organized cardiac catheterization lab can handle between 1500 and 2000 procedures per year, the 600 figure would tend to be a minimum and was so recognized by the drafters of the rule. No evidence was introduced by any party to show the numbers of open heart surgery procedures currently being performed in the three existing or approved open heart surgery programs in the District. Again, however, it would appear that DHRS criteria of 350 would be a minimum rather than an optimum or maximum figure. The parties have stipulated that as to the travel time criteria set forth in the rule for both procedures, 90 percent of the population of District IX is within two hour automobile travel time from availability to either or both procedures. It would further appear from an evaluation of the evidence, that while difficulty is experienced in arranging treatment for indigent transfer patients outside the District, little if any difficulty is experienced in arranging transfer treatment for those who can pay for the service. Little difficulty is experienced in securing treatment for these individuals in either Miami, Orlando, or elsewhere, and aside from inconvenience, there was no showing that a real, substantial health risk existed as a result of the transfer process. All things taken together, then, though the numerical evaluation under the rule process, applying a statewide use rate, tends to indicate that there is a "need" for this additional service, the subparagraph "o" criteria of 600/350 procedures requirement prior to authorization of additional service is not met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Lawnwood's application for a CON to add a cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery program at its facility in Ft. Pierce, Florida, be denied. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1987 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 16th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1539 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner - Lawnwood 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated. 3 & 4. Accepted and incorporated. 5. Accepted and incorporated. 6. Accepted and incorporated. 7. Accepted and incorporated. 8. Accepted and incorporated. 9. Accepted and incorporated. 10. Accepted and incorporated. 11. Accepted and incorporated. 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 13. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 14. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as indicating a need for 2 additional cath labs. Rejected as calling for determination of "not normal status for District IX. Accepted in general but rejected insofar as there is an implication that non-indigent patients experience "significant" difficulty securing treatment. Accepted. 19 & 20. Accepted as to the streptokinase patients specifically. Accepted but not considered to be of major significance. Accepted and incorporated. 23 & 24. Accepted and incorporated. 25 & 26. Accepted and incorporated. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted. 30 & 31. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 32. Rejected as not supported by the best evidence. 33-36. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted. 39-42. Accepted. By Intervenor - St. Mary's 1 - 4. Accepted and incorporated. 5 & 6. Accepted and incorporated. 7 - 9. Accepted and incorporated. 10. Rejected as not supported by the best evidence. 11 & 12. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not supported by the best evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 19-21. Merely a summary of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact. 22-24. Summary of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact. Accepted as ultimate Finding of Fact. Rejected. Rejected as a summary of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Subordinate. 32-36. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not Finding of Facts. 37-40. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 41 & 42. Accepted. 43-46. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. By Intervenor - PBGMC 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted except for last sentence which is irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated. 6 & 7. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted. 9. Accepted and Incorporated. 10 & 11. Accepted and incorporated. 12. Accepted. 13-16. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected ultimately as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. 23 & 24. Accepted. 25 & 26. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 27. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Sheehan, III, Esquire 9th Floor, Barnett Centre 625 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eleanor A. Joseph, Esquire Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue This proceeding concerns applications for certificates of need (CON) for open heart surgery programs at Central Florida Regional Hospital and Winter Park Memorial Hospital. It must be determined whether those applications meet applicable statute and rule criteria and should be approved by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. By stipulation, filed on June 20, 1989, the parties agree that the following criteria have either been met or are not at issue in this proceeding: Section 381.705(1)(c), F.S., regarding quality of care, only as to the applicants' record of providing quality of care in currently existing programs, and not as to the provision of open heart services. Section 381.705(1)(f), F.S., regarding the need for special equipment and services in the district which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Section 381.705(1)(j), F.S., regarding the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. Section 381.705(2)(e), F.S., regarding nursing home beds. Rule 10-5.O11(1)(f)3.c., F.A.C., regarding the applicants' ability to provide a specified range of services in the facility if granted their certificates of need.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Applicant, Central Florida Regional Hospital (CFRH) is a 226-bed private, for profit hospital in Sanford, Seminole County Florida. CFRH was a county-owned hospital until 1980, when it was purchased by Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). CFRH currently provides a wide range of diagnostic and treatment services, including cardiology, neurology surgery, special imaging, and nuclear cardiology. Its in-patient cardiac catheterization services were initiated in April, 1988. Applicant, Winter Park Memorial Hospital (WPMH), is a 301-bed acute care, not-for-profit hospital located in Winter Park, Orange County, Florida. It was opened in 1955, and is governed by a board of directors comprised of business and civic leaders in the central Florida area. WPMH also currently offers diagnostic cardiac catheterizations services with medical/surgical, pediatric/obstetric, and a broad range of outpatient services. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the agency responsible for administering sections 381.701 through 381.715. F.S., the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", the statute describing the certificate of need (CON) process. Petitioner, Humana of Florida, Inc., is the corporate owner of Humana Hospital Lucerne (Humana), a 267-bed hospital facility in downtown Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Along with its broad range of existing services, Humana provides open heart surgery and a full range of diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheterizations. It maintains two operating rooms (ORs) dedicated for open heart surgery. Petitioner, Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc. is the corporate owner and licensee of a number of hospitals, including Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital is a private not-for-profit tertiary care hospital with over 1100 beds on three campuses in central Florida: Orlando, Apopka, and Altamonte Springs. Florida Hospital's open heart surgery program, the largest in HRS District 7, and one of the largest in the southeast United States, is conducted at the Orlando facility in Orange County. It has four ORs dedicated to open heart surgery. Florida Hospital has an active cardiac catheterization program with a full range of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as angioplasty and valvuloplasty. The Applications CFRH proposes to add its open heart surgery program at a total cost of $4,322,702.00, including construction costs, equipment and financing costs. CFRH intends to start with a single furnished OR and with shelled-in space for a second OR. These and a recovery area will be located on the first floor adjacent to the existing surgical department. Twelve existing general medical/surgery beds will be converted to intensive care beds on the second floor, accessible by means of an elevator dedicated to the exclusive use of open heart surgery patients. CFRH's primary service area is described as north Seminole and southwest Volusia counties, an area containing no other open heart surgery programs. It anticipates it will draw its open heart surgery patients primarily from that service area, and projects 200 surgeries by the end of the first year, with 288 surgeries during the second year. WPMH proposes to add two dedicated ORs and related operating suite rooms for open heart surgery, at a cost of $1,470,000.00. One of the ORs will be kept available for emergency open heart surgery cases. The application does not include additional intensive care or critical care unit beds. Because it is slowly phasing in additional progressive care beds, the applicant anticipates that the current bottleneck created by patients waiting to leave critical care to go to progressive care, will be relieved by the time the open heart surgery program generates a demand for critical care and intensive care beds. Like CFRH, WPMH claims a relatively local primary service area, east Orange and south Seminole Counties, and proposes that its open heart surgery program will serve that same area. WPMH projects a case load of 117 open heart surgery patients the first year, 173 the second year, and is confident that it will meet the minimum requirement of 200 adult open heart procedures annually by the end of the third year of service. Neither CFRH nor WPMH are projecting pediatric open heart surgery. Numeric Need and the "350 Standard" HRS Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8., Florida Administrative Code, provides the formula for determining a threshold numeric need for open heart surgery programs in a service area, defined for purposes of the rule as the entire HRS district. District 7 is comprised of Orange, Seminole, Osceola, and Brevard Counties, on Florida's east central coast. The formula is stated as follows: 8. Need Determination. The need for open heart surgery programs in a service area shall be determined by computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination: Nx - Uc X Px Where: Nx = Number of open heart procedures projected for Year X; Uc = Actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand population) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent deadline for the batching cycle; Px = Projected population in the service area in Year X; and, Year X = The year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future. Elizabeth Dudek is a health facilities and services consultant supervisor in HRS' Office of Regulation and Health Facilities. She was the Department's authorized representative at the hearing and was qualified, without objection, as an expert in health planning. The State Agency Action Report (SAAR), reflecting HRS' review of the CON proposals, applies the formula above as explained by Ms. Dudek. The planning horizon for the project under consideration is July, 1990, which, based on data from the Executive Office of the Governor, has a projected population of 1,492,327. The use rate of 202.53 per hundred thousand population for District 7 was derived from volume data provided by the local health council and from population data from the Executive Office of the Governor. The result of the formula is a projected number of 3022 procedures in the planning horizon. While the rule does not specify what is done with this figure, HRS looks to the 350 minimum number of procedures required in subsection 11. of the rule and divides 350 into the projected number of procedures, to derive a theoretical number of programs which could operate in the district. HRS found a need for 8.6 programs, rounded to 9. Since District 7 has four existing programs, this meant that 5 additional programs could be approved. HRS approved three, the two applicant parties in this proceedings and Wuesthoff, in central Brevard County. There is little, if any, dispute with HRS' application of its rule to this point. The parties do vigorously dispute the application of the following portions of Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), F.A.C.: 11.a. There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless: the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year, and, the conditions specified in Sub- subparagraph 5.6., above, will be met by the proposed program. b. No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which would reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. The volume of procedures performed at existing programs during the period, July 1987 to June 1988, was: Florida Hospital-Orlando 1612 Holmes Regional 333 Humana Lucerne 440 Orlando Regional 368 2753 At the time of this batching cycle, there were only "existing" and no "approved" (not yet operating) programs in District 7. Holmes Regional did not meet the 350 minimum, as reflected above. HRS, however, has consistently and over a period of years, interpreted the requirement of 11.a (I) to be that an average of 350 cases be performed by existing and approved programs, not that each program actually perform that minimum, annually. Under this interpretation, which assumes that all programs have equal capacity, there are sufficient procedures being generated in the district to allow for the existing programs to average over 688 procedures. Quality of Care Part of the rationale for the 350 minimum procedures per year is the widely-accepted view that mortality rates are lower when an open heart program experiences volume at a minimum level of 200-350 procedures annually. Dr. Harold Luft is a professor of Health Economics employed at the University of California in San Francisco, who has conducted extensive research into the correlation between volume of open heart surgery cases and quality of care. In his findings published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1987, in-house deaths were 5.2%, 3.9%, 4.1% and 3.1% in facilities conducting 20-100, 101-200, 201-350, and more than 350 annual operations, respectively. A strong correlation was also found between volume and "poor outcome", defined as patients who either died in the hospital or who stayed beyond 15 days in the hospital (the 90th percentile post operative length of stay). Poor outcomes occurred in 21.7%, 15.5%, 11.8% and 12% of the patients in facilities performing 20-100, 101-200, 201- 350, and more than 350 annual procedures, respectively. The correlations are even more dramatic for patients who received non-scheduled ("emergency") surgery, ranging from 7.7% deaths in hospitals performing less than 100 operations, to 4.6% deaths in hospitals performing more than 350 operations annually, and from 27.9% poor outcomes in the lowest volume hospitals to 16.3% poor outcomes in the highest volume hospital. Both applicants argue the advantages of having the open heart surgery in-house to avoid the trauma of transfer of an emergency patient from their facility to another existing open heart surgery program. Dr. Luft's study cited above suggests that, despite the trauma of transfer, an unscheduled case might still expect a better outcome in a higher volume facility. While it is sometimes necessary to transfer a patient from one hospital to another for coronary angioplasty or open heart surgery, those patients are most frequently medically stable and have been scheduled for the procedure. Where a patient in need of a diagnostic cardiac catheterization has a history placing him in a high risk category, the patient will generally be referred at the outset to a facility with full service back-up to avoid the chance of an emergency transfer. Emergency cases are rare in open heart surgery, and when they have occurred, they have been accommodated at existing programs, with little, if any, delay. The applicants presented ample hypothetical examples of elderly heart patients anxiously enduring emergency transfers by helicopter or ambulance with dangling IV tubes, balloon pumps or other support devices. No actual data was presented as to how many cases are transferred in this manner or to the mortality rates attributable to such transfers. Florida Hospital enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of its large open heart surgery program. It regularly draws patients from areas beyond the boundaries of district 7. No evidence was produced to suggest that the other existing programs are of questionable quality. Quality of care in the district will not be enhanced by approval of these applications. Access: Geographic and Economic Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)4.a., F.A.C. requires that open heart surgery be available within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours under average travel conditions for at least 90% of a service area's population. It is uncontroverted that this standard is met by existing providers. The average driving time from Florida Hospital to CFRH is 29 minutes, and from Florida Hospital to WPMH is just over 15 minutes. Although CFRH would be the only program in Seminole County, the population is concentrated at the lower end of the county, closer to Orlando and closer to Florida Hospital than to CFRH at the northeast end of the county. It would undoubtedly be convenient for patients and their physicians to be able to administer and receive all medical services in a neighborhood center, but no one is suggesting that every community hospital should have an open heart surgery program. Open heart surgery and its associated services are expensive. These services are not used by many indigent or Medicaid patients and no data is available regarding the level of need by this group or the impediments to access. WPMH has a reputation of providing low cost medical services and CFRH has a commendable history of commitment to public health, but the numbers of medicaid patients and indigents proposed to be served do not alone-weigh in favor of approval of their applications. Availability of Staff A single seven-physician, open heart surgery group performs virtually all of the open heart surgery in District 7, at Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC), Humana and Florida Hospital. The group has also committed to providing services at Winter Haven Hospital, an applicant in District 6; Wuesthoff; and CFRH and WPMH. In addition to surgery, the group provides in-house back up to facilities performing coronary angioplasty in their catheterization labs. When new programs come on line the open heart surgeon must spend substantial time training and working with the new surgery team at the hospital. This would further strain a busy practice. There are already delays at existing facilities in obtaining back-up surgery coverage. The group has stated that it will expand, if the new programs are approved, but it is unreasonable to assume that the expansion will be timed to fully accommodate existing demand and the demand of three new programs. The shortage of critical care unit nurses nationwide and in central Florida, is widely acknowledged, and Dr. Meredith Scott, an eminent cardiac surgeon otherwise enthusiastically supporting the new programs, cautions that the dilution of a pool of highly qualified nurses detracts from his support. When hospitals are unable to recruit sufficient nursing staff they are left with reliance on temporary agency personnel, a less preferable alternative in terms of costs and quality of care. Financial Feasibility Both applicants have the funds required for capital expenditures and start-up costs. CFRH's parent corporation, HCA, has committed that it will fund the project costs and has the resources to do so. The interest expenses allocated by HCA are appropriately included in the applicant's pro forma projection of revenue and expenses. The pro formas of both applicants, reflecting no more than a best guess, are reasonable. To the extent that expenses are understated, the charges will no doubt be adjusted, and they will also rise in the event that use rates do not reach expectations. Open heart surgery is a highly profitable health care service. Competition/Need/Impact on Existing Programs District 7 has four existing providers and a fifth approved provider, Wuesthoff, for a total of 11 dedicated ORs for open heart surgery, ranging from 4 at Florida Hospital to one at Holmes. Competition in the market already actively exists and was not a notable factor in HRS' decision to approve the applications. Wuesthoff's projected average charge for the first year at $30,400.00 is $4-5,000.00 less than that projected by WPMH and CFRH. A single OR has a capacity of 500 cases per year. HRS Rule 1O- 5.O11(1)(f)3.d, F.A.C. requires that each open heart surgery program be able to provide 500 operations per year. Same programs, as Holmes, and as CFRH's proposed program, have only one OR, evidencing acceptance of that capacity principle. Eleven existing and approved ORs translate into a capacity of 5500 cases. The horizon year volume is projected at a mere 3,022 cases. Assuming, for argument's sake, and as proposed by the applicants, that the need methodology of Rule 10- 5.O11(1)(f)8., F.A.C. under-states utilization rates and, therefore, need; or that the number of "cases" should be more properly adjusted by a multiplier to derive the number of "procedures"; ample capacity still exists. In the period of July 1987 through June 1988, existing providers performed 2753 surgeries. The projected 3,022 cases will generate 269 additional surgeries - enough to support Wuesthoff, the approved provider, (assuming no increase by existing providers) - but inadequate to justify the approval of two additional programs in the same cycle. It is obvious from the above that the applicants, in order to achieve their projected utilizations, will draw heavily from existing providers. At 1589 cases in 1988, (more than half the cases performed that year in District 7), Florida Hospital is a leviathan, a mega-center. Approximately half of its patients come from counties outside of District 7. Among the in- district patients, substantial numbers of referrals are from CFRH and WPMH. In a 13-month period ending in April 1989, CFRH referred 82 open heart surgery cases to Florida Hospital and one case to Humana. In 1987 and 1988, WPMH referred 70 and 84 open heart surgery patients, respectively, to Florida Hospital and 4 and 5 patients to Humana Hospital. Whether population growth or increased utilization rates will make up those losses is a matter of conjecture. Utilization rates have remained relatively stable since 1983, gaining 13 cases per thousand in that period, from 196 in 1983, to 209 in 1988. New technology is making it possible to avoid open heart surgery by removing obstructions from the heart vessel, rather than bypassing them. Ultrasound and laser techniques are being tested, and drug treatments and more efficient use of balloon angioplasty are reducing the incident of by-pass operations. Consequently, it is the sicker patients who receive the more invasive open heart surgery. And, typically, the sicker patients are referred to the larger, longer- established programs, driving up their costs when the new programs are able to skim the more profitable cases. Size alone does not cushion the impact on a facility such as Florida Hospital. The cardiology program accounts for one-third of its revenue. It helps support a research center and extensive education programs . Loss of revenue will effect these programs, as they, rather than direct services to patients, will be cut to the detriment of the health care community at large. Impact on Humana and the other smaller facilities is likely to be more direct. Humana's open heart surgery program was set back recently when a group of cardiologists left its staff in a dispute over administration. Volume has dropped and Humana reasonably projects 250 surgeries or less in 1991 and 1992 if WPMH and CFRH are approved. Both Humana and ORMC lost volume and market share when Holmes began to operate, since these facilities rely heavily on in-district patients. Like Florida Hospital, Humana derives one-third of its revenue from its cardiology program. State and Local Health Plans Both applications are consistent with the State Health Plan's objective of maintaining an average of procedures per open heart surgery program in the district, although as demonstrated above, actual maintenance of such an average would decimate the program at Florida Hospital. The plan's primary goal of ensuring the availability and accessibility of open heart services is not advanced by these applications. The most current State Plan is dated 1985-87; it is effective through 1987. Although widely referred to in CON proceedings because of statutory and rule requirements for consistency, the utility of an out-of-date plan for health planning purposes is questionable. The District 7 local health plan, approved by the local health council in June 1988, is internally inconsistent. It provides: District VII existing open heart programs appear to be performing well both from the standpoint of volume efficiency and quality, and clearly, there is sufficient, accessible capacity in these programs to handle additional growth. Consider, too, that new open heart programs are being developed in surrounding districts, and these programs, once operational, will begin to draw back their local patient bases from this district's open heart providers. Lately, as angioplasty, laser and drug technology evolve, there is little doubt that the percentage of patients requiring open heart surgery to correct blockage problems will drop. In view of these aforementioned facts, the approval of any additional open heart programs in District VII is discouraged. (Florida Hospital Exhibit #9, P. AC- 45.) emphasis added. At the same time, the plan provides four recommendations for tertiary services, including open heart surgery: specifically, that priority be given to CON applications from teaching hospitals or regional health care centers (defined as non-teaching hospitals) of at least 300 acute-care beds, that priority be given to applicants which commit to serve patients regardless of ability to pay, that applications be reviewed on a districtwide or regional basis, and that review priority be given to open heart surgery applicants which provide clear documentation of the impact of their proposal on other similar service providers in the district and in adjourning districts serving the same geographical area. (Florida Hospital Exhibit #9, P. 11-67) As discussed above, these recommendations are only marginally met by the applicants, if at all, and CFRH is clearly not a regional health center. "Balancing the Criteria" and Summary of Findings Additional open heart surgery programs are not needed in District 7. The expenditure of approximately $5.8 million in construction and start-up costs, the dilution of scarce staffing resources, the real potential that existing programs will suffer substantial financial losses, the real risk that declining volume at existing programs will lead to poorer quality of care or that the new programs will fail to achieve their hoped for volume, are not outweighed by enhanced convenience to patients, their families and physicians. Access to good quality open heart surgery is not currently a problem and, as advocated by Dr. Ron Luke, the more prudent health planning course would be to wait to see what happens in the district with the additional two open heart surgery operating rooms at Wuesthoff.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be issued denying CON number 5695 for Winter Park Memorial Hospital and number 5696 for Central Florida Regional Hospital. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by each party: CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL HOSPITAL This party's proposal includes 68 separately numbered lengthy paragraphs combining argument with multiple findings. The arguments are well articulated and well organized. However, the format makes it impossible to accord a paragraph by paragraph ruling. The description of the parties, the description of HRS' application of its rule and the conclusions regarding financial feasibility of the CFRH application are accepted generally and substantially, or in summary form, have been adopted in this recommended order. Otherwise, the findings are rejected as unnecessary, immaterial or contrary to the weight of evidence. WINTER PARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Adopted in paragraph 2. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7. Adopted in Statement of the Issues. 8-10. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. 13-17. Adopted generally in paragraph 9. 18 and 19. Rejected as unnecessary. 20-31. The current staffing at the facility and the level of staffing projected as necessary for the open heart program are not materially at issue. The issue is whether necessary staffing will be available and whether competition for existing staff will impact costs and quality of care. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. See 20-31, above. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. There are delays in getting back-up surgery teams. The description of the group and its commitment is adopted in paragraph 30. That quality of care will not be affected was not established by the weight of evidence. 36-38. Rejected as unnecessary. 39-47. Adopted generally in paragraphs 34 and 35, except as to the finding that there is sufficient growth to assure 200 cases in the third year for all three applicants. This is rejected as contrary to the evidence. 48 and 49. Rejected as unnecessary. 50. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 51-53. Addressed in paragraph 23, otherwise rejected as immaterial. 54-58. Addressed in paragraph 28, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Adopted in substance in paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraph 14. 61 and 62. Adopted in paragraph 12. 63. Adopted in paragraph 14. 64 and 65. Rejected as unnecessary. 66. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 17, except that the application meets the requirements of the rules, only as applied by HRS. 67-83. Rejected generally as contrary to the weight of evidence or immaterial. 84. Rejected as argument. 85-89. Rejected as immaterial or argument. 90. The comparison of Florida Hospital's mortality rate to that of Ormand Beach Hospital's is immaterial. There is no analysis of case mix and even Dr. Luft concedes that there may be isolated examples of high mortality rates with high volume or low rates in a low volume hospital. 91-93. Rejected as unnecessary or unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. That the application meets the objectives of the local health plan is rejected as contrary to the evidence. The remaining portion of the paragraph is subordinate Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in cart in paragraph 44, otherwise rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 99-115. Rejected as unnecessary. That competition already exists is adopted in paragraph 36 otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. THE DEPARTMENT OF HRS 1-3. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. 4 and 5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. 6-8. Adopted in paragraph 14. 9. Adopted in paragraph 45. 10 and 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted, as to the "averaging" method, in paragraph 44, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, except as to the finding regarding drive time, which is adopted in paragraph 26. The quality of care stipulation is addressed in the statement of issues. The remaining finding regarding 200 procedures within 3 years is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 16 and 17. Adopted, as to financial feasibility, in paragraphs 34 and 35, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 18. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 19 and 20. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. HUMANA OF FLORIDA, INC. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. The original lack of pro forma is addressed in conclusions of law. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 6 & 7. 5 and 6. Adopted in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraphs 14 & 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Preliminary Statement. 10-12. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. 16 and 17. Adopted in paragraph 46. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 19. 20 and 21. Rejected as unnecessary. 22. Adopted in paragraph 14 and in conclusions of law. 23-25. Rejected as unnecessary. 26 and 27. Adopted in paragraph 38. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in substance in paragraph 46. 30 and 31. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 26 and 27. 32-35. Rejected as unnecessary. 36. Adopted in substance in paragraph 41. 37 and 38. Rejected as unnecessary. 39 and 40. Adopted in paragraph 46. 41-44. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 45-49. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 44 and 45. 50 -60. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or unnecessary. 61-63. Adopted in substance in paragraph 36. 64-70. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 71. Adopted in paragraph 24. 72 and 73. Adopted in paragraph 25. 74. Adopted in paragraph 19. 75-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78-82. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 30-32. 83 and 84. Adopted in paragraph 33. 85-90. Rejected as unnecessary, except as adopted in paragraph 22. 91-1OO. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 29. Rejected as unnecessary. 109-123. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 124-125. Rejected as unnecessary. 126-134. Adopted in summary in paragraph 43. 135-138. Rejected as cumulative. 139-143. Rejected as contrary, to the weight of evidence or unnecessary. FLORIDA HOSPITAL Adopted in paragraphs 1 & 2. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 16. 5-12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 14. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 38. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 41. 20 and 21. Rejected as unnecessary. 22 and 23. Adopted in paragraph 45. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 26. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 22. 31 and 33. Rejected as unnecessary. 34-39. Rejected as argument or unsupported by the record. 40. Adopted in summary in paragraph 33. 41 -46. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as contrary to the evidence or immaterial. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Adopted in paragraph 39. 51-57. Rejected as unnecessary. 58-76. Impact is addressed in summary in paragraphs 42 and 43. 77. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 29. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Robert T. Klingbeil, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 1596 Venice, FL 34284 James C. Hauser, Esquire P.O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Ft. Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 John Radey, Esquire Elizabeth McArthur, Esquire Monroe Park Tower Suite 1000 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire 2700 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32314 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Certificate of Need application (CON 9239) of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") to establish an open heart surgery program at its hospital facility in Hillsborough County should be granted?
Findings Of Fact District 6 District 6 is one of eleven health service planning districts in Florida set up by the "Health Facility and Services Development Act," Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. See Section 408.031, Florida Statutes. The district is comprised of five counties: Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Hardee, and Highlands. Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. Of the five counties, three have providers of adult open heart surgery services: Hillsborough with three providers, Manatee with two, and Polk with one. There are in District 6 at present, therefore, a total of six existing providers. Existing Providers Hillsborough County The three providers of open heart surgery services ("OHS") in Hillsborough County are Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., d/b/a Tampa General Hospital ("Tampa General"), St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. ("St. Joseph's"), and University Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a University Community Hospital ("UCH"). For the most part, Interstate 75 runs in a northerly and southerly direction dividing Hillsborough County roughly in half. If the interstate is considered to be a line dividing the eastern half of the county from the western, all three existing providers are in the western half of the county within the incorporated area of the county's major population center, the City of Tampa. Tampa General Opened approximately a century ago, Tampa General has been at its present location in the City of Tampa on Davis Island at the north end of Tampa Bay since 1927. The mission of Tampa General is three-fold. First, it provides a range of care (from simple to complex) for the west central region of the state. Second, it supports both the teaching and research activities of the University of South Florida College of Medicine. Finally and perhaps most importantly, it serves as the "health care safety net" for the people of Hillsborough County. Evidence of its status as the safety net for those its serves is its Case Mix Index for Medicare patients: 2.01. At such a level, "the case mix at Tampa General is one of the highest in the nation in Medicare population." (Tr. 2452). In keeping with its mission of being the county's health care safety net, Tampa General is a full-service acute care hospital. It also provides services unique to the county and the Tampa Bay area: a Level I trauma center, a regional burn center and adult solid organ transplant programs. Tampa General is licensed for 877 beds. Of these, 723 are for acute care, 31 are designated skilled nursing beds, 59 are comprehensive rehabilitation beds, 22 are psychiatry beds, and 42 are neonatal intensive care beds (18 Level II and 24 Level III). Of the 723 acute care beds, 160 are set aside for cardiac care, although they may be occupied from time-to-time by non-cardiac care patients. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. It has an affiliation with the University of South Florida College of Medicine. It offers 13 residency programs, serving approximately 200 medical residents. Tampa General offers diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization services in four laboratories dedicated to such services. It has four operating rooms dedicated to open heart surgery. The range of open heart surgery services provided by Tampa General includes heart transplants. Care of the open heart patient immediately after surgery is in a dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit of 18 beds. Following stay in the intensive care unit, the patient is cared for in either a 10-bed intermediate care unit or a 30- bed telemetry unit. Tampa General's full-service open heart surgery program provides high quality of care. St. Joseph's Founded by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny, New York, St. Joseph's is an acute care hospital located on Martin Luther King Boulevard in an "inner city kind of area" (Tr. 1586) of the City of Tampa near the geographic center of Hillsborough County. On the hospital campus sit three separate buildings: the main hospital, consisting of 559 beds; across the street, St. Joseph's Women's Hospital, a 197-bed facility dedicated to the care of women; and, opened in 1998, Tampa Children's Hospital, a 120-bed free-standing facility that offers pediatric services and Level II and Level III neonatal intensive care services. In addition to the women's and pediatric facilities, and consistent with the full-service nature of the hospital, St. Joseph's provides behavioral health and oncology services, and most pertinent to this proceeding, open heart surgery and related cardiovascular services. Designated as a Level 2 trauma center, St. Joseph's has a large and active emergency department. There were 90,211 visits to the Emergency Room in 1999, alone. Of the patients admitted annually, fifty-five percent are admitted through the Emergency Room. The formal mission of St. Joseph's organization is to take care of and improve the health of the community it serves. Another aspect of the mission passed down from its religious founders is to take care of the "marginalized, . . . the people that in many senses cannot take care of themselves, [those to whom] society has . . . closed [its] eyes . . .". (Tr. 1584). In keeping with its mission, it is St. Joseph's policy to provide care to anyone who seeks its hospital services without regard to ability to pay. In 1999, the hospital provided $33 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. In total, St. Joseph's provided $121 million in unfunded care during the same year. Not surprisingly, St. Joseph's is also a disproportionate Medicaid provider. The only hospital in the district that provides both adult and pediatric open heart surgery services, St. Joseph's has three dedicated OHS surgical suites, a 14-bed unit dedicated to cardiovascular intensive care for its adult OHS patients, a 12-bed coronary care unit and 86 progressive care beds, all with telemetry capability. St. Joseph's provides high quality of care in its OHS. UCH University Community Hospital, Inc., is a private, not-for-profit corporation. It operates two hospital facilities: the main hospital ("UCH") a 431-bed hospital on Fletcher Avenue in north Tampa, and a second 120-bed hospital in Carrollwood. UCH is accredited by the JCAHO "with commendation," the highest rating available. It provides patient care regardless of ability to pay. UCH's cardiac surgery program is called the "Pepin Heart & Vascular Institute," after Art Pepin, "a 14-year heart transplant recipient [and] . . . the oldest heart transplant recipient in the nation alive today." (Tr. 2841). A Temple Terrace resident, Mr. Pepin also helped to fund the start of the institute. Its service area for tertiary services, including OHS, includes all of Hillsborough County, and extends into south Pasco County and Polk County. The Pepin Institute has excellent facilities and equipment. It has three dedicated OHS operating suites, three fully-equipped "state-of-the-art" cardiac catheterization laboratories equipped with special PTCA or angioplasty devices, and several cardiology care units specifically for OHS/PTCA services. Immediately following surgery, OHS patients go to a dedicated 8-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. From there patients proceed to a dedicated 20-bed progressive care unit ("PCU"), comprised of all private rooms. There is also a 24-bed PCU dedicated to PTCA patients. There is another 22-bed interventional unit that serves as an overflow unit for patients receiving PTCA or cardiac catheterization. UCH has a 22-bed medical cardiology unit for chest pain observation, congestive heart failure, and other cardiac disorders. Staffing these units requires about 110 experienced, full-time employees. UCH has a special "chest pain" Emergency Room with specially-trained cardiac nurses and defined protocols for the treatment of chest pain and heart attacks. UCH offers a free van service for its UCH patients and their families that operates around the clock. As in the case of the other two existing providers of OHS services in Hillsborough Counties, UCH provides a full range of cardiovascular services at high quality. Manatee County The two existing providers of adult open heart surgery services in Manatee County are Manatee Memorial Hospital, Inc., and Blake Medical Center, Inc. Neither are parties in this proceeding. Although Manatee Memorial filed a petition for formal administrative hearing seeking to overturn the preliminary decision of the Agency, the petition was withdrawn before the case reached hearing. Polk County The existing provider of adult open heart surgery services in Polk County is Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. ("Lakeland"). Licensed for 851 beds, Lakeland is a large, not-for- profit, tertiary regional hospital. In 1999, Lakeland admitted approximately 30,000 patients. In fiscal 1999, there were about 105,000 visits to Lakeland's Emergency Room. Lakeland provides a wide range of acute care services, including OHS and diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheterization. It draws its OHS patients from the Lakeland urban area, the rest of Polk County, eastern Hillsborough County (particularly from Plant City), and some of the surrounding counties. Lakeland has a high quality OHS program that provides high quality of care to its patients. It has two dedicated OHS surgical suites and a third surgical suite equipped and ready for OHS procedures on an as-needed basis. Its volume for the last few years has been relatively flat. Lakeland offers interventional radiology services, a trauma center, a high-risk obstetrics service, oncology, neonatal intensive care, pediatric intensive care, radiation therapy, alcohol and chemical dependency, and behavioral sciences services. Lakeland treats all patients without regard to their ability to pay, and provides a substantial amount of charity care, amounting in fiscal year 1999 to $20 million. The Applicant Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") is a 255-bed hospital located in Brandon, Florida, an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County east of Interstate 75. Included among Brandon's 255 beds are 218 acute care beds, 15 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds, 14 tertiary Level II neonatal intensive care unit ("NICU") beds, and 8 tertiary Level III NICU beds. Brandon offers a wide array of medical specialties and services to its patients including cardiology; internal medicine; critical care medicine; family practice; nephrology; pulmonary medicine; oncology/hematology; infectious disease; neurology; psychiatry; endocrinology; gastroenterology; physical medicine; rehabilitation; radiation oncology; pathology; respiratory therapy; and anesthesiology. Brandon operates a mature cardiology program which includes inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, electrocardiography, stress testing, and echocardiography. The Brandon medical staff includes 22 Board-certified cardiologists who practice both interventional and invasive cardiology. Board certification is a prerequisite to maintaining cardiology staff privileges at Brandon. Brandon's inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization program was initiated in 1989 and has performed in excess of 800 inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures per year since 1996. Brandon's daily census has increased from 159 to 187 for the period 1997 to 1999 commensurate with the burgeoning population growth in Brandon's primary service area. Brandon's Emergency Room is the third busiest in Hillsborough County and has more visits than Tampa General's Emergency Room. From 1997- 1999, Brandon's Emergency Room visits increased from 43,000 to 53,000 per year and at the time of hearing were expected to increase an additional 5-6 percent during the year 2000. Brandon has also recently expanded many services to accommodate the growing health care needs of the Brandon community. For example, Brandon doubled the square footage of its Emergency Room and added 17 treatment rooms. It has also implemented an outpatient diagnostic and rehabilitation center, increased the number of labor, delivery and recovery suites, and created a high-risk ante-partum observation unit. Brandon was recently approved for 5 additional tertiary Level II NICU beds and 3 additional tertiary Level III NICU beds which increased Brandon's Level II/III NICU bed complement to 22 beds. Brandon is a Level 5 hospital within HCA's internal ranking system, which is the company's highest facility level in terms of service, revenue, and patient service area population. Brandon has been ranked as one of the Nation's top 100 hospitals by HCIA/Mercer, Inc., based on Brandon's clinical and financial performance. The Proposal On September 15, 1999, Brandon submitted to AHCA CON Application 9239, its third application for an open heart surgery program in the past few years. (CON 9085 and 9169, the two earlier applications, were both denied.) The second of the three, CON 9169, sought approval on the basis of the same two "not normal" circumstances alleged by Brandon to justify approval in this proceeding. CON 9239 addresses the Agency's January 2002 planning horizon. Brandon proposes to construct two dedicated cardiovascular operating rooms ("CV-OR"), a six-bed dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU"), a pump room and sterile prep room all located in close proximity on Brandon's first floor. The costs, methods of construction, and design of Brandon's proposed CV-OR, CVICU, pump room, and sterile prep room are reasonable. As a condition of CON approval, Brandon will contribute $100,000 per year for five years to the Hillsborough County Health Care Program for use in providing health care to the homeless, indigent, and other needy residents of Hillsborough County. The administration at Brandon is committed to establishing an adult open heart surgery program. The proposal is supported by the medical and nursing staff. It is also supported by the Brandon community. The Brandon Community in East Hillsborough County Brandon, Florida, is a large unincorporated community in Hillsborough County, east of Interstate 75. The Brandon area is one of the fastest growing in the state. In the last ten years alone, the area's population has increased from approximately 90,000 to 160,000. An incorporated Brandon municipality (depending on the boundaries of the incorporation) has the potential to be the eighth largest city in Florida. The Brandon community's population is projected to further increase by at least 50,000 over the next five to ten years. Brandon Regional Hospital's primary service area not only encompasses the Brandon community, but further extends throughout Hillsborough County to a populous of nearly 285,000 persons. The population of Brandon's primary service area is projected to increase to 309,000 by the year 2004, of which approximately 32,000 are anticipated to be over the age of 65, making Brandon's population "young" relative to much of the rest of the State. The community of Brandon has attracted several new large housing developments which are likely to accelerate its projected growth. According to the Hillsborough County City- County Planning Commission, six of the eleven largest subdivisions of single-family homes permitted in 1998 are located nearby. For example, the infrastructure is in place for an 8,000-acre housing development east of Brandon which consists of 7,500 homes and is projected to bring in 30,000 people over the next 5-10 years. Two other large housing developments will bring an additional 5,000-10,000 persons to the Brandon area. The community of Brandon is also an attractive area for relocating businesses. Recent additions to the Brandon area include, among others, CitiGroup Corporation, Atlantic Lucent Technologies, Household Finance, Ford Motor Credit, and Progressive Insurance. CitiGroup Corporation alone supplemented the area's population with approximately 5,000 persons. The community of Brandon has experienced growth in the development of health care facilities with 5 new assisted living facilities and one additional assisted living facility under construction. The average age of the residents of these facilities is much higher than of the Brandon area as a whole. Existing Providers' Distance from Brandon's PSA Brandon's primary service area ("PSA") is comprised of 12 zip code areas "in and around Brandon, essentially eastern Hillsborough County." (Tr. 1071). Using the center of each zip code in Brandon's primary service area as the location for each resident of the zip code area, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of 15 miles from Tampa General, 16.4 miles from St. Joseph's, 17.3 miles from UCH and 24.6 miles from Lakeland Regional Medical Center. In contrast, they are only 7.7 miles from Brandon Regional Hospital. Using the same methodology, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of more than 40 miles from Blake Medical Center (44.9 miles) and Manatee Memorial (41 miles). Numeric Need Publication Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code (the "Open Heart Surgery Program Rule" or the "Rule") specifies a methodology for determining numeric need for new open heart surgery programs in health planning districts. The methodology is set forth in section (7) of the Rule. Part of the methodology is a formula. See subsection (b) of Section (7) of the Rule. Using the formula, the Agency calculated numeric need in the District for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. The calculation yielded a result of 3.27 additional programs needed to serve the District by January 1, 2002. But calculation of numeric need under the formula is not all that is entailed in the complete methodology for determining numeric need. Numeric need is also determined by taking other factors into consideration. The Agency is to determine net need based on the formula "[p]rovided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) and (7) (c) do not apply." Rule 59C-1.033(b), Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (7)(a) states, "[a] new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district" if the following condition (among others) exists: 2. One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; . . . Rule 59C-1.033(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Both Blake Medical Center and Manatee Memorial Hospital in Manatee County were operational and performed less that 350 adult open heart surgery operations in the qualifying time periods described by subparagraph (7)(a)2., of the Rule. (Blake reported 221 open heart admissions for the 12-month period ending March 31, 1999; Manatee Memorial for the same period reported 319). Because of the sub-350 volume of the two providers, the Rule's methodology yielded a numeric need of "0" new open heart surgery programs in District 6 for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. In other words, the numeric need of 3.27 determined by calculation pursuant to the formula prior to consideration of the programs described in (7)(a)2.1, was "zeroed out" by operation of the Rule. Accordingly, a numeric need of zero for the district in the applicable planning horizon was published on behalf of the Agency in the January 29, 1999, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. No Impact on Manatee County Providers In 1998, only one resident of Brandon's PSA received an open heart surgery procedure in Manatee County. For the same period only two residents from Brandon's PSA received an angioplasty procedure in Manatee County. These three residents received the services at Manatee Memorial. Of the two Manatee County programs, Manatee Memorial consistently has a higher volume of open heart surgery cases and according to the latest data available at the time of hearing has "hit the mark" (Tr. 1546) of 350 procedures annually. Very few residents from other District 6 counties receive cardiac services in Manatee County. Similarly, very few Manatee county residents migrate from Manatee County to another District 6 hospital to receive cardiac services. In 1998, only 19 of a total 1,209 combined open heart and angioplasty procedures performed at either Blake or Manatee Memorial originated in the other District 6 counties and only two were from the Brandon area. Among the 6,739 Manatee County residents discharged from a Florida hospital in calendar year 1998 following any cardiovascular procedure (MDC-5), only 58(0.9 percent) utilized one of the other providers in District 6, and none were discharged from Brandon. Among the 643 open heart surgeries performed on Manatee County residents in 1998, only 17 cases were seen at one of the District 6 open heart programs outside of Manatee County. There is, therefore, practically no patient exchange between Manatee County and the remainder of the District. In sum, there is virtually no cardiac patient overlap between Manatee County and Brandon's primary service area. The development of an open heart surgery program at Brandon will have no appreciable or meaningful impact on the Manatee County providers. CON 9169 In CON 9169, Brandon applied for an open heart surgery program on the basis of special circumstances due to no impact on low volume providers in Manatee County. The application was denied by AHCA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") on CON 9169, dated June 17, 1999, in a section of the SAAR denominated "Special Circumstances," found the application to demonstrate "that a program at Brandon would not impact the two Manatee hospitals . . .". (UCH Ex. No. 6, p. 5). The "Special Circumstances" section of the SAAR on CON 9169, however, does not conclude that the lack of impact constitutes special circumstances. In follow-up to the finding of the application's demonstration of no impact to the Manatee County, the SAAR turned to impact on the non-Manatee County providers in District The SAAR on CON 9169 states, "it is apparent that a new program in Brandon would impact existing providers [those in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] in the absence of significant open heart surgery growth." Id. In reference to Brandon's argument in support of special circumstances based on the lack of impact to the Manatee County providers, the CON 9169 SAAR states: [T]he applicant notes the open heart need formula should be applied to District 6 excluding Manatee County, which would result in the need for several programs. This argument ignores the provision of the rule that specifies that the need cannot exceed one. (UCH No. 6, p. 7). The Special Circumstances Section of the SAAR on CON 9169 does not deal directly with whether lack of impact to the Manatee County providers is a special circumstance justifying one additional program. Instead, the Agency disposes of Brandon's argument in the "Summary" section of the SAAR. There AHCA found Brandon's special circumstances argument to fail because "no impact on low volume providers" is not among those special circumstances traditionally or previously recognized in case law and by the Agency: To demonstrate need under special circumstances, the applicant should demonstrate one or more of the following reasons: access problems to open heart surgery; capacity limits of existing providers; denial of access based on payment source or lack thereof; patients are seeking care outside the district for service; improvement of care to underserved population groups; and/or cost savings to the consumer. The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of these reasons. (UCH No. 6, p. 29). Following reference to the Agency's publication of zero need in District 6, moreover, the SAAR reiterated that [t]he implementation of another program in Hillsborough County is expected to significantly [a]ffect existing programs, in particular Tampa General Hospital, an important indigent care provider. (Id.) Typical "not normal circumstances" that support approval of a new program were described at hearing by one health planner as consisting of a significant "gap" in the current health care delivery system of that service. Typical Not Normal Circumstances Just as in CON 9169, none of the typical "not normal" circumstances" recognized in case law and with which the Agency has previous experience are present in this case. The six existing OHS programs in District 6 have unused capacity, are available, and are adequate to meet the projected OHS demand in District 6, in Hillsborough County ("County"), and in Brandon's proposed primary service area ("PSA"). All three County OHS providers are less than 17 miles from Brandon. There are, therefore, no major service geographic gaps in the availability of OHS services. Existing providers in District 6 have unused capacity to meet OHS projected demand in January 2002. OHS volume for District 6 will increase by only 179 surgeries. This is modest growth, and can easily be absorbed by the existing providers. In fact, existing OHS providers have previously handled more volume than what is projected for 2002. In 1995, 3,313 OHS procedures were generated at the six OHS programs. Yet, only 3,245 procedures are projected for 2002. The demand in 1995 was greater than what is projected for 2002. Neither population growth nor demographic characteristics of Brandon's PSA demonstrate that existing programs cannot meet demand. The greatest users of OHS services are the elderly. In 1999, the percentage in District 6 was similar to the Florida average; 18.25 percent for District 6, 18.38 percent for the state. The elderly percentage in Hillsborough County was less: 13.21 percent. The elderly component in Brandon's PSA was less still: 10.44 percent. In 2004, about 18.5 percent of Florida and District 6 residents are projected to be elderly. In contrast, only 10.5 percent of PSA residents are expected to be elderly. Brandon's PSA is "one of the younger defined population segments that you could find in the State of Florida" (Tr. 2892) and likely to remain so. Brandon's PSA will experience limited growth in OHS volume. Between 1999 - 2002, OHS volume will grow by only 36. The annual growth thereafter is only 13 surgeries. This is "very modest" growth and is among the "lowest numbers" of incremental growth in the State. Existing OHS providers can easily absorb this minimal growth. Brandon's PSA, is not an underserved area . . . there is excellent access to existing providers and . . . the market in this service area is already quite competitive. There is not a single competitor that dominates. In fact, the four existing providers [in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] compete quite vigorously. (Tr. 2897). Existing OHS programs in District 6 provide very good quality of care. The surgeons at the programs are excellent. Dr. Gandhi, testifying in support of Brandon's application, testified that he was very comfortable in referring his patients for OHS services to St. Joseph and Tampa General, having, in fact, been comfortable with his father having had OHS at Tampa General. Likewise, Dr. Vijay and his group, also supporters of the Brandon application, split time between Bayonet Point and Tampa General. Dr. Vijay is very proud to be associated with the OHS program at Tampa General. Lakeland also operates a high quality OHS program. In its application, Brandon did not challenge the quality of care at the existing OHS programs in District 6. Nor did Brandon at hearing advance as reasons for supporting its application, capacity constraints, inability of existing providers to absorb incremental growth in OHS volume or failure of existing providers to meet the needs of the residents of Brandon's primary service area. The Agency, in its preliminary decision on the application, agreed that typical "not normal" circumstances in this case are not present. Included among these circumstances are those related to lack of "geographic access." The Agency's OHS Rule includes a geographic access standard of two hours. It is undisputed that all District 6 residents have access to OHS services at multiple OHS providers in the District and outside the District within two hours. The travel time from Brandon to UCH or Tampa General, moreover, is usually less than 30 minutes anytime during the day, including peak travel time. Travel time from Brandon to St. Joseph's is about 30 minutes. There are times, however, when travel time exceeds 30 minutes. There have been incidents when traffic congestion has prevented emergency transport of Brandon patients suffering myocardial infarcts from reaching nearby open heart surgery providers within the 30 minutes by ground ambulance. Delays in travel are not a problem in most OHS cases. In the great majority, procedures are elective and scheduled in advance. OHS procedures are routinely scheduled days, if not weeks, after determining that the procedure is necessary. This high percentage of elective procedures is attributed to better management of patients, better technology, and improved stabilizing medications. The advent of drugs such as thrombolytic therapy, calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, and anti-platelet medications have vastly improved stabilization of patients who present at Emergency Rooms with myocardial infarctions. In its application, Brandon did not raise outmigration as a not-normal circumstance to support its proposal and with good reason. Hillsborough County residents generally do not leave District 6 for OHS. In fact, over 96 percent of County residents receive OHS services at a District 6 provider. Lack of out-migration shows two significant facts: (a) existing OHS programs are perceived to be reasonably accessible; and (2) County residents are satisfied with the quality of OHS services they receive in the County. This 96 percent retention rate is even more impressive considering there are many OHS programs and options available to County residents within a two-hour travel time. In contrast, there are two low-volume OHS providers in Manatee County, one of them being Blake. Unlike Hillsborough County residents, only 78 percent of Manatee County residents remain in District 6 for OHS services. Such outmigration shows that these residents prefer to bypass closer programs, and travel further distances, to receive OHS services at high-volume facility in District 8, which they regard as offering a higher quality of service. In its Application, Brandon does not raise economic access as a "not normal" circumstance. In fact, Brandon concedes that the demand for OHS services by Medicaid and indigent patients is very limited because Brandon's PSA is an affluent area. Brandon does not "condition" its application on serving a specific number or percentage of Medicaid or indigent patients. There are no financial barriers to accessing OHS services in District 6. All OHS providers in Hillsborough County and LRMC provide services to Medicaid and indigent patients, as needed. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve service or care to Medicaid or indigent patient populations. Tampa General is the "safety net" provider for health care services to all County residents. Tampa General is an OHS provider geographically accessible to Brandon's PSA. Tampa General actively services the PSA now for OHS. Brandon did not demonstrate cost savings to the patient population of its PSA if it were approved. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve cost savings to the patient population. Brandon based its OHS and PTCA charges on the average charge for PSA residents who are serviced at the existing OHS providers. While that approach is acceptable, Brandon does not propose a charge structure which is uniquely advantageous for patients. Restated, patients would not financially benefit if Brandon were approved. Tertiary Service Open Heart Surgery is defined as a tertiary service by rule. A "tertiary health service" is defined in Section 408.032(17), Florida Statutes, as follows: health service, which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost- effectiveness of such service. As a tertiary service, OHS is necessarily a referral service. Most hospitals, lacking OHS capability, transfer their patients to providers of the service. One might expect providers of open heart surgery in Florida in light of OHS' status as a tertiary service to be limited to regional centers of excellence. The reality of the six hospitals that provide open heart surgery services in District 6 defies this health-planning expectation. While each of the six provides OHS services of high quality, they are not "regional" centers since all are in the same health planning district. Rather than each being a regional center, the six together comprise more localized providers that are dispersed throughout a region, quite the opposite of a center for an entire region. Brandon's Allegations of Special Circumstances. Brandon presents two special circumstances for approval of its application. The first is that consideration of the low-volume Manatee County providers should not operate to "zero out" the numeric need calculated by the formula. The second relates to transfers and occasional problems with transfers for Brandon patients in need of emergency open heart services. "Time is Muscle" Lack of blood flow to the heart during a myocardial infarction ("MI") results in loss of myocardium (heart muscle). The longer the blood flow is disrupted or diminished, the more myocardium is lost. The more myocardium lost, the more likely the patient will die or, should the patient survive, suffer severe reduction in quality of life. The key to good patient outcome when a patient is experiencing an acute MI is prompt evaluation and rapid treatment upon presentation at the hospital. Restoration of blood flow to the heart (revascularization) is the goal of the treating physician once it is recognized that a patient is suffering an MI. If revascularization is not commenced within 2 hours of the onset of an acute MI, an MI patient's potential for recovery is greatly diminished. The need for prompt revascularization for a patient suffering an MI is summed up in the phrase "time is muscle," a phrase accepted as a maxim by cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons. Recent advances in modern medicine and technology have improved the ability to stabilize and treat patients with acute MIs and other cardiac traumas. The three primary treatment modalities available to a patient suffering from an MI are: 1) thrombolytics; 2) angioplasty and stent placement; and, 3) open heart surgery. Because of the advancement of the effectiveness of thrombolytics, thrombolytic therapy has become the standard of care for treating MIs. Thrombolytic therapy is the administration of medication to dissolve blood clots. Administered intravenously, thrombolytic medication begins working within minutes to dissolve the clot causing the acute MI and therefore halt the damage done by an MI to myocardium. The protocols to administer thrombolysis are similar among hospitals. If a patient presents with chest pain and the E.R. physician identifies evidence of an active heart attack, thrombolysis is normally administered. If the E.R. physician is uncertain, a cardiologist is quickly contacted to evaluate the patient. Achieving good outcomes in cases of myocardial infarctions requires prompt consultation with the patient, competent clinical assessment, and quick administration of appropriate treatment. The ability to timely evaluate patient conditions for MI, and timely administer thrombolytic therapy, is measured and evaluated nationally by the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. The National Registry makes the measurement according to a standard known as "door-to-needle" time. This standard measures the time between the patient's presentation at the E.R. and the time the patient is initially administered thrombolytic medication by injection intravenously. Patients often begin to respond to thrombolysis within 10-15 minutes. Consistent with the maxim, "time is muscle," the shorter the door-to-needle time, the better the chance of the patient's successful recovery. The effectiveness of thrombolysis continues to increase. For example, the advent of a drug called Reapro blocks platelet activity, and has increased the efficacy rate of thrombolysis to at least 85 percent. As one would expect, then, thrombolytic therapy is the primary method of revascularization available to patients at Brandon. Due to the lack of open heart surgery backup, moreover, Brandon is precluded by Agency rule from offering angioplasty in all but the most extreme cases: those in which it is determined that a patient will not survive a transfer. While Brandon has protocols, authority, and equipment to perform angioplasty when a patient is not expected to survive a transfer, physicians are reluctant to perform angioplasty without open heart backup because of complications that can develop that require open heart surgery. Angioplasty, therefore, is not usually a treatment modality available to the MI patient at Brandon. Although the care of choice for MI treatment, thrombolytics are not always effective. To the knowledge of the cardiologists who testified in this proceeding, there is not published data on the percentage of patients for whom thrombolytics are not effective. But from the cardiologists who offered their opinions on the percentage in the proceeding, it can be safely found that the percentage is at least 10 percent. Thrombolytics are not ordered for these patients because they are inappropriate in the patients' individual cases. Among the contraindications for thrombolytics are bleeding disorders, recent surgery, high blood pressure, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Of the patients ineligible for thrombolytics, a subset, approximately half, are also ineligible for angioplasty. The other half are eligible for angioplasty. Under the most conservative projections, then at least 1 in 20 patients suffering an MI would benefit from timely angioplasty intervention for which open heart surgery back-up is required in all but the rarest of cases. In 1997, 351 people presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. In 1998, the number of MIs increased to 427. In 1999, 428 patients presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. At least 120 (10 percent) of the total 1206 MI patients presenting to Brandon's Emergency Room from 1997 to 1999 would have been ineligible for thrombolytics as a means of revascularization. Of these, half would have been ineligible for angioplasty while the other half would have been eligible. Sixty, therefore, is the minimum number of patients from 1997 to 1999 who would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon using the most conservative estimate. Transfers of Emergency Patients Those patients who presented at Brandon's Emergency Room with acute MI and who could not be stabilized with thrombolytic therapy had to be transferred to one of the nearby providers of open heart surgery. In 1998, Brandon transferred an additional 190 patients who did not receive a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon for either angioplasty or open heart surgery. For the first 9 months of 1999, 114 such transfers were made. Thus, in 1998 alone, Brandon transferred a total of 516 cardiac patients to existing providers for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery, more than any other provider in the District. In 1999, Brandon made 497 such transfers. Not all of these were emergency transfers, of course. But in the three years between 1997 and 1999 at least 60 patients were in need of emergency transfers who would benefit from angioplasty with open heart backup. Of those Brandon patients determined to be in need of urgent angioplasty or open heart surgery, all must be transferred to existing providers either by ambulance or by helicopter. Ambulance transfer is accomplished through ambulances maintained by the Hillsborough County Fire Department. Due to the cardiac patient's acuity level, ambulance transfer of such patients necessitates the use of ambulances equipped with Advanced Life Support Systems (ALS) in order to monitor the patient's heart functions and to treat the patient should the patient's condition deteriorate. Hillsborough County operates 18 ambulances. All have ALS capability. Patients with less serious medical problems are sometimes transported by private ambulances equipped with Basic Life Support Systems (BLS) that lack the equipment to appropriately care for the cardiac patient. But, private ambulances are not an option to transport critically ill cardiac patients because they are only equipped with BLS capability. Private ambulances, moreover, do not make interfacility transports of cardiac patients between Hillsborough County hospitals. There are many demands on the ambulance transfer system in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County's 18 ALS ambulances cover in excess of 960 square miles. Of these 18 ambulances, only three routinely operate within the Brandon area. Hillsborough County ambulances respond to 911 calls before requests for interfacility transfers of cardiac patients and are extremely busy responding to automobile accidents, especially when it rains. As a result, Hillsborough County ambulances are not always available on a timely basis when needed to perform an interfacility transfer of a cardiac patient. At times, due to inordinate delay caused by traffic congestion, inter-facility ambulance transport, even if the ambulance is appropriately equipped, is not an option for cardiac patients urgently in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. It has happened, for example, that an ambulance has appeared at the hospital 8 hours after a request for transport. Some cardiac surgeons will not utilize ground transport as a means of transporting urgent open heart and angioplasty cases. Expeditious helicopter transport in Hillsborough County is available as an alternative to ground transport. But, it too, from time-to-time, is problematic for patients in urgent need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. Tampa General operates two helicopters through AeroMed, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County. AeroMed's two helicopters are not exclusively devoted to cardiac patients. They are also utilized for the transfer of emergency medical and trauma patients, further taxing the availability of AeroMed helicopters to transfer patients in need of immediate open heart surgery or angioplasty. BayCare operates the only other helicopter transport service serving Hillsborough County. BayCare maintains several helicopters, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County at St. Joseph's. BayCare helicopters are not equipped with intra-aortic balloon pump capability, thereby limiting their use in transporting the more complicated cardiac patients. Helicopter transport is not only a traumatic experience for the patient, but time consuming. Once a request has been made by Brandon to transport a patient in need of urgent intervention, it routinely takes two and a half hours, with instances of up to four hours, to effectuate a helicopter transfer. At the patient's beside, AeroMed personnel must remove the patient's existing monitors, IVS, and drips, and refit the patient with AeroMed's equipment in preparation for flight. In more complicated cases requiring the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump, the patient's balloon pump placed at Brandon must be removed and substituted with the balloon pump utilized by AeroMed. Further delays may be experienced at the receiving facility. The national average of the time from presentation to commencement of the procedure is reported to be two hours. In most instances at UCH, it is probably 90 minutes although "[t]here are of course instances where it would be much faster . . .". (Tr. 3212). On the other hand, there are additional delays from time-to-time. "[P]erhaps the longest circumstance would be when all the labs are full . . . or . . . even worse . . . if all the staff has just left for the day and they are almost home, to then turn them around and bring them all back." (Id.) Specific Cases Involving Transfers Delays in the transfer process were detailed at hearing by Brandon cardiologists with regard to specific Brandon patients. In cases in which "time is muscle," delay is critical except for one subset of such cases: that in which, no matter what procedure is available and no matter how timely that procedure can be provided, the patient cannot be saved. Craig Randall Martin, M.D., Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Disease, and an expert in cardiology, wrote to AHCA in support of the application by detailing two "examples of patients who were in an extreme situation that required emergent, immediate intervention . . . [intervention that could not be provided] at Brandon Hospital." (Tr. 408). One of these concerned a man in his early sixties who was a patient at Brandon the night and morning of October 13 and 14, 1998. It represents one of the rare cases in which an emergency angioplasty was performed at Brandon even though the hospital does not have open heart backup. The patient had presented to the Emergency Room at approximately 11:00 p.m., on October 13 with complaints of chest pain. Although the patient had a history of prior infarctions, PTCA procedures, and onset diabetes, was obese, a smoker and had suffered a stroke, initial evaluation, including EKG and blood tests, did not reveal an MI. The patient was observed and treated for what was probably angina. With the subsiding of the chest pain, he was appropriately admitted at 2:30 a.m. to a non- intensive cardiac telemetry bed in the hospital. At 3:00 a.m., he was observed to be stable. A few hours or so later, the patient developed severe chest pain. The telemetry unit indicated a very slow heart rate. Transferred to the intensive care unit, his blood pressure was observed to be very low. Aware of the seriousness of the patient's condition, hospital personnel called Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin arrived on the scene and determined the patient to be in cardiogenic shock, an extreme situation. In such a state, a patient has a survival rate of 15 to 20 percent, unless revascularization occurs promptly. If revascularization is timely, the survival rate doubles to 40 percent. Coincident with the cardiogenic shock, the patient was suffering a complete heart block with a number of blood clots in the right coronary artery. The patient's condition, to say the least, was grave. Dr. Martin described the action taken at Brandon: . . . I immediately called in the cardiac catheterization team and moved the patient to the catheterization laboratory. * * * Somewhere around 7:30 in the morning, I put a temporary pacemaker in, performed a diagnostic catheterization that showed that one of his arteries was completely clotted. He, even with the pacemaker giving him an adequate heart rate, and even with the use of intravenous medication for his blood pressure, . . . was still in cardiogenic shock. * * * And I placed an intra-aortic balloon pump . . ., a special pump that fits in the aorta and pumps in synchrony with the heart and supports the blood pressure and circulation of the muscle. That still did not alleviate the situation . . . an excellent indication to do a salvage angioplasty on this patient. I performed the angioplasty. It was not completely successful. The patient had a respiratory arrest. He required intubation, required to be put on a ventilator for support. And it became apparent to me that I did not have the means to save this patient at [Brandon]. I put a call to the . . . cardiac surgeon of choice . . . . [Because the surgeon was on vacation], [h]is associate [who happened to be in the operating room at UCH] called me back immediately . . . and said ["]Yes, I'll take your patient. Send him to me immediately, I will postpone my current case in order to take care of your patient.["] At that point, we called for helicopter transport, and there were great delays in obtaining [the] transport. The patient was finally transferred to University Community Hospital, had surgery, was unsuccessful and died later that afternoon. (Tr. 409-412). By great delays in the transport, Dr. Martin referred to inability to obtain prompt helicopter transport. University Community Hospital, the receiving hospital, was not able to find a helicopter. Dr. Martin, therefore, requested Tampa General (a third hospital uninvolved from the point of being either the transferring or the receiving hospital) to send one of its two helicopters to transfer the patient from Brandon to UCH. Dr. Martin described Tampa General's response: They balked. And I did not know they balked until an hour later. And I promptly called them back, got that person on the telephone, we had a heated discussion. And after that person checked with their supervisor, the helicopter was finally sent. There was at least an hour-and-a-half delay in obtaining a helicopter transport on this patient that particular morning that was unnecessary. And that is critical when you have a patient in this condition. (Tr. 413, emphasis supplied.) In the case of this patient, however, the delay in the transport from Brandon to the UCH cardiovascular surgery table, in all likelihood, was not critical to outcome. During the emergency angioplasty procedure at Brandon, some of the clot causing the infarction was dislodged. It moved so as to create a "no-flow state down the right coronary artery. In other words, . . ., it cut off[] the microcirculation . . . [so that] there is no place for the blood . . . to get out of the artery. And that's a devastating, deadly problem." (Tr. 2721). This "embolization, an unfortunate happenstance [at times] with angioplasty", id., probably sealed the patient's fate, that is, death. It is very likely that the patient with or without surgery, timely or not, would not have survived cardiogenic shock, complete heart block, and the circumstance of no circulation in the right coronary artery that occurred during the angioplasty procedure. Adithy Kumar Gandhi, M.D., is Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiology. Employed by the Brandon Cardiology Group, a three-member group in Brandon, Dr. Gandhi was accepted as an expert in the field of cardiology in this proceeding. Dr. Gandhi testified about two patients in whose cases delays occurred in transferring them to St. Joseph’s. He also testified about a third case in which it took two hours to transfer the patient by helicopter to Tampa General. The first case involves an elderly woman. She had multiple-risk factors for coronary disease including a family history of cardiac disease and a personal history of “chest pain.” (Tr. 2299). The patient presented at Brandon’s Emergency Room on March 17, 1999 at around 2:30 p.m. Seen by the E.R. physician about 30 minutes later, she was placed in a monitored telemetry bed. She was determined to be stable. During the next two days, despite family and personal history pointing to a potentially serious situation, the patient refused to submit to cardiac catheterization at Brandon as recommended by Dr. Gandhi. She maintained her refusal despite results from a stress test that showed abnormal left ventricular systolic function. Finally, on March 20, after a meeting with family members and Dr. Gandhi, the patient consented to the cath procedure. The procedure was scheduled for March 22. During the procedure, it was discovered that a major artery of the heart was 80 percent blocked. This condition is known as the “widow-maker,” because the prognosis for the patient is so poor. Dr. Gandhi determined that “the patient needed open heart surgery and . . . to be transferred immediately to a tertiary hospital.” (Tr. 2305-6). He described that action he took to obtain an immediate transfer as follows: I talked to the surgeon up at St. Joseph’s and I informed him I have had difficulties transferring patients to St. Joseph’s the same day. [I asked him to] do me a favor and transfer the patient out of Brandon Hospital as soon as possible by helicopter. The surgeon promised me that he would take care of that. (Tr. 2261). The assurance, however, failed. The patient was not transferred that day. That night, while still at Brandon, complications developed for the patient. The complications demanded that an intra-aortic balloon pump be inserted in order to increase the blood flow to the heart. After Dr. Gandhi’s partner inserted the pump, he, too, contacted the surgeon at St. Joseph’s to arrange an immediate transfer for open heart surgery. But the patient was not transferred until early the next morning. Dr. Gandhi’s frustration at the delay for this critically ill patient in need of immediate open heart surgery is evident from the following testimony: So the patient had approximately 18 hours of delay of getting to the hospital with bypass capabilities even though the surgeon knew that she had a widow-maker, he had promised me that he would make those transfer arrangements, even though St. Joseph’s Hospital knew that the patient needed to be transferred, even though I was promised that the patient would be at a tertiary hospital for bypass capabilities. (Tr. 2262). Rod Randall, M.D., is a cardiologist whose practice is primarily at St. Joseph’s. He had active privileges at Brandon until 1998 when he “switched to courtesy privileges,” (Tr. 1735) at Brandon. He reviewed the medical records of the first patient about whom Dr. Gandhi testified. A review of the patient’s medical records disclosed no adverse outcome due to the patient’s transfer. To the contrary, the patient was reasonably stable at the time of transfer. Nonetheless, it would have been in the patient’s best interest to have been transferred prior to the catheterization procedure at Brandon. As Dr. Randall explained, [W]e typically cath people that we feel are going to have a probability of coronary artery disease. That is, you don’t tend to cath someone that [for whom] you don’t expect to find disease . . . . If you are going to cath this patient, [who] is in a higher risk category being an elderly female with . . . diminished injection fraction . . . why put the patient through two procedures. I would have to do a diagnostic catheterization at one center and do some type of intervention at another center. So, I would opt to transfer that patient to a tertiary care center and do the diagnostic catheterization there. (Tr. 1764, 1765). Furthermore, regardless of what procedure had been performed, the significant left main blockage that existed prior to the patient’s presentation at Brandon E.R. meant that the likely outcome would be death. The second of the patients Dr. Gandhi transferred to St. Joseph’s was a 74-year-old woman. Dr. Gandhi performed “a heart catheterization at 5:00 on Friday.” (Tr. 2267). The cath revealed a 90 percent blockage of the major artery of the heart, another widow-maker. Again, Dr. Gandhi recommended bypass surgery and contacted a surgeon at St. Joseph’s. The transfer, however, was not immediate. “Finally, at approximately 11:00 the patient went to St. Joseph’s Hospital. That night she was operated on . . . ”. (Tr. 2267). If Brandon had had open heart surgery capability, “[t]hat would have increased her chances of survival.” No competent evidence was admitted that showed the outcome, however, and as Dr. Randall pointed out, the medical records of the patient do not reveal the outcome. The patient who was transferred to Tampa General (the third of Dr. Ghandhi's patients) had presented at Brandon’s ER on February 15, 2000. Fifty-six years old and a heavy smoker with a family history of heart disease, she complained of severe chest pain. She received thrombolysis and was stabilized. She had presented with a myocardial infarction but it was complicated by congestive heart failure. After waiting three days for the myocardial infarction to subside, Dr. Gandhi performed cardiac catheterization. The patient “was surviving on only one blood vessel in the heart, the other two vessels were 100 percent blocked. She arrested on the table.” (Tr. 2271). After Dr. Gandhi revived her, he made arrangements for her transfer by helicopter. The transfer was done by helicopter for two reasons: traffic problems and because she had an intra-aortic balloon pump and there are a limited number of ambulances with intra- aortic balloon pump maintenance capability. If Brandon had had the ability to conduct open heart surgery, the patient would have had a better likelihood of successful outcome: “the surgeon would have taken the patient straight to the operating room. That patient would not have had a second arrest as she did at Tampa General.” (Tr. 2273). Marc Bloom, M.D., is a cardiothoracic surgeon. He performs open-heart surgery at UCH, where he is the chief of cardiac surgery. He reviewed the records of this 54-year-old woman. The records reflect that, in fact, upon presentation at Brandon’s E.R., the patient’s heart failure was very serious: She had an echocardiogram done that . . . showed a 20 percent ejection fraction . . . I mean when you talk severe, this would be classified as a severe cardiac compromise with this 20 percent ejection fraction. (Tr. 2712). Once stabilized, the patient should have been transferred for cardiac catheterization to a hospital with open- heart surgery instead of having cardiac cath at Brandon. It is true that delay in the transfer once arrangements were made was a problem. The greater problem for the patient, however, was in her management at Brandon. It was very likely that open heart surgery would be required in her case. She should have been transferred prior to the catheterization as soon as became known the degree to which her heart was compromised, that is, once the results of the echocardiogram were known. Adam J. Cohen, M.D., is a cardiologist with Diagnostic Consultative Cardiology, a group located in Brandon that provides cardiology services in Hillsborough County. Dr. Cohen provided evidence of five patients who presented at Brandon and whose treatments were delayed because of the need for a transfer. The first of these patients was a 76-year old male who presented to Brandon’s ER on April 6, 1999. Dr. Cohen considered him to be suffering “a complicated myocardial infarction.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 43) Cardiac catheterization conducted by Dr. Cohen showed “severe multi-vessel coronary disease, cardiogenic shock, severely impaired [left ventricular] function for which an intra-aortic balloon pump was placed . . .”. (Id.) During the placement of the pump, the patient stopped breathing and lost pulse. He was intubated and stabilized. A helicopter transfer was requested. There was only one helicopter equipped to conduct the transfer. Unfortunately, “the same day . . . there was a mass casualty event within the City of Tampa when the Gannet Power Plant blew up . . .”. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 44). An appropriate helicopter could not be secured. Dr. Cohen did not learn of the unavailability of helicopter transport for an hour after the request was made. Eventually, the patient was transferred by ambulance to UCH. There, he received angioplasty and “stenting of the right coronary artery times two.” (Id., at p. 47.) After a slow recovery, he was discharged on April 19. In light of the patient’s complex cardiac condition, he received a good outcome. This patient is an example of another patient who should have been transferred sooner from Brandon since Brandon does not have open heart surgery capability. The second of Dr. Cohen’s patients presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 10:30 p.m. on June 14, 1999. He was 64 years old with no risk factors for coronary disease other than high blood pressure. He was evaluated and diagnosed with “a large and acute myocardial infarction” Two hours later, the therapy was considered a failure because there was no evidence that the area of the heart that was blocked had been reperfused. Dr. Cohen recommended transfer to UCH for a salvage angioplasty. The call for a helicopter was made at 12:58 a.m. (early the morning of June 15) and the helicopter arrived 40 minutes later. At UCH, the patient received angioplasty procedure and stenting of two coronary arteries. He suffered “[m]oderately impaired heart function, which is reflective of myocardial damage.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 58). If salvage angioplasty with open heart backup had been available at Brandon, the patient would have received it much more quickly and timely. Whether the damage done to the patient’s heart during the episode could have been avoided by prompt angioplasty at Brandon is something Dr. Cohen did not know. As he put it, “I will never know, nor will anyone else know.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 60). The patient later developed cardiogenic shock and repeated ventricular tachycardia, requiring numerous medical interventions. Because of the interventions and mechanical trauma, he required surgery for repair of his right femoral artery. The patient recently showed an injection fraction of 45 percent below the minimum for normal of 50 percent. The third patient was a 51-year-old male who had undergone bypass surgery 19 years earlier. After persistent recurrent anginal symptoms with shortness of breath and diaphoresis, he presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 1:00 p.m. complaining of heavy chest pain. Thrombolytic therapy was commenced. Dr. Cohen described what followed: [H]he had an episode of heart block, ventricular fibrillation, losing consciousness, for which he received ACLS efforts, being defibrillated, shocked, times three, numerous medications, to convert him to sinus rhythm. He was placed on IV anti- arrhythmics consisting of amiodarone. The repeat EKG showed a worsening of progression of his EKG changes one hour after the initiation of the TPA. Based on that information, his clinical scenario and his previous history, I advised him to be transferred to University Hospital for a salvage angioplasty. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 62). Transfer was requested at 1:55 p.m. The patient departed Brandon by helicopter at 2:20 p.m. The patient received the angioplasty at UCH. Asked how the patient would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon without having to have been transferred, Dr. Cohen answered: In a more timely fashion, he would have received an angioplasty to the culprit lesion involved. There would have been much less occlusive time of that artery and thereby, by inference, there would have been greater salvage of myocardium that had been at risk. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 65). The patient, having had bypass surgery in his early thirties, had a reduced life expectancy and impaired heart function before his presentation at Brandon in June of 1999. The time taken for the transfer of the patient to UCH was not inordinate. The transfer was accomplished with relative and expected dispatch. Nonetheless, the delay between realization at Brandon of the need for a salvage angioplasty and actual receipt of the procedure after a transfer to UCH increased the potential for lost myocardium. The lack of open heart services at Brandon resulted in reduced life expectancy for a patient whose life expectancy already had been diminished by the early onset of heart disease. The fourth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented to Brandon’s E.R. at 8:30, the morning of August 29, 1999. A fifty-four-year-old male, he had been having chest pain for a month and had ignored it. An EKG showed a complete heart block with atrial fibrillation and change consistent with acute myocardial infarction. Thrombolytic therapy was administered. He continued to have symptoms including increased episodes of ventricular arrhythmias. He required dopamine for blood pressure support due to his clinical instability and the lack of effectiveness of the thrombolytics. The patient refused a transfer and catheterization at first. Ultimately, he was convinced to undergo an angioplasty. The patient was transferred by helicopter to UCH. The patient was having a “giant ventricular infarct . . . a very difficult situation to take care of . . . and the majority of [such] patients succumb to [the] disease . . .”. (Tr. 2703). The cardiologist was unable to open the blockage via angioplasty. Dr. Bloom was called in but the patient refused surgical intervention. After interaction with his family the patient consented. Dr. Bloom conducted open heart surgery. The patient had a difficult post-operative course with arrythmias because “[h]e had so much dead heart in his right ventricle . . .”. (Id.) The patient received an excellent outcome in that he was seen in Dr. Bloom’s office with 40 percent injection fraction. Dr. Bloom “was just amazed to see him back in the office . . . and amazed that this man is alive.” (Tr. 2704). Most of the delay in receiving treatment was due to the patient’s reluctance to undergo angioplasty and then open heart surgery. The fifth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented at Brandon’s E.R. on March 22, 2000. He was 44 years old with no prior cardiac history but with numerous risk factors. He had a sudden onset of chest discomfort. Lab values showed an elevation consistent with myocardial injury. He also had an abnormal EKG. Dr. Cohen performed a cardiac cath on March 23, 2000. The procedure showed a totally occluded left anterior descending artery, one of the three major arteries serving the heart. Had open heart capability been available at Brandon, he would have undergone angioplasty and stenting immediately. As it was, the patient had to be transferred to UCH. A transfer was requested at 10:25 that morning and the patient left Brandon’s cath lab at 11:53. Daniel D. Lorch, M.D., is a specialist in pulmonary medicine who was accepted as an expert in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine and critical care medicine, consistent with his practice in a “five-man pulmonary internal medicine critical care group.” (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 4). Dr. Lorch produced medical records for one patient that he testified about during his deposition. The patient had presented to Brandon’s E.R. with an MI. He was transferred to UCH by helicopter for care. Dr. Lorch supports Brandon’s application. As he put it during his deposition: [Brandon] is an extremely busy community hospital and we are in a very rapidly growing area. The hospital is quite busy and we have a large number of cardiac patients here and it is not infrequently that a situation comes up where there are acute cardiac events that need to be transferred out. (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 20). Transfers Following Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization Brandon transfers a high number cardiac patients for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery in addition to those transferred under emergency conditions. In 1996, Brandon performed 828 diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures. Of this number, 170 patients were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 170 patients for angioplasty. In 1997, Brandon performed 863 diagnostic catheterizations of which 180 were transferred for open heart surgery and 159 for angioplasty. During 1998, 165 patients were transferred for open heart surgery and 161 for angioplasty out of 816 diagnostic catheterization procedures. For the first nine months of 1999, Brandon performed 639 diagnostic catheterizations of which 102 were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 112 for angioplasty. A significant number of patients are transferred from Brandon for open heart surgery services. These transfers are consistent with the norm in Florida. After all, open heart surgery is a tertiary service. Patients are routinely transferred from most Florida hospitals to tertiary hospitals for OHS and PCTA. The large majority of Florida hospitals do not have OHS programs; yet, these hospitals receive patients who need OHS or PTCA. Transfers, although the norm, are not without consequence for some patients who are candidates for OHS or PCTA. If Brandon had open heart and angioplasty capability, many of the 1220 patients determined to be in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery following a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon could have received these procedures at Brandon, thereby avoiding the inevitable delay and stress occasioned by transfer. Moreover, diagnostic catheterizations and angioplasties are often performed sequentially. Therefore, Brandon patients determined to be in need of angioplasty following a diagnostic catheterization would have had access to immediate angioplasty during the same procedure thus reducing the likelihood of a less than optimal outcome as the result of an additional delay for transfer. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Competition There is active competition and available patient choices now in Brandon's PSA. As described, there are many OHS programs currently accessible to and substantially serving Brandon's PSA. There is substantial competition now among OHS providers so as to provide choices to PSA residents. There are no financial benefits or cost savings accruing to the patient population if Brandon is approved. Brandon does not propose lower charges than the existing OHS providers. Balanced Budget Act The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has had a profound negative financial impact on hospitals throughout the country. The Act resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of Medicare payments made to hospitals for services rendered to Medicare recipients. During the first five years of the Act's implementation, Florida hospitals will experience a $3.6 billion reduction in Medicare revenues. Lakeland will receive $17 million less, St.Joseph's will receive $44 million less, and Tampa General will receive $53 million less. The impact of the Act has placed most hospitals in vulnerable financial positions. It has seriously affected the bottom line of all hospitals. Large urban teaching hospitals, such as TGH, have felt the greatest negative impact, due to the Act's impact on disproportionate share reimbursement and graduate medical education payment. The Act's impact upon Petitioners render them materially more vulnerable to the loss of OHS/PTCA revenues to Brandon than they would have been in the absence of the Act. Adverse Impact on Tampa General Tampa General is the "safety net provider" for Hillsborough County. Tampa General is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider. In fiscal year 1999, the hospital provided $58 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. Tampa General plays a unique, essential role in Hillsborough County and throughout West Central Florida in terms of provision of health care. Its regional role is of particular importance with respect to Level I trauma services, provision of burn care, specialized Level III neonatal and perinatal intensive care services, and adult organ transplant services. These services are not available elsewhere in western or central Florida. In fiscal year 1999, Tampa General experienced a net loss of $12.6 million in providing the services referenced above. It is obligated under contract with the State of Florida to continue to provide those services. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. In fiscal year 1999, it provided unfunded graduate medical education in the amount of $19 million. Since 1998, Tampa General has consistently experienced losses resulting from its operations, as follows: FY 1998-$29 million, FY 1999-$27 million; FY 2000 (5 months)-$10 million. The hospital’s financial condition is not the result of material mismanagement. Rather, its financial condition is a function of its substantial provision of charity and Medicaid services, the impact of the Act, reduced managed care revenues, and significant increases in expense. Tampa General’s essential role in the community and its distressed financial condition have not gone unnoticed. The Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce established in February of 2000 an Emergency Task Force to assess the hospital's role in the community, and the need for supplemental funding to enable it to maintain its financial viability. Tampa General requires supplemental funding on a continuing basis in order to begin to restore it to a position of financial stability, while continuing to provide essential community services, indigent care, and graduate medical education. It will require ongoing supplemental funding of $20- 25 million annually to avoid triggering the default provision under its bond covenants. As of the close of hearing, the 2000 session of the Florida Legislature had adjourned. The Legislature appropriated approximately $22.9 million for Tampa General. It is, of course, uncertain as to what funding, if any, the Legislature will appropriate to the hospital in future years, as the terms which constitute the appropriations must be revisited by the Legislature on an annual basis. Tampa General has prepared internal financial projections for its fiscal years 2000-2002. It projects annual operating losses, as follows: FY 2000-$20.1 million; FY 2001- $20.6 million; FY 2002-$31.9 million. While its projections anticipate certain "strategic initiatives" that will enhance its financial condition, including continued supplemental legislative funding, the success and/or availability of those initiatives are not "guaranteed" to be successful. If the Brandon program is approved, Tampa General will lose 93 OHS cases and 107 angioplasty cases during Brandon's second year of operation. That loss of cases will result in a $1.4 million annual reduction in TGH's net income, a material adverse impact given Tampa General’s financial condition. OHS services provide a positive contribution to Tampa General's financial operations. Those services constitute a core piece of Tampa General's business. The anticipated loss of income resulting from Brandon's program pose a threat to the hospital’s ability to provide essential community services. Adverse Impact on UCH UCH operated at a financial break-even in its fiscal year 1999. In the first five months of its fiscal year 2000, the hospital has experienced a small loss. This financial distress is primarily attributed to less Medicare reimbursement due to the Act and less reimbursement from managed care. UCH's reimbursement for OHS services provides a good example of the financial challenges facing hospitals. In 1999, UCH's net income per OHS case was reduced 33 percent from 1998. Also in 1999, UCH received OHS reimbursement of only 32 percent of its charges. UCH would be substantially and adversely impacted by approval of Brandon's proposal. As described, UCH currently is a substantial provider of OHS and angioplasty services to residents of Brandon's PSA. There are many cardiologists on staff at Brandon who also actively practice at UCH. UCH is very accessible from Brandon's PSA. UCH reasonably projects to lose the following volumes in the first three years of operation of the proposed program: a loss of 78-93 OHS procedures, a loss of 24-39 balloon angioplasties, and a loss of 97-115 stent angioplasties. Converting this volume loss to financial terms, UCH will suffer the following financial losses as a direct and immediate result of Brandon being approved: about $1.1 million in the first year, and about $1.2 million in the second year, and about $1.3 million in the third year. As stated, UCH is currently operating at about a financial break-even point. The impact of the Balanced Budget Act, reduced managed care reimbursement, and UCH's commitment to serve all patients regardless of ability to pay has a profound negative financial impact on UCH. A recurring loss of more than $1 million dollars per year due to Brandon's new program will cause substantial and adverse impact on UCH. Adverse Impact on St. Joseph’s If Brandon's application is approved, St. Joseph’s will lose 47 OHS cases and 105 PTCA cases during Brandon's second year. That loss of cases will result in a $732,000 annual reduction in SJH's net income. That loss represents a material impact to SJH. Between 1997 and 2000, St. Joseph’s has experienced a pattern of significant deterioration in its financial performance. Its net revenue per adjusted admission had been reduced by 12 percent, while its costs have increased significantly. St. Joseph's net income from operations has deteriorated as follows: FYE 6/30/97-$31 million; FYE 12/31/98- $24 million; FYE 12/31/99-$13.8 million. A net operating income of $13.8 million is not much money relative to St Joseph's size, the age of its physical plant, and its need for capital to maintain and improve its facilities in order to remain competitive. St. Joseph’s offers a number of health care services to the community for which it does not receive reimbursement. Unreimbursed services include providing hospital admissions and services to patients of a free clinic staffed by volunteer members of SJH's medical staff, free immunization programs to low-income children, and a parish nurse program, among others. St. Joseph’s evaluates such programs annually to determine whether it has the financial resources to continue to offer them. During the past two years, the hospital has been forced to eliminate two of its free community programs, due to its deteriorating financial condition. St. Joseph’s anticipates that it will have to eliminate additional unreimbursed community services if it experiences an annual reduction in net income of $730,000. Adverse Impact to LRMC The approval of Brandon will have an impact on Lakeland. Lakeland will suffer a financial loss of about $253,000 annually. This projection is based on calculated contribution margins of OHS and PTCA/stent procedures performed at the hospital. A loss of $253,000 per year is a material loss at Lakeland, particularly in light of its slim operating margin and the very substantial losses it has experienced and will continue to experience as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In addition to the projected loss of OHS and other procedures based upon Brandon's application, Lakeland may experience additional lost cases from areas such as Bartow and Mulberry from which it draws patients to its open heart/cardiology program. Lakeland will also suffer material adverse impacts to its OHS program due to the negative effect of Brandon's program on its ability to recruit and retain nurses and other highly skilled employees needed to staff its program. The approval of Brandon will also result in higher costs at existing providers such as Lakeland as they seek to compete for a limited pool of experienced people by responding to sign-on bonuses and by reliance on extensive temporary nursing agencies and pools. Nursing Staff/Recruitment The staffing patterns and salaries for Brandon's projected 40.1 full-time equivalent employees to staff its open heart surgery program are reasonable and appropriate. Filling the positions will not be without some difficulty. There is a shortage for skilled nursing and other personnel needed for OHS programs nationally, in Florida and in District 6. The shortage has been felt in Hillsborough County. For example, it has become increasingly difficult to fill vacancies that occur in critical nursing positions in the coronary intensive care unit and in telemetry units at Tampa General. Tampa General's expenses for nursing positions have "increased tremendously." (Tr. 2622). To keep its program going, the hospital has hired "travelers . . . short-term employment, registered nurses that come from different agencies, . . . with [the hospital] a minimum of 12 weeks." (Tr. 2622). In fact, all hospitals in the Tampa Bay area utilize pool staff and contract staff to fill vacancies that appear from time-to- time. Use of contract staff has not diminished quality of care at the hospitals, although "they would not be assigned to the sickest patients." (Tr. 2176). Another technique for dealing with the shortage is to have existing full-time staff work overtime at overtime pay rates. St. Joseph's and Lakeland have done so. As a result, they have substantially exceeded their budgeted salary expenses in recent months. It will be difficult for Brandon to hire surgical RNs, other open heart surgery personnel and critical care nurses necessary to staff its OHS program. The difficulty, however, is not insurmountable. To meet the difficulty, Brandon will move members of its present staff with cardiac and open heart experience into its open heart program. It will also train some existing personnel in conjunction with the staff and personnel at Bayonet Point. In addition to drawing on the existing pool of nurses, Brandon can utilize HCA's internal nationwide staffing data base to transfer staff from other HCA facilities to staff Brandon's open heart program. Approximately 18 percent of the nurses hired at Brandon already come from other HCA facilities. The nursing shortage has been in existence for about a decade. During this time, other open heart programs have come on line and have been able to staff the programs adequately. Lakeland, in District 6, has demonstrated its ability to recruit and train open heart surgery personnel. Brandon, itself, has been successful, despite the on- going shortage, in appropriately staffing its recent additions of tertiary level NICU beds, an expanded Emergency Room, labor and delivery and recovery suites, and new high-risk, ante-partum observation unit. Brandon has begun to offer sign-on bonuses to compete for experienced nurses. Several employees who staff the Lakeland, UCH and Tampa General programs live in Brandon. These bonuses are temptations for them to leave the programs for Brandon. Other highly skilled, experienced individuals who already work at existing programs may be lost to Brandon's program as well simply as the natural result of the addition of a new program. In the end, Brandon will be able to staff its program, but it will make it more difficult for all of the programs in Hillsborough County and for Lakeland to meet their staffing needs as well as producing a financial impact on existing providers. Financial Feasibility Short-Term Brandon needs $4.2 million to fund implementation of the program. Its parent corporation, HCA will provide financing of up to $4.5 million for implementation. The $4.2 million in start-up costs projected by Brandon does not include the cost of a second cath lab or the costs to upgrade the equipment in the existing cath lab. Itemization of the funds necessary for improvement of the existing cath lab and the addition of the second cath lab were not included in Brandon's pro formas. It is the Agency's position that addition of a cath lab (and by inference, upgrade to an existing lab) requires only a letter of exemption as projects separate from an open heart surgery program even when proposed in support of the program. (See UCH No. 7, p. 83). The position is not inconsistent with cardiac catheterization programs as subject to requirements in law separate from those to which an open heart surgery program is subject. Brandon, through HCA, has the ability to fund the start-up costs of the project. It is financially feasible in the short-term. Long-Term Open heart surgery programs (inclusive of angioplasty and stent procedures, as well as other open heart surgery procedures) generally are very profitable. They are among the most profitable of programs conducted by hospitals. Brandon's projected charges for open heart, angioplasty, and stent procedures are based on the average charges to patients residing in Brandon's PSA inflated at 2 percent per year. The inflation rate is consistent with HCFA's August 1, 2000, Rule implementing a 2.3 percent Medicare reimbursement increase. Brandon's projected payor mix is reasonably based on the existing open heart, angioplasty, and stent patients within its PSA. Brandon also estimated conservatively that it would collect only 45 to 50 percent of its charges from third-party payors. To determine expenses, Brandon utilized Bayonet Point's accounting system. It provided a level of detail that could not be obtained otherwise. "For patients within Brandon's primary service area, . . . that information is not provided by existing providers in the area that's available for any public consumption." (Tr. 1002). While perhaps the most detailed data available, Bayonet Point data was far from an ideal model for Brandon. Bayonet Point performs about 1,500 OHS cases per year. It achieves economies of scale that will not be achievable at Brandon in the foreseeable future. There is a relationship between volume and cost efficiency. The higher the volume, the greater the cost efficiency. Brandon's volume is projected to be much lower than Bayonet Point's. To make up for the imperfection of use of Bayonet Point as an "expenses" proxy, Brandon's financial expert in opining that the project was feasible in the long-term, considered two factors with regard to expenses. First, it included its projected $1.8 million in salary expenses as a separate line item over and above the salary expenses contained in the Bayonet Point data. (This amounted to a "double" counting of salary expenses.) Second, it recognized HCA's ability to obtain competitive pricing with respect to equipment and services for its affiliated hospitals, Brandon being one of them. Brandon projected utilization of 249 and 279 cases in its second and third year of operations. These projections are reasonable. (See the testimony of Mr. Balsano on rebuttal and Brandon Ex. 74). Comparison of Agency Action in CONs 9169 and 9239 Brandon's application in this case, CON 9239, was filed within a six-month period of the filing of an earlier application, CON 9169. The Agency found the two applications to be similar. Indeed, the facts and circumstances at issue in the two applications other than the updating of the financial and volume numbers are similar. So is the argument made in favor of the applications. Yet, the first application was denied by the Agency while the second received preliminary approval. The difference in the Agency's action taken on the later application (the one with which this case is concerned), i.e., approval, versus the action taken on the earlier, denial, was explained by Scott Hopes, the Chief of the Bureau of Certificate of Need at the time the later application was considered: The [later] Brandon application . . ., which is what we're addressing here today, included more substantial information from providers, both cardiologists, internists, family practitioners and surgeons with specific case examples by patient age [and] other demographics, the diagnoses, outcomes, how delays impacted outcomes, what permanent impact those adverse outcomes left the patient in, where earlier . . . there weren't as many specifics. (Tr. 1536, 1537). A comparison of the application in CON 9169 and the record in this case bears out Mr. Hopes' assessment that there is a significant difference between the two applications. Comparison of the Agency Action with the District 9 Application During the same batching cycle in which CON 9239 was considered, five open heart surgery applications were considered from health care providers in District 9. Unlike Brandon's application, these were all denied. In the District 9 SAAR, the Agency found that transfers are an inherent part of OHS as a tertiary service. The Agency concluded that, "[O]pen heart surgery is a tertiary service and patients are routinely transferred between hospitals for this procedure." (UCH Ex. 7, pp. 51-54). In particular, the Agency recognized Boca Raton's claim that it had provided "extensive discussion of the quality implications of attempting to deal with cardiac emergencies through transfer to other facilities." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 52). Unlike the specific information referred to by Mr. Hopes in his testimony quoted, above, however, the foundation for Boca Raton's argument is a 1999 study published in the periodical Circulation, entitled "Relationship Between Delay in Performing Direct Coronary Angioplasty and Early Clinical Outcomes." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 21). This publication was cited by the Agency in its SAAR on the application in this case. Nonetheless, a fundamental difference remains between this case and the District 9 applications, including Boca Raton's. The application in this case is distinguished by the specific information to which Mr. Hopes alluded in his testimony, quoted above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the application of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital for open heart surgery, CON 9239. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 North Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 James C. Hauser, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Sarah E. Evans, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
