Findings Of Fact The Parties Manor-Sarasota Manor Health Care Corporation operates 140 nursing centers throughout the country with nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLF) in Florida. Seven of the nine Florida nursing homes are rated superior and two are standard. Manor-Sarasota is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Health Care Corporation, and currently owns and operates a 120 bed nursing home, with a 120 bed ACLF, at 5511 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida. The facility opened in December, 1983 and currently has a standard license, although for a period in 1986 its license was conditional. Manor-Sarasota is currently licensed as a skilled nursing home providing trach care, nasogastric feedings, wound care, physical, speech and occupational therapy, as well as Clinatron beds for patients with severe decubitus ulcers. On or about January 15, 1987, Manor-Sarasota filed CON application number 5050 for the addition of sixty community nursing home beds at its facility. The proposed additional beds will include a separate 30-bed specialized unit for elderly persons suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Manor Health Care Corporation currently operates 13 to 15 Alzheimer's units within their existing centers. Between 30 percent - 50 percent of Manor-Sarasota's current patients are diagnosed as having Alzheimer's or related disorders. There are no specialized facilities for Alzheimer's patients in Sarasota at the current time. The current facility is a two-story nursing home, and the additional beds would be configured in a two-story addition of thirty-five beds on the first floor and twenty-five beds on the second floor. The thirty-bed Alzheimer's unit would be located on the first floor. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's patients will also be provided. An additional nurse's station would be added to provide 4 nurse's stations for 180 beds. Total project costs are reasonably projected at $1.85 million, with construction costs of $1.26 million, equipment costs of approximately $170,000, professional services of approximately $137,000 and related costs of approximately $253,000. The proposal would add 16,683 gross square feet to the existing 49,454 gross square feet. The total project cost per additional bed would be $30,872, while the construction cost per square foot would be $55.00. The gross square footage per bed would be 278 feet. Manor-Sarasota projects a 40 percent Medicaid and 60 percent private pay utilization for the 60 bed addition, although its Medicaid utilization at the existing facility has only been between 15 percent and 24 percent. Since there is an upward trend in Medicaid utilization, Manor-Sarasota would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition on its CON, if approved. Medicare patients will continue to be served within the existing facility. The project will be funded through 25 percent equity and 75 percent financing. Manor Health Care Corporation will finance the project internally through the sale of assets, and the sale of senior subordinated notes and convertible subordinated debentures, and this financing proposal is reasonable and realistic. In Manor-Sarasota's original application, six 3-bed wards were proposed. As a result of criticism of 3-bed wards in the Department's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) concerning this application as well as other facilities, the applicant modified its proposed design to eliminate all 3-bed wards and to include 24 semiprivate and 12 private rooms. The square footage of the addition was also increased by 21 percent from 13,750 to 16,683 square feet. This modification was presented at hearing and was filed subsequent to the application being deemed complete, and the SAAR being prepared. Competent substantial evidence in support of the original application was not offered, but rather evidence was presented in support of the substantially modified proposal. The applicant's existing 120-bed nursing home has experienced over 90 percent occupancy for the months of November, 1987 to the date of hearing, and also experienced an average occupancy of approximately 86 percent for 1986 and the first ten months of 1987. During the first year of operation, 65 percent occupancy is projected for the 60 new beds which are now being sought, and 95 percent occupancy is projected for the second year of operation. Sarasota Healthcare Sarasota Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership whose general partners are Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Sarasota Healthcare proposes to enter into a management agreement with Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) for the operation and administration of their proposed facility. The Kelletts, as 100 percent owners, comprise the Board of Directors of CSI and also serve as its Chairman and President. CSI operates 21 nursing homes in seven states, and 85 percent of its beds have superior licenses. There are 6 CSI operated nursing homes in Florida, one of which, Pinebrook Place, is located in Sarasota County in the City of Venice. Pinebrook Place is a 120 bed nursing home and has a superior license. Sarasota Healthcare does not own or operate any other nursing homes. A new 120 bed freestanding nursing home is proposed by Sarasota Healthcare in CON application 5025, which was filed with the Department in January, 1987. The project would be located in Sarasota County at a specific site which has not yet been identified. Sarasota Healthcare projects a utilization of 40 percent Medicaid, 5 percent Medicare and 55 percent private pay at its proposed facility, and would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition of this CON, if approved. The proposed facility would offer skilled, intermediate, respite and hospice care; specialized services for Alzheimer's patients; physical, occupational, speech and rehabilitative therapy; counseling; and social services. Alzheimer's patients will not be located in a separate unit but will be intermingled with other patients while receiving specialized services and protections for their disease. Sarasota Healthcare proposes a 120 bed nursing home comprised of 12 private and 54 semiprivate rooms, 37,7000 gross square feet and a total project cost of $3.9 million The proposed size and cost of this facility are reasonable. The cost per bed would be $32,500 and the construction cost per square foot would be $58.00. Total project costs are reasonable and consist of approximately $2.45 million in construction costs, $385,000 in equipment costs, $145,000 for professional services, land acquisition of $600,000 for 3 to 5 acres, and $324,000 in related costs. The gross square footage per bed would be 314 feet. The project will be funded with 25 percent equity funding from the general partners, Stiles and Samuel Kellett, and 75 percent from a commercial bank, assuming a 9.5 percent interest rate with 1 percent discount point. The proposal is reasonable, but is dependent upon the general partners' ability to personally fund 25 percent of the costs of the project through an equity contribution, and on their ability to obtain commercial financing for the remaining project costs. Financial statements of the Kelletts provided in the record of this proceeding are unaudited, and were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Kelletts have 15 CON applications currently pending, and 4 have already been approved. They have a 6 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Health Quest On or about January 15, 1987, Health Quest corporation submitted an application for CON number 5046 on behalf of Regents Park of Lake Pointe Woods for the addition of 58 new beds to its existing 53 sheltered bed nursing home at a projected cost of approximately $1.29 million. The existing sheltered nursing home facility is known as Regents Park of Sarasota which is part of the Lake Point Woods Retirement Center containing a 110 bed ACLF and 212 retirement apartment units. The sheltered nursing home opened in November, 1986, and has achieved 90 percent occupancy since October, 1987. It is licensed under Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, as a continuing care facility. Health Quest owns and operates nine nursing centers in three states, and has received CON approval for 12 additional facilities in three states, including four in Florida. One of these Florida CONs is for 180 new community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Health Quest's existing Regents Park of Sarasota nursing home is located at 7979 South Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. Although it is a sheltered nursing home, only one or two beds are generally occupied by Lake Point Woods residents at any one time. During 1987, only 26 admissions to Regents Park came from Lake Pointe Woods, and most of these admissions were for episodic illnesses of less than 30 days rather than for longer term care. Thus, the vast majority of admissions at Regents Park have been from the community, including admissions directly from home, hospitals and other nursing homes, rather than from the retirement center, Lake Pointe Woods, of which Regents Park is a part. However, since existing beds at Regents Park are sheltered, community patients will not be able to be admitted there beyond November, 1991, the expiration of five years from its opening. During its year and a half of operation, Regents Park has not shown a profit, despite original projections of profitability after only one year. In response to the Department's omissions letter dated February 19, 1987, Health Quest notified the Department, by letter dated March 27, 1987, of its amendment to CON application 5046. Rather than pursuing its request for 58 new community nursing home beds, Health Quest amended the application to seek conversion of the 53 sheltered beds to community beds and to add 7 new community nursing home beds. Since no new space is proposed for construction under the amendment, and since virtually all equipment is already in place, Health Quest projected no cost associated with the amended project. However, there would be some minor costs to equip seven new beds, as well as legal and consulting costs associated with this application and hearing. Currently, the Regents Park nursing home has approximately 31,000 total gross square feet, which would result in 520 gross square feet per bed if its application is approved. On April 10, 1987, the Department published its notice of completeness regarding Health Quest's amended CON application 5046 at Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 13, No. 15, p. 1365. The Department reviewed and evaluated Health Quest's amended application, rather than the original application, in preparing its SAAR on the applications at issue in this case dated June 15, 1987. Despite this notice of completeness, the record shows that Health Quest's conversion proposal was incomplete since no balance sheet, profit and loss statement for precious fiscal years of operation, detailed statement of financial feasibility or pro forma were introduced. Although sheltered beds can be certified to accept Medicaid patients, Health Quest has not sought such certification for any of the 53 existing beds at Regents Park. Health Quest proposes to seek Medicaid certification for 5 beds, and to serve 8 percent Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Health Quest does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special outdoor activities for these patients as well as an Alzheimer's club for patients with this primary diagnosis. Health Quest specializes in caring for patients with hip fractures, and offers a wheelchair mobility and ambulation program, rehabilitation and occupational therapy, bowel and bladder rehabilitation, as well as physical and horticulture therapy. Regents Park has patients on intravenous therapy and who require hyperalimentation and total parenteral nutrition. LPN and nurse's aide students from Sarasota Vo/Tech School receive training at the Regents Park nursing home. HCR In 1986, HCR purchased, and currently owns and operates a 147 bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida, known as Kensington Manor, which holds a standard license. HCR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, a publicly held corporation, and has built over 200 nursing homes in the last 25 years. At the present time, HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds in 19 States. HCR owns and operates a total of 9 nursing homes in Florida, and has about 10 nursing home projects under development which it intends to operate upon completion. On or about January 14, 1987, HCR filed CON application 5049 with the Department. This application seeks approval of 60 new community nursing home beds at Kensington Manor, at a currently projected cost of $1.82 million, which is a reasonable projection. The cost per new bed would be $30,030. HCR proposes to finance to project with a 25 percent equity contribution, and 75 percent internally financed by HCR through its parent company, Owens-Illinois, and this proposal is realistic and reasonable. Throughout 1986, Kensington Manor had an occupancy level of between 85 percent - 95 percent and is currently operating at 95 percent - 96 percent occupancy. HCR reasonably projects 95 percent occupancy for the 60 new beds in the second year of operation. HCR reasonably proposes a patient mix in the new addition of 45 percent Medicaid, 4 percent Medicare and 51 percent private pay. Kensington Manor is currently 75 percent - 80 percent Medicaid, 1 percent Medicare, and the remainder is private pay, but its proposed patient mix for the new addition is realistic because there will be no three-bed wards in the addition, and sub- acute services will be provided, thereby increasing the Medicare percentage. The HCR proposed addition at Kensington Manor provides a distinct 29 bed wing for Alzheimer's patients where a special care program and special staffing can be made available. Additionally, a 12 person Alzheimer's adult day care center will be physically attached to the new addition where a less intense level of care outside the home can be made available to these patients. Respite care and sub-acute care will also be provided. The project will add a 60 bed, single story addition to Kensington Manor, with a special Alzheimer unit consisting of 1 private and 14 semiprivate rooms, an enclosed courtyard and porch. A second dining room will be added, as well as 2 central bathing areas, multipurpose and physical therapy rooms. The addition would total 18,000 gross square feet, or 267 gross square feet per bed in the new addition. Kensington Manor currently has approximately 30,000 gross square feet, with 1 private and 52 semiprivate rooms, and 14 three-bedroom wards. Therefore with the addition, Kensington Manor would have approximately 48,000 gross square feet which would be approximately 223 square feet per bed for the entire facility. Sisters of Bon Secours The Sisters of Bon Secours, a Catholic religious order, are currently responsible for the operation and ownership, through not-for-profit corporations, of a JCAH accredited 272 community bed nursing home in North Miami having a superior license, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, and they also have a CON for an additional nursing home to be located in Collier County. On or about January 15, 1987, Sisters filed CON application 5039 for a new 120 community bed nursing home to be located in Sarasota County, and to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. Sisters is the only applicant involved in this case which is not already providing services in Sarasota County. The proposal calls for the development of a teaching nursing home to be designated as a center for training and research in the study of gerontology and long term care. Affiliations with schools and universities will be developed to allow health care administrators, social workers, medical and nursing students, and practitioners interested in developing a specialization to fulfill their clinical studies and requirements. There will be an emphasis on restorative and rehabilitative care, with 20 percent of the beds being designated for sub-acute care patients who could return home after 30-45 days of therapy and transitional care. Sisters will develop a continuum of care by networking in the community. It is the only applicant that proposes to provide a site for education and research in Sarasota County. The proposed facility is intended to serve the needs of members of the Venice Diocese who reside in Sarasota County, where there is currently no Catholic nursing home. The Venice Diocese is now served by the Sisters' nursing home in Charlotte County, and will also be served by the facility to be located in Collier County, for which a CON has already been issued. However, treatment at these nursing homes, including the proposed Villa Maria of Sarasota County, is not limited to Catholics; the Sisters accept, treat and care for persons in need from all religions backgrounds and denominational affiliations. Total project costs are estimated at $6.64 million, including $3.86 million for construction, approximately $592,000 for equipment, $762,000 to acquire a seven acre site, $237,000 for professional services, $888,000 for financing costs and approximately $300,000 in other related costs. The project would encompass almost 60,000 gross square feet, and would cost approximately $55,300 per bed and $64.50 per square foot. Almost 500 gross square feet would be available per bed, which represents the most square footage per bed of any application under consideration. The proposed facility would have 8 private and 56 semiprivate rooms, with in-room tubs and showers, 3 patient lounges, and a 100 seat dining room. Due to the large size of the proposal, some patient rooms exceed 120 feet from nurse's stations. However, this licensure requirement can easily be met with minor design modifications during the licensure process. Sisters project a 33.3 percent Medicaid, 17.6 - 19.7 percent Medicare, 4 percent indigent and 43 percent - 45 percent private pay utilization for the 120 bed nursing home in its first two years of operation. While Medicaid utilization in Dade County during 1987 rose to 68 percent as a county-wide average, Sisters' Dade County nursing home experienced a drop in Medicaid to 14.6 percent. The high Medicare utilization level which has been projected is consistent with, and based on, the experience of the Sisters at their Dade County nursing home which currently has 21 percent Medicare utilization. However, due to the greater number of hospital referral sources, as well as the larger population and fewer competing nursing homes in Dade County compared with Sarasota County, Medicare utilization projections may be overstated, and actually fall between the 3-4 percent historical utilization in the Sarasota area and Sisters' projection. It will be somewhat above 3-4 percent due to the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home which will attract more Medicare patients. The project will be funded with an equity contribution of 10.6 percent ($635,455) and the remaining 89.4 percent ($6 million) will be funded through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. This financing proposal is realistic and reasonable. The proposed nursing home is intended to offer services to AIDS patients, adult day care, and a meals-on-wheels program. However, it was not established at hearing that such patients would definitely be served, or that space would be available at this facility for these services until the Sisters can determine the actual level of need for these services in Sarasota County, if this CON is approved. Department of HRS On or before January 15, 1987, the Department received the CON applications at issue in this case for additional community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. As it relates to this case, the Department issued its SAAR on June 15, 1987, in which the application of HCR (CON 5049) for a 60 community nursing home bed addition to Kensington Manor was approved, and all other applications in this case were denied. In addition to the HCR application, the Department also supported at hearing the applications of Manor Care (CON 5050) for a 60 bed addition to Manor-Sarasota and Sisters of Bon Secours (CON 5039) for a new 120 bed community bed nursing home to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. The Department opposed the issuance of a CON to the remaining applicants. It is the position of the Department that changes or updates to CON applications made after an application has been deemed complete and reviewed in a SAAR, cannot be considered at hearing if such changes or updates are the result of matters or events within the control of the applicant, and which therefore could have been foreseen and considered at the time the application or responses to omissions were filed. However, matters involving payor mix, salaries and charges could result from changes in demographics and economic factors outside of the applicants' control. In such instances, updates or changes to an application based upon current demographics or economics can, and should be, considered at hearing. The updated pro forma submitted by Sarasota Healthcare at hearing resulted from the applicant's desire to reflect current salaries in the Sarasota County labor market, which have increased dramatically since the original application was submitted. As a result of updating salary expense projections, Medicaid and Medicare rates also had to be updated. Associated projections throughout the pro forma which are dependent upon these reimbursement rates, as well as salary expense projections, also had to be updated. The updated pro forma presented by Sarasota Healthcare results from a factor outside of the control of the applicant, inflation, which could not have been foreseen or predicated with certainty in January, 1987. To ignore actual, current inflation data in Sarasota County is to ignore reality. This update is permissible and has been considered. Manor-Sarasota's application presented at hearing includes changes in its proposed payor mix, charges and salaries, as well as its pro forma. These updates are permissible since they result from changes in demographics and inflation outside of the applicant's control which could not have been foreseen in January 1987. However, a 21 percent increase in square footage and elimination of three-bed wards, with associated changes in proposed staffing, capital costs and equipment, while certainly having a positive effect on quality of care, is nevertheless a matter totally within the control of the applicant. The desireability of these changes could have been foreseen at the time the application was filed, and therefore these substantial changes in design represent impermissible amendments to Manor-Sarasota's application. Stipulations The appropriate planning area for these applications is Sarasota County, and the appropriate planning horizon is January, 1990. Sarasota County is in subdistrict 6 of the Department's service district 8. The parties have stipulated that there is a need for 240 additional community nursing home beds in the January, 1990, planning horizon in Sarasota County, in accordance with the bed need formula in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The parties have agreed that Section 381.705(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (1987), have been met, or are not applicable to this case. This statutory criteria deals with the adequacy and availability of alternative health care facilities and the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. All remaining criteria found at Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), are at issue in this case. Further, the parties stipulate that 1987 amendments to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, relating to the content of applications, are inapplicable in this proceeding since these applications were filed prior to the effective date of said law. Therefore, application content provisions of Section 381.494(4), Florida Statutes, govern. State and Local Health Plans The 1985 Florida State Health Plan, Volume II, Chapter 8, identifies areas of concern relating to the provision of long-term care services in Florida, which traditionally has been synonymous with nursing home care. These concerns include resource supply, cost containment and resource access. The State Health Plan seeks a reduction in the fragmentation of services and encourages development of a continuum of care. These proposals are consistent with, or do not conflict with, the State Health Plan. The 1984 District Eight Local Health Plan for Nursing Home Care is applicable to these applications for community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. The Local Health Plan contains the following pertinent criteria and standards for review of these applications: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. At a minimum community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy h. occupational therapy laboratory i. physical therapy x-ray j. speech therapy dental care k. mental health visual care counseling hearing care l. social services diet therapy m. medical services New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33 1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable service areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up services with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. The specifically stated goal of the Local Health Plan is to develop new community nursing home facilities in which at least 33 1/3 percent of the total beds should be Medicaid. The impact of this long range recommended action is stated as follows: The provision of Medicaid care beds in existing nursing homes would assure continuity of care for nursing home patients, and should improve placement in appropriate levels of care by hospitals, physicians, social services, health departments, and other referral groups. The provision for Medicaid beds would reduce cost to patients, utilizing skilled care beds, who could adequately be served by Medicaid. With the exception of Health Quest's application, all other applicants meet the above stated standards and criteria contained in the Local Health Plan. Health Quest's application does not conform to the Local Health Plan. All applicants in this proceeding have indicated that they will provide therapies and services recommended in the Local Health Plan. All applicants, except Health Quest, indicate a commitment to dedicate at least 33 1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. The new nursing home facilities proposed by Sisters and Sarasota Healthcare would each be for 120 beds, consistent with the Local Health Plan standard that new facilities have at least 60 beds. Health Quest has proposed a 60 bed community nursing home through conversion of 53 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 7 new community beds. As existing providers, Manor-Sarasota, HCR band Health Quest have patient transfer agreements with one or more hospitals, as well as formal discharge planning programs and patient follow-up services, as recommended in the Local Health Plan. The applications for new facilities of Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters indicate they will also comply with these priorities if approval is granted and their facilities are opened. By virtue of its existing service and transfer agreements through the CSI facility in Sarasota County, Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare will be able to obtain these necessary agreements. Based upon Sisters' experience in Dade County at Villa Maria, as well as the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home, Sisters will also be able to obtain such agreements. Data has been provided by the existing nursing homes (Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Health Quest) which documents the history of their participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The other applicants (Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters) have provided Medicaid/Medicare data for other existing facilities with which they are affiliated or upon which their application at issue in this case is based. Based upon this data, Pinebrook Place in Sarasota County, which is owned and operated by Sarasota Healthcare's general partners has not met the Medicaid condition on its CON, and the existing Manor-Sarasota facility has had only 24.8 percent Medicaid utilization in fiscal year 1988: Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services HCR and Manor-Sarasota would increase the availability and adequacy of existing services they are now offering with the 60 bed additions each is seeking. The separate 30-bed specialized unit proposed by Manor-Sarasota and the 29-bed wing proposed by HCR for Alzheimer's patients will clearly increase the availability of specialized services for persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders, as well as their families. HCR will also dedicate 10 beds for sub-acute care, while Manor-Sarasota will offer community outreach, as well as respite care. Sarasota Healthcare, Sisters and Health Quest do not propose special units for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special programs and services for them and their families. It was established that there is a need for additional services and programs to serve nursing home patients with Alzheimer's and related disorders in Sarasota County, as well as a special need for sub-acute, restorative, hospice, respite, and adult day care in the County. It was not established that there is a need for additional Medicare beds in Sarasota County. Sisters have indicated an interest in offering services to patients with AIDS and patients in need of adult day care, for which there is also a need in Sarasota County. In addition, their application will enhance the availability of sub-acute nursing home services, restorative and rehabilitative care, and respite care in Sarasota County. While it would serve patients of all denominations and religious affiliations, it would be the only Catholic nursing home in Sarasota County. The teaching component of the Sisters' application would provide access for students and other health professionals seeking to further their professional training. The Sarasota Healthcare proposal also places special emphasis on increasing the availability of sub-acute services in Sarasota County. Quality of Care The Sisters will seek JCAH accreditation of the proposed facility if their CON is approved, just as their nursing home in North Miami is currently accredited. The proposed affiliation with a college of medicine and nursing school, and the intent to operate this facility as a teaching nursing home will insure quality of care at this nursing home by utilizing state-of-the-art treatment and therapy programs. Florida nursing homes currently owned or operated by each of the applicants or their affiliated corporations have standard or superior licenses which means they meet or exceed State Standards. Licensure status of facilities owned or operated in other states by the applicants, or their affiliated companies, has not been considered since it was not established that licensure standards in other states are similar, or even comparable, to those in Florida. Each applicant has significant experience rendering quality nursing home care, and each has proposed a reasonable and comprehensive quality assurance program which will insure that quality nursing home services will be provided to their residents. The architectural design proposed by each applicant is reasonable and sufficient to allow quality care to be provided at each facility. All instances where an applicant's design fails to meet final construction standards are relatively minor, and can easily be met during the licensure process with slight modifications and adaptations in design. Staffing proposals by each, while different, will all insure that adequate medical, nursing, counseling and therapeutic staff will be trained and available either on-staff or through contract, to implement quality care programs at each facility. Manor-Sarasota's past reliance on temporary nursing services is decreasing and this will have a positive effect on quality of care. HCR has just completed extensive repairs and renovations costing $350,000 at Kensington Manor which will improve the atmosphere, living conditions and overall quality of care at the facility. Sisters' educational affiliations will aid in recruiting and retaining well-trained staff for its facility. Each facility will be equipped to provide quality care. There was extensive testimony about the advantages and disadvantages of central bathing facilities compared with private baths or showers in patient rooms. Sisters and Health Quest would provide private bathing facilities in patient rooms, while the others would have central facilities. Obviously, individual bathing facilities in patient rooms offer more privacy than central facilities, but privacy can also be achieved in a central bathing area by taking only a single, or limited number of patients to a partitioned central facility at any one time. The central facility is less costly than bathing facilities in each room, and also requires less staff time and involvement to assist with, and insure safety in, the patients' bathing. It has not been shown that one type of bathing facility provided in a nursing home, to the exclusion of all others, affects the quality of care in a positive or adverse manner. Quality care can be, and is, provided under both designs. The elimination of 3-bed wards from Manor-Sarasota's application would have a positive impact on quality of care, and be consistent with the Department's position of discouraging the creation of additional 3-bed wards in nursing homes. However, such elimination was proposed after this application was deemed complete by the Department. Patients suffering from Alzheimer's and related disorders can benefit from programs and treatment conducted in separate units, or while comingled with other patients, particularly in the early and middle phases of the disease. In the later phase of the disease it may be less disruptive to other patients if Alzheimer patients reside in a separate wing or unit of the nursing home. Quality care can be rendered through separate or integrated programming, and all applicants in this case that propose to offer specialized services to these patients have proposed programs and facility designs which will provide quality care to persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders. While there are differences in facility design, such as the two-story construction of Manor-Sarasota compared with the single level construction of all other applicants, and the central heating and cooling proposed by Sisters compared with individual wall units to be used by Sarasota Healthcare, the proposed designs of all applicants allow for the rendering of quality care to patients. Access for Chronically Underserved The Health Quest proposal is inconsistent with the Local Health Plan policy that 33 1/3 percent of all nursing home beds should be dedicated for Medicaid patients since it proposes that only 5 of its 60 beds (8 percent) will be certified for Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Although Medicaid utilization at Manor-Sarasota has not been consistent with the Local Health Plan, it is projected that if CON 5050 is approved Medicaid utilization will rise to 40 percent. Sarasota Healthcare, HCR and Sisters propose to meet or exceed this Local Health Plan policy. HCR has experienced a 75-80 percent Medicaid utilization at Kensington Manor, and proposes a 45 percent Medicaid level in the new addition if CON 5049 is approved. Financial Feasibility The proposals of Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters are financially feasible. Health Quest did not file a pro forma and has not shown a profit in its year and a half of operation at Regents Park. Based upon its actual per patient operating expense at Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare has underestimated expenses in its second year of operation by approximately $8 per patient day. Its projection of a profit in the second year of operation is questionable due to this underestimation. Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters have established their ability to finance, through equity and debt, the construction, equipment, supplies, and start-up costs associated with their proposals. Health Quest will have no construction costs, and only very minor costs to equip and supply seven new beds it is requesting. The entire financial structure of CSI and Sarasota Healthcare is dependent upon the financial strength of their general partners, the Kelletts, who currently have $76 million in long term debt and $12 million in equity. This is a relatively high debt to equity ratio of 6 to 1 which makes them susceptible to adverse impacts from any downturn in the economy, especially since they have 15 additional CON applications pending in Florida, totaling $60 million in construction costs. In contrast to the Kelletts' high debt to equity ratio, Sisters have $159 million in long term debt and $160 million in equity for a very secure 1 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Projections of revenue and expense, as well as assumptions concerning projected utilization, Medicaid and Medicare rates, private pay rates, and patient mix used by Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters in their pro forma are reasonable, based upon that applicant's experience and the services proposed in their applications at issue. Adequacy of Staffing All proposals have adequate and reasonable staffing patterns, as well as staff training programs, to insure that quality care is provided. Proposed salaries are reasonable and will allow qualified staff to be hired, based upon the recruiting experience and salaries currently offered by Sarasota nursing homes. Adequate staff resources exist in the area. I. Most Effective and Less Costly Alternative Since it is generally not necessary to construct support areas for storage, laundry, kitchen and administration, adding additional beds to existing facilities is a less costly alternative to an entirely new facility. Health Quest, HCR and Manor-Sarasota are, therefore, less costly per bed than Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters' proposals to construct new 120 bed nursing homes. Specifically, there are only minor costs associated with Health Quest's proposal, while the cost per bed of the Manor-Sarasota and HCR proposals are $30,872 and $30,030, respectively, compared with $32,500 per bed for Sarasota Healthcare and $55,295 for Sisters. Health Quest's application is the least costly alternative since it involves no construction costs to add seven beds to the existing 53 sheltered beds which would be converted to community nursing home beds, although minor costs for equipping seven new beds would be incurred. Effect on Costs and Charges Sisters and Health Quest have proposed, or actually experienced, the highest costs and charges of all applicants. Health Quest has not shown any basis upon which it can be reasonably expected that room rates will decrease, as it asserts, if this CON is approved. Due to the large size of its proposed building, higher food costs and number of staff, Sisters projects the highest operating expense per patient day in the second year of operation. Sisters will provide almost 500 gross square feet per bed, while Manor-Sarasota, HCR, and Sarasota Healthcare will provide 278, 267 and 314 gross square feet per bed, respectively. Enhanced Competition Since the other applicants are already represented in the service area, the approval of Sisters' application would enhance competition by adding another provider to Sarasota County. This will provide more choices to nursing home residents, and should increase the quality of long term care in the community with the added emphasis this proposal will place on rehabilitative programming. Costs and Methods of Construction The costs and methods of construction proposed by the applicants are reasonable, as well as energy efficient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order, as follows: Approving HCR's application for CON 5049; Approving Sisters' application for CON 5039; Denying the application of Manor-Sarasota, Sarasota Healthcare and Health Quest for CONs 5050, 5025 and 5046, respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3471, 87-3473, 87-3475, 87-3478 and 87-3491 Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30, 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 6-10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the parties have stipulated to need. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 55, 69, 70. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 56, 58, 60. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55. Rejected as irrelevant since the parties have stipulated to need. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 57. Rulings on Manor-Sarasota's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17 and Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5, 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14 but Rejected in Findings of Fact 71, 73. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 35, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding or Fact 2. Rejected as unsupported and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61 but also Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 60, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but otherwise Rejected as unsupported argument on the evidence, without any citation to the record, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 82 but Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 64 in part, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64 and as not supported by the record. Rejected as unnecessary and without citation to the record. Adopted and. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 71. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 33-34. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 35-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as speculative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 41-43. Rejected as not supported by the record and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 81. Adopted in Findings of Fact 71, 75. 56-57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55, 56. 59-61. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact l. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81 but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 6-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 10-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 55. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23, 28, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 27, 28. 24-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 28-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46-49. 31-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 40-42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 71, 75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as unnecessary. 45-46. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 51-54. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 56-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 49, 51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. 69-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 34. Rulings on Sisters' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 13-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47-54. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 18-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 30, but otherwise Rejected as argument unsupported by any citation to the record. 30-38. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Rejected in Finding of Fact 40. 41-51. Adopted in Findings of fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. 52-58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. 60-75. Rejected as unnecessary irrelevant, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. 82-83. Rejected as unnecessary. 84. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 85-86. Rejected as unnecessary. 87-88. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 41. 89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as not supported by the record. 90-91. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63 and otherwise not supported by the record. 92-105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and irrelevant. Rejected as unsupported in the record and otherwise unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and speculative. Rejected as unnecessary. 111-112. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 113. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. 114-115. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 116-120. Adopted in Findings of Fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 121. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 122-123. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. 124. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31, 34, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported in the record. 125-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. 127-129. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since no applicant has locked in interest rates, and therefore these rates will vary and are speculative. Rejected as speculative and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 132-135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 136. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. 137-139. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 140. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 141-145. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. 146-147. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 71, 84, but Rejected in Findings of Fact 81, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Rejected as cumulative and unsupported by the record. 155-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. 159. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Sarasota Healthcare's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. 4-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 7-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12-16, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 61. 22-23. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 24-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 14, 57, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 83 and as unsupported in the record. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 57. 47-49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 56, 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 53-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 65-78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 79-85. Adopted in Findings of Fact 76, 77, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 86-97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 101-103. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 84. 104. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 105-109. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 16, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 73. 112-116. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 71, 73, 75, but otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. 120-121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. 122-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 127-128. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 32. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. 133-135. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 33, 63, and otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant since all licensure requirements can easily be met with minor modifications. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32, 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 140-142. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 51. 145-146. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 147-148. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 57 and as unsupported in the record. 149-150. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative 153-156. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76, 77 and otherwise not supported in the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact s. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51. Rulings on Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as speculative and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 27-34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 63, 76, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 35-39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66. 41-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as simply a statement on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact and otherwise irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. 68-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 72-74. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51 and otherwise as irrelevant. 75-76. Rejected as unnecessary, although it is agreed that these matters are irrelevant and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 81-82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 83. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 84-88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as legal argument rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. 92-94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 95. Adopted and. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 41. 96-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as irrelevant. 102. Rejected as cumulative. 103-104. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 107-109. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63. 110-111. Rejected as unsupported in the record and irrelevant. 112-114. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported by the record. 115. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 116-117. Rejected as unnecessary. 118-120. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise simply as a summation of testimony. 121-122. Rejected as irrelevant and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 125-127. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as a summation of testimony. 128. Rejected as cumulative. 129-131. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. 132-134. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise as irrelevant. 135. Rejected in Findings of Fact 43, 48, 57 and otherwise as irrelevant. 136-142. Rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is not the accuracy of the SAAR, but rather whether applicants have sustained their burden of establishing entitlement to a CON based on the record established at hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of HRS 2727 Mahan Drive, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Watkins, Esquire Harry F. X. Purnell, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Byron B. Matthews, Jr., Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2802 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent Edward Grant Markley is and at all material times has been licensed as a real estate broker, Florida license numbers 0268896 and 0530864. The Respondent's most recent licensure was as a broker for Harris Real Estate and Associates, Inc., t/a C-21 Harris Real Estate and Associates, Inc., 6945 103rd Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32210 and Harris Real Estate and Associates, Inc. of Orange Park, 2346 Kingsley Avenue, Orange Park, Florida 32073. From a date uncertain in 1987 to July of 1988, Respondent was the licensed nursing home administrator at Holly Point Manor in Orange Park, Florida. By letter dated August 22, 1988, Respondent was advised that, based upon a complaint, an investigation was being undertaken related to his licensure as administrator of the Holly Point Manor nursing home. The Respondent applied for licensure as a real estate salesman on October 5, 1988. Question 14(a) of the application reads "[h]as any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation, or vocation been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state...upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law, or is any proceeding now pending?" In response to the question, Respondent wrote "see attached". Petitioner's files contain the application but do not contain the attachment. Respondent did not retain a copy of the attachment. Respondent testified that in the attachment he disclosed the investigation related to his licensure as a nursing home administrator. There is no evidence contradicting his testimony. The Respondent's real estate salesman's license was issued effective December 30, 1988. On July 2, 1991, an Administrative Complaint was filed by the Department of Professional Regulation against the Respondent alleging failure to assure competent nursing management, staffing, and care in the referenced nursing home. Following an informal hearing, which left the matter unresolved, the Department of Professional Regulation, on December 18, 1990, filed an Amended Administrative Complaint specifically alleging that an investigation in July of 1988 revealed medical neglect and inadequate supervision and care of patients in the facility. On January 23, 1991, the Respondent executed a voluntary relinquishment of license. The executed document states that the Respondent entered into the agreement "[t]o avoid the necessity of further administrative proceedings in this case" and that the licensure was relinquished "with the provision that Respondent agrees never again to apply for licensure as a nursing home administrator in the State of Florida." At the time the license was relinquished, Respondent was no longer associated with or employed in the nursing home industry. He does not intend to re-enter the industry, and was therefore amenable to relinquishing his license. On February 18, 1991, the Florida Board of Nursing Home Administrators, Florida Department of Professional Regulation, issued a Final Order in which tie Board found "that all the allegations in the Administrative Complaint are accepted and Respondent may voluntary (sic) relinquish his license. " There is no evidence which indicates that the Respondent failed to cooperate in the nursing home investigation or in the instant matter. There is no evidence that Respondent has been unable or unwilling to appropriately discharge his responsibilities as a real estate salesman or broker.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order taking no action against the licensure of Edward Grant Markley as a real estate broker. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 28th day of August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The controversy Forum Group, Inc. (Forum Group), Hillsborough Healthcare, Ltd. (Hillsborough Healthcare), Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest), and Careage House Healthcare Center (Careage) filed applications for certificates of need for community nursing homes in Hillsborough County, which is a subdistrict of HRS district VI. The applications were filed in the July, 1986, batching cycle, for need in July, 1989, known as the planning horizon. As amended prior to being deemed complete by HRS, Hillsborough Healthcare and Careage sought 120 beds, Health Quest sought 88 beds, and Forum Group sought 60 beds. All of the applications satisfy and are consistent with state and local health plans. The Department's free form preliminary action Ordinarily, the Department's preliminary decision on these applications would have been issued in November or December of 1986. In these cases, the parties were orally advised of the Department's preliminary action in January, 1987, but the state agency action report containing that preliminary decision was not issued until August, 1987. The delay in decision making in this case occurred due to the altered process of free form decision making that was used in this case. Careage filed a number of applications in the July, 1986, batching cycle, in a number of subdistricts. The preliminary review conducted by HRS determined there to be bed need in four of the counties in which Careage had applications: Hillsborough, Polk, Pinellas, and Lee. During free form agency decision making on the applications in this batching cycle, Ms. Marta Hardy was the Deputy Assistant of Regulation and Health Facilities for the Department. T. 1024. Her duties included responsibility to oversee the issuance of certificates of need and develop health planning policies. Id. Ms. Hardy was the direct supervisor of Robert Maryanski, who was the head of the office of community medical facilities, and Robert Sharp, who was the head of the office of comprehensive health planning. T. 1024. Mr. Maryanski was the direct supervisor of Mr. Reid Jaffe who reviewed the applications in Hillsborough county. Preliminary decisions on the applications in this batch were normally due in November, 1986. It was the normal procedure at the Department to review applications for certificates of need in the following manner. First, an employee in the position entitled "medical facilities consultant" reviewed all applications in the batching cycle for a particular district or subdistrict and made recommendations on each application. These recommendations were then reviewed by his supervisor, the medical facilities consultant supervisor. The recommendations of the medical facilities consultant supervisor upon each application then went to Mr. Maryanski. In Hillsborough, Polk, Pinellas, and Lee Counties in the July, 1986, batching cycle, all reviewers found there to be a bed need. In the normal course of business, all reviewers forwarded through Mr. Maryanski and to Ms. Hardy recommendations that did not recommend the award of a certificate of need to Careage in any of these four counties. T. 1057, 1055, 1281-82. Mr. Maryanski told Mr. Jaffe to "find a way" to approve the Careage application in Pinellas County. T. 1283-84. The time of this communication is not in the record. At about the time that Careage applied for certificates of need (August or September, 1986), Ms. Hardy had dinner with the owner of Careage, Mr. Gene Lynn, Mr. Lynn's wife, and Mr. Ralph Haben. T. 1040. At that meeting, the representatives of Careage told Ms. Hardy that Careage operated nursing homes in other states in which care of good quality was provided. T. 1060. Mr. Haben is an attorney, and was then representing Careage. T. 1059. Mr. Haben and Ms. Hardy had been friends since the late 1970's, and in August and September, 1986, they had had lunch or dinner together socially four or five times. T. 1041- 49. In December, 1986, after Departmental staff had preliminarily recommended that Careage's applications be disapproved in the four counties in which was there was need, Ms. Hardy determined to ask Robert Sharp to review applications in the four counties. The result of Mr. Sharp's review was to recommend approval of the Careage application in the four counties. That recommendation was approved by Ms. Hardy. Mr. Sharp was responsible for health planning. He normally had nothing to do with review of certificate of need applications, although he had reviewed some hospital applications in the past. T. 1054. Ms. Hardy had come to the conclusion that Careage provided care of good quality. T. 1063. At the time she formed that opinion, Careage did not operate any nursing homes, and had not done so since 1982. Mr. Sharp understood that Ms. Hardy was impressed with Careage, but did not know the basis for such favorable impression. T. 940. Ms. Hardy told Mr. Sharp that she did not believe that the current method of comparative review of applications was adequate, and used Careage as an example of a best qualified applicant that was overlooked by the current method. T. 940. Mr. Sharp developed a method for comparative review of the applications in the batch for Hillsborough County and the other counties. The method has been referred to in the record as a matrix. Mr. Sharp simply selected certain aspects of the applications for comparison. Two types of information were selected: numerically quantified information, and "program characteristics," which called for a determination whether the selected item existed or did not exist in the proposal. The "matrix" also had a narrative for some of the applicants. Mr. Sharp used Careage as the standard of comparison for all other applicants in the comments section. There was no evidence that the items selected by Mr. Sharp were unreasonable or unfair. The items selected appear to be reasonably related to the task of comparing the virtues of the applicants. The items, for the most part, simply are based on information required by the Department in the application form. The matrix was found in September, 1987, to contain numerous factual errors, and the Department issued a revision. H.Q. Ex. 27. Need pursuant to rule 10-5.011(1)(k) Licensed beds in the district (LB) The number of licensed beds in the district (LB) as of June 1, 1986, was at least 5,964. T. 1706. This figure is derived by adding the 5,557 licensed beds shown on the August 25, 1986, semi-annual nursing home census report, H.Q. Ex. 16, to the 407 additional community nursing home beds that has been erroneously classified as sheltered nursing home beds. None of the other testimony credibly establishes this base figure. There is a dispute as to whether 96 additional beds at the Home Association should be considered licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986. The Home Association was founded in 1899. It is officially recognized that there was no certificate of need requirement in 1899. The Home Association has never received a certificate of need. Thus, it is inferred that the Home Association was never "issued" beds for "nonrestrictive use." At the time that the Home Association was licensed, there was no license category of "sheltered bed. Prior to 1982, there was no statute defining a "sheltered bed." T 1721-22. Thus, prior to 1979, the Home Association was not 1,issued" beds as "sheltered beds" or "for restrictive use". The Home Association is in the district and in the subdistrict, Hillsborough County. The Home Association had 96 beds in 1972, and had the same number on June 1, 1986. On or about August 20, 1986, HRS sent a letter to the Home Association. HQ Ex. 9. The letter stated that HRS records currently identified the Home Association as a "sheltered nursing home/continuing care facility licensed under Chapter 651, F. S.," but that HRS records did not indicate the date of the initial CON. The letter stated that the specific number of beds allocated to community and sheltered nursing home beds were listed below. At the bottom of the letter, HRS listed 96 beds in the column and line identified as current number of sheltered nursing home beds. The Home Association was told to review the data and make changes and return the letter to HRS. It further stated that a failure to respond would be interpreted as approval of the HRS listed bed allocations. The letter then provided four blanks for the Home Association to respond. The first two provided places to show the "corrected number of beds" both on a line identifying such beds as "community nursing home beds," and a line identify such beds as "sheltered nursing home beds." The Home Association left these lines blank. The third blank asked for the certificate of need number and date. The Home Association typed in: "The Home was founded in 1899; no certificate of need was issued." The fourth blank stated: "Sign Here if Corrections Requested." Initials appear in handwriting in that blank. H.Q. Ex. 9. The response of the Home Association was ambiguous. Having signed the fourth blank, thus seemingly communicating a desire to "correct" the form, the Home Association failed to tell HRS whether it wanted to correct the number of beds or the classification of the beds, or some combination thereof. HRS's need expert admitted that the only way one could settle the question would be to call the Home Association. T. 1724. The problem is further compounded by the way in which the letter from HRS was drafted. The letter did not ask the Home Association to provide information concerning the "historical utilization" of the 96 beds at the Home Association, and thus did not collect any information as to "historical utilization." See the last sentence of section 651.118(8), Fla. Stat. (1987). Instead, it told the Home Association that HRS records identified the Home Association as a sheltered nursing home/continuing care facility licensed under chapter 651. It also told the Home Association that "any nursing home bed located in a continuing care facility and not approved specifically as a sheltered nursing home bed and any nursing home bed located in a life care facility prior to 1979 shall be classified as a community nursing home bed." And the letter appeared to allow the Home Association an opportunity to request a "change in status" only if it had been issued a certificate of need as a community nursing home bed after 1979 and before 1982. It may be that when the Home Association wrote back that it had no certificate of need issued, and that it had been in existence since 1899, the Home Association was simply telling HRS that its beds fell in the category of automatically being community nursing home beds because "located in a life care facility prior to 1979." If the Home Association beds are counted as community nursing home beds, then those 96 beds are added to 5,964, and LB is 6,060. Licensed beds in the subdistrict (LBD) On June 1, 1986, there were 2,612 licensed beds (LBD) in the subdistrict, Hillsborough County. If the 96 beds at the Home Association are counted as community nursing home beds, then LBD is 2,708. Current populations (POPC and POPD) Whether POPC and POPD are the populations on January 1, 1986, or July 1, 1986 HRS divides the regulatory function with respect to certificates of need into two program offices. The office of comprehensive health planning (OCMF) is ordinarily responsible for writing the rules and developing the methodologies for the certificate of need program. It is also responsible for writing the state health plan. The office of community medical facilities (OCMF), which is now called the office of community health services and facilities, is normally responsible for making decisions upon applications for certificates of need. T. 929 (The transcript is in error on line 11; it should read OCMF), 930, 936, 1748, 1251. There are exceptions. T. 937 From 1984 through 1986, the office of comprehensive health planning routinely issued semiannual reports in which it calculated the need for community nursing home beds. H.Q. Exs. 12-18. T. 970-971, 1251. In each of these reports, bed need was projected for an established date. In each of these reports, the "current populations" (the base populations from which the need projection was made) were 3.5 years earlier than the date upon which need was projected. H.Q. Exs. 12-18; T. 1253. From 1984 through 1986, notwithstanding the fact that the semiannual report was based upon a 3.5 year period of need projection, the office of community medical facilities sometimes used a 3.0 year period of projection to actually issue certificates of need. T. 1254. That practice was not uniform within the office of community medical facilities. A number of certificate of need applications were issued based upon the calculations of need in the semiannual nursing home report, which used a 3.5 year period of projection. T. 560-561. It is officially recognized that several formal administrative hearings were settled using a 3.5 year period of projection of need. Health Quest Realty d/b/a Regents Park of Sarasota v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Final Order issued October 25, 1985 (CON number 3278), DOAH case number 84-3389, which was an exhibit in DOAH case number 86-0050, both cases which were before this Hearing Officer; Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Regents Park of Broward v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 2485, DOAH case number 84- 3297. But even that deviation was not uniform. It is officially recognized that in Manor Care of Hillsborough County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1102, DOAH case number 86-0051, HRS proposed at the formal administrative hearing to use a 2 year period of projection, using 1986 populations as "current" populations, although the applications were filed in 1985, and need was being projected in 1988. See paragraph 18, findings of fact, of that recommended order, which was written by this Hearing Officer. See also T. 1290. It is also officially recognized that in Forum Group, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 8 F.A.L.R. 5438, 5445, para. 15, the Department used January 1986, as the starting date for a projection to July, 1987, an 18 month period of projection. It would serve no useful purpose to review all the other orders in the files of the Division of Administrative Hearings. It may be concluded from the foregoing that the way in which HRS has interpreted the meaning of "current" populations in its nursing home rule in the period from 1984 to 1986 was inconsistent. In fact HRS did not uniformly use a 3.5 year period of projection as now urged by the Petitioners. Since it has been concluded as a matter of law that the values of POPC and POPD must be determined as of July 1, 1986, no findings of fact will be made as to the populations on January 1, 1986. Whether POPC and POPD are determined from the July 1, 1986, or the May 12, 1987 release of Governor's estimates and projections The Governor's estimates and projections of population are prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research and the University of Florida. T. 240. The Governor's estimates are released twice a year. T. 241. A population estimate, such as POPC or POPD, is an educated guess as to current population size. T. 239. A population projection, such as POPA or POPB, is a mathematical prediction of what a future population size will be. T. 240. The Governor's population estimates are based primarily upon actual data collected with respect to residential electric hookups combined with local information about housing mixes and national data about household size, persons per household, and institutional or group populations. T. 240, 242. The information is gathered each year. T. 242. The Governor's population projections are based upon the most recent population estimate projected forward using assumptions about future migration, mortality, and fertility. T. 240, 242. The May 12, 1987, Governor's population estimates and projections were the official Governor's release on the date of the formal administrative hearing, and were then the most current release. T. 241. The May 12, 1987, Governor's population estimates and projections for July 1, 1986, and July 1, 1989, were more accurate than the release by the Governor on July 1, 1986 for the following reasons: The May 12, 1987, projection of populations on July 1, 1989, is more accurate because the projection only attempts to project two years into the future. The July 1, 1986, release tries to project three years into the future. Extrapolation is more accurate over a shorter period of time because the underlying assumptions upon which the extrapolation is based will be assumed to remain constant for a shorter period of time. Stated another way, fewer things typically go wrong with the assumption that assumptions will remain constant over a short period of time rather than a longer period of time. T. 243-244. The May 12, 1987, projection of populations on July 1, 1989, are based upon actual hard data (electric hookups) for July 1, 1986, projected forward. The July 1, 1986, projection of populations for July 1, 1989, was not based upon a population estimate, but was based upon a population projection as to the population on July 1, 1986, which itself was based upon electric hookup data from an earlier period. T. 244. (This is also the reason that the May 12, 1987, estimate of July 1, 1986, populations, is more accurate than the projection of that population released on July 1, 1986.) The May 12, 1987, projection of populations on July 1, 1989, are based more current (actual 1986) figures upon which the extrapolation is made: actual levels of fertility, mortality, and migration for 1986, as well as 1980 through 1985. The July 1, 1986, release did not have this better data available, and had to rely on figures for only 1980 through 1985. T. 244. The district has grown at about 2.9 percent a year from 1980 to 1986. The July 1, 1986, release projects a rate of growth in each year from July 1, 1986, to July 1, 1989 of only 1.6 percent, or only one-half of the actual observed rate. There is no basis to conclude that the district growth rate in the period 1986-1989 will be one-half the rate observed in the prior six years. T. 245. The July 1, 1986, release bases its projection of July 1, 1989, populations upon an extrapolation based in part upon mortality rates from 1980 mortality tables. However, the mortality rates for the age groups involved, ages 65-74 and 75+, have substantially declined since the 1980 tables were compiled. T. 247-248. Elfie Stamm is Supervisor of the HRS Health Care Facilities and Services office. That office is responsible for all HRS health planning activities, including development of regulations for the certificate of need program, issuance of health policies governing the certificate of need program, and development of the state health plan. Ms. Stamm thought that the May 12, 1987, release of Governor's estimates and projections of populations was more accurate than the July 1, 1986, release because it was based on more up-to-date data. F.G. Ex. 15. The effect of selecting the May 12, 1987, release of populations, rather than the July 1, 1986, release upon the net need projected for the subdistrict in July, 1989, by HRS's rule is exceptionally dramatic: if the July 1, 1986, release is used, the net bed need is 143, and if the May 12, 1987, release is used, the net bed need is 300, assuming other factors are held constant (the projection period and the Home Association beds). HQ Ex. 4. Thus, use of the May 12, 1987, release of populations reveals 100 percent more bed need in 1989 than use of the July 1, 1986, release. HRS presented only one justification or basis for its policy of using the July 1, 1986, release of population estimates and projections: those were the most current estimates and projections at the time the applicants filed their applications and subsequently when the agency conducted its review of the applications in the batching cycle and developed its proposed agency action. T. 1709. The July 1, 1986, release of population estimates and projections was not available, however, when the applicants in this batch had to file their letters of intent. T. 1286. Based upon the Governor's estimates of population released on May 12, 1987, the estimated population on July 1, 1986, for age 65-74 (POPC) was 134,968, and for age 75+ (POPD) was 94,402. H.H. Ex. 6. Projected populations on July 1, 1989, POPA and POPB Based upon the Governor's projections of population released on May l2, 1987, the projected population on July 1, 1989, for age 65-74 (POPA) was 149,771, and for age 75+ (POPB) was 108,400. H.H. Ex. 6. The occupancy rate The occupancy rate for the 2,612 licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict for October, 1985, through March, 1986, was 94.18 percent. T. 1707. If the 96 nursing home beds at the Home Association are counted as licensed community nursing home beds within the subdistrict, the occupancy rate within the subdistrict for October, 1985, through March, 1986, was 94.29 percent for these 2,708 beds. This is derived by averaging the occupancy rate of the Home Association for the six month period, which is 97.225 percent, see T. 1725, and then factoring the two rates together as follows: (97.225 X 96/2708)) + (94.18 X 2612/2708)= 94.29. The date for determining licensed beds and approved beds for purposes of determining net need in the final calculation The number of approved beds was 368 whether one relies upon the date that the supervisor signed the state agency action report, T. 1708, or August 25, 1986, which is the date of the semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocations, H.Q. Ex. 16. It appears that all parties agree to use of 368 for AB in the formula. See T. 1708, 437; F.G. Ex. 8. Since that is the case, the following findings of fact are made in the event that the Hearing Officer has overlooked evidence on this point in this voluminous record. HRS relies again on incipient policy for the date of determination of the number of approved beds. That policy is to determine the number of approved beds in the subdistrict on the date that the supervisor signs the state agency action report, a date different from the date that licensed beds are determined. T. 1708, 1716. Pursuant to this policy, the date for determining approved beds will vary, but will always be later than the date of determining licensed beds. T. 1291. The basis for this incipient policy was not explained in this record. T. 1698-1711, 1711-1728, 1291-1295, 1746-1764. Mr. Jaffe, the supervisor in this case, first signed the state agency action report in mid-November, 1986. T. 1295. Subsequently, however there were several superseding state agency action reports, and the report signed originally by Mr. Jaffe was never issued. As a result, the last state agency action report in this case was not issued until August 18, 1987, over one year after the initial applications were filed. This was an irregular procedure, and not the way state agency action reports normally are issued. T. 1714. Moreover, the state agency action report issued in August, 1987, did not have a line or signature for the supervisor, Mr. Jaffe, to sign. T. 1292; F.G. Ex. 5. Changes to the application of Forum Group Forum Group's original application for certificate of need in this case is F.G. Ex. 3. It should be noted that this exhibit contains some revisions to tables that were filed by Forum Group before HRS deemed application to be complete, and thus superseded earlier tables in the same exhibit. At the formal administrative hearing, Forum Group submitted an "update" of its application for certificate of need which was prepared about a year after the initial application, as amended, was filed. The update is F.G. Ex. 6. T. 43. Table 7 of both applications contains Forum Group's plan for utilization by class of pay. Table 7 in the original application was for the first year of operation. Table 7 of the update is for the second year of operation. Table 8 of the application is a list of projected patient charges by reimbursement or charge type. Table 8 of the update is significantly different from the original application. Table 8 of the original application, F.G. Ex. 3, listed charges that were consistent with then current charges at other Forum Group facilities. T. 185. The update is for an effective date two years later. Although Forum Group presented evidence that the charges in the updated table 8 were reasonable, T. 189, it claimed that the above increases were solely due to the two year difference in the tables. T. 195. There is also evidence that the revised charges in table 8 was based upon a telephone survey conducted of subdistrict nursing homes three months prior to the formal administrative hearing. Forum Group was unable to provide any evidence as to whether the charges in the updated table 8 were based upon data that was not available to Forum Group when the original table 8 was prepared; moreover, Forum Group did not prove that the data was such that Forum Group could not, and reasonably should not, have been expected to have gathered for its original application. T. 198. The revisions of table 8 were not based upon ordinary inflation. Forum Group assumed in both the original table 8 and the revised table 8 that the inflation rate impact on charges between the first and second year of operation would be only 3.5 percent, T. 199. Forum Group's expert on charges was of the opinion that the inflation rate for expenses would be about 3.5 percent. T. 200-201. The increases in charges shown on table 8 of the update are much greater than expected inflation. For example, the charge for Medicaid ICF semiprivate rooms increased from $50 to $63, an increase of 26 percent. The charge for private pay ICF private rooms increased from $75 to $115, an increase of 53 percent. Table 10 of the application is a projection of patient days and occupancy percentages for each month over the first two years of occupancy. The revision to table 10, F.G. Ex. 6, were prompted by the delay in the case, resulting in an initial opening date two years later. The revisions to table 10 in the update were also based upon the prior experience of Forum Group and a telephone survey of subdistrict nursing homes to obtain more current fillup and occupancy rates. T. 39, 79-80, 84-87. The telephone survey was conducted after the initial application was deemed to be complete. Table 11 of the application sets forth the "manpower" requirements, specifying full time equivalents and annual salaries. Revised table 11 in F.G. Ex. 6 contains changes both in annual salary levels and in FTE's. The dietary supervisor and maintenance supervisor are new positions in the revised table 11, and would be shared with the retirement living facility. These positions could have been reported in the original table 11. T. 164; F.G. Ex. 6. The revised table 11 reports positions for utility workers, positions not in the original application but which could have been reported in the original table 11. T. 166. The revised table 11 has fewer registered nurses and licensed practical nurses than the original application. This change was based upon Forum Group's decision that this new staffing pattern would be more efficient. While the testimony attributed this to a difference in projected occupancy in the first year (95 percent instead of 74.4 percent), this is not a plausible reason for changing the number of RN FTE's from 5.3 to 4.3, or the number of LPN FTE'S from 3.6 to 2.8, since one would expect a need for more nursing at higher occupancy. The revised staffing pattern could have been contained in the original application. T. 166, 170. The increases in salaries reported in the revised table 11 were caused in part by inflation (a later opening date). T. 161-62. The revision in salaries was based upon a survey of salaries conducted a year after the application was filed, T. 162. Considered in the new survey was new information concerning federal requirements for professionals that was estimated to make the professional hiring shortage even worse. Id. It is concluded that the basis for the revisions to the salaries was market data that could not have been available to Forum Group when it filed its original application. Table 25 of the application covers estimated project costs. Revised table 25, F.G. Ex. 6, contains changes of two types: shifts of costs from one accounting line to another, and new estimates of costs based upon a later date of construction. T. 66-67, 91-94. The new estimates of costs were based upon inflation and the current construction experience off Forum Group, both of which would not have been available to Forum Group when it filed its initial application. T. 66-67. The shifts in costs by accounting line (even though one shift was to operating costs), considered alone, did not substantially change the total project cost. T. 91-94. The construction costs contained in the revised table 25, F.G. Ex. 6, are projected to be $1,654,826, which is 12 percent greater than the $1,466,500 originally projected. This new estimate is based upon inflation, current construction experience, and a decision to reduce some less essential space to lower costs. T. 66-67, 1461-65. The inflation rate is estimated to be higher than 3.5 percent in 1990, and the date of commencement of construction is inferred to be two years later than the date assumed in the original application. The revised projection is also more conservative, based upon Forum Group's analysis of current market data. The revised construction cost is thus adequately based upon new data that was not available to Forum Group when it filed its original application. As a result of inflation, Forum Group decided to reduce some space that was less essential. The reduction of space is reflected in revised tables 17 through 20 of F.G. Ex. 6. Forum Group's initial application (F.G. Ex. 3) did not mention or discuss patient treatment plans, patient rights, patient councils, or Alzheimer's programs. It did, however, list 10 special areas of nursing that it would provide, many of which are in the subacute area. See, e.g., ventilator care and compare T. 150. The revised pro forma of operating expenses projects total operating expenses in the first year of $923,153 and $1,256,991 in the second year. F.G. Ex. 6. The original application, as revised before deemed complete, reported total operating expenses of $659,900 and $740,693, respectively, for these same projected years. The new information in the revised pro forma was explained as based upon a projection of higher use by private pay patients and faster fillup, as well as some inflation. T. 202. The change clearly is not explained as a simple matter of inflation, since the increases are about 50 percent in each of the years. T. 201-202. Changes to the application of Health Quest The original Health Quest application is H.Q. Ex. 1, as amended by H.Q. Ex. 2, and is for an 88 bed community nursing home facility. Health Quest submitted a revised application for 60 beds dated a year later, in September, 1987. H.Q. Ex. 3. Table 8 of the application is the list of projected charges by patient type. The revised application, H.Q. Ex. 3, increased charges from 25 to 34 percent. This new information was not based solely upon inflation assumptions, but was based upon increased assumptions about operating costs, and a decision to make a more conservative projection. T. 629, 690-91. Health Quest did not prove that these assumptions were based upon data not available when the original application was filed. Table 11 of the application lists manpower by position and projected annual salary. The revised table 11, H.Q. Ex. 3, increases the numbers of registered nurses and licensed practical nurses from the original application. The new data is based upon the experience of Health Quest in the year following the filing of the original application. T. 630. The testimony on pages 688-89 of the transcript is not inconsistent with the testimony on page 630. It is evident that a change in planning took place, and that the change in planning was based upon new experience. Table 17 of the revised Health Quest application, H.Q. Ex. 3, does not have six 3 bed rooms which had been planned for the facility in table 17 of the original application, as amended, H.Q. Ex. 2. This new information was not caused by the reduction of the application from 88 beds to 60 beds. Health Quest did not credibly prove that its decision to delete 3 bed rooms from its project was based upon data that it could not have had when it filed its original application. T. 630-31. Table 18 of the revised application, H.Q. Ex. 3, changes the square footage of 1 bed rooms from 150 to 216. Health Quest did not credibly prove that its decision to make this change was based upon data that it could not have obtained when it filed its original application. T. 632-33. Changes to the application of Careage Careage presented new information at the hearing which consisted of Careage Exhibits 18-22 and 24-25. The changes to these exhibits were based solely upon a small (3 percent) inflation rate or a different starting date. T. 1570-85. There was also a decrease in utility rates of an apparent few thousand dollars. Compare C. Ex 25 to C. Ex. 3, attachment 12. T. 1583-85. The new projection of utility rates was shown to be based upon new information from the utility company, and new heating and cooling technology. T. 1584. Changes to the application of Hillsborough Healthcare Hillsborough Healthcare did not submit any changes to its application. The merits of the Careage application Credibility of the Careage application Credibility of Mr. Gentle Russell Gentle is Careage's Vice President for nursing home operations, and is responsible for development of the nursing home at issue in this case, and operation of the facility after it opens, as well as development and operations of other Careage nursing homes. T. 1487. The application filed by Careage in this case was prepared by Mr. Gentle, with the exception of the section on need. T. 1491. Mr. Gentle was called as an expert witness for Careage to provide opinion testimony to substantiate the Careage application and to prove the nature of the facility that Careage states it would build and operate if granted a certificate of need. T. 1491-93. Mr. Gentle testified twice that he had a bachelor's degree with a major in accounting from the Alaska Methodist University. T. 1487, 1493. This testimony was presented in order to have Mr. Gentle qualified as an expert witness. Mr. Gentle was tendered as an expert in several areas, including nursing home finance. T. 1493. Upon voir dire examination, and after it became obvious that counsel conducting the examination had investigated Mr. Gentle's academic credentials, 1493, Mr. Gentle admitted that he did not have a degree in accounting, but that his degree had been in science. T. 1496. A motion was made to have Mr. Gentle precluded from testifying as a witness due to his untruthful testimony. T. 1497-98. The motion for the sanction of preclusion of testimony was denied, but the tender of expertise was denied for lack of credible evidence in the record as to expert credentials. T. 1499, 1504, 1512-13, 1514-16. Since the witness had intentionally lied about his college education, a matter of importance in determining expertise, the remainder of the witness's testimony as to his experience and expert credentials was tainted and not credible. There was no independent evidence of the training and experience of the witness, other than from his own testimony. The tender of expertise thus was denied for lack of credible evidence of expertise in the record. If Mr. Gentle's testimony concerning his experience in nursing home development had been credible, the evidence of such experience was not sufficient to qualify Mr. Gentle as an expert in nursing home development. Since 1985, he had been fully responsible for development of only two nursing homes, and assisted in the development of five others. T. 1509, 1489, 1514-15. If Mr. Gentle's testimony concerning his experience in nursing home operation and administration had been credible, the evidence of such experience was not sufficiently detailed to qualify him as an expert in nursing home operation and administration. T. 1513-15. Mr. Gentle had never served as a nursing home administrator. T. 1494. Mr. Gentle testified that in 1972 he went to work for the State of Alaska as an auditor in the Department of Health and Social Services. He further testified that he worked his way up through the sections and became chief Medicaid auditor for the state of Alaska. T. 1487. The employment record for Mr. Gentle, however, from the State of Alaska was admitted into evidence without objection. H.H. Ex. 33. That record shows a starting date of work in 1973, not 1972. More important, it does not show continuous employment consistent with the claim of having worked "up through the sections." The record shows no employment of Mr. Gentle by the State of Alaska for 2 and 1/2 years, from July, 1973, through March, 1976, and the only employment is in temporary positions, not in permanent positions expected to have been in the "sections" Mr. Gentle "worked up through." Finally, the employment record only shows Mr. Gentle in a position as an accountant IV (temporary) for a 9 month period in 1976. Mr. Gentle's testimony that he obtained the position of chief Medicaid auditor for the State of Alaska after working his way up through the sections is not credible. Mr. Gentle testified that C. Ex. 15 was an excerpt from the magazine "Contemporary Long-Term Care," and that this excerpt was the section of the magazine that included an award. T. 1541-42. He testified that all of the narrative in the exhibit was part of the magazine and the award. T. 1542. This is testimony was incorrect. The last page of the exhibit contains narrative that is advertisement prepared by Careage. The typeset is identical to that in the interior pages as well. Thus, pages 2-4 of the exhibit are not excerpts from the magazine. Mr. Gentle did not choose his words with care as he testified. Table 11 (projected salaries and FTE's) is a part she original application filed with HRS in July of 1986. Mr. Gentle testified that in part the projected salaries were based upon salaries that "Careage is paying to its existing staff." T. 1557. At that time, Careage did not operate any nursing home. Mr. Gentle could have meant that these were salaries in nursing homes leased out by Careage, but his choice of words was misleading. Whether Careage will operate the facility Careage was started in 1962, and since that time it has constructed more than 270 new hospitals, nursing homes, and related facilities. Generally, Careage has built facilities for others to operate. T. 1516-17. A few of these (seven were named, T. 1520) may have been operated by Careage, but the vast majority were not. T. 1591-1520. In 1982, Careage ceased all nursing home operations. T. 1592. From 1982 through 1985, Careage did nothing but hospital development. T. 1519. In 1985, Careage decided to build and operate nursing homes, and in March 1985, hired Mr. Gentle to set up the operating arm of the corporation with respect to nursing homes. T 1513, 1518. In July, 1986, when Careage filed its application for a certificate of need, Careage did not operate any nursing homes in the country. T. 1595. It appears that the first nursing home now operated by Careage was opened in December, 1986. T. 1610. At the time of the formal hearing, Careage operated and managed three nursing homes on its own, and jointly managed three others. (Another was said to be "jointly operated by others.") T. 1519-20. All of these facilities are in western states. In the letter of intent, Gene D. Lynn, the proposed owner of the proposed facility, and the sole owner of Careage, stated his intent to operate the proposed nursing home in Hillsborough County. C. Ex. 3, attachment 8. The application, C. Ex. 3, asserts on page 4-24: Each community and situation is unique. There are times in which we operate directly through Healthco Management (a wholly owned subsidiary). In all cases, we establish the operating procedures and pro forma and closely monitor each facility. This strategy has generated such a successful program that, in twenty-four years of business, we can boast at never having missed a debt service payment nor have we had a single incident of governmental intervention into our operations. (E.S.) The clearly intended implication of the foregoing portion of the application is that for 24 years, Careage has either operated its nursing homes (which in the majority of cases was untrue) or, if it did not operate its nursing homes, it "closely monitored each facility." The statement in the application that Careage closely monitors each facility is not true, at least with respect to currently leased facilities. Mr. Gentle, who is in charge of nursing home operations for Careage, does not routinely review state licensure survey reports for leased facilities. T. 1842. Leased facility reports may be reviewed by the Careage leasing section, which is separate from nursing home operations. T. 1842. The only monitoring that Careage does with respect to leased facilities is to step in if there is government intervention. T. 1843. Careage has retained the contractual right to intervene in the operations of a leased facility only "in cases of severe problems in a facility." (E.S.) T. 1518. The statement in the application, P. 4-24, concerning the history of Careage as to operation or supervision of nursing homes is misleading. As will be discussed ahead, Careage representatives were either confused about the operation of nursing homes by Careage (Dr. Etten) or used words in a manner that misrepresented the operational status of Careage (Mr. Gentle and representatives of Careage at a dinner meeting with Ms. Hardy). These misleading statements, coupled with the prior history generally of not operating nursing homes, lead to the conclusion that Careage has not proved that it will operate the proposed nursing home in Hillsborough County by a preponderance of the credible evidence. Substantive aspects of the application General provisions Careage's original application proposed to construct 120 beds, 10 of which would be a subacute unit, 21 of which would be an Alzheimer's unit, and the remaining 89 beds would be general SNC/ICF (skilled/intermediate) nursing care beds. C. Ex. 3, P. 2-1. Four of the ten subacute unit beds would be designated for neonates and technology dependent children. C. Ex. 3, P. 3-6; T. 1522. The 10 bed subacute unit is proposed to provide 24 hour nursing care patients who are recovering from strokes, craniotomy patients, comatose victims of accidents, and others suffering serious chronic maladies. T. 1212. Nursing services to be provided include tube feedings, ventilators, tracheostomies, continuous intravenous infusion, hyperalimentation, total parenteral nutritional care, and inhalation therapy. T. 1213. The program proposed by Careage conforms to professional standards for such a program. Id. The 21 bed Alzheimer's disease unit is designed and intended to provide an environment adapted for the special needs of those patients. The design and program emphasizes low stimulation, safe ambulation, and simplicity to minimize confusion. The design is considerably more therapeutic for such patients than commingling such patients among other patients in an ordinary nursing home setting. T. 1206-12, 1432, 1474-75. The precise number of skilled and intermediate care nursing beds is unclear. At least 39 beds will be skilled nursing, and 21 beds for the Alzheimer's patients. T. 1136. Careage intends to concentrate on skilled nursing care rather than intermediate care. T. 1523, 1678. Careage does not intend to serve the market for intermediate care. Id.; C. Ex. 3, attachment 8. Careage did not include adult day care in its application, T. 1142, 1592, because it takes the position that adult day care does not require a certificate of need. T. 1592. Careage in fact will not offer adult day care. T. 1192. Careage intends to provide respite care at the facility. T. 1531. Careage estimates that 37 percent of its patients will be Medicaid patients. T. 1361. Quality assurance The nursing quality assurance programs described in the application of Careage are adequate, and would be adequate if implemented by Careage. T. 1221. Dr. Etten testified for Careage concerning her visit to two nursing homes owned by Careage. She did not express an opinion that the Careage quality assurance program in fact would be implemented based upon these visits. She did not describe the current operation of any Careage quality assurance program. She simply stated that she was favorably impressed by the physical environment in those two nursing homes. T. 1221-26. One of the facilities was in Salt Lake City, Utah, and there is no evidence in the record that Careage operates that facility. See T. 1519-20. Indeed, Dr. Etten later admitted on cross examination that she knew the Utah facility was not operated by Careage. T. 1234. Throughout the application process, Careage tended to misrepresent its status as an existing operator of nursing homes providing care of good quality. As discussed above, in the meeting in August or September, 1986, attended by Mr. and Mrs. Lynn, Mr. Haben, and Ms. Hardy, Careage's representatives told Ms. Hardy that Careage operated nursing homes in other states in which care of good quality was provided. T. 1060. The application, at page 4-24, appeared to assert that Careage had 24 years of experience operating nursing homes. Mr. Gentle represented that proposed salaries were based upon salaries in nursing homes currently operated by Careage. These statements were not true. Careage leased facilities, but did not operate any facilities at that time of the application, and its history had been primarily in the development of health care facilities for operation by others. Careage did not exercise close operational control of the leased facilities. And Dr. Etten seemed unconcerned as to what entity was operating the Utah nursing home that she visited. Her failure to do so caused her testimony to appear to be representative of the quality of care actually provided at Careage operated nursing homes. For these reasons, Careage did not prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it has had a history of operation of nursing homes, that it has had a significant history of providing nursing care of good quality, that it has had substantial experience in management of quality assurance programs, or that it would in fact implement the quality assurance program reviewed by Dr. Etten. Staffing Staffing, particularly nursing staffing, is established based upon the assumption that most of the beds at the Careage facility will be at least skilled nursing care beds, and some will be Alzheimer's disease beds or subacute beds, including beds for technology dependent children. Attachment 14, Ex. 3. The nursing staffing proposed by Careage is adequate. T. 1216. Other staffing proposed by Careage is based upon staffing at other facilities owned by Careage and standards in HRS rules. T. 1557, 1559. It is concluded that other staffing is adequate. The projected annual salaries for staff are reasonable. T. 1648, 1656, 1680-81. The objection to this testimony, taken under advisement, was overruled. T. 1687. The witness amply demonstrated expertise with regard salary levels. Construction and facility design The building proposed by Careage would be one story and have 45,500 square feet for 120 residents, or a total of 379.17 gross square feet per bed. T. 1133. The application represents that the net square foot area for living space in 2 bed (semiprivate) rooms is 283 to 295 square feet. C. Ex. 3, table This was an exaggeration. The actual square footage was shown to be substantially less upon cross examination: 213.75 square feet of living space for semiprivate rooms. This figure is based upon the fact revealed upon cross examination that the length of the room for purposes of calculating gross square feet is 23.5 feet instead of 24 feet, 4 inches. This correction reduces gross living square footage for the living area to 305.5, and net to 213.75. The floor plan, site plan, and space programs in the proposed design are adequate and will meet or exceed all requirements of Florida law. T. 1137. The nursing home floor plan does not include a space for adult day care. T. 1142. Careage projects that construction costs will be $56.77 per square foot. This estimate is in line with estimates of other applicants and is reasonable. T. 1176-78. Construction costs equate to $21,526 per bed. Careage did not include an estimate of costs for equipment for technology dependent children, but plans to cover this with funds estimated for contingencies. T. 1195. The amount of such costs is not in evidence. Id. The estimate of overall project costs, table 25 of the application, Ex. 3, is reasonable. T. 1171-76. Total project costs are estimated to be $4,150,000, or $34,583 per bed. The project cost includes $515,000 for 3 to 5 acres of land. T. 1546. The adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed equipment for the facility was not established by expert testimony. See T. 1179. Availability of resources Gene D. Lynn has an extensive history in successfully financing and constructing health care facilities, including nursing homes. T. 1516-17. Gene D. Lynn has more than adequate lines of credit to obtain complete financing for this project. T. 157 6- /7 Existing lines of credit, including SeaFirst, are available up to at least $9 million. T. 1576. The objection as to hearsay, which was sustained, was sustained only as to what unnamed persons with Washington Mutual "indicated." The remainder is not hearsay. It is testimony of the existing state of facts within the personal knowledge of the witness. The foregoing findings of fact are based upon testimony of Mr. Gentle, whose credibility as a witness was partially impeached as discussed in findings of fact above. Mr. Gentle's credibility problems, however, are not sufficient to compel the disregard of his testimony as to the general financial condition of the Lynns and Careage. Mr. Gentle demonstrated that his testimony as to his own expert qualifications was unworthy of belief, and he demonstrated that some portions of his testimony concerning the features of the proposed facility were exaggerated or incorrect. But this is not sufficient evidence to conclude that his testimony as to general financial resources of Careage is an untruth. It is noted that there is no evidence in this record to suggest in any manner that Gene Lynn does not have the net worth set presented in his unaudited financial statement. That net worth is over $45 million. If this were a substantial untruth, surely one of these highly competitive applicants would have presented evidence on the point. Financial feasibility The proposed project is financially feasible in the short term. T. 1632-39, 1686. Careage's projections as to patient mix (by payor type) and expected fillup (utilization) are reasonable. T. 1640- 42 The charges proposed by Careage are reasonable. T. 1642-45. Careage's projections as to operating expenses are reasonable. T. 1648, 1656-57. The proposed project is financially feasible in the long term. T. 1647, 1649-50, 1686. The Forum Group application General provisions Forum Group is a national company which owns and operates 11 retirement living centers and 22 nursing homes in a number of states. The retirement living centers are independent rental apartments which do not require entry fees. T. 20; F.G. Ex. 3. The Forum Group proposal is to construct and operate a 60 bed community nursing home in conjunction with a retirement living facility of 120 apartments and an adult congregate living facility of 30 units. F.G. Ex. 3, attachment 1. The community nursing home section would offer all services required for provision of skilled nursing care, intermediate nursing care, respite care, and adult daycare. T. 27. Forum Group does not propose to provide a separate Alzheimer's disease unit. The estimated total cost of the nursing home portion of the project is $2,673,084. F.G. Ex. 6, table 25. This is $44,551 per nursing bed. Forum Group will accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. T. 27, 210. Quality assurance Forum Group has never had a license denied, revoked, or suspended, and it has never had one of its facilities placed into receivership. T. 158. The proposed facility would provide 24 hour supervision by either a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse, or by both. T. 140. The staffing levels proposed in the original application are adequate. T. 153. Staffing levels would vary according to the needs of the residents. T. 134. Medications would be distributed by unit dose. T. 139. Forum Group would implement an adequate plan for quality assurance audits. T. 141-43. The plan is in writing, is in use in other Forum Group nursing homes, and covers all aspects of the operation of the nursing home that are relevant to the quality of care received by nursing home residents. Forum Group would check staff qualifications prior to employment and would provide ongoing staff training. T. 149. Forum Group would provide residents with written statements of patients' rights upon admission to the facility, and would have an independent patients' rights council. T. 147- 48 Forum Group provides reasonably adequate nursing care in its existing nursing homes, and would do so in the proposed nursing home. T. 31-32, 158. Staffing The staffing proposed for the facility, and projected salaries, are reasonable and adequate. T. 151-154. Forum Group reviews the qualifications of applicants to insure that applicants are qualified for the job. T. 149. Construction and facility design Forum Group's community nursing home facility will have about 24,500 square feet. This is reduced from the original 27,000 due to inflation in costs. Patient room areas were not changed. T. 1453. This is 408 total gross square feet per bed. The net living area square footage allocated to semiprivate 2 bed rooms is 228 square feet. F.G. Ex. 3. The square footage allocated in both versions is reasonable. T. 1445, 1453. The building would be wood frame with brick veneer. It would have heavy roof insulation, double glazed windows, and a heat pump to conserve energy and to operate with less utility expense. T. 1454. The construction costs, including equipment costs, estimated for the revised project, F.G. Ex. 6, table 25, paragraph d., are reasonable. T. 1453. The costs as originally projected were also reasonable. T. 1446. The proposed facility would comply with state and federal standards for construction. T. 1456. The 60 bed community nursing home would require two to three acres of land. T. 1455. The $400,000 estimated to be needed to acquire a suitable site is reasonable for location in the northwest portion of Hillsborough County. T. 54, 59. Availability of resources Forum Group will attract suitable health care professionals, despite the shortage in Hillsborough County, by offering attractive fringe benefits, including attractive work schedules and continuing education. T. 156-57. Forum Group has the financial resources to construct and begin the initial operation of the facility. T. 182-84. Financial feasibility The project is financially feasible in the short term. T. 182-84. Due to its corporate size and current operation of a number of nursing facilities, as well as the size of the combined planned facility in Hillsborough County, Forum Group will be able to purchase supplies and other operational necessities at a favorable low cost, thus saving on operational expenses. T. 156. The estimated fillup rate in the original application was about 75 percent occupancy after the first year and about 86 percent occupancy after the second year. T. 37. Given the recent experience in Hillsborough County of occupancy around 95 percent and very fast fillup rates for new nursing homes, T. 116-18, a projection of 86 percent occupancy in the second year is probably too low. For purposes of determining financial feasibility, it is reasonable but conservative. T. 37. The project is financially feasible in the long term based upon the pro forma contained in the original application. T. 186-88; F.G. Ex. 3. The merits of the Hillsborough Healthcare application General provisions Hillsborough Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership owned by Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Hillsborough Healthcare, Ltd., would own the proposed facility. T. 419. The facility would be managed by Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) which is also owned by Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. CSI was formed in 1978 to own and operate extended care facilities owned or controlled by the Kelletts. T. 420. CSI currently operates 21 nursing homes and 3 retirement homes in 7 states. Six of the nursing homes and 2 retirement centers are in Florida. Id. Centralized management is provided by regional offices in Sarasota, Houston, Texas, and Huntsville, Alabama. T. 420. The long range plan of CSI is to acquire and develop nursing facilities in locations where CSI already has a management structure nearby. T. 421. Hillsborough Healthcare proposes to construct and operate a single story combination nursing home, consisting of 120 beds, and an adult congregate living facility, consisting of 60 beds. H.H. Ex. 1; T. 423. The 120 nursing beds would consist of 60 skilled nursing beds and 60 intermediate care beds. The 60 skilled nursing beds includes a distinct 24 bed unit for Alzheimer's disease patients. Id. The application estimates the total project cost to be $5,032,475, with $3,367,668 of that cost attributed to the nursing facility portion of the project. H.H. Ex. 1. This is $28,063.90 per nursing bed for 120 beds. The facility would have a rehabilitation program, activities, and social services programs. T. 423. The Hillsborough Healthcare facility intends to make its facility available as a training facility for medical and nursing schools. T. 461. The facility would participate in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and estimates about 30 percent Medicaid utilization. T. 423. Hillsborough Healthcare would accept partial approval of only 60 nursing home beds. T. 490. In that event, the 60 bed nursing facility (combined with the 60 bed adult congregate living facility) would offer the same services, including the 24 bed Alzheimer's disease unit. T. 390, 473. Access as a patient to the facility will be on an equal basis, without distinction as to race, religion, or sex. The facility will be constructed to provide handicapped access. T. 462-63. At least 30 percent of the patients served by the Hillsborough Healthcare facility would be Medicaid patients, and the percentage may well be higher. Currently, 17 of the 21 CSI nursing homes participate in state Medicaid programs, and all of the Florida nursing homes have Medicaid patients. All new nursing homes developed by CSI participate in both Medicaid and Medicare. Many of the 17 nursing homes were not Medicaid certified prior to acquisition by Hillsborough Healthcare, but are now certified and participate. CSI has never decertified one of its nursing homes as a Medicaid provider. T. 424. Existing CSI managed facilities in Florida are currently experiencing a 40 percent Medicaid utilization, which includes at least one in Hillsborough County. T. 1798. B. Quality assurance Sixteen of the 21 CSI managed nursing homes are in states that use a licensure rating system, and of these, 14 are have achieved the highest rating. T. 422. No CSI facility has ever had its licensed revoked or has ever been fined. Id. One-half (three) of CSI managed Florida facilities are rated superior. T. 319. Centralized management and location of facilities so that management resources can be shared should enhance the quality of care at the proposed nursing facility. The quality assurance program will be guided by a lengthy policies and procedures manual that is in use in other Florida CSI managed nursing homes. H.H. Ex. 11; T. 313. CSI employs a full time Florida registered nurse to make visits at least once a month to CSI facilities in Florida as a part of the quality assurance program. T. 316. The nurse conducts quality of care inspections, using measuring instruments developed by the CSI quality assurance program, and teaches new methods to improve the quality of health care. T. 317. Hillsborough Healthcare will have an adequate quality assurance program. T. 310. C. Services and programs CSI would provide programs for care of Alzheimer's disease patients, respite care, and adult day care. Respite care is temporary nursing care, for 16 days or less, to give the family a temporary rest from home care, and to improve the condition of the patient. T. 300. Adult day care is care only during the day to enable a family member to work. T. 301. Both types of care provide an opportunity for the elderly patient to receive nursing services, including the programs and medical care available at the nursing home, while giving home care providers a rest or needed free time. The Alzheimer's disease unit of 24 intensive care nursing beds would have operational and design features to meet the special needs of those patient. The medical director is to be board certified with a specialty in geriatrics and training with respect to Alzheimer's disease. Activities will be altered to accommodate the limitations of those patients. Staffing will be at a higher level, and staff will be specially trained to meet the needs of those patients. The facility will be designed with a secure courtyard, special dining room, and wander guard, to allow movement without physical or chemical intervention or restraints. T. 299, 289. CSI varies the activities programs at its facilities to match the needs of patients. T. 270. Activities for Alzheimer's patients, adult day care and respite care residents are designed within the limitations of those patients. T. 289-90. CSI typically provides activities that provide small and large group interaction, socialization, mental and physical activity, recreation, and religious activities. T. 270. The activities that have been implemented or suggested for CSI facilities are innovative, varied, and appear to be the result of much thoughtful work. T. 273-74; H.H. Ex. 1, pp. 115-123 H.H. Ex. 8. Some of CSI staff involved in activities have received awards for their work. T. 288. The proposed facility would provide activities similar to the activities provided at other CSI facilities. T. 274. CSI has employed an expert in community relations and activities programming to coordinate community relations, activities, and the volunteer program at all CSI nursing homes, including the proposed facility. That expert is the author of pp. 114-121 of the application, H.H. Ex. 1. The expert would recruit and train activities and community relations directors at the proposed facility. T. 287. CSI publishes a newsletter containing an exchange of program information, and encourages each nursing home to publish its own newsletter. Some do. H.H. Ex. 10; T. 284-85. Volunteers are encouraged to participate in nursing home activities. 272. CSI has compiled a package of volunteer information for use in development of a volunteer program at each nursing home. H.H. Ex. 9. Volunteers increase resident participation in programs, bring fresh ideas, and causes there to be a greater variety of activities and programs for residents. T. 281. Association of the nursing facility with an adult congregate living facility is a useful way to provide continuity of care and lessens the trauma to the resident of the initial move into a nursing facility. In some cases, a spouse may live in the adult congregate living facility and thus be closer to the spouse who must be in a nursing facility. CSI currently manages Sun Terrace Nursing Center, a 120 bed nursing home, and Lake Towers Retirement Center, both in Hillsborough County. Consequently, CSI has already in existence a network of relationships that would benefit residents at the proposed facility. Existing relationships include a system for patient referrals from local hospitals, transfer agreements with local hospitals for acute and emergency care, and agreements with local providers for ancillary services, such as physical therapy, diet therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, opthalmology, dental care, podiatry, x- ray, and pharmacy services. T. 302-304. Similar agreements for the proposed facility could be established. Such agreements are cost effective because used only as needed. T. 304. CSI would provide all the ancillary services listed in figure 1, page 14, H.H. Ex. 1. T. 304. Staffing The proposed staffing of the facility, including the 24 bed Alzheimer's disease unit, is adequate. T. 308. The proposed salaries are reasonable and adequate. T. 309. Hillsborough Healthcare will be able to recruit adequate staff. T. 309. Hillsborough Healthcare will provide a reasonable staff development program. T. 309. This program will aid in the retention of staff. T. 310. Construction and facility design The 120 bed nursing section is designed to include 4 private rooms and 58 semiprivate (double occupancy) 4 rooms. T. 355. The design includes the services and departments listed on table 12 of H.H. Ex. 1. It is proposed that the total gross square feet will be 33,996, or 283 square feet per bed. H.H. Ex. 1 The square footage allocated by the design to net living space in patient bedrooms and gross area of the nursing unit, tables 18 and 19, H.H. Ex 1, are reasonable. T. 355. Semiprivate (2 bed) rooms would have 185 net square feet of living space. The Hillsborough Healthcare design has several cost saving features. Sharing ancillary services and spaces (kitchen, administrative areas, and laundry) with the adult congregate living facility of 60 beds reduces the overall construction and equipment cost and operational cost per bed. Use of a modular "T" configuration, with straight line walls and corridors for units, results in a savings in construction cost. T. 360-61. The compact design, accompanied by extensive roof over hangs and insulating materials, will reduce energy requirements. T. 357 The floor plan could easily be altered by alteration of the arrangement of the modular wings to fit on different sites. T. 358. Nurses' stations are located in the middle of wings, giving good visibility down corridors, but no visibility into rooms. The nurses' station is 7 rooms from the most distant room on any wing. H.H. Ex. 1, p. 103. The Alzheimer's disease unit is in a separate portion of one wing, and is contiguous to an interior space that will be fenced to make a secure courtyard. T. 357; H.H. Ex. 1, p. 103. The construction cost includes additional wheelchairs and walkers, and includes $4,500 for a wander guard system for the 24 bed Alzheimer's disease unit. T. 364. The projected construction cost includes fixed equipment. T. 356. The construction cost of $2,331,418 is reasonable. T. 356. All of the costs estimated in table 25, H.H. Ex. 1, p. 33 (estimated project costs) are reasonable. T. 345-466, 356, 455-56. Availability of resources Through available equity and long term debt, adequate resources exist for Hillsborough Healthcare to construct and initially operate the proposed facility. T. 396-402. Financial feasibility The proposed facility is financially feasible in the short term. T. 396-402; H.H. Exs. 15, 16, 1. The projected charge rates, table 8, H.H. Ex. 1, are reasonable. T. 379-80, 400, 452. The projected percentages of patient utilization by payor class, table 7, H.H. Ex. 1, are reasonable. T. 450, 393. The projected number of expected patient days in the first two years of operation, tables 10 and 7, H.H. Ex. 1, reasonable. T. 488-49. The projections of total revenue, table 7, H.H. Ex. 1, are reasonable. T. 400-01. The projections of expenses and net income for the first two years of operation are reasonable. H.H. Ex. 1, pp. 100-01; T. 401-02. The 120 community nursing home bed version of Hillsborough Healthcare's application is financially feasible in the long term. T. 402. If the Department partially approves the Hillsborough Healthcare application for 60 beds, to be operated in conjunction with the 60 bed adult congregate living facility, the projection will be financially feasible in both the short and long term. T. 402. The project would be financially feasible with a higher Medicaid participation. T. 424. The merits of the Health Quest application General provisions Since critical portions of the 60 bed application, H.Q. Ex. 3, were impermissible changes to the 88 bed application, and thus not admitted into evidence, only the 88 bed application will be discussed. Health Quest proposes to construct and operate 88 community nursing home beds in conjunction with an adult congregate living facility of 124 units. H.Q. Ex. 2. The total cost of the nursing portion of the facility is estimated to be $3,054,466, or $34,719 per bed. H.Q. Ex. 2. Health Quest has entered into an agreement with a group of 129 physicians, organized as the University Community Physicians Association of Tampa. That association comprises the bulk of the physicians who practice at University Community Hospital in northern Tampa. T. 585. The agreement is that Health Quest would build and manage the nursing home, and the physicians would provide medical oversight and referrals. T. 579. The physicians would contribute to equity and share in operating profits and losses. T. 624. The share is 25 percent. T. 694-95. Other details are not in evidence. The negotiations for the agreement with the University Community Physicians Association of Tampa took several months, and the agreement itself did not come into being until August, 1987. T. 581. The University Community Physicians Association of Tampa is not named as an applicant in the original application since the agreement came into being after the application was filed. Health Quest intends to construct the proposed nursing home and adult congregate living facility near the present location of the University Community Hospital. T. 583. Health Quest intends to serve approximately 30 percent Medicaid patients. T. 841, 1102. Quality Assurance Health Quest has nursing homes in Florida, Indiana, and Illinois. Health Quest has a reputation in Indiana and Illinois for providing good health care. T. 599-609. Health Quest has three nursing homes in Florida. Of those three, two had been open long enough at the time of the hearing to have received a Florida rating. Both were rated superior. T. 610. Health Quest has a nursing home in Jacksonville, Florida, and the quality assurance program and services at that facility are representative of the type of care and services at other Health Quest facilities, as well as what is intended for the proposed Health Quest facility in Hillsborough County. T. 1077, 1102. All findings of fact which follow that reference the quality of care or scope and nature of services at the Jacksonville facility are thus also findings of fact that these quality assurance programs and services are intended to exist at the Hillsborough facility. The Jacksonville facility maintains a resident care plan on each resident. Health Quest would provide health care of good quality at its proposed facility. Services and programs The Jacksonville facility provides a number of services that require skilled nursing or arguably fall within the category of "subacute" care. The term "subacute" care is not a formal definition, and there is no Florida licensure category for that phrase. The Jacksonville facility provides intravenous therapy, parenteral nutrition, and tracheostomy care. T. 848-51. It also provides care for comatose patients (accident or stroke victims) regardless of age, and care of post-craniotomy patients. T. 851-53, 855-56. Health Quest does not intend to care for neonates (sick infants less than two weeks old). Neonates require care that is distinct from the care required for the elderly, thus requiring staff with different training. Neonates also can be at substantial risk from respiratory and urinary infections commonly present among the elderly in a nursing home. T. 859-61. The Jacksonville facility provides physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy. The physical therapist is a full time position. T. 871. The Jacksonville facility provides counseling to residents and families with a full time social worker on staff. T. 864. The Jacksonville facility provides music therapy, outside trips, and other activities, such as family night, the artist in residence program, and use of the facility for community programs. T. 866, 888, 892. Some of these programs are conducted jointly with the adult congregate living facility. Volunteers are used in the activities programs as well. T. 869. The quality of the activities program is directly related to the numbers of staff persons involved in the program. T. 871. The Jacksonville facility provides respite care of about two weeks in duration, although it could be longer. T 872. The adult congregate living facility that would be a part of the Health Quest facility would have tee same beneficial consequences as the adult congregate living facility proposed by Hillsborough Healthcare. T. 902-04. The Jacksonville facility is often used as a place for continuing nursing education for high schools or the local nursing association. T. 906-07. Staffing Health Quest proposes a total of 59.75 FTE's or .679 FTE per bed. H.Q. Ex. 2, table 11. Health Quest acknowledged that the staffing proposed for the 88 bed facility was adequate in 1986 when prepared, but by 1987, it was experiencing the need for more licensed personnel, and that it would increase licensed personnel for the 88 bed facility now. T. 630. No evidence was presented as to the specific changes that would be made. T. 632. Construction and facility design Health Quest proposed in its application to construct 34 two bed rooms, 6 three bed rooms, and 2 one bed rooms. H.Q. Ex. 2, table 17. Health Quest wants to change its design, if built, to make the three bed rooms into two bed rooms. T. 631. Health Quest proposes to provide 240 square feet of net living space for semiprivate two bed rooms. H.Q. Ex. 2. Health Quest proposes to provide a total of 37,263 square feet for the 88 bed facility, or 423 square feet per bed. H.Q. Ex. 2. Health Quest estimates that the project will need 3 to 4 acres of land, and projects that it can acquire the land for about $320,000. H.Q. Ex. 2; 634. This estimate is reasonable in comparison to the estimates of all other applicants. Health Quest has constructed three nursing homes in Florida, and others in Indiana and Illinois, and thus has substantial experience in construction. Photographs of the nursing homes constructed and now operated by Health Quest show that those nursing homes are reasonably attractive and appear to be hospitable places in which to live. H.Q. Ex. 22. Availability of resources Health Quest has access to sufficient funds to construct the project and initially operate it. T. 586-87. Financial feasibility The Health Quest proposal is financially feasible in the short term and the long term. T. 593 Summary of comparative data The space and costs associated with the four proposals may be compared as follows: Appl. Cost/Bed NetFt/Bed TotFt/bed Cost/NetFtBed Cost/TotFtBed Careage $34,583 214 306 $162 $113 Forum $44,551 228 408 $195 $109 HealthQ $34,719 240 423 $147 $ 82 HillsH $28,063 185 283 $152 $ 99 The proposed staffing of the four proposals may be compared as follows: Applicant Total FTE RN FTE LPN FTE RN Asst FTE No. Beds Careage 96.0 11.9 7.4 42.1 120 Forum 37.6 5.3 3.6 14.00 60 HealthQ 60.75 4.8 2.2 25.00 88 HillsH 64.65 2.92 8.78 36.61 120 Staffing per proposed bed may further be compared as follows: TotalFTE Applicant Per Bed PN FTE Per Bed RN & LPN FTE Per Bed Total Nursing FTE Per Bed Careage .80 .10 .16 .51 Forum .63 .08 .15 .38 HealthQ .69 .05 .08 .36 HillsH .54 .02 .10 .40 Comparison of the Careage staffing to other applicants is difficult because Careage proposes primarily to serve patients needing skilled nursing care who thus require more nursing staff per bed. Forum Group, Hillsborough Healthcare, and Health Quest are relatively the same with respect to anticipated efficiencies and continuity of care due to the association of adult congregate living facility beds with the proposed nursing home. Forum Group plans only 30 ACLF beds, but also plans 120 independent living apartments. Hillsborough proposes to provide 60 ACLF beds, and Health Quest proposes to have 124 ACLF beds. There is no evidence in the record to determine the optimum mix of ACLF beds to nursing home beds. Conclusions of Law The Division of Administrative hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. The Department's free form preliminary decision The free form decision of the agency is ordinarily not dispositive since a formal administrative hearing is intended to formulate agency action, and is not intended to review prior action. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The reasoning of the agency in its free form decision, however, ordinarily is a significant matter to be considered in the formal hearing. Findings of fact with respect to the free form decision-making upon the applications in this batching cycle have been made for two reasons: the assertion that the free form decision was influenced by considerations other than objective merit of the applications, and therefore not entitled to any persuasive effect upon this formal hearing, and representations in the free form stage made by Careage relevant to evaluation of the application of Careage. The free form decision in this case had the appearance of having been influenced in part by considerations other than the objective merit of the applications. For this reason, the free form decision with respect to these applicants has been disregarded as having no persuasive weight. Need calculated pursuant to rule 10-5.001(1)(k)2 Need for community nursing home beds is calculated pursuant to the need methodology set forth in rule 10- 5.011(1)(k)2, Fla. Admin. Code. The text of the rule is not in evidence, but comparison of the text of the rule referenced in proposed recommended orders indicates that the parties appear to agree that the rule promulgated on November 24, 1986, should govern this case. It is that rule that will be used in this recommended order. All parties agree that July 1, 1989, is the date upon which subdistrict need for community nursing home beds is to be determined. The first step in the need calculation pursuant to the rule is to determine BA. BA is defined by subparagraph 2a of the rule as the estimated bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district. Subparagraph 2b of the rule provides: BA= LB/(POPC + (6 X POPD)) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. LB is at least 5,964, and is 6,060 if the 96 beds at the Home Association are, on this record, classified as community nursing home beds. Section 651.118(8), Fla. Stat. (1987) provides in part: This section shall not preclude a continuing care provider form applying to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a certificate of need for community nursing home beds or a combination of community and sheltered nursing home beds. Any nursing home bed located in a continuing care facility that is or has been issued for nonrestrictive use shall retain its legal status as a community nursing home bed unless the provider requests a change in status. Any nursing home bed located in a continuing care facility and not issued as a sheltered nursing home bed prior to 1979 shall be classified as a community bed. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may require continuing care facilities to submit bed utilization reports for the purpose of determining community and sheltered nursing home bed inventories based on historical utilization by residents and nonresidents. (E.S.) The first sentence of this statutory section does not apply to the Home Association because it has not applied for a certificate of need. The second sentence does not apply because there is no evidence in the record that the nursing home beds at the Home Association were "issued" by anyone. The third sentence applies because the 96 nursing home beds at the Home Association were "not issued as a sheltered nursing home bed prior to 1979." The Home Association has existed since 1899 with its 96 nursing home beds, and never had a certificate of need. There was no statutory authority or definition for the issuance of a "sheltered nursing home" prior to 1979. By operation of law (the third sentence quoted above), the 96 beds are community nursing home beds. The fourth sentence appears to be directly in conflict with the third sentence. The fourth sentence states that HRS can conduct a study of historical utilization "for the purpose of determining community and sheltered nursing home bed inventories based on historical utilization by residents and nonresidents." The third sentence automatically confers community nursing home bed status upon certain beds based solely upon three criteria (located in a continuing care facility, located there before 1979, and not "issued" as a sheltered nursing home bed). Community nursing home bed status is thus conferred solely upon the three criteria, and historical utilization is irrelevant to the third sentence. If that is so, the fourth sentence, which allows HRS to "determine" community nursing home status based only upon historical utilization, is in direct conflict with the third sentence. This seemingly irreconcilable dilemma is not at issue in this case, however, because there is insufficient credible evidence in the record as to the "historical utilization" of the 96 beds at the Home Association. As discussed in the findings of fact, there is no credible evidence in this record as to how the 96 beds at the Home Association have in fact been "utilized" since 1899. Indeed, the only logical inference on this ambiguous record is that the Home Association has not felt itself constrained by any definitional categories, given its longevity in the Tampa Bay area. It thus is concluded as a matter of law, pursuant to the third sentence of section 651.118(8), Fla. Stat. (1987), that the 96 beds at the Home Association are community nursing home beds, and thus should be counted in the licensed beds in the district and subdistrict, LB and LBD. Thus, the correct value for LB in this case as of June 1, 1986, is 6,060. Next, the values of POPC and POPD must be determined Two issues arise with respect to ascertainment of the values of POPC and POPD. The first is whether the values of POPC and POPD should be determined on January 1, 1986, or on July 1, 1986. The second is whether the values of POPC and POPD should be determined based upon the Governor's estimates and projections of populations released on July 1, 1986, or on May 12, 1987. The first issue is governed by the clear language of the existing rule. The second issue has no clear guidance in the existing rule, and thus depends upon analysis of the record basis of the agency's incipient policy. With respect to the first issue, the parties urge that POPC and POPD are the populations on January 1, 1986, rather than on July 1, 1986. The basis of this argument is the inconsistent behavior of HRS over the last three years and in the January, 1987, batching cycle, wherein the values of POPC and POPD were often effectively determined on a date six months prior to the commencement of the batching cycle, a date which was the midpoint in the occupancy rate months. Notwithstanding the inconsistent manner in which HRS has interpreted its rules, a fundamental principle of law is that if the rule is clear, the agency must follow it. Kearse v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 474 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Woodley v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 676, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987);. There is no deference to the agency's interpretation of law (in this case, the conflicting interpretation of the office of comprehensive health planning) where the construction is based upon common meanings. Schoettle v. State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 513 So.2d 1299, 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Roberts v. Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, 509 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In this case the Department has elected to follow the clear mandate of its own rule. This is not an occasion where the inconsistency of the agency with respect to incipient policy implicates questions of fairness to those regulated. Here, despite the arguable unfairness to the applicants in this batching cycle, the agency should follow its own clear rules. The populations POPC and POPD are clearly intended by the rule to be determined as of the date of the applications for certificate of need and the date of commencement of the batching cycle. The rule unequivocally calls for a projection of need "three years" into the future. T. 1254, 1250. There is no disagreement that the end date of that projection is July 1, 1989. What ends must have had a beginning. A three year period that ends on June 1, 1989, begins on July 1, 1986. Moreover, the rule clearly establishes the value of LB, licensed beds, as of June 1, 1986. The bedrate, the driving force in determining need, is the ratio of licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, to POPC and POPD, populations of elderly persons assumed to be using the beds. If LB was determined on June 1, 1986, but POPC and POPD determined on January 1, 1986, the ratio would be incongruent. The Department undoubtedly intended there to be a correlation between beds and people in existence at the same time since the result is supposed to be a model of need. Selection of the numerator from one date and the denominator for another date results in a fractured reality having little bearing upon the issue of whether the elderly in Hillsborough County will have enough or too may nursing home beds in July, 1989. Finally, the definition "current" populations POPC and POPD was established by the final order in Manor Care of Hillsborough County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1102, DOAH case number 86-0051. The final order in that case, entered on February 7, 1987, determined that POPC and POPD must be the populations current on the date of application for the certificate of need. For these reasons, POPC and POPD should be the populations on July 1, 1986. The next issue is the source of those population estimates. HRS argues that POPC and POPD must be derived from the July 1, 1986, release of the Governor's estimates and projections of populations. HRS has failed to establish guidance in this area by rule, and instead has chosen to rely upon evolving agency policy as the basis for selecting the source off POPC and POPD. An agency need not adopt all policy as a rule, but to the extent that it relies upon non-rule incipient policy as a basis for decision and that decision is challenged in a formal administrative hearing, the agency has the burden to establish in the record "adequate support for its decision." Florida Cities Water Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 384 So.2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 1980); Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, et al., 475 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 582-584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The only support offered by HRS for its incipient policy to use population releases available at the time of certificate of need application was that those releases were the only ones available at such time, and thus necessarily the agency's preliminary decision had to be based upon the earlier release. This may be a permissible construction of the enabling statutes, and might pass muster as an agency rule, but HRS has in this case elected to defend its policy on a case by case basis. On this record, it is clear that the policy has not been adequately supported and is unreasonable. While reliance upon the population release available at this time of preliminary agency action is obviously reasonable at that time, since it is then the most current release, the mere fact that it is the only release-then available is an inadequate reason for continuing to use that release at the de novo formal administrative hearing that follows. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Moreover, the inadequacy of HRS's basis for its incipient policy has been demonstrated in this record. The May 12, 1987, release is substantially more accurate than the release a year earlier. The May 12, 1987, release is much closer to observed population growth in the subdistrict than the earlier release. These facts were not rebutted. To underscore the inadequacy of HRS's incipient policy, it bears repeating that use of the July 1, 1986, population release underestimates the net need for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County in July, 1989, by 100 percent. This indicates that something is dramatically wrong with the incipient policy. For these reasons, the values of POPC and POPD should be taken from the May 12, 1987, release of population estimates. POPC is 134,968 and POPD is 94,402. The calculation of the bed rate, BA, thus is as follows: BA= LB/(POPC + (6 X POPD)) BA= 6,060/134,968 + (6 X 94,402)) BA= 0.0086401 The next step in the calculation is to calculate BB, which is defined as the estimated bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district. The calculation is provided in subparagraph 2c of the rule: BB= 6 X BA BB= 6 X 0.0086401 BB= 0.0518406 Subparagraph 2a of the rule then requires calculation of A, which is gross need for the horizon year: A= (POPA X BA) + (POPB X BB) Where: A is the district's projected age-adjusted total number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made. POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. For the reasons discussed with respect to selection of the date of the proper release of Governor's population estimates and projections with respect to POPC and POPD, POPA and POPB should be obtained from the May 12, 1987, Governor's release. POPA is 149,771 and POPB is 108,400. Therefore, continuing the calculation: A= (POPA X BA) + (POPB X BB) A= (149,771 X 0.0086401) + (108,400 X 0.0518406) A= 1,294.0364 + 5,619.521 A= 6,913.5574 The next step is to calculate SA, which is the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds pursuant to paragraph 2d of the rule: SA A X (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: * * * LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing home beds within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of the applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy rate data for the months October- March preceding that cycle . . . * * * LBD is 2,708 since the 96 beds at the Home Association were community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County on June 1, 1986. OR is 94.29 Therefore, SA is calculated: SA= A X (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) SA= 6,913.5574 x (2,708/6,060) x (.9429/.90) SA= 6,913.5574 X 0.4468646 X 1.0476666 SA= 3,236.6863 SA= 3,237 In the last sentence of subparagraph 2 of the rule, the "poverty adjustment" is described as follows: "In districts with a high proportion of elderly residents living in poverty, the methodology specifies a minimum bed rate." In this case, all parties agree that when the numbers are assigned to the values in the formula contained in subparagraph 2e of the rule, the poverty adjustment operates to reduce rather than enlarge the net bed need. Thus, in this case, strict application of the A formula found in subparagraph 2e fails to produce the intended "minimum" bed rate. HRS construes the rule, in this instance, to mean that the poverty adjustment does not apply, T. 1280, and all parties agree. This will be treated as a stipulation by all parties that the poverty adjustment is not an issue in this case. For this reason, the poverty adjustment will not be used in the calculations in this recommended order. The final step in the need calculation is defined by subparagraph 2i of the rule, and that is to calculate the net bed allocation for the subdistrict. Subparagraph 2i provides: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs through I. unless the subdistrict's average estimated occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. All parties agree that the number of licensed beds within the subdistrict is determined as of June 1, 1986, for this batching cycle. That number for purposes of determining net need is 2,708. The number of approved beds for purposes of determining net need is 368. Net need for community nursing home beds in the subdistrict for July 1, 1989, is thus determined: Net Need = SA - (LBD + (.9 X AB)) Net Need = 3,237 - (2,708 + (.9 X 368)) Net Need = 3,237 - 3,039.2 Net Need = 197.8 Net Need = 198 Thus, on July 1, 1989, the subdistrict, Hillsborough County, will need 198 community nursing home beds. Evidence of "not normal" need Rule 10-5.011(k)2.j. provides criteria for approval of community nursing home certificates of need "in the event that the net bed allocation [pursuant to the rule formula] is zero . . ." The net bed allocation pursuant to the rule method is not zero in this case. Subparagraph 2j thus does not apply. The Petitioners did not present any evidence of need pursuant to the special criteria of subparagraph 2j of the rule. Rule 10-5.011(k)1. Provides: 1. Department Goal. The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds in the subdistricts designated by local health councils. (E.S.) Many other HRS need rules have the same "not normal" loophole, and in all of these other cases, the applicants are thereby given the opportunity to show exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of additional beds by consideration of various aspects of the statutory criteria. Since subparagraph 2j does not apply, the provisions of subparagraph 1 do apply to grant a similar opportunity. The only other credible or competent evidence presented by the Petitioners as to a "not normal" condition of need was evidence concerning the numbers of elderly residents in the subdistrict and the occupancy rates of existing community nursing homes. These factors have already been accounted for in the rule formula, and cannot be counted again. Health Quest Realty, XII v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 477 So.2d 576, 578-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) Amendment or update of applications Rule 10-5.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code, provides that "[s]ubsequent to an application being deemed complete by the Office of Health Planning and Development, no further information or amendment will be accepted by the Department." (E.S.) The rule states that the Department will accept no information after the application is deemed complete. The words used are not ambiguous or unclear. Thus, if normal rules of construction were to be followed, the conclusion would be drawn that the Department is bound by its own clear rule, and cannot, by interpretation, add exceptions. But an equally valid rule of construction is that absurd results must be avoided. Certificate of need cases, particular ones like the case at bar, are highly competitive and complicated. The review of these applications by HRS was delayed for months beyond the normal review period. Further delay has occurred in discovery and preparation for the lengthy formal administrative hearing. Time changes all, and over this period of time, new data has come to the attention of all parties. It would be absurd `to require the applicants to prove applications that have become erroneous due to the passage of time. It is highly probable that rule 10-5.008(3) was originally drafted with only the free form review of an application for a certificate of need in mind, and that the application (or non-application) of the rule to an administrative hearing a year or more later was not considered by those who drafted the rule. Indeed, prior to August, 1985, the Department and all litigants uniformly followed the McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) principle of Florida administrative law that formal administrative hearings are de novo, and that new information pertaining to the application is admissible. In August, 1985, the case of Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) was decided. While the Gulf Court decision was concerned only with the competitive status of applicants with respect to bed need, in the aftermath of that decision, the Department elected to construe rule 10- 5.008(3) as forbidding practically all new information, even information that had nothing to do with bed need. This undoubtedly was an overreaction to the Gulf Court decision, but the Department, after all, has always had the authority to establish rules governing the processing of applications for certificates of need, including the number and timing of amendments to such applications. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Given the fact that the rule is so clear, the better route would have been to amend the rule. As discussed above, conventional rules of statutory construction could easily support the legal conclusion that the rule must be applied as it is written, without further interpretation. Nonetheless, the Department for this case has chosen the other route, to interpret rather than to amend its rule. While the question is a close one, the Hearing Officer has concluded that it would be better to ignore the clear words of the rule, and attempt to apply the evolving interpretative policy of the Department to avoid an absurd result. The following appear to be the existing final orders of the Department interpreting rule 10-5.008(3), and its predecessor, published in the Florida Administrative Law Reports. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, 8 F.A.L.R. 4650 (September 24, 1986); Arbor Health Care Company, Inc., d/b/a Martin Health Center, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 709 (October 13, 1986); Mease Hospital and Clinic v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 159 (October 13, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Collier County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 5883 (December 8, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Nursing Center of Highlands County, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1081 (December 8, 1986); Manatee Mental Health Center, Inc. d/b/a Manatee Crisis Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1430 (February 2, 1987); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Hillsborough, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1630 (February 5, 1987); Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1628 (March 2, 1987); Psychiatric Institutes of America, Inc., d/b/a Psychiatric Institute of Orlando v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1626a (March 5, 1987); Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2139 (March 24, 1987); Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2110 (April 17, 1987); Hialeah Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2363 (May 1, 1987); Palms Residential Treatment Center, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Palms Residential Treatment Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 10 F.A.L.R. 1425 (February 15, 1988) These final orders contain the following statements concerning the Department's interpretation of rule 10-5.008(3) and its evolving policy with respect to changes to applications for certificates of need during section proceedings and admissibility of new information not contained in the original applications: Health Care and Retirement, supra, 8 F.A.L.R. at 4651: During 120.57 proceedings, an application may be updated to address facts extrinsic to the application such as interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories. An applicant is not allowed to update by adding additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS. Manatee Mental Health Center, supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 1431: . . . HRS has authority by statute to issue a CON for an identifiable portion of project. Section 381.494(8)(c), Florida Statutes. MMHC's "amended" proposal reduced the number of beds sought, and was properly considered during the 120.57 proceedings. Manor Care. Inc., supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 2141-42: The amended applications [amended to address needs of Alzheimer's disease patients] changed the scope and character of the proposed facilities and services and thus, must be reviewed initially at HRS . . . [Gulf Court] . . . limited the de novo concept by requiring that evidence of changed circumstances be considered only if relevant to the application. Hialeah Hospital, Inc., 9 F.A.L.R. at 2366: It is recognized that more than a year may pass between the free form decision by HRS and the final 120.57 hearing and this passage of time may require updating an application by evidence of changed circumstances such as the effect of inflation on interest and construction costs. For the sake of clarity HRS would avoid the use of the word "amendment" to describe such updating. Such evidence of changed circumstances beyond the control of the applicant is relevant to the original application and is admissible at the 120.57 hearing. Taking the easiest first, those items explicitly listed by the Department in the first Health Care and Retirement case, "interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories," which change after the application is initially filed, are permitted. Not permitted are "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS." The remainder of the Department's incipient policy, as presently articulated, is extremely obscure. The word "extrinsic" without the list of examples is of little guidance. The application is only an idea on paper. Anything new, other than the bare words on the paper as originally filed, is literally "extrinsic" thereto. The concept of whether the new information changes the "scope and character of the facilities and services" originally reviewed in free form action by the Department is similarly of little guidance because the phrase "scope and character" can mean practically anything. Of fundamental difficulty is whether this phrase is intended to select substantial changes to the original application, or all changes. For example, if the original application proposes separate shower stalls and tubs for double rooms, but the amended application proposes a combination shower and tub, has the "scope and character" of the "facilities and services" changed? The phrase "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS" is similarly vague. What is a service or construction or a concept not originally reviewed? Would this include the change in bathing equipment discussed above? The concept of "control" of the applicant over the information that goes into the original application is the only phrase that gives applicants any guidance. The word "control" probably is intended as a "knew or reasonably should have known" standard. If the applicant reasonably should have known about the information and should have provided the Department with the information as a part of its original application, then the new information cannot be considered during the formal administrative hearing. The Hearing Officer will be guided, thus, by the explicit list of items provided by the Department in the Health Care and Retirement case, and by the concept of "control" provided by the Hialeah case. New information submitted by Forum Group Table 7 of the Forum Group update is for the second year of operation. There was no projection of utilization by class of pay for the second year of operation in Forum Group's original application, and Forum Group presented no evidence to explain why its original application did not or could not forecast utilization by class of pay for the second year of operation. Table 7 of the update, F.G. Ex. 6, thus constitutes an attempt to add matters to the original application which could have been a part of the original application as filed. Pursuant to rule 10-5.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code, it is now excluded from evidence because it is irrelevant. Table 8 of the Forum Group update was not proven by Forum Group to be based upon ordinary inflation. It appears that the revised charges in table 8 were based in part upon a telephone survey of subdistrict nursing homes conducted after Forum Group filed its original application. Forum Group did not prove that it could not reasonably have conducted such a telephone survey before it filed its original application. Thus, table 8 of F.G. Ex. 6 contravenes rule 10-5.008(3) and now is excluded from evidence because it is irrelevant to the original application. Table 10 of the Forum Group update was precisely the kind of new information allowed by the incipient policy of the Department. The old table 10 had an opening date of January, 1988, a date that was obviously in error due to the delay in decision in these cases. The new information was simply the old information altered by current occupancy and fillup rates in the subdistrict, data that could not have been acquired when the original application was filed. "Current occupancies" is explicitly listed by HRS as permissible new data in the Health Care and Retirement case, supra. Table 10, F.G. Ex. 6, is admitted into evidence. The revised table 11 contains positions for a dietary supervisor, maintenance supervisor, and utility workers, all of which could have been reported in the original table 11. These portions of table 11 are excluded from evidence. The revised table 11 contains changes in the FTE's for registered nurses and licensed practical nurses. These changes could have been in the original table 11 and are excluded from evidence. The revised table 11 contains changes in salaries that were adequately shown to be the result of inflation and new market data not available at the time the application was deemed complete. These portions of revised table 11 are admitted into evidence. Table 25 of the revised application, F.G. Ex. 6, which summarizes estimated project costs, including construction costs, contains new information permitted by the Department's evolving policy. The new table contains no changes of substance except changes caused by inflation and current construction experience. The bottom line, except to that extent, has not changed in substance. Table 25 of F.G. Ex. 6 is admitted into evidence in its entirety. Revisions to tables 17-20, F.G. Ex. 6, were driven entirely by inflation in construction costs. Surely if the Department allows an applicant to respond to inflation by projections of new costs, the Department's policy would also allow the applicant to respond to inflation by projections of new methods to reduce new costs caused by inflation. These revisions are admitted into evidence. The revised pro forma statement of total operating expenses has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First, the revision was explained as being based upon changes in utilization by class of pay, but that data, table 7 of the revision, was not admitted into evidence. Moreover, the changes in total operating expenses resulted from impermissible changes in the numbers of FTE's which have been excluded from evidence. It is not possible on this record to determine how much of the revised pro forma statement of total operating expenses has been shown to be a credible projection, given the lack of these fundamental sources of the projection. Moreover, the revision to total operating expenses in the revised pro forma, F.G. Ex. 6, has not been credibly shown to be based upon matters that Forum Group could not have known at the time it originally filed its application. This conclusion flows from the fact that the original application did not project utilization by class of pay in year 2. Absent this projection, the revision of total operating expenses must necessarily be based upon data that was absent from the original application. The same is true with respect to changes in FTE's in the revision. For these reasons, the revision to total operating expenses in the revised pro forma, F.G. Ex. 6, constitutes an impermissible offer of new data precluded by rule 10-5.008(3). New information submitted by Health Quest Table 8 of the revised application of Health Quest, H.Q. Ex. 3, was based upon information that Health Quest could have obtained when it filed its original application. Table 8 of H.Q. Ex. 3 is thus excluded from evidence. Table 11 of the revised application was based upon the actual experience acquired after the original application was filed. Table 11 of H.Q. Ex. 3 is admitted into evidence. Table 17 of the original application projected that the facility would have six three-bed rooms, but the revised application deleted all 3 bed rooms. Since Health Quest failed to show that this new information would have been unavailable to it when it filed its original application, the change as to 3 rooms is not admissible. The ineluctable result, therefore, is that all of revised table 17 is inadmissible since the proper mix of beds has not been proven. The change of square footage of 1 bed room to 216 in the revised table 18 is inadmissible because it contravenes rule 10-5.008(3). Evidence as to the agreement with the University Community Physicians Association of Tampa is admissible as matters which did not exist and could not have been a part of the original application. The objections to that testimony, T. 579- 80, are overruled. New information submitted by Careage The changes to the Careage application, C. Exs. 18-23 and 24-25, were shown to be based upon information not reasonably obtainable by Careage when it filed its original application, and thus are admitted into evidence over the objections made that these exhibits were barred by rule 10-5.008(3). New information submitted by Hillsborough Healthcare Hillsborough Healthcare did not submit any changes to its application. Comparative review of the applications Careage failed to prove two essential portions of its application. It did not prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it would in fact operate the proposed facility if the certificate of need were granted, and it did not prove by credible evidence that it would provide care of good quality. For these reasons, the Careage application should be denied. The other applicants proved by credible evidence all essential portions of their applications. The only remaining task, therefore, is to determine the proper allocation of the 198 beds needed in July, 1989, among these three applicants. The space and costs associated with the remaining proposals may be compared as follows: Appli Cost/Bed NetFt/Bed TotFt/Bed Cost/NetFtBed Cost/TotFtBed Forum $44,551 228 408 $195 $109 HealthQ $34,719 240 423 $147 $ 82 HillsH $28,063 185 283 $152 $ 99 The cost per net square foot per bed (Cost/NetFtBed) is derived by dividing the cost per bed by the net square feet of living space per bed. Likewise, the cost by total square feet (gross) per bed (Cost/TotFtBed) is derived by the same division. Health Quest is preferable to the other two applicants when these cost and space figures are considered. It provides more space at a lower cost per square foot. The differences between Hillsborough Healthcare and Forum Group are not sufficiently significant to give one preference over the other. Hillsborough Healthcare is the less expensive proposal, but suffers from being the least spacious proposal in comparison to Forum Group. Moreover, the record does not contain guiding policies to determine whether there is a need in Hillsborough County for cheaper, less spacious, nursing homes, or for more expensive, more spacious nursing homes. The proposed staffing of the remaining proposals may be compared as follows: Applicant TotalFTE RN FTE LPN FTE RN Asst FTE No. Bed Forum 37.6 5.3 3.6 14.00 60 HealthQ 60.75 4.8 2.2 25.00 88 HillsH 64.65 2.92 8.78 36.61 120 Staffing per proposed bed may further be compared as follows: Total FTE Applicant Per Bed RN FTE Per Bed RN & LPN FTE Per Bed Total Nursing FTE Per Bed Forum .63 .08 .15 .38 HealthQ .69 .05 .08 .36 HillsH .54 .02 .10 .40 The total nursing FTE per bed for each applicant is relatively equal, with Hillsborough Healthcare having the highest ratio and Health Quest the lowest. Forum Group has significantly more RN's and LPN's per bed than Health Quest, but the overall nursing staffing is comparable. Hillsborough Healthcare is the lowest when only RN's and LPN's are considered, and the lowest total FTE per bed. The differences noted in staffing do not appear to be sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. Hillsborough Healthcare's facility may be staffed at a less costly level, but whether this is due to substitution of nursing assistants for RN's and LPN's, or a result of efficiencies due to the larger number of beds (120), or reflects less than optimum staffing cannot be determined on this record. Hillsborough did not present evidence as to staffing patterns for a 60 bed facility. Other features of the proposals of the three applicants provide little to distinguish or rank them in priority. All three propose to associate the nursing facility with an adult congregate living facility, resulting in cost efficiencies and better continuity of care. All three have a substantial track record in the operation of a nursing homes, and can be expected to provide care of good quality. All three have very substantial resources and prior experience in the development and initial operation of a nursing home. If any distinction were to be made, perhaps it would be to favor the Hillsborough Healthcare application over the Forum Group application. Hillsborough Healthcare plans to serve the needs of Alzheimer's patients, and Forum Group does not. Hillsborough Healthcare's application is, relative to the Forum Group proposal, less expensive. On the other hand, the Alzheimer's disease unit is only a marginal factor since there is no qualified evidence in this record of need for that type of unit in 1989 in Hillsborough County. One can only infer that the need is probably going to be there, and it might be better to prefer Hillsborough over Forum Group for that reason. The "luxury" vs. "austerity" comparison is similarly not of ultimate persuasive weight since, as discussed above, there is no credible evidence in the record as to what the proper mix should be. Of course, it is safe to conclude that the need for less expensive nursing care is greater than the need for care that only a few can afford, but that conclusion does not necessarily result in the total denial of the Forum Group application. In summary, with respect to the question as to which applicant should be favored with approval of the most number of beds from the projected bed need, there is no major issue to adequately distinguish between the three applicants. For this reason, each applicant should be treated as equally as possible consistent with the application it submitted and the evidence it presented in support of that application. The Department appears to have several relatively reasonable ways to allocate bed need among the three applicants. It might simply divide the beds equally among the three. This alternative is less reasonable because it would ignore the detailed proof that has been presented by both Forum Group and Health Quest in support of proposed facilities of 60 beds and 88 beds respectively, and would result in implementation of facilities having staffing and design configuration that would be altered from that proof. A second alternative would be to award partial approval to Health Quest for 78 beds, to award full approval to Hillsborough Healthcare for 120 beds, and to deny the application of Forum Group. A third alternative would be to award partial approval to Health Quest for 78 beds, to award partial approval to Hillsborough Healthcare for 60 beds, and to award full approval to Forum Group for 60 beds. This third alternative is more reasonable and will be recommended by this order. This alternative has the advantage of fostering the most future competition in Hillsborough County by approving three competitors rather than two. Of the three applicants, Health Quest proposed the most space, relatively speaking, for the least cost. The staffing proposed by Health Quest is reasonable in comparison to the other two applicants. Reduction of the Health Quest proposal to 78 beds from 88 beds is a relatively minor reduction; stated another way, the proof provided by Health Quest as to the specifics of an 88 bed facility is likely to be changed only slightly for a 78 bed facility. Forum Group proved all of the details of its 60 bed proposal, and thus approval of those beds would be entirely consistent with its application and proof in this record. Hillsborough Healthcare did not prove the specifics of a 60 bed partially approved facility except that such a facility would contain the full sized Alzheimer's patient unit proposed in its 120 bed facility. It would be fairer to approve Hillsborough for that 60 bed facility than to approve Hillsborough for 120 beds, leaving Forum Group with denial of its application, given the lack of a compelling clear choice between the two applicants. Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order partially granting the application of Health Quest for 78 community nursing home beds, partially granting the application of Hillsborough Healthcare for 60 community nursing home beds, fully granting the application of Forum Group for 60 community nursing home beds, and denying the application of Careage. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 87-0670, 87-0671, and 87-0774 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact contained in this appendix are adopted as findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by HRS: 1-2. These proposed findings of fact are' subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The classification of the Home Association beds has been thoroughly discussed in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The correct population figures are discussed in the findings of fact. 9-13. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 15. The changes to table 7 were not the result of a telephone survey. T. 51. 17. Defining "extrinsic circumstances" as not inclusive of economic or market changes that occurred after the original application was deemed to have been complete, or otherwise not reasonably obtainable or knowable by the applicant when the original application was filed, is contrary to HRS policy embodied in final orders, sketchy as it may be. 18, 23-25. Rejected as explained in the findings of fact. 26, 28. Rejected with respect to table 11 as explained in the findings of fact. 30. This finding of fact, while true, is not made because Health Quest made no such change to its 88 bed application. Rule 10-5.008(1) simply states that the application for a certificate of need must be filed on form 1455. Table 12 of the form has no instructions for what must be contained therein. Since HRS has not demonstrated on this record that table 12 in the original application was supposed to have listed these items, it cannot be said that the listing of these items in the new table 12 is a change. It is noted that spaces to take showers, baths, store linen, and for nursing stations would be assumed for any nursing home, and ought not be presumed to have been excluded by the failure of an applicant to list them. Moreover, it is further noted that from a review of the original application H.Q. Ex. 1 that table 12 does include nursing administrative space, patient lounges, a central supply space, general storage, housekeeping, and laundry. Moreover, the amendment, H.Q. Ex. 2, shows the following spaces on the space diagram: laundry, shower, patient lounge, and medication room (med). Any bed room could be used for isolation. Table 20 does include a chapel. H.Q. Ex. 1. Not supported by the record cited. Findings of fact proposed by Forum Group: 1-4, 9, 13. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 5. LB of 5,964, as proposed by the Department, is most credible as the beginning figure, without considering the beds at the Home Association. 7-8, 10. Incorrect value for LB. 11. OR should be 94.29 with the Home Association beds. 18. Incorrect values for LB and OR. 21. The denial occurred orally in January, 1987. The update has been discussed in findings of fact and conclusions of law. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. It is true that there is need and the need must be satisfied. 29-33. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 34. The phrase "homelike atmosphere" is too vague to be a finding of fact. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to make a finding as to the history of Forum Group with respect to the quality of care provided at Forum Group facilities. 49-50. The update with respect to financial feasibility is not relevant since essential parts of the update with respect to financial feasibility were not admitted into evidence. 60, 65, 67, 68, 74, and 80. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 66. This is not relevant. Ms. Kennedy testified that she had authority from Hillsborough Healthcare to accept a certificate of need for a 60 bed nursing home. There is no credible evidence to contradict this statement under oath. The lack of a written partnership authorization in evidence does not negate this statement. 76. Had there been any credible evidence in theme cases that the amount of need in Hillsborough County was minimal and that, consequently, the pro formas for 60 bed nursing-homes must be closely scrutinized for long term financial feasibility, then it would be relevant that CSI did not explain in detail the pro forma for a 60 bed nursing home. CSI did, however, present expert opinion that a 60 bed nursing home would be financially feasible, and on this record, the opinion is very credible. Forum Group and Health Quest have shown the long term financial feasibility of a 60 bed nursing home, and there is a large amount of need. Moreover, existing nursing homes are experiencing very high occupancy rates and fill up rates. For these reasons, this proposed finding of fact, while true, is not relevant. Hillsborough did show that its design was modular. Scaling down the project simply means deletion of one wing. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The witness specifically addressed two portions of the state health plan. T. 777. The testimony was competent and substantial evidence. The inference that the certificate of need was "about to expire" is inappropriate since the witness's testimony leads to the inference that Health Quest intends to proceed with that project. T. 641. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 98-99. These proposed findings of fact are true, but insufficient to support a finding that Health Quest lacks the resources to construct and operate this project in the short term. 101, 105-07. These proposed findings of fact are true, but do not lead to the conclusion that the construction cost estimates are unreasonable. See T. 590. Mr. Krisher had sufficient expertise in health planning, nursing home development, and financial feasibility, to testify generally as to these matters. T. 501-516. No party presented any independent evidence to seriously question these estimates. 102. This proposed finding of fact is incorrect since the expected Medicaid rate in Boca Raton is different from the expected rate in Tampa. T. 785. 111. Not supported by the record cited. 114-116, 118-120. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. True, but insufficient to show lack of resources to make the project financially feasible in the short term. Irrelevant. The existence of lines of credit was proved by Mr. Gentle. Irrelevant. The staffing was shown to be reasonable by the testimony of other competent witnesses. 125-27. True, but insufficient to show back of financial feasibility. 129. True, but irrelevant. It would be unreasonable and a waste of health care resources for an applicant to have to buy five expensive acres of urban land to be qualified to apply for a certificate of need. 130-31. Irrelevant. The delay and inflation rates are negligible. Findings of fact proposed by Hillsborough Healthcare: 1. This is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 5. The phrasing of the first and second sentences is rejected for lack of evidence. 7. The evidence is not sufficient to show actual bias by a preponderance of the evidence. 8-9, 19-20, 22-23. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. These proposed findings of fact are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 21. Irrelevant. 24. True, but not relevant. These matters are covered by the numeric need rule. 29. The evidence does not show that CSI managed facilities offer "superior" activities. 32, 33 (fifth and sixth sentences), 35 (last sentence), 38(a)-(i), 40,42 (first sentence), 39, 45 (second and third sentences), 46 (all but the first sentence), 49 (first two sentences), 53, 56 (all but the first two sentences), and 60-72. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. These proposed findings of fact ace true, however, and are adopted by reference. 51. The preponderance of the evidence does not credibly show that the floor plan promotes patient safety and convenience, or that travel distances are minimal. 54. Not supported by the record cited. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. A finding of fact that the criminal offense of perjury was committed cannot be made since there is no evidence of a criminal conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. The testimony of Ms. Etten was not limited to those programs. The documents used in cross examination were never properly authenticated, and are hearsay. Thus, a finding of fact that the documents are in fact surveys of Careage facilities by other agencies in other states cannot be made based upon the documents. For this reason, the remainder of the proposed finding is not relevant. Ms. Etten credibly testified that nursing staffing was generally adequate. Her opinion was not ultimately limited to special programs. T. 1216. The inability of other witnesses to testify on this point is not relevant. The ability of Careage to recruit staff was adequately proved by other parties. There is no credible evidence in this record to believe that any applicant fail to recruit adequate staff. The recruitment plans of Careage appear to be quite reasonable. T. 1562-64. On pages 1686-87 of the transcript, the Hearing Officer ruled that the expert opinion of Ms. Krueger would be allowed even though it was based on hearsay. This was a correct ruling. Section 90.704, Fla. Stat. (1987). The sentence immediately following that ruling is incorrect as stated, and directly contradicts the initial correct ruling. That is, an expert opinion is admissible and may be relied upon even though based upon evidence, such as hearsay, which in itself may not be admissible. Further, the opinion of an expert in an administrative proceeding is a proper basis for a finding of fact even though the opinion is based upon hearsay, and even though hearsay alone in an administrative hearing, absent nonhearsay evidence on the point, is not sufficient as a basis for a finding of fact. The second sentence in the transcript was intended to state that hearsay evidence alone will not be the basis of a finding of fact, setting aside for the moment the issue of expert opinion. For these reasons, these proposed findings of fact are rejected to the extent that they urge that short term financial feasibility was not established because the opinion was premised upon hearsay evidence. With respect to the unaudited financial statement question, Ms. Krueger was not asked whether experts in her field reasonably rely upon unaudited financial statements. She was only asked which type was more worthy of belief and whether her profession feels they can rely on audited statements. She was never asked whether her profession feels it cannot rely upon unaudited statements. Ms. Krueger stated that she was aware of the existence of fraudulent audited statements, implying that the question leads to answers that are not that useful. T. 1652. In fact, Ms. Krueger, who was a thoroughly credible witness, explaining her opinions in a lucid and reasonable manner, relied upon unaudited statements, as well as her conversations with several of the chief executive officers of Careage. Based on this record, a finding cannot be made that experts in this field do not reasonably rely from time to time upon unaudited financial statements. The authenticity of the letter from SeaFirst is irrelevant since that line of credit was established by the direct testimony of Mr. Gentle. T. 1576. Ms. Krueger's lack of personal knowledge as to the existence of a binding commitment for a loan for this project is irrelevant due to Mr. Gentle's direct testimony. The evidence in the record from all parties indicates that land is generally available in Hillsborough County in the 3 to 5 acre range, that 3 to 5 acres is about what is needed for any of the projects, and that the cost is from $300,000 to $600,000. The Careage facility will bring in over $3 million in gross revenue per year in all years beyond the first few. A few hundred thousand dollars can be amortized over the life of a nursing home, and will not be a significant factor in long range financial feasibility. All of the applicants have access to credit to buy land at market rates. There is essentially no reasonable dispute as to land acquisition and cost in this case. The testimony related to equipment , not floor space, for technology dependent children. Those children would be served in the subacute beds. Space for Alzheimer's patients was included in the floor plan and the 45,500 square feet. T. 1136-37. Mr. Cushing testified that the Means reference book might project a cost per square foot in the "60's." He did not adopt that as his opinion. T. 1185-86. Delay in construction for 8 months is not such delay as to necessarily result in substantial increases in construction cost. The last sentence is true but does not account for the fact that Mr. Cushing consulted the Means reference book for labor rates. That is sufficient. The remainder of the reasoning of this proposed finding of fact was rejected in paragraph 85 above. Rejected as described in the preceding paragraphs. Ms. Krueger's expertise with respect to salaries was established perhaps more completely than any other expert witness. She not only had first hand knowledge from her work reviewing salaries in nearby counties, but she consulted expert reference materials. Her inability to remember the name of the book referenced does not seriously undermine her expertise. The ruling at T. 1324 sustained an objection to a question. It was not a ruling upon the admissibility of portions of the document. Ms. Krueger prepared the long range plan section of C. Ex. 3, P. 3-7, and the under served groups section, p. 3-8, in conjunction with Mr. Gentle. T. 1322. This is sufficient predicate for her testimony as to these matters. 91-92. The telephone survey was not a needs survey. It only surveyed existing services. The survey has essentially been discounted because of lack of response and lack of statistical reliability. These proposed findings ace adopted by reference. Since none of this testimony has been relied upon in this recommended order, the proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. The testimony as to lines of credit and resources of the Lynns was enough to establish the availability of working capital. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. Rejected as explained in the findings of fact. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. 101. The continuing objection was allowed, not granted. T. 595-96. Otherwise, these proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference. 102-103. These proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference. 104. Essentially irrelevant as explained with respect to proposed findings of fact concerning the land acquisition and preparation costs of other applicants. 105-107. These proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference, except the last clause of the last sentence of proposed finding of fact 105. Absent quantitative data and a study of salaries showing the estimates to be substantially in error, the foregoing proposed findings of fact are not sufficient to show an error affecting financial feasibility. 108-109. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant since the 60 bed application was not a permissible amendment. These proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant since these are different health districts having different patient payor mixes. Findings of fact proposed by Health Quest: 4, 5, 7-10. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 11-17. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The rationality of the OCHP's policy is irrelevant since it conflicts with the rule and other policies are also rational. A finding of a consistent pattern with respect to base date populations in the award of certificates of need cannot be made as discussed in the findings of fact. Mr. Sharp understood his position, and Mr. Jaffe well understood the inconsistencies. 22-23. True but irrelevant. Disadvantage often occurs to some person when the law is correctly applied. 24-28. Rejected as discussed at length elsewhere in this order. 33. Not supported by the record cited. 36.a. Mr. Gentle did not work with Careage in these years and could not be expected to have detailed memory on these points. He named seven such facilities. 38. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 40.b. (ii). There is no evidence that CHP is the same as Careage. 40.c.(v). Health Quest has operated since 1969. 42. Both could be true. 43.a.(ii). Mr. Gentle was not sure because this was not within his area of responsibility. T. 1603. 44. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Dr. Etten's unfamiliarity with the fact that the Health Quest facility in Jacksonville provides IV therapy and total parenteral nutrition does not demonstrate exaggeration or lack of expertise. The record does not clearly demonstrate that other Health Quest nursing homes provide these specific services. The evidence is only that services are generally the same. T. 1077. The testimony concerning Medicaid patients in the subacute unit was elicited on cross examination, and was not presented by the witness as an intended representation by Careage on direct. Ms. Krueger's understanding simply was wrong, not misleading. T. 1367. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact is similarly a red herring. Careage did not project anything more than 37 percent Medicaid utilization. C. Ex. 3, table 7B. It is one thing to expect 37 percent utilization, and another thing to represent that the facility will not discriminate. A promise to not discriminate inherently contains the caveat that a facility will not pursue that noble goal to bankruptcy. The Hearing Officer would not find that to be the case with respect to Careage any more than with respect to Health Quest. Mr. Gentle did not testify that the number of nurses aides in the Alzheimer's unit would be higher in comparison to other sections of the facility. He testified that the number would be "higher" in comparison to professional licensed staff, which would be lesser. T. 1525. 54. Irrelevant. Mr. Gentle said that day care would probably be at a location nearby. T. 1593. 57. None of the parties addressed site size with the specificity proposed by these findings of fact. Lack of such specificity has no real bearing on credibility. The record cited, T. 1526, does not support the proposed finding that equipment for technology dependent children is "substantial and expensive." Thus, the remainder of these proposed findings are rejected. It is true, however, that the application fails to itemize such equipment, and that the contingency is relied upon. There is no evidence that Careage proposes to employ a gerontological nurse practitioner. C. Ex. 3, table 11. The testimony of Dr. Etten simply describe the skills of that form of nurse practitioner. She was never asked whether such professional would be employed by Careage. T. 1217-19. The failure to tie in the testimony is only a human error, and does not show a lack of credibility. Proposed finding of fact 62.a. is not supported by the record. Dr. Etten was not asked to describe the care given an Alzheimer's patient in an ACLF. She was asked to describe the care given a "resident" of an adult congregate living facility. Her comment about such residents not being "bed patients for any period of time" is not a dodge of a question about an Alzheimer's disease patient. Moreover, she credibly and directly testified that Alzheimer's disease manifests itself so many different ways she could not say whether it would be appropriate to have such patients living in an adult congregate living facility. Next, Mr. Gentle's testimony as to the medical characteristics and needs of Alzheimer's patients is insufficient as a basis for findings of fact because Mr. Gentle was not accepted as a medical expert. Health Quest presented no credible evidence to show that an Alzheimer's patient can be treated either in an adult congregate living facility or a conventional nursing home. Absent such evidence, the failure of other parties to rebut the nonexistent negative, given the clear affirmative evidence that Alzheimer's disease patients greatly benefit from special care, is unpersuasive. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. These children would be served as subacute care patients. Precise identification of the area set aside for these children would have been only of marginal relevance. To the extent not adopted elsewhere in this recommended order, these proposed findings are adopted by reference. Careage's expert was clearly aware of the need to review site specific conditions in the preparation of construction plans. T. 1177. He has built nursing homes in many states. His competence to prepare adequate construction plans for Hillsborough County conditions was clearly established in the record. It is true that he had not yet prepared the final construction plans. But no party has presented final construction plans, and thus the lack of such plans is irrelevant on this record. Irrelevant on this record. Irrelevant. The amount of working capital is well within the resources available to Careage. There is no evidence in the record that a variation one way or the other by $100,000 would make the project not financially feasible. Careage's credibility was not discredited by the fact that Ms. Krueger was not aware of the mix of skilled and intermediate beds. True, but irrelevant. There is no evidence that such expenses were not accounted for, or if missing, the amount and importance. The staffing was shown by expert opinion to be adequate. T. 1216. One presumes that adequacy refers to adequate health care since the witness was only qualified in that area of expertise. The Careage design was not unique. The Careage use of the word "unique" to describe its design has been disregarded in this order. 78.c.(i)-(iii). These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 78.c.(vi). Not supported by the record cited. 78.c.(vii). The testimony cited is not competent opinion. There was no predicate for testimony as to the knowledge of Mr. Haben, and the objection to a similar question just preceding was sustained on that basis. 87-96, 100-101, 103-128. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant for the reasons stated in Health Quest's proposed finding of fact 76. 135. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 146. Not relevant since the 60 bed proposal is not in evidence. 149. Without evidence as to what is included in the definition of "subacute" care, a finding as to "virtually all" cannot be made. 151 and 158. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 166, 169, 170 and 172. Not relevant since the 60 bed proposal is not in evidence. 168. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Findings of fact proposed by Careage: The first sentence implies that Careage has operated nursing homes for 25 years. Careage has built nursing homes fob that length of time for operation by others, for the most part. The second sentence is true, but subordinate, and is adopted by reference. Mr. Griffin testified that the decision to adhere to the recommendations made by staff before he assumed his duties at HRS was not his decision. T. 705-06, 703. His testimony reflect very little personal participation in the evaluation of the competing applications. T. 697-705. 6. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 8. There was no credible evidence in this record as to how many Alzheimer's patients need specialized services. The evidence was simply that if such patients exist, such patients need specialized services. Thus, the first sentence is rejected. 8 (second sentence) -12. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. A comparison of staffing is not possible since Careage intends to serve primarily persons in need of skilled nursing care, and hence it cannot be determined if Careage in fact has proposed nursing staff that is more generous relative to patient need than Hillsborough. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Since insufficient credible evidence has been presented to conclude that Careage will operate the proposed facility, this finding of fact is rejected. The proposed finding concerning intent to provide adult day care is not supported by the record cited. 19-20. Irrelevant since insufficient credible evidence has been presented to conclude that Careage will operate the proposed facility. 21. The first sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 22-23, 25 (all but first sentence), 26, 17 (third, fourth, and seventh sentences), 29. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 24. It is concluded that associating a nursing home with an adult congregate living facility will in fact result in cost efficiencies. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact, noting the relatively higher costs of Health Quest compared to Careage, is true, but does not disprove the conclusion that cost efficiencies would exist. It is true that the Hillsborough Healthcare Medicare mix projection may be somewhat high, but the fiscal consequences of that conclusion was not demonstrated. The second sentence is rejected because Ms. Krueger was not accepted as an expert with respect to appropriate levels of staffing. T. 1686-88. 31. The second sentence is based upon hearsay. It is also based upon the opinion of Mr. Gentle which was inadmissible. T. 1577. The fourth and fifth sentences are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 32-33. These portions of the Forum Group amended application, F.G. EX. 6, were not admitted into evidence, and thus these proposed findings of fact are not relevant. 36. Irrelevant since the Health Quest 60 bed application is an impermissible amended application. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 DEPARTMENT OF HRS Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire Guyte P. McCord, III, Esquire McFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 CAREAGE HOUSE HEALTH Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Haben and Associates Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 FORUM GROUP, INC. R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Post Office Box 11188 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 HILLSBOROUGH HEALTHCARE LTD. W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 HEALTH QUEST CORP. Charles N. Loeser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 315 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, IN 46601 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for examination as a nursing home administrator.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing memoranda, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner, Mary Harrison, filed an application to sit for the examination as a nursing home administrator on approximately May 28, 1981, based on her belief that she satisfied the prerequisite for examination as required by Rule Chapter 21Z-11.01, Florida Administrative Code. In a cover letter with her application dated May 28, 1981, Petitioner asserted her position that she satisfied the above requirements by stating that she was over 18 years of age; was a high school graduate; had completed two (2) years of college level studies which prepared her for health administration, in that she held a master's degree in public administration (a program designed for administration in the field of human services with a specialty in human resource management) ; was of good moral character and possessed four (4) years experience in nursing home and two and one half (2 1/2) years experience at Hospice in a management/administrative capacity. 3/ Petitioner's application was preliminarily denied by letter dated July 6, 1981, from the Board on the grounds that Petitioner's degree in public administration was not in the field of health care administration as required by Rule 21Z-11.07, Florida Administrative Code, and additionally, that Petitioner's experience "did not appear to demonstrate that for four (4) years (she) had been in a position of control and administration as needed to fulfill the requirements of Rule 21Z-11.09, Florida Administrative Code Petitioner attended a subsequent Board meeting where her application was considered on July 24, 1981, and she was afforded an opportunity to present a more detailed description of her executive and management responsibilities for its (the Board's) consideration. The Board again denied Petitioner's application, which denial was memorialized in a letter dated July 27, 1981, and cited, as basis for the denial, that Petitioner failed to show that her responsibilities and experience involved the total health services as required by Rule 21Z-11.09, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner was advised, in that letter, that she may request a hearing which resulted in the instant proceeding before the Division by a letter of transferal from the Board on August 27, 1981. During the four (4) year period from 1976 through 1980, Petitioner was employed as the Director of Social Services at the Boca Raton Convalescent Center, Boca Raton, Florida. The Center is a nursing home. Petitioner's responsibilities included coordination of admissions and discharges, individual and family counseling, development of social work internship programs with the Florida Atlantic University School of Social Welfare and the training and supervision of social work interns who were involved in the Reality Orientation Program. Petitioner's supervision only included social workers and interns in her department and she was not responsible for employees in other departments of the facility. Petitioner participated in what has been described as a team- management system at the Center. Petitioner's involvement in that system included discussions of various courses of action in the interviewing of employees by a search committee which consists of a group of department heads and the Center's administrator. Petitioner did not sign contracts or purchase orders for any services or supplies; she did not sign checks or make any decisions affecting the employment of the staff at the Center such as hiring, firing, layoff, recall suspension or the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. The accounting decisions for the Center were made at a regional office and the Petitioner's involvement in the accounting decisions consisted primarily of reguesting certain items when a budget proposal was made to the regional office and the placing of certain numbers on forms, which had to conform within the framework of the finalized budget as prepared by the Center's regional office. During the above four (4) year period, Petitioner served as Acting Administrator for the Center for one weekend of every five or six weeks where she was authorized to exercise managerial authority temporarily and primarily in cases of emergencies. In this regard, evidence reveals that the Administrator was, even in these instances, still responsible for the exercise of emergency administrative authority by Petitioner while she served as the Acting Administrator. (Testimony of Petitioner and witnesses Melican, Cohen and Lane.) To performing her regular duties as nursing home administrator at the Center, Petitioner exercised the management skills and the executive duties of planning, directing, staffing, organizing and controlling only the social services department. Since early 1980 to present, Petitioner has served as a member of the Board of Directors and a founder of the Florida State Hospice Organization. During her affiliation with the Hospice of Boca Raton, Petitioner performed executive functions for two (2) years at twenty (20) hours per week and one (1) year at thirty-five (35) hours per week. During her affiliation with the Hospice, Petitioner was responsible for and has provided input for the articulation of rules and regulations governing Hospice facilities statewide. Petitioner has also served on resource committees affiliated and/or approved by Respondent for the development of standards to provide and assure quality Hospice care statewide. In the performance of her duties in the Hospice of Boca Raton, Petitioner has exercised management skills and executive duties which include planning, directing, staffing, controlling and organizing that facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Home Administrators, deny petitioner's application to sit for the licensing examination in nursing home administration. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 2nd day of March, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On November 23, 1988 petitioner, Lee County Board of County Commissioners d/b/a Shady Rest Nursing Home (applicant, Shady Rest or County), filed its application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), for a certificate of need (CON) seeking authorization to replace one hundred and five existing beds and to add seventy-five nursing home beds so as to create a one hundreds eighty bed community nursing home facility at 3922 Michigan Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida. In the alternative, the County requested a partial award of replacing its existing facility add adding fifteen beds so as to create a one hundred twenty bed facility. Under the alternative plan, the County projected an anticipated capital expenditure of $5,490,500. The County has agreed that, if the application is approved, the additional beds would be dedicated exclusively to Medicaid patients. After reviewing the application and certain additional information filed by the County through the omissions process, HRS deemed the application to be complete on January 9, 1989. Thereafter, on March 10, 1989 HRS issued proposed agency action advising the County that its application had been denied. As grounds, the agency generally stated that its evaluation of the application revealed the applicant had not satisfied certain statutory and rule criteria. In addition, HRS concluded that the County had failed to provide adequate documentation prior to the January 9, 1989 "completeness" date to support its request. This action prompted the County to request a formal hearing to contest the agency's preliminary decision. However, the appeal is limited to the partial award request to add fifteen beds and establish a one hundred twenty bed facility. It is noted that there were no other applicants in the November 1988 batching cycle and no existing providers have intervened in this proceeding. The Applicant The County's facility is located in subdistrict 5 (Lee County) of HRS District 8. The County has owned and operated Shady Rest Nursing Home for approximately twenty-eight years. Now licensed for one hundred five beds, the facility is categorized by HRS as a community nursing home. This means that it serves the population at large and has not received a certificate of need designating the beds as sheltered beds in accordance with Chapter 656, Florida Statutes (1987). As a publicly owned facility, the nursing home provides service to the public regardless of profit. Although the facility received annual subsidies from the County until as recent as four years ago, the facility now operates on a fiscally sound basis. The most typical patient at Shady Rest is Medicaid eligible. Because the plant is around thirty-one years old, the County desires to construct a new, more efficient and less costly to operate facility. In this regard, it is noted that HRS supports the construction of a new facilites for the existing one hundred five beds but opposes the authorization for any new beds. Since by law a facility can have no more than sixty beds for each nursing station, it was more logical and efficient for the applicant to design a facility having one hundred twenty beds, or one that required two nursing stations. Thus, besides need, the additional fifteen beds are predicated on economic and planning considerations. Motion in Limini There is no specific methodology that is prescribed by HRS to inform applicants of what is needed to meet the burden of proof regarding not normal circumstances. Rather, applicants must rely on the language in Rule 10- 5.11(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code (1987). As noted in finding of fact 8, HRS has just begun using a new CON application form for nursing homes. The County's application was submitted in the first batching cycle in which the new CON application form was used. In its application, the County stated it was applying for more beds than were contained in the published fixed need pool pursuant to the special circumstances contained in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(k)2.j. of Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code (1987). Also attached to the application was what the County describes as "detailed evidence" of need for Medicaid-eligible nursing home beds in Lee County and the then current number of Lee County residents were located in out-of-county nursing homes. The detailed evidence is found on page one of two of Appendix 1 (1B2 - Optional) of the application and consists of the statement that "approximately 750-775 Lee County residents are reported in this (Medicaid) program as being in nursing care facilities. Approximately 130-150 of these residents are located in nursing homes outside of Lee County. Shady Rest Nursing Home experiences a waiting list of approximately 8 to 15 Lee County residents per month." Aside from this, no other information or documentation concerning special circumstances was included with the application. Although the County had at least three corroborating patient lists in its possession at the time the application was filed, it chose not to include them with the initial application or through the omissions process. At hearing, the County proffered into evidence the waiting lists and a more recently prepared letter of support and quality assurance manual on the theory they merely supplemented the statement set forth in Appendix 1 of the application. However, HRS did not consider these to be matters within the general scope of the application, deemed them to be impermissible amendments and objected to their admission by a motion in limini. The Review Process As an aid in evaluating applications for nursing home facilities, HRS recently instituted a somewhat complicated scoring system which involves an analysis of the responses provided by the applicant in its application. The scoring system is not codified in rule or statute form but is utilized on an ad hoc, case by case basis. The evaluation process rates an applicant's compliance with eight objectives which are designed to track the CON review criteria. The objectives are described in detail in HRS exhibits 3 and 4 received in evidence. Each objective has been assigned a certain number of points in the scoring process ranging from thirty to five hundred, or a total possible score of 1,398 points. The responses are measured by two HRS in-house consultants against this established point system, and numerical scores are assigned by them to each of eight categories of objectives. The two scores are averaged, and the overall score is then evaluated as a percentage of total points attained. Since a maximum of 1,398 points may be attained by an applicant, the overall average score is applied to that number to attain the applicable percentage. According to HRS, if a sufficient proportion of the total available points is achieved, the achievement indicates that the proposal is in conformance with the statutory and rule review criteria. The agency points out, however, that there is no passing score per se but rather the goal is to attain the highest score possible. In addition, the successful applicant will achieve a consistently high number in each of the eight rated objectives. This is because HRS equates consistency with capability to implement a successful project. In this case, HRS's review of the County's application resulted in the County achieving an overall average score of 710.81 points on its partial award request. This equated to a "score" of 50.84 percent of the 1,398 maximum assignable points. The agency then concluded that the applicant had "not demonstrated sufficient compliance with all relevant certificate of need review criteria for the approval of nursing home beds." The state agency action report received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 2 indicated that the County's overall strengths were determined to be objectives 6 and 7 while its major weakness was noted in objective 1. The latter objective related to the identification of the nursing home fixed need bed pool and conformance with the local and state health plans. Compliance with Rule Criteria For purposes of determining the need for additional community nursing home beds in Lee County, HRS used a planning horizon of July 1991. In other words, through the use of a formula embodied in a rule, the agency calculated the number of new community nursing home beds projected to be needed in Lee County (the applicable subdistrict) at a relevant future period of time. The parties have agreed that under this formula no new beds are projected to be needed in Lee County during the planning horizon. As a general rule, additional beds would not normally be approved under these circumstances. However, the County contends that "not normal" circumstances are present that justify the need for an additional fifteen beds. Under this approach, an award of additional beds can be made even if no formula need exists if the applicant can show "special circumstances". One such special circumstance recognized by HRS is the inability of residents to obtain access to licensed and unoccupied beds in the area. The County has relied upon this exception and contends there is a demonstrated shortage of community nursing home beds in the subdistrict for Medicaid eligible patients. Underpinning the applicant's use of the exception are three waiting lists maintained by the facility over the past year and a half. They were proffered to show that persons with a need for nursing home care have been denied access to currently licensed but unfilled beds. One list (petitioner's exhibit 5) begun in 1987 contains the names of a large number of individuals who have filed applications with Shady Rest, of whom the County identifies twenty- one as being Medicaid-eligible and appropriate for immediate placement. A second list (petitioner's exhibit 6) contains the names of persons who made a phone inquiry with the home. Although there was no supporting documentation to show those individuals' demonstrated need for nursing home care as required by the rule, the facility's social service coordinator testified without contradiction that the above twenty-one persons were all determined to be Medicaid eligible and appropriate for placement in a nursing home. Even so, there was no independent or corroborative evidence that those twenty-one individuals had been denied placement in other Lee County nursing homes. This infirmity supports the claim of HRS that the list, in its present form, is not probative of the issue of need because clients often sign up on multiple lists or have a preference for a particular facility. This assertion was not contradicted by credible evidence. A third list (petitioner's exhibit 7) reflected that each month from August 1988 until July 1989 there were between one hundred fourteen and one hundred thirty-four Medicaid eligible Lee County residents in nursing homes outside of Lee County. This information was derived from monthly Medicaid billing summaries compiled by HRS. While it is probably true, as HRS suggests, that some of these patients by choice are residents of out-of-county facilities, it is just as likely that some patients did not voluntarily choose to be placed outside the county. This is because placement in an out-of-county home is inconvenient for a patient's family, particularly one at the poverty level. To the extent involuntary out-of-county placements have occurred, it is because some nursing homes may not always accept a Medicaid patient. For example, a nursing home may not be equipped to handle a particular client's medical condition. However, this type of client will always have a more difficult time being placed than others. Therefore, there are occasions when vacancies at nursing homes do not correspond with the ability to place a Medicaid-eligible patient in Lee County. To corroborate the contention that it has been unable to accept all applicants, the County established that its September 30, 1988 utilization rate was 98% with the percentage of Medicaid patients at 88% of the 98%. It was also established that the rate has not decreased since that time. According to the County, this high utilization factor has contributed to the County's inability to provide service to all applicants. Even so, a high utilization rate alone is not dispositive of the accessibility issue. While County representatives contended they have had difficulty in placing Medicaid eligible patients not only in their facility but also in other Lee County nursing homes, the HRS District 8 administrator, who is responsible for assisting those individuals in securing placement, had no "hard data" to confirm this. Indeed, her subordinates, who also testified, indicated that the alleged difficulty in placement arose only "at times". Given these considerations, it is found that persons with a need for Medicaid services are reasonably able to access existing services in the subdistrict and that the required not normal circumstances within the meaning of the rule are absent. Compliance with Statutory Criteria Prior to hearing the parties stipulated that various statutory and rule criteria were not applicable in this proceeding. After the evidentiary hearing was held, the agency acknowledged in its post-hearing proposed order that only five statutory criteria in Subsection 381.705(1), Florida Statutes (1987) are still in issue and that only two paragraphs in rule 10-5.011(1) apply. The first three statutory criteria pertain generally to need and accessibility and require that HRS consider the need for the project in relation to the applicable district and state health plans, the adequacy of existing providers and whether the proposed services will be accessible to all residents. In addition to the findings in paragraph 12, it is noted that for purposes of planning and review of nursing home care in District 8, the local health plan, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 6, recommends that "preference . . . be given to new and existing community home bed developments that dedicate a substantial percentage of their beds for Medicaid patients." In addition, it recommends that "expansion of existing facilities to 120 beds should be given prefernce over construction of new facilities in the same health service area." Applicant's proposal is in agreement with those objectives, and it is found that the proposal is consistent with the local health plan. As required by law, the application also mandates that the applicant demonstrate compliance with relevant portions of the state health plan, including justification for an award of beds in excess of the zero fixed need pool. Those portions of the plan have been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 7. In its application response, the County simply stated that it did not have a copy of the state plan and therefore could not furnish an answer to this inquiry. At hearing, the County relied upon the special circumstances proof to show compliance with the state health plan. Since special circumstances were not shown to be present, the applicant also failed to show that the project is in conformity with the state health plan. Finally, it was established that the project will be accessible to all residents in the district. In its proposed order, HRS appears to have conceded that the County will provide adequate quality of care to to its patients. Nonetheless, and in an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made on this issue. The issues of whether the County can provide quality of care as well as the applicant's past record of quality of care are relevant. In this regard, the parties offered into evidence the records of past inspections by HRS personnel to show the historical record of care on the part of the facility. These records reflect that HRS gave the facility a standard rating in 1986 and 1987. In 1988, an initial inspection resulted in the facility receiving a conditional rating. However, the facility appealed that decision and was successful in getting the conditional rating removed. Since May 16, 1988 the County has maintained a superior rating which is indicative of the high quality of care rendered to its patients. These findings were corroborated by local HRS employees who characterized Shady Rest's' quality of care as "high". Therefore, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The next criterion in issue relates to the long-term financial feasibility of the project. As noted earlier, the facility was subsidized by the County until four years ago. Since then, it has operated in the black. According to the County's consultant, if the project is approved, the County will provide subsidies of $900,000 and $250,000, respectively, during the first two years of operation and any other required funding thereafter. It should be recognized, however, that the first year is the start-up of operations, with relatively high costs due to inventories, working capital and the like. The witness further opined that he expected the facility to be financially sound in the future. This is true even though the facility projects a payor mix of decreasing Medicaid days in the future. Therefore, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The only remaining criterion in issue concerns the costs and methods of the proposed construction and whether there are less costly alternatives. The agency's principal objection concerns the failure of the County's architect to document on the plans whether the project would be in compliance with local, state and federal building codes. More specifically, HRS's objection is based upon contentions that the County (a) did not document local, state and federal code references on the schematics, (b) did not address the relationship of the replacement facility with the bed addition, and (c) did not sufficiently document the support functions on the schematics. In response to the first objection, the registered architect who drafted the plans established that there are some forty-five codes that the structure must meet in order to pass muster with HRS. He did not identify each of the codes on the drawings because (a) the pertinent rules do not call for such a representation at this phase of the project, (b) "it is obvious what codes it would be built under", and (c) the plans would be subject to three more reviews by HRS, and a more detailed analysis would be given during that part of the process. It is noted that the architect has constructed more than twenty nursing home projects in Florida and used the same plans here as are being currently used on four other facilities now under construction in the state. As to the agency's objection to the failure to show where the additional fifteen beds will be placed in the facility in relation to the other one hundred and five, the architect pointed out that the new facility will have one hundred twenty beds, all of which are "new" in a sense, and it is irrelevant where the fifteen "new" beds will be located from an architectural standpoint. Finally, the architect responded to the last criticism by explaining that the drawings are self-explanatory and show designated support areas with the associated square footage devoted to a particular function. The witness added that the drawings submitted by the app1icant are "a very basic schematic" and in an early preliminary stage. This testimony is accepted and it is found that this statutory criterion has been met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the application of the Lee County Board of County Commissioners d/b/a Shady Rest Nursing Home for a certificate of need to add fifteen beds and construct a new one hundred twenty bed community nursing home facility in Fort Myers, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 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 8th day of November, 1989.
The Issue Which of two competing applications for nursing home beds better meets the statutory and rule criteria to satisfy the numeric need for 79 additional beds in Agency for Health Care Administration District 7, Subdistrict 1, Brevard County.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the single agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws in Florida. AHCA published a numeric need for an additional 79 beds in District 7, Subdistrict 1, for Brevard County for the July 1996 planning horizon. There was no challenge to the numeric need determination. After reviewing the applications of Holmes/VHA Long Term Care Joint Venture ("Holmes/VHA") and National Health Corporation d/b/a NHC of Merritt Island ("NHC"), among others, AHCA published its intent to approve the application of NHC and to deny that of Holmes/VHA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") issued on March 13, 1994, for the July 1996 Planning Horizon, summarizes AHCA's review of the applications and the reasons for its decision. Holmes/VHA timely challenged AHCA's preliminary approval of CON 7527 to NHC and denial of CON 7539 to Holmes/VHA. In a pre-hearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the specific statutory criteria at issue, related to the contents of the letter of intent and application are subsections 408.037(2)(a), (2)(c), (4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties also agreed that the CON review criteria at issue are subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n) and (0), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated to the need for 79 additional community nursing home beds in the subdistrict. At the formal hearing the parties also agreed that quality of care is not at issue and that staffing schedules and proposals to fund or finance both projects are reasonable, thereby removing from consideration subsections 408.035(1)(c) and portions of (1)(h). HOLMES/VHA Holmes/VHA, the applicant for CON 7539, is a Florida general partnership formed between Holmes Regional Enterprises, Inc. ("Holmes Enterprises"), a Florida not-for-profit corporation, in Brevard County, Florida, and Vantage Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a VHA Long Term Care ("VHA"). The partnership, Holmes/VHA, owns and operates an existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Regional Nursing Center ("Holmes Nursing Center") in Melbourne. VHA is a division of Service Master Diversified Health Services of Memphis, Tennessee, which manages 106 facilities in 30 states. Holmes Enterprises operates Holmes Regional Medical Center ("Holmes Regional"), a 528-bed acute care hospital, with open heart surgery and neonatal intensive care services and approval for 30 skilled nursing beds. Sixty of Holmes Regional's licensed beds are located at Palm Bay Community Hospital in Palm Bay, approximately 8 to 15 miles south of Holmes Regional. Although it is a separate municipality, Palm Bay was described as a suburb of and contiguous to Melbourne. The site for the Palm Bay Center, which is across the street from Palm Bay Community Hospital, is in another community known as Mallibar. VHA has entered into similar partnerships with acute care hospitals in Jacksonville, Florida, and Greensboro, North Carolina, to operate nursing homes in those areas. The Service Master organization provides management and support services, including data processing, legal, personnel, dietary, and architectural and design services for nursing homes. Holmes/VHA, the joint venture general partnership, has a management committee of four people, two from the hospital and two from the VHA company. The management committee, functioning like a board of directors, adopted a resolution authorizing Holmes/VHA to file the Con application. When formed, the joint venture obtained an older 60-bed facility, and then constructed a replacement facility. During the construction, it obtained a 60-bed CON from another company and combined beds to build its existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Nursing Center. Holmes Nursing Center is rated superior and offers inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative and restorative services, including a head and spinal cord injury program. The rehabilitative services are directed by Holmes Regional, which is located a block and a half from the nursing home. The original CON for Holmes Nursing Center required that 35 percent of total patient days be provided to Medicaid. The requirement was increased to 45 percent with the 60-bed addition, which Holmes Nursing Center has exceeded. The 120 beds are divided into 20 percent Medicare certified, 50 percent Medicaid certified and 30 percent non-certified or private pay. Holmes Nursing Center also operates a 24-bed subacute unit for persons qualifying under Medicare criteria for skilled nursing care. Patients in the unit receive intensive assessments on each nursing shift and services which include pain, respiratory, and wound management. Holmes Regional Hospice, Inc. ("the hospice") is an affiliate of Holmes Enterprises, for which Holmes Regional holds the CON to take care of hospitalized hospice patients The current hospice census of over 200 patients includes 70 percent cancer, 9 percent AIDS, and 21 percent other terminal illnesses, such as heart disease and Alzheimers. Holmes/VHA applied for a CON to construct the 79-bed Palm Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ("Palm Bay Center") conditioned on the provision of 61 percent of total patient days to Medicaid and the establishment of a 12-bed sub- acute unit, one room for hospice patients, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, and respite care. The total gross square footage is 42,691 square feet. The Holmes Enterprises affiliates propose to provide support services for the Palm Bay Center, as they do for Holmes Nursing Center. The estimated total project cost for the Palm Bay Center is $4,732,790, of which the construction cost is $82,720,000 or $63.71 a square foot. An equity contribution of land valued at $420,000, will be provided by the hospital. Service Master will provide the funds or obtain financing for the project. The assumptions in the pro forma, including the expectation that interest may be due for a commercial loan, are reasonable. AHCA's expert's conclusion that the project is financially feasible is accepted. The financing by Service Master can be structured to avoid being treated as a related party transaction, which would adversely affect Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Holmes/VHA listed as capital projects three other pending CON and an additional $25,000 in annual capitalized routine expenses for furniture, fixtures and equipment attributable to Holmes Regional Nursing Center. The total of the capital projects listed on Schedule 2 of the application is $13,256,701. NHC National HealthCorp, L.P. ("NHC"), the applicant for CON 7527, began operations in 1986, with 14 nursing homes. Currently, NHC owns or manages 96 nursing homes primarily in the southeast United States. It manages 36 nursing homes in Florida, 6 of which are also owned by NHC. NHC proposes to add 60 beds to National Healthcare Center of Merritt Island ("NHC-Merritt Island"), a superior rated, 120-bed community nursing home on a 7 acre site in Merritt Island, Brevard County. NHC-Merritt Island has a 22-bed Alzheimers' unit. NHC's regional office provides support services, including speech, occupational, and physical therapies, nursing, dietary, and administrative services to NHC-Merritt Island. With the addition of 60 beds, NHC intends to provide respite care, a dedicated 20-bed subacute unit, and an additional 16-bed Alzheimers' unit. Without a subacute unit, NHC already has an average census of 9 subacute patients. NHC will triple the size of the therapy space and more than double the size of the building. The projected total capital expenditure is $3,891,850, with construction costs of $2,955,000, or $85.00 a square foot. To accommodate the addition, NHC has entered into a contract to purchase an additional 1.3 acres, adjacent to the current 7 acres, for a cost of $175,000. For the past few years, NHC has experienced 94 to 100 percent occupancy. Fifty-four people are on NHC's waiting list and an additional 16 are on the waiting list for the Alzheimers' unit. The projected annual fill-up rates for NHC's additional beds are supported by the demand for its service and its historical experience, even though the monthly fill-up rates in the application are not adjusted to reflect the specific number of days in each month. Medicaid resident days are 55 percent to 57 percent of the total at present, below the 60.31 percent average in the subdistrict and the current 60 percent CON condition. If the expansion CON is approved, NHC will commit to providing 60.31 percent Medicaid patient days and will increase the number of Medicaid certified beds from 77 to 108. NHC was profitable in 1992 and 1993, by approximately $100,000 and $250,000, respectively, but currently is not profitable, with an approximate deficit of $8,000. The deficit is attributable to (1) a decline in the Medicaid reimbursement rate, which was initially higher due to start up costs, (2) the expiration of a new provider exemption from Medicare cost limits, and (3) the transfer of assets by NHC, in exchange for stock, to a newly formed subsidiary, from which NHC-Merritt Island is now leased. Lease payments are $517,000 a year whether the facility has 120 or 180 beds, and profits are returned to stockholders, including NHC. Using Medicaid rates, calculated by the state, as inflated forward, and Medicare rates in excess of routine cost limits, based on the current experience of NHC-Merritt Island, NHC reasonably projected its costs and profit margin. NHC-Merritt Island has a positive cash flow and its expenses and revenues are at the goal set by NHC. With a total of 180 beds, the projections are reasonable that NHC-Merritt Island will be profitable. As AHCA's expert opined, NHC's proposal is financially feasible. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans The 1991 District 7 health plan has three preferences related to nursing homes, one favoring a section of Orange County, is inapplicable to the Brevard County applications. A second, for applicants proposing pediatric services, is inapplicable because both proposals in this batch are to provide adult services. The third preference favors applicants proposing to establish units providing psychiatric or subacute services, with emphasis on treating medically complex patients and AIDS/HIV positive patients. Holmes/VHA's health planner considers the subacute care and AIDS/HIV services proposed by Holmes/VHA superior to those proposed by NHC. NHC, however, proposes to provide specialized care in designated units for both subacute and Alzheimers's patients. Although Holmes/VHA argues that Alzheimers' care is required in every nursing home and is, therefore, not a specialized program, the physical design of a separate unit for such patients was shown to enhance their comfort. No AIDS/HIV positive patient has been treated at either Holmes Nusing Center or at NHC-Merritt Island. NHC-Merritt Island has accepted AIDS/HIV positive patients who did not come to the facility. The state health plan has twelve allocation factors for use in comparing nursing home applications. Both applicants comply with the factors favoring locations in a subdistrict in which occupancy levels exceed 90 percent, proposals to meet or exceed that average subdistrict Medicaid occupancy of 60.31 percent, proposals with respite care and innovative therapies, multi- disciplinary staffing, for staffing in excess of minimum state requirements, and which document means to protect residents' rights and privacy. Both Holmes/VHA and NHC also meet the preference for proposing charges that do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. NHC asserted, but failed to demonstrate that its therapy services with in-house staff are superior to those provided to Holmes/VHA by contract staff from Holmes Regional. The state health plan factor number 3, for specialized services, is largely duplicative of district health plan preferences. Neither applicant meets the part of one preference for providing adult day care, or the preference for proposing lower than average administrative costs and higher than average resident care costs. The fifth state allocation factor, for maximizing resident comfort and the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes, related to the cost and methods of construction, are at issue. NHC questions the adequacy of three acres for the building proposed by Holmes/VHA and the design of the building. Holmes Regional Nursing Center has 120 beds and approximately the same building area as that proposed for Palm Bay Center. The architects of the building have constructed a 163-bed facility on four acres in Jacksonville, and a 240-bed facility in Memphis, Tennessee on approximately six acres. Homes/VHA expects to construct the building in half the time required for completion of NHC's proposed addition. AHCA's architect noted, however, that Holmes/VHA has no Alzheimers unit and that its subacute area is not separated from the areas used by other patients and their families. Holmes/VHA has showers only in the 13 private rooms. By contrast, NHC has an Alzheimers unit with its own lounge and courtyard and a subacute unit at the end of a wing with a separate waiting room. NHC's rooms are larger, with larger windows. NHC's costs are higher than Holmes/VHA's, but not above the high average cost guidelines for construction used by AHCA. NHC has one nursing station for 60 beds, which meets the state requirement while Holmes/VHA is better equipped with two nurses stations for 79 beds. In general, Holmes/VHA established that its building could be built on 3 acres, and that its interior spaces exceed the requirements to be licensed. NHC established that its building and grounds will be larger, higher quality construction with more non-combustible materials, and better meet the preference for maximizing resident comfort. The preference for superior resident care is met by both Holmes/VHA and NHC-Merritt Island. An NHC facility in Stuart was rated conditional for 80 days of the 36 months, prior to the filing of the application. NHC had just purchased the Stuart facility at the time of the conditional rating, and had, in total, many more months of superior operations. In addition, the parties stipulated to quality of care issues at the hearing. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability, accessibility, efficiency, extent of utilization of like and existing services; alternatives to the applicants' proposals Brevard County is 80 miles long from north to south, 22 miles wide at its widest point, with 62 percent of its population in the southern area of the county. Holmes/VHA contends that its application should be approved based on the greater need for nursing home beds in southern Brevard County. Using ratios of beds in existing or approved nursing homes as compared to the population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, a need is shown for more beds in the southern area, including Palm Bay. In the central area, there are 31.52 beds per 1000 people over 65, as compared to 26.53 in the southern area of Brevard County. For the population over 75, the ratios are 82.53 in the central and 68.47 in the southern area. The over 75 population is also projected to increase by a greater percentage in the southern as contrasted to the central areas of the county. AHCA claims to reject the use of any "sub-subdistrict" analysis of need, other than the test for geographically underserved areas, as defined by Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code. That test which applies to proposed sites more than 20 miles from a nursing home, is not met by Holmes/VHA or NHC. However, AHCA has, in at least one other case, considered geographic accessibility within the planning area in determining which applicant should be approved, without the applicants having to demonstrate that the proposed sites are geographically underserved areas. NHC takes issue with Holmes/VHA's data on bed availability in the southern and central portions of the county. NHC maintains that its central location better serves the entire county. NHC's expert also criticized the methodology used by Holmes/VHA for demonstrating need in the southern area. The comparison of existing beds to population, shows a lack of county-wide parity, but not necessarily need. Other factors related to the need for nursing homes were not presented, such as poverty, migration, mortality and occupancy rates. In addition, NHC's expert questioned Holmes/VHA's experts calculations of bed- to-population ratios. The ratios arguably were skewed by using beds for Wuesthoff Hospital Progressive Care in the central area data, but including the population of the zip code in which Wuesthoff is located in the southern area. Holmes/VHA noted that the majority of the population in the zip code is in the southern area. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid/indigent care Holmes/VHA's expert criticized NHC because two of its facilities, Merritt Island and Stuart, have been below the subdistrict average for Medicaid occupancy. For 3 six month periods during the last 4 years, they also were below their CON Medicaid commitments. One other NHC facility, in Hudson, has been below the subdistrict average, but significantly above its CON condition. NHC claims that it treats its Medicaid condition as a minimum, while Holmes/VHA uses its conditions as an artificial ceiling or maximum. Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(o) - cooperative or shared health care resources; continuum of care Holmes/VHA has established linkages to its various related companies to provide cooperative care and shared resources. Palm Bay Nursing Center would enhance the multi-level care provided by the Holmes Enterprises group and provide another integral step in the continuum, particularly in rehabilitative therapies. NHC, however, as an existing provider, is part of a well-established network of health care providers in the community. NHC has also purchased land to build an adult congregate living facility near or adjacent to NHC-Merritt Island. Subsections 408.039(2)(a), (2)(c) and 408.037(4), and Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code - capital projects list; board resolutions; and impacts on costs AHCA interprets the requirements for the submission of a board resolution to allow an original resolution accompanying the letter of intent to be treated as a part of the complete application. A board resolution with an application, which the statute requires "if applicable," applies to expedited applications for which a letter of intent would not have been received, according to AHCA. NHC submitted an original board resolution with its letter of intent, and a copy of that resolution with its application for CON 7527. The authority of Holmes/VHA's management committee to authorize the construction of a new nursing home, and the authority to operate a nursing home outside the city of Melbourne was questioned. The testimony that the joint venture agreement authorizes the management committee to adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of CON 7539 was not refuted. In addition, the testimony that operations are restricted to the "Melbourne area" as opposed to some more specifically defined geographic area was not refuted. Repeatedly, witnesses described Palm Bay, although a separate municipal corporation, as a suburb of Melbourne. Holmes/VHA claims that NHC failed to disclose certain capital equipment leases from its schedule 2 list of capital projects and failed to evaluate the impact on costs, as required by subsection 408.037, Florida Statutes. In NHC's annual reports, the costs of capital equipment leases were $204,000 in 1991, $43,000 in 1992, and $88,000 in 1993. In fact, the NHC witness who prepared schedule 2 included a total of $21,653,468 for the category "Renovations (Including Furnishings and Equipment) 1994", taken from the capital expenditure budget of each NHC facility. The listing is consistent with the footnote indicating the budget items "are subject to final approval and cash reserves availability." In addition, $100,000 is also listed under "Other Capitalization" for equipment, for which a footnote explains "[a]mount included in an abundance of caution to cover any items unknown at the time of filing." NHC, according to Holmes/VHA, also failed to provide a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services it provides, as required by subsection 408.037(2)(c), Florida Statutes. NHC merely states that the impact is "nominal" and "negligible." NHC satisfied the impact analysis requirement in the notes to schedule 2 and in schedules 11, 13 and 14 of the application. The incremental pro forma analysis of the effect on costs with or without the proposed project, and projected financial ratios and costs, give detail support for the statements in the application. Assuming, arguendo, that Holmes/VHA omitted $50,000 in capital costs from schedule 2, the omission is not material or fatal to consideration of the application on the merits. Holmes/VHA's financial expert testified that $50,000 is less than on-half of one percent of the total project expenditures listed on schedule 2 and is, therefore, immaterial. As AHCA concedes, Holmes/VHA and NHC have the resources to establish their projects and to provide the services described in their applications. On balance, the demand for additional beds, the enhancement of a superior, existing physical plant and the expansion of specialized services at NHC outweigh the community linkages demonstrated by Holmes/VHA and the desirability of county- wide parity in the distribution of nursing homes beds, at this time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency For Health Care Administration issue a Final Order approving CON No. 7527 for the construction of an additional 60 community nursing home beds by National Healthcorp, L.P., conditioned on the provision of 60.31 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 17th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2393 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner NHC's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18, except last phrase. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6 and 10. 6-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law. 18-21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. 23-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 31. Rejected in Findings of Fact 6 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. 35-36. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 21-25. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 39. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 20, 23 and 34. 40. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 41. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 44-45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 46-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. 56-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19, 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 68-77. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 84-88. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, and 20. 89-95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, and 20. 96-97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10, 15, and 21. 98-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 16 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 15. 104-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 14. 109-110. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 113-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 18 and 34. 120-123. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 11. 124-130. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. 131. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 132. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 133. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 134-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 24. 138. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 139. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 140. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 24. 141-150. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 151. Rejected as not entirely supported by the record. 152-162. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 163-172. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 28. 173-175. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 176. Rejected conclusion that "NHC better . . ." in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 177. Accepted. Petitioner Holmes/VHA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3.. 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 6-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 31. 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30 and 31. 12. Rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and 32. 13. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law 37-40. 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 31. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 17-21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 22. Accepted, except last sentence, in Findings of Fact 27. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 25. Conclusions cannot be reached in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 26-29. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 30-36. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 33 and 34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18 and 34. Rejected in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Rejected in Findings of Fact 16. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 43-44. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18. 45-48. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 49-51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3-10 and 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 58-59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 63-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted, except conclusion, in Findings of Fact 21 and 28. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 70-71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 72. Accepted as corrected in Findings of Fact 25. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 77-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 81-89. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, 21 and 29. 90-96. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 98. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 99. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 101. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 102. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 103-105. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 106. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 107-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 109. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. 110-112. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. 113-115. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 116-118. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 119-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 138-143. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 24. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Timothy Howard, Esquire John F. Gilroy, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Darrell White, Esquire Charles Stampelos, Esquire MCFARLAIN, WILEY, CASSEDY & JONES, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Tower 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert M. Simmons, Esquire 5050 Poplar Avenue 18th Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38157 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, et al. Monroe-Park Tower, Suite 815 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 13th day of February, 2003.
The Issue The issues raised concern the questions of whether Manor Care should be entitled to the grant of a certificate of need for the addition of 31 nursing home beds to its existing facility which presently houses 89 beds, in Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV, and whether All Saints should be granted permission to transfer its existing 60 bed nursing home facility from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV by grant of a certificate of need.
Findings Of Fact HRS is the regulatory agency responsible for reviewing applications submitted for purpose of obtaining permission to provide various forms of health care in Florida. This includes nursing home care. Consideration of the applications is given in accordance with Sections 381.701 - 381.715, Florida Administrative Code. Those sections are known as the "Health Facility and Services Development Act." A successful application leads to the grant of a certificate of need issued by HRS evidencing need for a new or expanded health care facility or service in the given community. In these cases two applicants have requested the grant of a certificate of need for nursing home beds. Those applicants are All Saints Nursing, which wishes to relocate or transfer a 60 bed facility in Subdistrict 2 of HRS District IV to Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. The CON action number related to that application is No. 4956. Manor Care, which presently has an 89 bed facility in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV, wishes to add 31 additional beds. The CON action number for the Manor Care request is No. 4952. The two applications described were reviewed by HRS in the same cycle. As a consequence, they have been considered in the hearing de novo comparatively, the possibility existing that there is insufficient need for the addition of nursing home beds to meet the requirements of both applicants. In its initial assessment of this case and statement of decision, HRS favored the grant of a certificate of need to All Saints and denied the Manor Care application. Manor Care made a timely request to challenge the grant of the certificate of need to All Saints and to the denial of its request for certificate of need. Likewise, Mandarin Manor has timely opposed the grant of a certificate of need to All Saints and timely intervened in the case related to Manor Care's challenge to the denial of its requested certificate of need. Mandarin Manor is an existing nursing home facility in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV and gains its standing to participate in this action by that reality. Mandarin Manor will be substantially affected if the applications are approved for the addition of nursing home beds to Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. Both applicants and Mandarin Manor are specifically referred in the certificate of need process as "skilled nursing facilities" as defined in Section 381.702(17), Florida Statutes. The rationale for the preliminary choices of HRS concerning the intent to grant the certificate of need to All Saints and to deny Manor Care was that All Saints is presently housed within a facility whose physical state is such that it no longer suffices and needs to be replaced and can be replaced in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV at low cost through an arrangement which affords increased access to the support system of the diocese of the Catholic Church in this area, whereas the numeric need formula found within Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, for the pertinent planning horizon of January 19, 1990, shows a surplus of community nursing home beds in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV and would not allow the grant of beds to Manor Care. In essence, the All Saints situation is seen as an exceptional circumstance which in the analysis made by HRS warrants the grant of certificate of need. Manor Care's request, according to HRS, is not so compelling and without demonstrated need through the use of the formula for deriving projected need may not be favorably responded to. The question of need as it involves the two applicants will be discussed more comprehensively in subsequent findings in this recommended order. THE ALL SAINTS APPLICATION The All Saints application dates from January, 1987. All Saints is located in the downtown area of Jacksonville, Florida within Subdistrict 2 of HRS IV. It sits back about 250 feet from Riverside Avenue and has a parking area that accommodates 25 to 30 cars. All Saints is owned and controlled by the Catholic Church through the Bishop of the Diocese of St. Augustine which is a corporate entity under Florida law. The facility itself is very old and its inner spaces are very confining. The facility is located on property one and one-half acres in size and is bordered by Riverside Avenue and the St. Johns River on two sides and other enterprises on the remaining sides. Ingress and egress to the facility is awkward. Parking is a problem in that two hospital parking lots are located nearby All Saints. Those parking lots are associated with Riverside Hospital. As a consequence, it makes it difficult to find parking at All Saints because of utilization patterns by persons visiting the hospital. In addition, the All Saints parking lot, even if available for visitors to that facility alone is inadequate. The size of the site of the present facility precludes outdoor activities for patients. Given the age of the facility, a significant amount of capital budget or operating expenses have been devoted to capital improvements and repairs routinely since 1981. One problem within the facility concerns the location of the nurses station. It is located in the center of the facility in a design in which the patient wings run to the east and west from that nursing station. This thwarts the attempts of the nurses to observe the patient rooms from the nursing station. The nursing home has problems with its ceilings and does not have a fire sprinkling system. 16, The corridors within the nursing home are confining, creating problems for the transport of patients in and out of their rooms and providing difficulty for the staff to render care. The kitchen area is inadequate and needs to be replaced. The windows in the facility are an old style crank-out type which cannot be replaced and, given their poor state of repair, provide problems with heating and cooling in the patient rooms. The laundry area is very small and the laundry cannot be divided into soiled and clean areas. The roof over the west wing has numerous leaks and a decision must be reached soon on replacing the roof. Problems exist with the plumbing at the nursing home. Problems exist with the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, leading to an expenditure of $52,000.00 in 1986 to build a new generator and cooling tower for the air conditioning system. Replacement parts for some of the system are unavailable due to the age of the system. The patient rooms generally present problems with heating and cooling due to the age of the facility. The kitchen hood is in a state of disrepair. The electrical system presents problems, among them the fact that only one switch is available to turn on the emergency generator if emergency lighting were to be needed. The better arrangement is to have two switches. A problem is presented in that the receiving room is outside of the physical space of the facility. The patient rooms are confining. The hot water system has broken down at times causing the hot water temperature to exceed allowable limits. The problems that are being described are not such as to cause the decertification of the facility or to place the license of the facility in jeopardy, in that the facility has been "grandfathered" in terms of the need to comply with code requirements related to the items described. An architectural survey conducted at the facility led to the conclusion that an expansion within this facility is not practical. In addition to the price of the purchase of air conditioning, between 1982 and 1986 the nursing home has spent $60,000 to replace stoves, refrigerators and a freezer unit in the kitchen, and approximately $22,000 to put a new roof on the east wing. Other refurbishments have also been made. The nature of the physical plant is as such to interfere with the care rendered to the patients; however, the facility has afforded quality care to its patient in spite of these impediments. In particular, the spatial inadequacies have made it difficult to provide physical, speech and occupational therapies and for the nurses to carry out some of their duties. The circumstances of the physical plant have interfered to some extent with the ability to recruit and keep staff members and at times to attract patients, although the occupancy rates at the facility have remained high. The license of the nursing home has never been revoked. In the years 1984 and 1985 the facility had a superior rating. In 1985, for a period of 35 days, the hot water problem caused the superior rating to be downgraded to conditional. In 1986 the facility received a standard rating due to a combination of problems within the physical plant, as to the layout of the kitchen, and the menu selection. On the dates of the hearing the facility had a superior rating. The gravest concerns about the physical plant have to do with patient safety, especially as it relates to not having a sprinkler system and the size of doors within corridors, and diverse floor finishes. If the facility were to attempt to gain compliance with present codes, the cost would be approximately $500,000. In this connection, if more than fifty percent of the value of the building was expended in making these upgrades, it would be necessary to bring the entire building into compliance with the current codes and this may not be done because the corridors are not subject to those corrections, given their design. Under the circumstances, to bring the nursing home into compliance the better choice would be to construct a new home. By constructing a new home the defects could be cured. HRS has concluded, in its review of the application, that the construction of a new home is the most cost effective solution to remedy the problems. In the face of the problems described, All Saints hired architects who are expert in nursing home design and had them evaluate the possibility of using the existing structure and property for improving the situation and alternatives at other locations for the construction of a new facility. In particular, the alternatives under consideration included: Vertical expansion of the existing facility. Horizontal expansion within the existing facility. Constructing a new facility at a new site. Acquiring additional property at the existing site. Completely demolishing the existing facility and reconstructing a new two story home at the current site. In examining the idea of the demolition of the existing facility, while it was considered to be advantageous in that it would allow the facility to remain near existing hospitals and existing staffing patterns, the disadvantages related to inadequate size of the lot were felt to outweigh the advantages and that alternative was discarded. The idea of keeping the current facility and building and bringing on an additional home with additional beds at a new site was not deemed feasible because two nursing homes could not be operated with one central administration. The idea of construction or renovation within the facility and the employment of a parking garage as part of this revitalization was felt not to be cost effective and was further hindered in that the construction would have presented additional burdens in providing patient care in the construction phase. Renovation to add a second floor presented the same sorts of problems. The purchase of additional property for expansion is not easily available and was considered to be too expensive, nor was the purchase of additional parking within the general area of the facility felt to be within a suitable price range. Eventually the provider decided that the best choice for the provider was to relocate and undertake new construction, this being the most cost efficient choice in providing the best opportunity for the delivery of quality care. With this relocation it hopes to gain a state of the art design of the facility. To this end it went about finding a site and examined several properties belonging to the diocese of St. Augustine. In looking at these properties the size of the land, the general location, the effect on safety of patients and the proximity of a Catholic church were matters of importance to the provider. Two of the sites which were examined were located within Subdistrict 2 of HRS District IV. One of those sites was Dunn Avenue. While considered to be large enough, it was not felt to be acceptable because of the volume of commercial traffic on that road. The Dunn Avenue facility is between five and one- half acres and six acres of land 10 miles from the current facility. A site known as St. Catherine's presented approximately three acres of property. In addition to believing that the acreage was inadequate the selection committee was concerned that a church was not on the site and it did not have adequate utilities available. The St. Catherine's location would provide sufficient acreage for the 60 bed nursing facility, even though not considered adequate for the proposal for the nursing facility and a 60 bed Adult Congregate Living Facility planned to be part of the project. An additional site owned by the St. Augustine Diocese that was examined was located near Bishop Kenny High School, a Catholic high school which had about four acres of property available. It was felt to be inadequate in size and to be too near a main thoroughfare. Finally, the site which was chosen as being the best alternative was a site known as San Jose in Duval County which is in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV . It has a campus type environment and is nearby the second or third oldest established Catholic church in the area, The San Jose Parish. It is located in a residential area. It makes available approximately eight acres out of a total acreage of approximately 13 to 14 acres. It has a church school on the location. This arrangement would also be more beneficial to the applicant in installing a 60 bed Adult Congregate Living Facility as well as the relocation of its 60 nursing home beds at the same facility in the San Jose area. As stated, justification for locating in San Jose was urged because of the proximity to the Catholic church. In this connection only 40 percent of the present patient population in the facility is Catholic and the Catholic percentage of population has declined in recent years. If built, the facility would be a one story facility. Given the acreage available, it will allow for outside activities in a setting which is not interfered with by heavy traffic conditions. The patients who are presently residing in the Riverside Avenue facility will be allowed to move to the new location at their election. The new facility would provide a kiln room, physical therapy and a multipurpose room. It provides a better dining area and a secured courtyard area with a gazebo. The nurses station would be in the center of patient wings designed to allow observation of all corridors and to supervise the patients. It would also have a separate medicine preparation room. Overall, the construction would remedy the problems inherent in the present facility. The facility would have 24,000 square feet. The square footage per patient in the new home would be approximately 400, with a cost of construction of $65.00 per square foot. The total project cost is estimated at $2,117,000.00. The construction and total project cost of this plant are reasonable. The equipment is adequate and no leased or donated equipment will be required at the new home. No question has been raised concerning the schematics of the replacement facility. Should All Saints select property not already owned by the St. Augustine Diocese this would increase the project costs. In this regard, the possibility of selling the existing property would offset to some extent the purchase price of new property for relocation to a new site. In effect, if All Saints relocated, the value of the real property on which the CON facility is located now is approximately $1.2 million, which would be available to defray the expense of the purchase price of property if they were unable to use property already owned by the St. Augustine Diocese. The occupancy at All Saints at the time of the hearing was at 100 percent with 55 percent of those patients being private pay and 45 percent Medicaid. The estimate of the applicant concerning its first year of operation of a new home would be expected at 97 to 98 percent, with 50 percent private pay, 45 percent Medicaid and 5 percent Medicare. Between 1985 and 1986, the home averaged about 99 to 100 percent occupancy. Projected utilization within the new nursing home facility was based on the assumption that utilization historically having been 99 to 100 percent, it would not drop dramatically upon relocation. No specific surveys have been conducted to ascertain whether the present patients would transfer to the new location. Nonetheless, given the constituency of the patient population within the present facility, it would not be unexpected to see a substantial number of those patients relocate to the new facility. This does not address the death rate of that very elderly population and trying to determine who the new patients might be by age cohort and where they might come from. The average age of the residents at All Saints approaches 90 years and within the typical year approximately one third of the patient population changes. All Saints has referral agreements from St. Vincent's Medical Center and Riverside Hospital. They would maintain these referral agreements on relocation and would hope to make agreements with new hospitals after relocation, to include St. Luke's Hospital which is located in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. Although St. Luke's will continue their referral agreements with Riverside and St. Vincent's, In all likelihood, according to All Saints, it does not expect this to be an active referral agreement given the distances between those facilities and the new site location for All Saints. Any arrangement with St. Luke's Hospital for referral has yet to be consummated. Patient charges at the nursing home are $53.00 per day for room and board without regard for whether a patient is located in a 2, 3 or 4 bed room. Upon relocation it is expected that the charge would be $65.00 per day in the first year regardless of type of payor, with a $70.00 charge in the second year. The patient origin at present is from within Duval County, Florida where the nursing home is located and from surrounding counties and to some extent other areas within the state. The applicant does not expect that this circumstance would change with relocation. At present 50 percent approximately of the patients in the facility have been referred from St. Vincent's and Riverside Hospitals. At present 30 to 35 percent of the patients in the facility are residents from inside Subdistrict 2 of HRS District IV and approximately 30 to 35 percent of the current residents are from Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. Based upon a patient origin study of 1983 and updates to that study, there appears to be an equitable distribution of the existing patients in terms of origins throughout Duval County. About a third of those patients came from Subdistrict 3 and about 30 to 40 percent from Subdistrict 2 within HRS District IV. The remaining patients came from other parts of Duval County and throughout the state. All Saints has assumed that there is no primary detriment for All Saints in terms of patient origins which is associated with the location of the facility and cites a patient origin study done by the local health planning council referencing or containing a statement that said that religiously oriented facilities were less subject to geographic areas of concentration of their patients than would be the case for other facilities. Given the trends in All Saints away from the number of Catholic patients, it is not concluded that All Saints is necessarily one of the religiously oriented facilities spoken of. Upon reflection, the information presented concerning patient origin's for the present All Saints facility affords limited insight in trying to ascertain the patient origin for a relocated facility and the anticipated occupancy rates associated with that information. From the record these projections cannot be satisfactorily determined. There have also been admissions to All Saints from Baptist Hospital, St. Luke's Hospital and Orange Park Hospital. Currently the nursing home has 55 employees on staff and would not expect to add additional staff for the nursing home component if allowed to relocate. The turnover rate in nursing staff has been low and the nursing home has generally been able to fill vacancies. The nursing salaries compare favorably with salaries for nurses in the Jacksonville area. The new facility would take approximately one year to construct. The desire to move from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV is more related to a business choice than to health planning. Notwithstanding this fact, the underlying reason for relocation is to escape the conditions that exist within the inadequate physical plant that now serves the patients. The local health plan that was in effect at the time of the All Saints application, and which is to be applied, recommends that modernization or replacement of an existing nursing home be made within the same general geographic area. That is not seen as being a recommendation which would contemplate separate subdistricts as being within the same general geographic area. It is taken to mean replacement within the same subdistrict, although HRS seems to hold a contrary viewpoint about the term "general geographic area." In its preliminary assessment and preference for All Saints, HRS felt that the replacement facility was a low cost alternative and was struck by the fact that the replacement would increase access to the support of the St. Augustine Diocese and she organizations within the Catholic Church. Although the present facility is not on the immediate grounds of a Catholic Church, there is no contention that it has not received the support needed from that church. As alluded to before, All Saints has made a commitment to make services available to the underserved patients such as Medicaid and indigent care patients. Being a religiously affiliated nursing home and not-for-profit has allowed All Saints to make more of an effort to serve the medically underserved groups. If relocated, All Saints would continue this effort. Having been in existence since 1956, All Saints is considered as having existed for a long time as a health care system. A new physical plant would improve the competitive standing of All Saints in the marketplace. Among observations by HRS in its analysis of the application, it felt that All Saints would conform to needs and policies and priorities within the district plan and concluded that All Saints could increase availability and access to services while improving quality of care, efficiency, and adequacy of services to be provided. Its opinion is correct with the exception of availability and access which criteria are being satisfied at present in the facility and in Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV. HRS principally justified its opinion of the need for certificate of need based upon the structural deficiencies of the physical plant at All Saints. HRS believed in its review that the All Saints proposal would be consistent with plans for providing and financing long-term care. All Saints could provide long-term care at the new facility and can finance the venture. The purpose of the Adult Congregate Living Facility component of the new facility would be to speak to what all Saints considers as being necessary for three retirement centers around the area in addressing the independent living stage before nursing home care is indicated. THE MANOR CARE APPLICATION The Manor Care application was made in January, 1987. Manor Care is the fifth largest provider of long-term care beds in the United States. It owns approximately 104 nursing homes in 22 separate states. Nine of those nursing homes are located in Florida. At present, Manor Care has an 89 bed nursing home located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, within Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. That facility holds a superior license rating and has maintained that rating over the past five years. At the time of the hearing the occupancy rates for Manor Care were at 95 percent. The addition of the 31 beds sought for approval would bring the facility to 120 beds. If allowed this increase in beds, the addition would complement the range of long-term care services being offered at the existing facility, to include skilled nursing services, rehabilitative therapy, intermediate nursing care, respite care, and community outreach. The patients in the additional beds would be provided homelike residential surroundings, with well balanced nutritional meals, diversity in recreational programs, entertainment, and rehabilitative services. Each individual would be the subject of a planned rehabilitative program. The project contemplates a full range of restorative therapies through a full-time therapeutic staff and fully equipped therapy units. The addition contemplates the expansion of the number of Medicaid beds available in the community. The proposal, in addition to the 31 bed increase, would eliminate 3 bed rooms and provide additional therapy space for existing residents. With the increase in beds to 120 operational efficiencies would improve. The total project cost of Manor Care's proposal is $1, 436,267. Manor Care projects an occupancy level at 65 percent in year one and 95 percent in year two. This evaluation is premised upon typical start-up occupancy rates experienced in several of Manor Care's facilities opened in the last five years. In year one, Manor Care anticipates the addition to provide 35 percent of Medicaid patients days and 65 percent of private pay patient days. Manor Care hopes to have the new beds available for occupancy by June 1990. HRS REVIEW CRITERIA INCLUDING NUMERIC NEED Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code, establish the review criteria that HRS utilizes in assessing nursing home applications. Among those criteria are ones which examine availability of services, quality of care, and cost of providing services. Another item prominent in this inquiry concerns the basic issue of the need for those services by way of deciding if additions should be made to the beds in the inventory in the pertinent service area. That service area in these cases is Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. The question of need constitutes the pivotal issue in this dispute. Rule 1O-17.016(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, designates Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV to consist of St. Johns County and that portion of Duval County which lies south and east of the St. Johns River. This is distinguished from Subdistrict 2 within HRS District IV identified in Rule 10- 17.016(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which includes southwestern Duval County. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, when applied to derive any need for the planning horizon in this case, January 1990, related to community nursing home beds reveals that Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV will have a surplus of 72 beds at that juncture. This number is a product of the use of the needs calculation formula. The use of that rule is more comprehensively described in HRS exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. By contrast, the use of that formula demonstrates a net need in Subdistrict 2 for 278 additional beds in January 1990. Within the calculation related to need for the planning horizon for Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV are beds approved for and attributed to Beverly Gulfcoast of Florida, 100 beds pursuant to CON No. 2732; to Florida Convalescent Center, 106 beds pursuant to CON No. 2969; and to River Garden Hebrew Home, 180 beds pursuant to CON No. 4678. These beds related to those three entities are felt by Manor Care to be inappropriately included within the need calculation for Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV at the January 1990 planning horizon. Thus, according to Manor Care, it was inappropriate for HRS to reject its request for the grant of a certificate of need in that when the aforementioned beds are excluded the formula identifies a need for additional beds at the planning horizon. The Manor Care assertion that the previously described approved beds within Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV should not be included in calculating need is rejected. To begin with, Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code, identifies that the Department would not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in a service district if approval of that application would cause the number of community nursing home beds to exceed the number derived through the use of the needs formula. To acquiesce in the choice of Manor Care would cause the number of beds to further exceed those calculations in a subdistrict in which a surplus already exists by the use of the formula. Additionally, Manor Care dose not vie for the exception to need calculation as announced at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. This latter provision deals with the granting of a certificate of need based upon exceptional circumstances related to problems of accessibility to nursing home services within the subdistrict. Nor do any of the beds associated with those three aforementioned entities fall into the category of Christian Science nursing home beds which are deleted or excluded from the inventory of beds in calculating need. In essence, Manor Care is desirous of putting in place its own explanation of entitlement to the granting of a certificate of need outside the rule formula which has been promulgated to examine that issue and this is not allowed. All Saints has made that attempt as well but for reasons which are different and will be described subsequently. On the topic of the Beverly beds, HRS in its assessment of the certificate of need applications under consideration in this instance felt that those Beverly beds should be counted in the inventory of approved beds in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV . Counsel, in the course of the hearing in these cases, did not see fit to ask HRS witnesses why they had made that determination and no reason is stated in this record through written pronouncements made by HRS and offered and admitted as evidence. Nonetheless, Manor Care has attempted to depart from the choice expressed by HRS and bore the burden of explaining the flaw in the HRS logic without ever having sought the explanation from HRS. In this regard, Manor Care pointed out that the certificate of need given to Beverly was under a scheme in which Duval County constituted a sole subdistrict. Consequently, Beverly was given a certificate of need which would allow the placement of that 100 bed nursing home facility in any location within Duval County. By contrast, at the time of the cases that are examined in this dispute, parts of Duval County were found in Subdistricts 1, 2, and 3 to HRS District IV. Under those circumstances Manor Care did not believe it was appropriate to carry the 100 beds as approved in inventory in Subdistrict 3 alone. Instead it indicated that no portion of those beds should be attributed to Subdistrict 3, thereby subtracting the entire 100 bed complement from the inventory of approved beds in Subdistrict 3 for purposes of utilizing the formula to calculate need. Manor Care, through its presentation on February 15-17, 1988, which constitutes the hearing de novo for considering this dispute, urged that in examining HRS records no determination could be made as to Beverly's choice of sites for construction of the facility and this led Manor Care to its argument set forth in the preceding paragraph. As with the circumstance of failing to ask HRS why it sought to carry the 100 beds in the inventory for Subdistrict 3, Manor Care did not inquire of Beverly concerning where it would place its facility and promote that explanation in the course of the hearing session described in this paragraph. Moreover, an examination of the Manor Care exhibit 4 admitted into evidence, information pertaining to the Beverly application, contains correspondence by signature of E. G. Boone, Esquire, counsel to Beverly, in Certificate of Need No. 2732, in response to Herbert E. Straughn, medical facilities consultant for HRS. In the reply to the Straughn letter of July 28, 1982, also found in the composite exhibit 4, attorney Boone states that Beverly, though it has not signed a contract for the purchase of a site in Duval County, will be locating in south Jacksonville near St. Luke's Hospital. St. Luke's Hospital is in Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV. As a consequence although no one found it necessary to ask HRS why it would attribute the beds to Subdistrict 3 or ask Beverly, this correspondence tends to offer justification for the HRS choice of inventory location and suffices as an explanation. The River Garden Hebrew Home, and its 180 beds, is primarily intended to be a Jewish nursing home having in mind an attempt to meet the needs of that community for nursing home services. This is not to say that the nursing home would refuse to serve non-Jewish patients. River Garden had been granted a certificate of need to transfer from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV in recent times. So recent, in fact, that the patients still reside in Subdistrict 2 and the 192 beds that are involved in the River Garden facility in Subdistrict 2 are shown as licensed beds in the inventory for that subdistrict, although in view of their pending relocation to Subdistrict 3, the 192 beds had been subtracted from the inventory of approved beds in Subdistrict This information is found in HRS exhibit 1 admitted into evidence along with the 180 beds approved to be transferred to Subdistrict 3. The relocation of beds was without regard for the numeric needs formula. It was attributable to a sociological premise pertaining to River Garden's service to the Jewish community. This special circumstance approach to allowing beds for Jewish nursing homes notwithstanding use of the numeric need formula has been carried forward in Palm Beach County in several other Jewish nursing facilities. Nonetheless, HRS has consistently depicted those nursing home beds for Jewish nursing homes in the overall inventory as it has generally done following the granting of a certificate of need based upon exceptional circumstances. To carry forward this policy choice with the River Garden beds as they affect the question of need in the present cases would be to act consistently. No compelling reason has been given for departing from that approach. As an alternative theory, Manor Care has expressed the belief that only 79 of the 180 beds for River Garden should be counted in the approved bed inventory. The theory here is that the state agency action report which approved the River Garden relocation noted that if River Garden was allowed to relocate from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3, the effect of that move should be taken into account for later batched applicants. Neither the HRS staff nor the local planning council has suggested the out and out exclusion of the 180 beds for River Garden from the Subdistrict 3 inventory of approved beds as Manor Care urges. Whatever the perceptions held in the HRS staff review, the ultimate portrayal of the River Garden beds is as expressed in the HRS exhibit 1 in which an essentially zero balance is attempted in describing the River Garden beds in Subdistrict 2 and those beds are shown as a net increase in Subdistrict 3. In summary, it is not available to the present parties to relitigate the question of the granting of a certificate of need to River Garden for relocation, and the inclusion of those beds through the inventory is consistent with previous practices and it has not been shown that HRS acted unreasonably in counting all beds in the inventory of approved beds for Subdistrict 3, as opposed to only 79 beds. Next, Manor Care expresses the belief that the Florida Convalescent Center beds, 106 in number, should not be included in the approved bed count because that entity meets the requirements of the so-called Health Quest Amendment set forth in Section 381.713(4), Florida Statutes, which states: VALIDITY OF CERTIFICATE OF NEED--A certificate of need issued by the department for nursing home facilities of 100 beds or more prior to February 14, 1986, is valid, provided that such facility has expended at least $50,000 in reliance upon such certificate of need, excluding legal fees, prior to the initiation of proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act subsequent to February 14, 1986, contesting the validity of the certificate of need. If such nursing home certificate of need includes beds that have not yet been licensed as of June 17, 1987, such beds shall not be considered or utilized in the determination of need or included in the inventory of licensed or approved nursing home beds by the department, with respect to applications filed before June 17, 1987. This subsection shall only apply to nursing home beds. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to deny action pursuant to s. 120.69, or to eliminate any conditions of the certificate of need or time requirements to commence construction, including any authorized extensions. As contended, a certificate of need was issued for Florida Convalescent Center to construct a nursing home facility of 100 more beds and that certificate issued prior to February 14, 1986. On the other hand, sufficient proof was not offered that it had expended at least $50,000 in reliance upon that certificate to exclude legal fees prior to the initiation of proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act, such action taking place subsequent to February 14, 1986, and designed to contest the validity of the certificate of need issued to Florida Convalescent Centers. Methodist Regional Hospital System, Inc. d/b/a Methodist Manor Nursing Home, by petition of March 7, 1985, had challenged the grant of a certificate of need to Florida Convalescent Center for the project related to that latter corporation. However, that action was prior to February 14, 1986, and cannot satisfy that condition of Section 381.713(4), Florida Statutes, which makes it incumbent that the challenge come about subsequent to February 14, 1986. A further challenge was offered by the Forum Group, Inc., designed to oppose the granting of the certificate of need to Florida Convalescent Center. Although this petition occurred after February 14, 1986, it was ruled to be untimely. A final order was entered to that effect by HRS. See HRS exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. Under those circumstances, the Forum Group, Inc., challenge is not seen as being the type of petitioner initiated in challenge to the Florida Convalescent Center certificate of need application which is contemplated under the terms of Section 381.713(4), Florida Statutes. It is not necessary to further examine the requirements set forth in that statute for determining whether the 106 beds for Florida Convalescent Center should be excluded from the inventory. Based upon the problems with this theory already identified, they should not be. In examining the All Saints proposal, it does not rely on demonstrated need through use of the formula. Furthermore, there is no specific reference to the accessibility exception found within Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. It is not a case in which exception from the use of the formula is urged based upon the rationalization in the River Garden circumstance of the transfer of beds from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 within HRS District IV to accommodate a religious community. It is a circumstance which is best described as being one in which HRS believes that there are compelling reasons to abandon the physical plant that now houses all Saints and wherein HRS is willing to allow this transfer across subdistrict lines to accomplish that outcome, with some regard being afforded for placement near a Catholic church. The approval contemplated for All Saints is one which necessarily recognizes the economic advantage of All Saints in which it Is allowed to locate at a place that does not include the purchase of property and to have available the opportunity to sell property that it now holds at which the All Saints physical plant is found. The supervising health planning consultant for HRS who is the principal advisor to the agency concerning the All Saints application, Reid Jaffe, gave testimony at hearing. He appears to think that the placement of the new facility in Subdistrict 3 would be activity in the same service area, assuming that a certificate of need is issued and construction takes place and that patients within the facility would be transferred to the new facility. As described before, the exact number of patients to be transferred is not known and even if they all transferred, the focus of this case contemplates future planning and more particularly, future planning within Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV and information about future patients is sketchy. This realization, taken together with a higher turnover rate of patients within the All Saints facility, puts to question whether the service area as spoken to by the local planning council of Subdistrict 2 and Subdistrict 3 can be considered as being synonymous. As already stated, this would not appear to be a reasonable construction and Subdistrict 2 and Subdistrict 3 are found to be discrete service areas. While the All Saints relocation does not increase beds within the district, it does increase beds at the subdistrict level which is the level of bed assignment within HRS District IV. As such, the relocation is tantamount to the promotion of a new certificate of need within Subdistrict 3 to HRS District IV. Having chosen the alternative that it did, All Saints is not entitled to the exception to application for certificate of need for replacement on its existing land. Although HRS concedes that it would have been less complicated if All Saints had rebuilt its nursing home in Subdistrict 2, no particular inquiry was conducted to follow up on this observation and HRS does not feel that it could mandate that All Saints rebuild in Subdistrict 2. Basically, the applicant did not feel that Subdistrict 2 was a viable alternative and HRS did not press the point with the applicant, leaving the case in a posture wherein consideration of Subdistrict 2 is excluded. On the whole, it would seem that HRS looked favorably upon the All Saints application because of the basic impression that it would improve quality of care and that the building most assuredly needs to be replaced. HRS further concedes that its ideas about intra- district transfer of nursing home beds is not firm and the approach to examining these requests is case by case, with close scrutiny being given to each request in this respect. By response, even though HRS was thorough in its acquisition of information about the proposed project, it has failed to justify its choice. While the local health plan applicable at the time of the applications under question tended to identify a lesser ratio of beds per thousand elderly in Subdistrict 2 when compared to the ratio statewide, this does not appear to be the justification for movement from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 expressed either by the applicant All Saints or HRS and there is still the problem of bringing beds into a surplus situation in Subdistrict 3. Although Subdistrict 3 has a somewhat lower ratio of beds per elderly population, in contrast both Subdistrict 2 and Subdistrict 3 have relatively high occupancy rates. Regardless of the result of comparing Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 in the terms expressed in this paragraph, the fact remains that in keeping the beds in Subdistrict 2, the status quo remains and to move them to Subdistrict 3 would promote a significant change in the status quo contrary to established procedures for determining need. The change in the makeup of the patient population at All Saints in the direction of less Catholic patients has been conceded by HRS in the course of the hearing as diminishing the value of having the nursing home installed near the support systems of the Catholic church. Generally, HRS concedes that it is not advantageous to transfer beds from what, by the need calculation, is an underbedded condition in Subdistrict 2 and into an over-bedded subdistrict, and that to do so would have a short-term adverse competitive impact on existing providers such as Mandarin Manor. All Saints, while improving the quality of care in its transfer for patients in its facility, would not be responding to any need for the improvement of quality of care that now exists within the Subdistrict 3 or cost effectiveness or other criteria related to that subdistrict which criteria are used in deciding whether to grant a certificate of need. On balance, the opportunity afforded All Saints is contrary to basic policy within the statutes and rules under which HRS considers the granting of a certificate of need and the explanation for allowing this arrangement on this occasion is insufficient. There is no question that All Saints needs a new facility, but to allow it to transfer its facility from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 for what are principally economic reasons, when this arrangement is contrary to established health planning principles is wrong. It is the local plan in existence at the time the applications were filed that is controlling. Both applicants have problems with meeting the consistency requirements of the local health plan in that priority is recommended for the placement of nursing home beds in St. Johns County within Subdistrict 3 if additional nursing home beds are granted. The local plan calls for approximately 25 percent of patients to be Medicaid patients within the nursing home and for the accessibility and availability and equal distribution of that care. All Saints' proposal meets this requirement and Manor Care makes an effort. The state health plan in effect at the time of this case does not speak in specific terms to the relocation of health care facilities. The applications tend to address the general goals of the state health plan. The state health plan addresses Medicaid recipients in particular, and All Saints particularly and Manor Care to a lesser extent address the nursing home care needs of Medicaid recipients. The suggestion by Manor Care that the 31 bed addition is preferable to the status quo because of needs in the community is rejected. Under the circumstances wherein there is no need for additional beds it is not necessary to consider whether it is more cost effective to put the 31 beds in an existing facility or build a new facility or whether greater economies of scale are derived with the increase of beds from 89 to 120, even though 120 bed nursing homes are deemed most efficient in an academic sense. Finally, while it would be a better arrangement to have two patients per room than three patients, the vehicle to accomplish that end that has been sought by Manor Care is unacceptable. The Manor Care utilization projections in the face of no identified need are not tenable in describing proposed occupancy levels in its facility with the advent of the 31 additional beds. Likewise the projected utilization rates of All Saints upon the relocation of its facility are not found to be accurate in that they are based upon assumptions not supported by hard data.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Stacey Health Care Centers, Inc., is licensed to operate Riverside Care Center, located at 899 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Florida, as a nursing home in compliance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. On July 9, 1986, James A. Bavetta, assistant area supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, made a visit of Riverside's facility and determined that Ralph Stacey, Jr., the administrator of record, was acting in the capacity of administrator for two facilities, the subject facility and another facility in Kentucky, without having a qualified assistant administrator to act in his absence. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ralph L. Stacey Jr., is a licensed nursing home administrator in the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. He has been licensed in Kentucky and Florida since 1974. At the time of Mr. Bavetta's visit and inspection during July, 1986, Ralph Stacey, Jr., was in Cincinnati, Ohio preparing the payroll for Stacey Health Care Centers. During this time period, Ralph Stacey, Jr., served as the administrator for the subject facility, Riverside Care Center, and another facility in Kentucky and did not have a qualified assistant administrator employed to act in his absence. However, once Mr. Bavetta issued his recommendation for sanctions, Petitioner, as part of its plan of correction, has employed a licensed administrator who is presently on staff and serves as Riverside's assistant administrator during the administrator's absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn it is RECOMMENDED: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) upon Stacey Health Care Centers- Inc., d/b/a Riverside Care Center, which amount shall be payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of Respondent's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3410 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard -Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
