Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Rule 59C-1.036 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and; Whether the Agency's application form and scoring system utilized in the review of nursing home batch certificate of need applications constitute rules of the Agency as the term "rule" is defined in Section 120.52(16), employed in violation of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes (1993) and; Whether the disputed form and scoring system constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The disputed rule in this case is Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, which provides in pertinent part: The community nursing home beds subject to the provisions of this rule include beds licensed by the agency in accordance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and beds licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, which are located in a distinct part of a hospital that is Medicare certified as a skilled nursing unit. All proposals for community nursing home beds will be comparatively reviewed consistent with the requirements of Subsection 408.39(1), Florida Statutes, and consistent with the batching cycles for nursing home projects described in paragraph 59C-1.008(1)(l), Florida Administrative Code. The challenged rule is entitled "Community Nursing Home Beds," and also includes the "need methodology" for determining the need for community nursing home beds and specifically: regulates the construction of new community nursing home beds, the addition of new community nursing home beds, and the conversion of other health care facility bed types to community nursing home beds... Also pertinent to this case, the challenged rule provides: The Agency will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any agency service subdistrict if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that agency subdistrict to exceed the numeric need for community nursing home beds, as determined consistent with the methodology described in paragraphs (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this rule. The challenged rule has the effect of, among other things, requiring nursing homes and hospitals who seek to operate skilled nursing facility beds to file applications for community nursing home beds in the same batching cycle, compete against each other for those beds in nursing home subdistricts and be subject to the need methodology applicable to nursing home beds. The Agency has not developed a need methodology specifically for Medicare certified distinct part skilled nursing units. In 1980, the Agency's predecessor, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, attempted to promulgate rules with the same effect of the rules challenged in this case. In Venice Hospital, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 14 FALR 1220 (DOAH 1990) 1/ the Hearing Officer found the challenged rule in that case to be invalid and concluded, as a matter of law, that, with respect to the previous proposed rule: The competent, substantial evidence shows that these proposed rules are not reasonable or practical and will lead to an illogical result. There exists an inadequate factual or legal basis to support the forced inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing beds into the community nursing bed inventory. In the 1990 challenge to the previously proposed rule, the Hearing Officer concluded that the proposed rule in question was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, but also found that, from a health planning standpoint, reasons existed for and against the inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. In the instant proceedings, the Agency concedes that the challenged rule and the previous proposed rule are substantially identical. In this case, the parties defending the challenged rule presented several facts, many of which seek to establish changed circumstances since 1990, as evidence of a rational basis for the inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. Facts Established Which Arguably Support the Validity of the Challenged Rule Although the term "subacute care" does not have a generally accepted definition, this term is often applied to that care provided patients in skilled nursing units. Subacute care is an emerging and developing area of care which covers patients whose medical and clinical needs are higher than would be found in a traditional nursing home setting, but not so intense as to require an acute medical/surgical hospital bed. Subacute care is a level of care that is being developed to bridge a gap between hospital and traditional nursing home care and to lower the cost of care to the health delivery system. Both hospitals and nursing homes operate Medicare-certified distinct part skilled nursing facility units. The same criteria, including admissions criteria, staffing requirements and reimbursement methodologies, apply to such skilled nursing units, in hospitals and freestanding nursing homes. The patient population served in such units is primarily a population which comes to either a hospital or nursing home-based unit from an acute care hospital stay. This population group has a short length of stay in the Medicare distinct part unit and can be rehabilitated within a certain period of time. Skilled nursing units in hospitals and those in freestanding nursing homes are competing for the same patient population. Both hospitals and nursing homes are aggressively entering the subacute care market. There are some nursing homes which provide a level of subacute care equal to that provided by hospitals. As a general rule, the staffing, clinical programs, patient acuity and costs of care for patients do not substantially vary between skilled nursing units in hospitals and such units in freestanding nursing homes. In the past two or three years, the number of Florida nursing homes which compete for skilled unit patients has increased. In applications for skilled nursing unit beds, the services proposed by hospitals and those proposed by nursing homes are generally similar. Medicare-certified distinct part units in both freestanding nursing homes and hospitals are certified to provide the same nursing services. The types of services and equipment provided by hospital skilled nursing units and nursing home skilled nursing units are similar. There has been an increase in subacute care in the past five years. The average length of stay for patients treated in Medicare-certified distinct part nursing units in hospitals and in such units located in freestanding nursing homes is similar. The federal eligibility requirement for Medicare patients in hospital- based and in freestanding nursing home distinct part skilled nursing units are the same. Some skilled nursing units which are located in nursing homes have historically received patient referrals from hospitals. When these referring hospitals develop distinct part Medicare certified skilled nursing units, the nursing home skilled nursing units tend to experience a decline in occupancy. Uniform need methodology is developed in part based upon demographic characteristics of potential patient population. Nursing home bed need methodology utilizes changes in population by age groups over age 65 to project need for beds. Both hospital-based skilled nursing units and nursing home-based units serve substantial numbers of Medicare-eligible patients who are 65 years of age and older. Population health status is also utilized in developing uniform need methodologies. The health status of service population for Medicare units in freestanding nursing homes is, as a general rule, the same as the health status of population served in such units located in hospitals. The intent behind the process of reviewing CON applications from hospitals seeking skilled nursing unit beds and nursing homes seeking such beds is to reduce the risk of overbedding and duplication of services. Overbedding and duplication of services have the tendency to result in excessive costs and can result in deterioration of quality of care. Medicare admissions to nursing homes and Medicare revenue to nursing homes have increased in the past several years. Data also indicates that nursing homes are beginning to provide more intensive care for patients in skilled nursing units. The prevalence of freestanding nursing home Medicare-certified skilled nursing units has substantially increased in the past three years and this growth trend is expected to continue. Facts Established Which Demonstrate That the Challenged Rule Should be Declared Invalid The challenged rule requires a hospital seeking Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds to be comparatively reviewed with nursing home applications seeking all types of nursing home beds. There is no separate nursing home licensure bed category for skilled nursing unit beds. The Agency's inventories of freestanding nursing home beds do not identify Medicare-certified skilled nursing beds. Once an applicant to construct a nursing home opens the nursing home, the applicant does not need a separate CON to designate beds as a Medicare- certified skilled nursing unit. According to the AHCA's own witness, a freestanding nursing home can internally change its categories at any time without CON review. Pursuant to statute and agency rule, however, hospitals must obtain a CON to change the category of even one bed. 2/ Although a hospital seeking hospital licensed Medicare-certified skilled nursing beds is compelled by Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, to compete against all nursing home applicants and all nursing home beds in a batched review, it faces totally different standards of construction, operation and staffing after approval. Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code, is the nursing home bed need formula. This formula does not result in an estimate of need for skilled nursing unit beds and projects need for total community nursing home beds only. There is currently no bed need methodology (hospital or nursing home) to ascertain the need for Medicare certified skilled nursing unit beds. The Agency's inventories of freestanding nursing home beds do not separately identify Medicare-certified skilled nursing home beds in nursing homes. All that is shown is whether the beds are "community nursing home beds" or "sheltered nursing home beds." The Agency has not established how, under this inventory and regulatory scheme, it controls overbedding in Medicare- certified skilled nursing units within a specific district or subdistrict since the only such beds shown on the inventories are those in hospitals. It is unreasonable and illogical to compare the need for hospital- based Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds with the need for all community nursing home beds. Under the present circumstances a reasonable comparison might be drawn between need for hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds and freestanding nursing home skilled nursing unit beds, but the AHCA rules do not currently provide for such a comparison. Determining the need for hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds by comparing such beds to all nursing unit beds constitutes poor health planning. Such hospital-based skilled nursing units do not provide similar services to similar patients when compared to all community nursing home beds and it is neither logical or reasonable to comparatively review the need for such services. The challenged rule also requires hospital applicants for skilled nursing unit beds to compete with nursing homes within the nursing home subdistrict. The Agency by rule divides districts differently for nursing homes than for hospitals. Thus, some hospitals' skilled nursing unit beds are comparatively reviewed against nursing home beds of all kinds and against hospital skilled nursing beds which are not within the same hospital subdistrict. As a general statement, the treatment profiles for patients in Medicare-certified skilled nursing units in hospitals and those for patients in nursing homes skilled nursing units are similar. There is, however, a distinct part of such patient population which must be treated in a setting which provides immediate access to emergency care. The provision of immediate emergency care is not typically available in nursing homes and nursing home patients in need of such care usually have to be readmitted to hospitals. Care available in hospitals (physicians and registered nurses on duty at all times, laboratory and radiation services available on premises) is sufficiently different to demonstrate that Medicare-certified skilled nursing units are not comparable to such units in freestanding nursing homes in all aspects. This distinction is clearly significant to patients who need emergency services because of age, multiple illnesses, and other conditions. Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, is the hospital licensure statute. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, provides: The Agency shall issue a license which specifies the service categories and the number of hospital beds in each category for which a license is received. Such information shall be listed on the face of the license. All which are not covered by any specialty-bed-need methodology shall be specified as general beds. The Agency equates "acute care" beds with general beds. By rule, the Agency has excluded from the definition of "acute care bed": neonatal intensive care beds comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds hospital inpatient psychiatric beds hospital inpatient substance abuse beds beds in distinct part skilled nursing units, and beds in long term care hospitals licensed pursuant to Part I, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. By Agency rule, a hospital specialty need methodology exists for all categories of hospital beds excluded from the acute care bed definition except category (e) beds in distinct part skilled nursing units and (f) long term care beds. The Agency is currently drafting a specialty hospital bed need methodology for long term care beds. The only licensed bed category for which the Agency has developed no specialty bed need methodology (existing or in process) is hospital beds in distinct part skilled nursing units. At hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of Elfie Stamm who was accepted as an expert in health planning and certificate of need policy analysis. Through Ms. Stamm's testimony, the Agency attempted to establish that the numeric need methodology established by the challenged rule includes a calculation of the need for both nursing home and hospital-based distinct part skilled nursing units. This testimony was not persuasive on this point. Indeed, Ms. Stamm acknowledged that the disputed rule does not result in an estimate of need for skilled nursing units or beds. The parties to this proceeding have attempted to establish that Medicare admission statistics in Florida support either the validity or invalidity of the challenged rule. Based upon the Medicare-related statistical data placed in the record in this case, it is more likely than not that, as of 1992, in excess of 90 percent of utilization of hospital-based skilled nursing units is Medicare covered and that the percentage of Medicare (as opposed to Medicaid) patient days in all freestanding nursing home beds was only seven percent. In this respect, it is not logical or reasonable to comparatively review the need for hospital-based Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds with all community nursing home beds. 47. The Agency lists Sections 408.15(8), 408.34(3)(5), 408.39(4)(a) and 400.71(7), Florida Statutes, as specific statutory authority for the challenged rule. None of the cited statutory provisions provides specific authority for the Agency to require hospitals seeking hospital licensed beds in Medicare- certified skilled nursing units to be reviewed against all community nursing home beds. There is no evidence of record in this case of any federal law requiring such review and no evidence to suggest that Medicare reimbursement is affected by such a review one way or the other. In this case, the competent, substantial evidence shows that the disputed rule is not reasonable or rational. The Agency has not developed a specific numerical need methodology providing for a reasonable and rational basis to comparatively review the need for Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds in hospitals or in nursing homes. There exists an inadequate factual or legal basis to support the forced inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units into the inventory of all community nursing home beds. Form 1455A Agency Form 1455A and the scoring methodology are used by the Agency in the review of applications for community nursing home beds and for skilled nursing facilities within distinct parts of a hospital. Various parties in this proceeding assert the Form 1455A and the scoring methodology constitute unpromulgated rules which are invalid pursuant to Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. Any party filing a letter of intent concerning community nursing home beds receives from the Agency an application package including Form 1455A and instructions. The instructions are an integral part of the application. Also included as part of the application are 34 pages of instructions on how the Agency scores the application. Form 1455A has general applicability to all applicants for community nursing home beds and for skilled nursing home facilities within distinct parts of a hospital. Form 1455A contains numerous provisions of mandatory language which facially provides that it must be submitted with applications for CON. The Agency acknowledges that such mandatory language predated the passage of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, and considers the language obsolete. The Agency intends, in the future, to edit the form to strike "misleading language". Form 1455A is not incorporated in any rule of the Agency and has not been promulgated as a rule. Applications are reviewed based upon questions in Form 1455A. Applications are also reviewed against a numerical scoring system developed with the form. The form requires that the applicant certify that it will obtain a license to operate a nursing home. The form also requires certification that the applicant participate in Medicaid services which are not applicable to hospitals. These and other portions of the form are not rationally or reasonably related to the operation of a hospital-based distinct part skilled nursing unit. In the review and analysis of the applications at issue, a "scoring methodology" is used by the Agency. The scoring matrix is utilized to put numerous applications filed in the same agency district in perspective in terms of numerical ranking and how the applications compare to each other. The State Agency Action Report is the end product of the Agency review of the applications. The scoring system is used in the review proceedings and is utilized and included in at least some of the State Agency Action Reports. Form 1455A and the scoring methodology are utilized by the Agency in a manner that has general application and which forms significant components of a process which creates rights, and which implements, interprets, and prescribes law and Agency policy. At the final hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of Ms. Elizabeth Dudek, the Agency Chief of the Certificate of Need and budget review offices. Ms. Dudek was accepted as an expert in CON policy and procedure. Ms. Dudek provided an overview of the process whereby the challenged form and scoring system are used by the Agency in analyzing CON applications. Ms. Dudek testified that the Agency does not believe the form and scoring system meet the requirements of a rule. Ms. Dudek considers the form and system to be tools used to elicit responses in a standardized format. The fact that an application receives a high score based on the scoring matrix does not mean that the application will be approved. Ms. Dudek is of the opinion that the form and scoring system do not competitively disadvantage hospitals competing with nursing homes. Ms. Dudek cited the most recent batch cycle in which twelve hospitals were awarded distinct part nursing units, although these hospitals' applications did not receive the highest scores. Ms. Dudek's testimony was not persuasive in the above-referenced areas. As currently structured and utilized by the Agency, the form and the scoring system at issue are not reasonable or rational. There is not an adequate factual or legal basis to support the use of the form or the scoring system in analyzing applications for CON files by hospitals for distinct part Medicare-certified skilled nursing units.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is responsible for the administration of the Certificate of Need ("CON") program in Florida, pursuant to Section 408.034, Florida Statutes (1992 supp.) AHCA initially published a need for 313 community nursing home beds in the 16 county area encompassing District III on April 17, 1992, which was subsequently corrected and published as a revised total of 321 net bed need for District III. On September 17, 1992, with a cover letter signed by Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA issued notice that it intended to issue: CON No. 6983P to Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare"), for construction of a 60 bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and CON No. 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and, intended to deny, among others: CON 6983 to Unicare for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6989 to Lake Port Properties ("Lake Port") for either the conversion of 60 sheltered nursing beds to 60 community nursing home beds or the conversion of the 60 beds and the construction of an additional 60 community nursing beds to be located in Lake County; CON No. 6991 to Unicare for the addition of 51 community nursing home beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center, in Marion County; CON No. 6992 to Ocala Health Care Associates, G.P., for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds to TimberRidge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Marion County; and CON No. 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. (Southern Medical) for the addition of 60 community nursing beds to Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that all participants have standing, except Heartland. Additional stipulations, accepted during the hearing, in the absence of a representative for Ocala Health Care Associates, are as follows: subsection 408.035 (1)(m) is not in dispute; proposed project costs and design are reasonable; the applicants' Schedules 1, notes and assumptions, the schematics, and the narrative responses to all of objective 4 in each application are in evidence, not in dispute, and are reasonable. The parties also stipulated to the approval of CON 6991 for Unicare to add 51 beds to its New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County, and the denial of CONS 6983 and 6983P to Unicare. LIFE CARE Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), a privately-held corporation established in 1976, by its sole shareholder, Forrest L. Preston, owns, operates or manages 131 nursing homes and 14 retirement centers in 26 states. In Florida, Life Care manages four facilities with superior licenses, located in Altamonte Springs, Punta Gorda, and two in Palm Beach County, Lakeside and Darcy Hall. Life Care also owns, as well as operates, the facility in Altamonte Springs. Life Care owns and operates 28 nursing homes through leases, 6 or 7 of which are capital leases. Under the terms of the capital leases, Life Care is responsible for capital expenditures and projects. Life Care is not responsible for capital expenditures and projects at approximately 91 of its 131 facilities. Life Care proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in the southwest section of Hernando County, near Spring Hill, and to finance the total project cost of approximately $5 1/2 million from bank loans. Life Care has not identified a specific site for its facility. Life Care has proposed to accept a CON condition to provide 75 percent of its patient days to Medicaid beneficiaries, to establish a separate 20-bed wing for Alzheimers and related dementia ("ARD") residents, and to provide intravenous therapy, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, wound care and adult day care. Life Care's proposed Medicaid condition exceeds the 1991 district average of 73.78 percent, and is consistent with its experience in Altamonte Springs of up to 73 percent Medicaid without a CON condition, and over 80 percent Medicaid in West Palm Beach. The Medicaid percentages indicate that Life Care will offer mainly traditional nursing home services. BEVERLY Beverly Enterprises, Inc., the ultimate corporate parent of the applicant, owns 830 nursing homes, with a total of 89,000 beds in 35 states. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., the applicant in this proceeding, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly California Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly Enterprises-Florida ("Beverly") owns 41 of the total 68 nursing homes owned in Florida by Beverly-related companies. Of the 40 nursing homes owned by Beverly at the time the application was filed, 31 had superior licenses. Three facilities had moratoria within the preceding 36 months, one a facility built in 1929, another with a two-week moratorium which is now licensed superior, and a third which is still conditional while physical plant improvements are underway. See, Finding of Facts 28, infra. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Spring Hill, Hernando County, for $5,213,077, with its CON conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of annual patient days to Medicaid residents and a $10,000 grant for gerontology research at Hernando-Pasco Community College. Beverly proposes four beds for a ventilator-dependent unit, two beds for respite care, 20 beds on a separate wing for ARD residents, and to establish an adult care program. Beverly commits to group patients with ARD or other losses in cognitive functioning together in a 20-bed area, to offer subacute rehabilitative care in a 24 bed Medicare skilled nursing unit, and to provide intravenous therapy. Beverly also intends to establish a dedicated four-bed ventilator unit staffed with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience in critical care continuously on duty, a separately staffed adult day care program, and respite care. Beverly's would be the first ventilator beds other than in hospitals and the first licensed adult day care program in Hernando County. One of Beverly's existing Florida nursing homes is Eastbrooke which is also located in Hernando County, approximately 10 miles from the proposed Spring Hill site. Beverly expects its experienced personnel from Eastbrooke to train and assist in establishing Spring Hill. Beverly has identified a site for the Spring Hill facility which is across the street from an acute care hospital. Spring Hill is in southern Hernando County, near Pasco County. UNICARE By stipulation of the parties, the Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") proposal to add 51 beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County was recommended for approval on May 12, 1993. Unicare withdrew its requests for the approval of CONs 6983P and 6983 in Hernando County. As a result, the parties agreed that the number of beds needed was reduced from 321 beds to 270 beds. LAKE PORT Lake Port is a 60-bed licensed skilled nursing center, with a superior rating, located at the Lake Port Properties Continuing Care Retirement Community, in Leesburg, Lake County. Lake Port Properties is a partnership, for which Johnson Simmons Company serves as the managing general partner. The Lake Port community includes independent living residences, a 66-bed adult congregate living facility, and the 60 sheltered nursing beds. Among the services provided are post-operative care and orthopedic rehabilitative therapy for patients who have had knee or hip replacement surgery or shoulder injuries, neurological therapies for stroke injuries, pain management, subacute, open wound and respite care, and hospice services. Lake Port currently has 11 Medicare certified beds, and has had from 8 to 22 Medicare certified beds at a time. Lake Port has a contract with Hospice of Lake-Sumter County to provide interdisciplinary services to approximately five hospice residents a year. Rehabilitation services are also provided by contract at Lake Port. Lake Port has a relatively high volume of residents who are discharged home following intensive therapy within an average of three weeks. As an indicator of the intensity of therapeutic services, Lake Port has provided 26 percent Medicare, while the Lake/Sumter planning area average was 7.2 percent. Life Care projected a Medicare rate of 6.7 percent, Beverly projected 10 percent Medicare, and the Hernando County average is 9.3 percent. In this proceeding, Lake Port proposes either to convert the existing 60 skilled nursing beds to 60 community nursing beds at no cost, or the 60 bed conversion and the approval to construct an additional 60 community nursing home beds, for a total 120-bed community facility at a cost of $1.4 million. Lake Port proposes to have either CON, if approved, conditioned on the provision of 29.2 percent and 33.81 percent Medicaid, in years one and two, and respite, subacute, and intense rehabilitative care. Historically, the payer mix has included 25-30 percent Medicare and 30-35 percent Medicaid. All of the proposed services are provided currently at Lake Port. The effect of the change in licensure categories is to eliminate the requirement that the facility serve exclusively the retirement community residents after five years in operation, or after August 1995. Lake Port would still be obligated to provide nursing home care to Lake Port community residents at discounted costs, pursuant to the terms of their continuing care contracts. Occupancy levels at Lake Port exceed 95 percent, with 7 to 8 percent of patient days attributable to retirement community, and the remainder to patients in a service area which includes West Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port asserts that its financial viability depends on its ability to continue to serve all residents of its service area. SOUTHERN MEDICAL Southern Medical Associates, Inc. ("Southern Medical") is a Florida corporation which owns two nursing homes, one with 60 beds in Okaloosa County and one with 120 beds in Palatka, in Putnam County. Palatka Health Care Center opened with 60 beds in May 1989, added 60 beds in November 1990. Both nursing homes have superior licenses and are managed and staffed by National HealthCorp, L.P., which was founded in 1971, and manages 86 nursing homes, twenty-nine of those in Florida. The management fee is 6 percent of net revenues. In its application for CON number 6993, Southern Medical proposes to add 60 beds to the existing 120-bed nursing home, known as Palatka Health Care Center. Occupancy levels at the Palatka Center ranged between 96 and 99 percent in 1992-1993. Total project costs of $2.1 million will be financed by or through National HealthCorp. Southern Medical proposes that its CON be conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed distinct Alzheimer's wing and the provision of 74 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. Southern Medical provides rehabilitation services in a 14-bed Medicare certified unit, antibiotic intravenous therapy, hospice and respite care. It exceeds the 73 percent Medicaid condition of its CON. SUBSECTION 408.035(1)(a) - NEED IN RELATION TO STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH PLANS The Florida State Health Plan includes 12 preferences to consider in reviewing nursing home CON applications, most of which overlap statutory review criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes. Preference 1 encourages more nursing homes beds in subdistricts with 90 percent or higher occupancy in existing beds. District 3 is not subdistricted, but its nursing home bed occupancy rate was 91 percent in 1991. Therefore, all applicants for nursing homes in District 3 meet the preference. District 3 has been divided into planning areas by the local health council. The applications filed in this proceeding coincide with the planning areas for Hernando, Putnam, and Lake/Sumter Counties. In 1991, occupancy rates averaged 92 percent for Hernando, 96 percent for Putnam, and 93 percent for Lake/Sumter planning areas. Each applicant meets preference 1 using planning areas as substitutes for subdistricts. Preference 2 favors applicants whose Medicaid commitments equal or exceed the subdistrict-wide average. In the absence of subdistricts, the district wide average is used, which is 73.78 percent. Beverly's 74 percent commitment, Life Care's 75 percent commitment, and Southern Medical's 74 percent commitment, entitle them to be favored under preference 2. In addition, Beverly cites its 76.9 percent Medicaid patient days in 1991 at Eastbrooke, but it has failed to achieve its Medicaid commitment at one Florida nursing home in Cape Coral. Lake Port committed to provide a minimum of 33.81 percent Medicaid patient days and argued that it meets the exception to the preference for providing multi-level care. As described in the 1989 Florida State Health Plan, multi-level health systems offer a continuum of care which may range from acute care and ambulatory surgery centers to home health and education, including traditional nursing care. Special emphasis is placed on short-term intensive rehabilitation programs. Although Lake Port's proposal includes some of the features of a multi-level system, such as post-operative rehabilitative therapy and respite care, the Medicaid exception is inappropriate for Lake Port, because the same services are also proposed by Beverly and Southern Medical. See, also, Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Preference 3 relates to providing specialized services, including acquired immune deficiency syndrome ("AIDS") services to residents, ARD residents, and the mentally ill. This preference is met by Beverly, Life Care, and SMA, particularly for ARD patients for which all three applicants proposed to establish separate 20-bed units. The preference is also met by Lake Port, particularly with its emphasis on specialized, intense rehabilitative services. See, also Subsection 408.205(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Preference 4 supports applicants proposing to provide a "continuum of services to community residents," including respite and adult day care. Beverly and Life Care propose to offer both respite and adult day care. Lake Port and Southern Medical propose to provide respite and hospice care. Preference 5, for the construction of facilities which provide maximum comfort and quality of care, was stipulated as being met by all the parties. The applicants also stipulated that project costs and construction plans are reasonable. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(m),(2)(a) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 6 is met by all of the applicants: . . . proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical propose to offer specialized services to ARD residents. Lake Port and Southern Medical emphasize physical rehabilitation. All of the applicants meet the requirements for preference 6. Preference 7 is for applicants whose charges do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, which, for District 3, is $74.05, or $93.49 inflated at 6 percent to 1996. Life Care Care's proposed Medicaid charges are $93.69 for year 1, and $94.46 for year 2. Beverly projected that the average Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict will be $93.49 in 1996, its charge will be $95.00, but it will expect Medicaid reimbursement to be $93.30 for that year. Lake Port projected proposed charges to Medicaid patients as $90 to $93.92 in year one and $93 to $97.37 in year two, for the full 120 beds or the partial 60 beds, respectively. Southern Medical's Medicaid charges will be $90.22 in year one and $94.28 in year two. Preference 8 applies to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs, as indicated by licensure ratings. Of Beverly's 40 Florida facilities, 31 held superior licenses at the time the application was filed. Of the nine Beverly nursing homes with conditional ratings, six are now superior. Renovations or, in the case of one facility built in 1929, construction of a replacement building, are underway at the three others. Life Care, Southern Medical and Lake Port have histories of consistently superior license ratings. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 9 favors applicants proposing staffing levels exceeding minimum standards. Due to the ventilator, intravenous and rehabilitative services proposed, Beverly will staff in excess of that required by the state, with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience on all shifts and a full-time physical therapist. It intends to rely on its current Hernando County facility, Eastbrooke's relationship with Hernando-Pasco Community College, for recruitment and training of staff, although Beverly has not opened a new nursing home in Florida since 1987. Life Care similarly intends to rely on a CON approved facility in adjacent Citrus County. Southern Medical employs St. Augustine Vocational College students who are certified nurse assistants training to become licensed practical nurses, and licensed practical nurses training to become registered nurses are employed at Palatka, which also has internships for health sciences students from the University of North Florida. Its occupational, speech and physical therapists are full-time employees. Lake Port's staffing ratios will also exceed the minimums, in order to provide intensive rehabilitative therapies. See, also Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Each applicant meets preference 10 based on their proposed or current use of a variety of professional disciplines. See, Finding of Fact 29. Preference 11 seeks to ensure resident rights and privacy as well as implementing plans for quality assurance and discharge planning. All of the applicants were shown to follow well established residents' rights and privacy policies, and to have effective quality assurance programs. Pre-admission screening programs include discharge planning. Beverly has the most highly standardized corporate structure of incentives to maintain quality. Preference 12 relates to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the District. Average costs in District III are expected to be $54.79 for resident care and $13.97 for administrative overhead by 1996. Life Care expects resident care costs of $51.97 a day and administrative costs of $17.43 a day. Beverly projects its resident care to cost $61.89, with administrative costs of $8.86. Southern Medical proposes administrative costs of $19.88 per patient day and patient care costs of $46.23 per patient day. Lake Port's administrative costs are expected to be $27.80 for 60 beds or $22.12 for 120 beds, with patient care costs of $43.04 for 60 beds or $45.08 for 120 beds. Beverly, best meets the preference and expects enhanced economics and efficiency from combining some overhead for the operation of two nursing homes in Hernando County. Life Care, however, notes that its proposal enhances competition in view of the existence of one Beverly facility in Hernando County. See, Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(h) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, which also relate to costs, resources, and competition. District III includes 16 west central Florida counties, from Hamilton, Columbia, Union Bradford and Putnam in the North to Hernando, Sumter and Lake in the south. The allocation factors in the plan for District III are prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, the local health council for the district. The district has not been subdivided by agency rule. Using its planning areas, the local health council has given priority rankings for applicants in certain areas of the district. Dixie, Lafayette and Union Counties, which have no nursing homes, are favored by the local plan. If, as in this case, there are no applicants from these counties, Hernando should be favored, followed by Putnam County. No priority was given to Lake County. The council also quantified bed need by planning area for the January 1995 planning horizon, with additional beds needed, ranging from 120 to 180 in Hernando, and up to 60 in Putnam. The parties agree generally that the council may establish planning areas in the discharge of its duties, but they disagree whether the establishment of upper limits, or caps in numeric need by planning area is authorized by law. Section 408.034, Florida Statutes, requires a uniform need methodology, which the agency has established by enacting the nursing home rule, Rule 59C-1.036(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Once the agency determines numeric need for a district and the district driving time standard, the local plan cannot alter these determinations. The local plan also includes certain fundamental principles for the allocation of new beds: (1) to promote geographic access, (2) to consider the locations of at-risk population need factors, and (3) to increase supply based on demand. In order of importance, the local plan lists three allocation factors (1) for counties without nursing homes, (2) for new nursing homes 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing or approved beds, and (3) for locations without approved beds and with existing nursing homes averaging occupancy levels at least 95 percent for the most recent six month or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. With respect to the specific allocation factors, Life Care, Beverly, Southern Medical and Lake Port are in areas with over 90 percent average occupancy within a 20 mile radius. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical are proposing to establish facilities in areas of greater need than that in the area of Lake Port. Hernando and Putnam Counties also have lower ratios of nursing home beds to population than Lake County. The local health council's determination of the greatest need in Hernando County, was confirmed by expert testimony, based on analyzing licensed and approved beds, occupancy rates, distribution of population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, and most importantly, projected growth of population 65 and older, and of 75 and older. The bed to population ratio for Hernando was, in 1992, 15.5 percent for 65 and older, and 44.9 percent for the population 75 and older, both of which are below the ratios for any other planning areas in the District. The projected increase in population 75 and older for the state is 12 percent, in contrast to the projected increase of 38 percent for Hernando County. Expert testimony for Beverly supported the addition of up to 300 beds in Hernando County to bring Hernando County's bed distribution in line with that of the entire district. The only approved provider in the county, Hernando Health Care, has surrendered its CON to add 18 nursing home beds in Hernando County. On the contrary, Heartland's expert calculated numeric need of only 119 additional beds in Hernando County. AHCA, however, gave no consideration to the effect on occupancy, fill- up rates, or financial feasibility of it preliminarily approving all new beds in Hernando County. The experience was compared, by Southern Medical's expert, to that in Clay County, in which 555 beds were 95 percent occupied, prior to the opening of two 120-bed facilities, one in December 1989, and the other in April 1990. At the end of the first year of operation, the facility that opened first was 48.5 percent occupied, the second was 21.7 percent occupied, and district occupancy was 77.7 percent. At the end of the second year, the rates were 81 percent, 55.6 percent, and 85.6 percent. However, by 1992, the nursing homes in that subdistrict averaged 93 percent occupancy. Opponents to the AHCA proposal to locate all new facilities in Hernando County, contend that the bed-to- population ratio or "parity" approach used to support the approval of 240 beds in that county does not take into account demographic variables among the counties in the district. While the bed-to-population ratio is not reliable in and of itself, alternative analyses for the determination of the location of greatest need within the district support the same conclusions. Those analyses relied upon current nursing homes occupancy levels, poverty, and population migration trends and available alternatives to distinguish among the various proposed locations. Based on occupancy levels, the District III counties of greatest need for additional beds are Putnam, Lake and Sumter, and Hernando, in that order. Putnam County residents are being placed in facilities outside the county due to the lack of available nursing home beds. In terms of poverty level and mortality levels, the figures for Putnam and Marion Counties indicated their populations were less healthy than those in Hernando and Lake. Hernando had 6.05 percent of its over 65 population, which is 85 and older, as compared to 9.34 percent in Lake, 8 percent in Putnam, and 8.28 percent as the district average. Hernando and Putnam Counties also had lower percentages of people 75 and older than did Lake and Marion Counties. ALTERNATIVES AND EXISTING NURSING HOMES IN DISTRICT 3 Subsections 408.035(1)(b) and (d) require consideration of other like and existing facilities in the district, as well as health care services which are alternatives to nursing homes. Currently, there are 4 nursing homes in Hernando County, and 12 in Lake County. In Putnam County, there are 3 nursing homes and 15 additional "swing beds," which may be used for acute care or long term care, approved for Putnam Community Hospital. Those beds are not available to serve Medicaid patients and are not included on the inventory of community nursing home beds. In the 511 existing nursing home beds in Hernando, there is an average daily census of 45 beds occupied by residents originating from other counties, while 23 Hernando residents constituted the average daily census leaving the County. Hernando cannot expect to retain in-migrating patients with the development of nursing homes in those residents' counties of origin, particularly, Citrus and Pasco. Given the decrease in nursing home patient days form 1991 to 1992, there is also no reason to expect any significant increase in use rate for the population in Hernando. The most compelling support for need in Hernando County is that the rate of growth of its over 75 population, which is more than three times that of the State. Putnam County has the lowest migration and a greater demand for nursing home services for the population age 85 and older. Putnam County nursing homes exceed 95 percent occupancy. Lake County area nursing homes were 93 percent occupied for the same period of time, and with the relinquishment of an approved CON for 60 beds by Leesburg Regional Hospital, that occupancy rate rises to approximately 95 percent. The award to Leesburg Regional established a need for 60 beds in Lake County, but there is also an approved CON for a 120-bed facility in Mount Dora. According to Lake Port's expert witnesses, the Mount Dora nursing home will not alleviate the need for beds in western Lake County. That facility, owned by the Adventist health group, is expected to be a referral facility from the nearby Adventist Hospital in Orlando and Sanford. Based on the alternative considerations of occupancy levels, poverty and morality rates, the need for additional beds in Putnam County is greater than the need in Lake County. Projected population increases and the limited alternatives also support the conclusion that a greater need exists in Hernando than in Lake County. Heartland of Brooksville ("Heartland"), is an existing 120-bed community nursing home in Brooksville, which is licensed superior. Heartland contends that the virtually simultaneous establishment of both Beverly and Life Care will adversely impact Heartland, and make it difficult for the new nursing homes to meet their projected utilizations. The trend of twice as many people migrating to, as there are leaving Hernando County for nursing home services, will be reversed as more nursing homes are established in surrounding counties. See, Finding of Fact 45. Heartland reasonably expects gradually to lose up to 30 percent of its residents who came from the Spring Hill area, where Beverly and Life Care intend to build new nursing homes. Heartland also reasonably expects to lose Medicare patients among the group from Spring Hill. Medicare residents average 9.3 percent of the total mix in the county, but account for 15 percent of the patient mix at Heartland. Heartland will be adversely affected for at least the first two years if both Life Care and Beverly are approved. See, Finding of Fact 40, supra. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Heartland, Southern Medical and Lake Port assert that Beverly will be successful in Hernando County, but that Life Care will not. Beverly is already established in the county, will provide services not currently available in nursing homes, and will open its facility seven months before Life Care. Life Care projected a net loss of $589,042 in year one, and a net gain of $254,991 in year two of operation. Life Care's projections fail to consider the company's 6.5 percent management fee, income taxes, and Medicaid reimbursement rate ceilings. By contrast to the other proposals and to the Hernando County average of 9.3 percent, Life Care is relying on a payor mix of only 6.7 percent Medicare, the group for which competition will be most intense. That mix parallels its Florida experience, which has historically allowed it to achieve a profit margin of 16 to 22 percent of net revenues in the third year of operation. Life Care's experience and audited financial statements support its contention that it can borrow essentially 100 percent of the funds necessary to support the project and complete the proposed project, a debt arrangement it has successfully used in the past, without defaulting on loans. Life Care's resources are also potentially subject to a $12 to $18 million judgment, due to litigation which is on appeal. Life Care has a contingency fund of $8 million to satisfy the judgment and has sufficient equity in its properties to pay the balance through refinancing. The deficiencies in Life Care's pro forma and its potential liabilities are off-set by the size and strength of the company, and its Hernando County project is financially feasible in the short and long terms. Beverly projects opening at Spring Hill 15 1/2 months after issuance of a CON, reaching 90 percent utilization within 15 months of opening. Beverly reasonably expects an after tax profit of $239,489 in the second year of operation. Beverly estimates project costs of $5.2 million, financed by the parent corporation, Beverly-California. Beverly-California has from $35 to 45 million available to contribute a 40 percent ($2 million) equity investment, and a $35 million loan commitment from which it will draw the balance to finance the project. Southern Medical has a letter of interest for financing of the total project costs of $2.1 million at 12 percent rate of interest by National HealthCorp. During the construction period, Southern Medical estimates that the existing 120 beds will remain 94 percent full, and that the new beds once open will fill at a rate of 10 percent a month, which is consistent with the experience of the management company, National HealthCorp. Southern Medical's actual experience in Palatka was, in fact, better. The first 60 beds were filled after 5 months while the additional 60 beds were filled in 7 to 8 months. Projected revenues of $290,000 during construction, $323,000 after year one, and $488,000 after year two are reasonable. Southern Medical's balance sheet shows short term debt of approximately $1.4 million attributable to the construction of the Okaloosa nursing home. Although Southern Medical secured a $3 million loan commitment for the Okaloosa facility, it has drawn from that account $473,000. That debt will be refinanced and recategorized as long term debt. Southern Medical's project is financially feasible in the short and long term, based on its actual experience in the existing 120-bed facility. Lake Port has the financial resources to construct 60 additional beds for $1.4 million. Lake Port's proposed conversion of the licensure category for its existing 60 beds is at no cost, except for approximately $37,000 in filing and consultants fees. In its third year of operation, Lake Port has achieved 97 percent occupancy. At present, delays of up to a week may be experienced in transfering patients from acute care hospitals to nursing homes in the Leesburg area. From October to May, due to the influx of northerners, beds are generally not available in the Leesburg area of western Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port's projections of occupancy and its financial ability to complete either 60-bed conversion and/or 60-bed addition make either proposal financially feasible in the short or long term.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That AHCA issue CON 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the operation of a 4-bed ventilator-dependent unit, 2 beds for respite care, an adult day care program, and a 20-bed separate unit for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia. That AHCA issue CON 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of a minimum of 75 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, the operation of a 20-bed dedicated wing for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia, and the operation of an adult day care. That AHCA issue CON 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds at Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the establishment of a 20-bed district Alzheimer's wing. That AHCA deny CON 6989P and CON 6989 to Lake Port Properties. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1994, 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 21st day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6656 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast-Florida, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Finding of Fact 3. 2-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8-10, 24 and 25. 10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 11-15. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 33. 16-19. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 20-21, 37-39. 20-23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 24-30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 32-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 43-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-31. 49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-30. 50-56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 50-51. 57-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29 or 30. 63-64 Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 32, 39 and 46-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 67-68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9-10. 69. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 6. 70-71. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 10. 72-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7, 8-10 and 48-51. 76. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48-49. Petitioner, Southern Medical's, Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. 5-14. Subordinate to preliminary statement. 15. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 16-17. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. 18-19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. 20-22. Rejected in conclusions of law 4. 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 36. 24-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 33-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20-21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 30. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in part in Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 56-57. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 58-60. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 61-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18, 22 and 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. 65-69. Accepted in or Subordinate to Finding of Fact 34 and 43-45. 70-72. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-18 and 22-23. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29-30. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 76-77. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 78-96. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Findings of Fact 34-39 and 45. 100-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 41-42 and 45. 102. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 103-109. Rejected in relevant part and accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 41-45. 110-112. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in conclusions of law 60. 116-120. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. 121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 122-123. Rejected in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. 124-125. Issue not addressed at hearing. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 29. Petitioner, HCR Limited Partnership I d/b/a Heartland of Brooksville's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 5-7. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 12-14. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 16-18. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 40. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 9-16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34-38. 17. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 43. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21, 42 and 43. 23-33. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38, 42 and 43. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 36-41. Accepted in or Subordinate to Findings of Fact 45 and 47. 42-44. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Petitioner, Lake Port Properties's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 40. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and last sentence rejected in preliminary statement. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 7-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 29. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. 30-34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39-43 and 46. 35. Rejected in Finding of Fact 46. 36-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 39-42. Facts accepted, conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 44-46. 43-47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 49-54. Conclusion in first sentence rejected in Finding of Fact 39. Facts accepted in Findings of Facts 39-45. 55-60. Not solely relied upon but not disregarded. Facts generally accepted in Findings of Fact 39-45. 61-74. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 75-82. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 33-38. 83-93. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28-29. 94-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54-55. 101-103. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 54. 104. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. 105-106. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 107-111. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. Remainder of 107-111 accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-38. 112-113. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48, and 49. 114-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 120-121. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 7. 122-125. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and 48. 126-130. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. Respondent, Life Care Centers of America, Inc.'s, Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-43. 10-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 13. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. 14(a-d)-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-40. 21(a-d). Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 23-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 44-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 34-40. Accepted in relevant part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7. 41(a-c). Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 29. 42. Rejected in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Rejected in Findings of Fact 44. 47-48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. 49-50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. 51-54. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 55-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. 63-64. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 65-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-55. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 73-74. Accepted. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 76-77. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40-43. 78-79. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. 82-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 22. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Accepted in conclusions of law. Accepted in preliminary statement. Issue not reached. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Conclusion rejected in Finding of Fact 16. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 21 and conclusions of law 66. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 4. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-18.8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 5-7 and 19-33. Relevant as to availability due to occupancy ratio in Findings of Fact 37-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Accepted, except first sentence in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. Conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 19-32. Accepted facts in 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15 and 19-32. Rejected in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 55. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Manheimer, Attorney Dennis LaRosa, Attorney Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred W. Clark, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James C. Hauser, Attorney Lachlin Waldoch, Attorney Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen Lewis, Goldman & Metz, P.a. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Anton, Attorney Stowell, Anton & Kraemer Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward Labrador, Attorney Richard Patterson, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 W. David Watkins, Attorney Robert Downey, Attorney Oretel, Hoffman, Fernandez, et al. 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Attorney Pennington & Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Respondent’s nursing home license should be disciplined, and whether Respondent’s nursing home license should be changed from a Standard license to a Conditional license.
Findings Of Fact Bayside Manor is a licensed nursing home located in Pensacola, Florida. On June 14, 2003, Resident No. 4 climbed out of her bed without assistance to go to the bathroom. She fell to the floor and sustained a bruise to her forehead and lacerations to her cheek and chin. Her Foley catheter was pulled out with the bulb still inflated. The fall occurred shortly after Resident No. 4 had finished eating. No staff was in her room when she climbed out of her bed. She was found on her side on the floor by staff. According to the June 14 Bayside’s Nurses' notes, Resident No. 4 stated, "Oh, I was going to the bathroom." In the hour prior to her fall, Resident No. 4 was seen at least three times by nursing assistants, which was more than appropriate monitoring for Resident No. 4. On June 20, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey of Bayside Manor’s facility. In its survey, AHCA found one alleged deficiency relating to Resident No. 4. The surveyor believed that Resident No. 4 should have been reassessed for falls by the facility and, based upon that reassessment, offered additional assistive devices and/or increased supervision. The surveyor also believed that the certified nursing assistant had left Resident No. 4 alone with the side rails to her bed down. The deficiency was cited under Tag F-324. Tag F-324 requires a facility to ensure that “[e]ach resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents.” The deficiency was classified as a Class II deficiency. On October 9, 2001, and January 14, 2002, Bayside Manor assessed Resident No. 4 as having a high risk for falls, scoring 9 on a scale where scores of 10 or higher constitute a high risk. In addition to the June 14, 2002, fall noted above, Resident No. 4 had recent falls on November 30, 2001, April 19, 2002, and May 12, 2002. Resident No. 4's diagnoses included end-stage congestive heart failure and cognitive impairment. She had periods of confusion, refused to call for assistance, and had poor safety awareness. Resident No. 4 had been referred to hospice for palliative care. Because hospice care is given when a resident is close to death, care focuses on comfort of the resident rather than aggressive care. Additionally, the resident frequently asked to be toileted even though she had a catheter inserted. She frequently attempted to toilet herself without staff assistance, which in the past had led to her falls. Often her desire to urinate did not coincide with her actual need to urinate. She was capable of feeding herself and did not require assistance with feeding. Bayside Manor addressed Resident No. 4’s high risk of falls by providing medication which eliminated bladder spasms that might increase her desire to urinate and medication to alleviate her anxiety over her desire to urinate. She was placed on the facility’s falling stars program which alerts staff to her high risk for falls and requires that staff check on her every hour. The usual standard for supervision in a nursing home is to check on residents every two hours. The facility also provided Resident No. 4 with a variety of devices to reduce her risk of falling or any injuries sustained from a fall. These devices included a lap buddy, a criss-cross belt, a roll belt while in bed, a low bed, and a body alarm. Some of the devices were discontinued because they were inappropriate for Resident No. 4. In December 2001, the roll belt was discontinued after Resident No. 4, while attempting to get out of bed, became entangled in the roll belt and strangled herself with it. On May 6, 2002, the low bed and fall mat were discontinued for Resident No. 4. The doctor ordered Resident No. 4 be placed in a bed with full side rails. The doctor discontinued the low bed because it could not be raised to a position that would help alleviate fluid build-up in Resident No. 4’s lungs caused by Resident No. 4’s congestive heart failure. Discontinuance of the low bed was also requested by hospice staff and the resident’s daughter to afford the resident more comfort in a raised bed. The fact that placement in a regular raised bed potentially could result in an increase in the seriousness of injury from a fall from that bed was obvious to any reasonable person. The May 5, 2002, nurses’ notes indicate that there was a discussion with Resident No. 4’s daughter about returning the resident to a high bed for comfort. On balance, the placement of Resident No. 4 in a regular raised bed was medically warranted, as well as reasonable. The placement in a regular bed with side rails was not noted directly in the care plan but was contained in the doctor’s orders and was well known by all the facility’s staff. There was no evidence that directly mentioned the regular bed in the formal care plan was required or that the failure to do so had any consequence to Resident No. 4’s care. Even a lack of documentation clearly would not constitute a Class II deficiency. Moreover, the bed with side rails was not ordered to protect or prevent falls by Resident No. 4. The facility does not consider a bed with side rails of any sort to be a device which assists in the prevention of falls. Indeed rails often cause falls or increase the injury from a fall. In this case, the rails were ordered so that the resident could more easily position herself in the bed to maintain a comfortable position. Again, the decision to place Resident No. 4 in a regular raised bed with side rails was reasonable. The focus is on comfort as opposed to aggressive care for hospice residents. The evidence did not demonstrate that Bayside Manor failed to adequately supervise or provide assistive devices to Resident No. 4. There was no evidence that reassessment would have shown Resident No. 4 to be at any higher risk for falls, since she was already rated as a high risk for falls. Nor did the evidence show that reassessment would have changed any of the care given to Resident No. 4 or changed the type bed in which she was most comfortable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order restoring the Respondent’s licensure status to Standard and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 3rd day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanna Daniels, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
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
Findings Of Fact The parties present at the hearing stipulated to the following facts which are hereby entered as findings of fact: All letters of intent submitted by the applicants involved herein with the exception of FCC were timely filed on or before December 15, 1984 and the relating applications by these applicants were timely filed on or before January 15, 1985. As a result, these applications addressed a January, 1988 bed need planning horizon. All applications, as mentioned above, were deemed complete by DHRS and were reviewed under a January, 1988 bed need planning horizon. All applications as cited above, were preliminarily denied by DHRS based on a lack of need and notice of these denials were timely published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All unsuccessful applicants herein thereafter timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of their applications. The application filed by FCC for CON number 2738, filed by the applicant in July, 1983, and addressing a July, 1986 bed need was initially denied by DHRS in November, 1983. FCC thereafter timely filed a petition for formal, administrative hearing contesting the denial of this application and on January 10, 1985, DHRS and FCC entered into a stipulated settlement in which DHRS agreed to grant CON Number 2738 to FCC. This CON was issued to FCC on January 19, 1985, for 91 community nursing home beds and on March 15, 1985, a Final Order was entered by DHRS confirming the grant off CON Number 2738 to FCC. FCC's original application under CON Number 2738 was for a 120 bed community nursing home to be located in Indian River County, Florida. DHRS's initial denial of FCC's application was based on a lack of bed need at the time. When DHRS entered into the stipulation with FCC reversing its position and granting a CON to FCC for 91 community nursing home beds, it did so on the basis of bed need figures utilizing statistics relating to the subsequent January, 1988 bed need planning horizon even though FCC's application did not pertain to that planning horizon. In fact the beds taken and awarded to FCC came from the fixed pool of beds that, under the DHRS rule in effect at the time, was reserved for applicants in the January, 1985 batching cycle with a planning horizon of January, 1988. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), F.A.C., sets out the bed need rule methodology for determining projected need for new or additional community nursing home beds. Pursuant to this rule, need is projected three years into the future. The methodology provided in this rule is clear and reasonable. If this methodology is followed precisely as set forth in the rule and utilizing the DHRS statistics available to personnel in the health care professions, such as its semi-annual nursing home census report as well as the Florida population estimates and projections by DHRS district and county, a net bed need of 116 additional beds in Indian River County is established for the period January, 1988. This figure does not, however, include an award of 91 beds to FCC under CON Number 2738 by DHRS under the terms of its settlement and those 91 beds are included within the 116. The expert testifying for the applicants herein concluded that the award of the 91 beds to FCC outside its planning horizon was erroneous and improper and based on no calculation of bed need appropriate to the applicant's original July, 1986 planning horizon and it was so found. In this case, DHRS, by awarding beds to FCC from a subsequent planning horizon is implementing a bed need policy which establishes a "planning horizon" three years from the date the Petitioners' applications were filed but updating all available data to that existing as of the date of the final hearing. This would include July, 1986 population data, current licensed beds, current approved beds, and the latest occupancy rate. The procedure followed by DHRS here is, however, a DHRS policy interpretation rather than a literal interpretation of the rule and the DHRS expert was unable to establish or in any way justify DHRS' policy of updating all data to the date of hearing in contravention of the terms of its own rule. If the unjustified and unsubstantiated DHRS policy were accepted and utilized here, calculations would reflect a surplus of 70 nursing home beds in Indian River County for the January, 1988 planning horizon as opposed to the more reasonable and rational bed need of 116.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT Certificate of Need Number 2733, previously issued to Florida Convalescent Centers be rescinded and that the 91 beds relating thereto be returned to the January, 1988 planning horizon fixed pool. It is further recommended that the Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services remand the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a comparative hearing to evaluate the pending applicants within that batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific ruling pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by National Health Corporation, FMSC and Forum 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the actual calculations outlined in the formulas which are incomplete. 2 & 3 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-6 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 7-13 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 14 Not a Finding of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Health Care and Retirement Corporation Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the citation of the rule which is incomplete. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated. 5-9 Accepted. 10 & 11 Accepted. 12 Rejected as not the best analysis. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Beverly Enterprises 1-3 Accepted. 4-6 Incorporated into Findings of Fact. 7 & 8 Accepted. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. & 11 Accepted. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. Cumulative to other findings. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. Incorporated in Finding of Fact. 16-20 Legal Argument not a Finding of Fact. 21-22 Cumulative to other evidence of record. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by DHRS 1-3 Accepted. 4-8 Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9 Accepted as to the calculation including the 91 beds available to FCC. Rejected as to the propriety of the award and the reason. Copies Furnished: William Page, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Rodriguez, Esquire, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Heritage Hall is a partnership, domiciled in the State of Virginia, which owns and operates ten nursing homes in that state. Heritage Hall did not, at the time of the close of this record, own or operate, nor have under completed construction, any nursing home in Florida. Heritage Hall filed a "letter of intent to construct, own and operate a 60-bed nursing home in the counties of Collier, DeSoto, Highlands, and Lee. On July 15, 1983, Heritage Hall filed the specific Certificate of Need application at issue with HRS, requesting authorization to construct a 60-bed freestanding nursing home in DeSoto County. That application was deemed complete on September 15, 1983, and a free form decision was made to grant it by HRS on December 1, 1983. The proposed nursing home would be located in the vicinity of Arcadia, in DeSoto County, a subdistrict of HRS District VIII. Diversicare Corporation, Inc. d/b/a DeSoto Manor Nursing Home (DeSoto Manor), (Diversicare), owns and operates DeSoto Manor Nursing Home, an existing 60-bed nursing home facility located in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. On November 3, 1983, Diversicare filed a Letter of Intent with HRS announcing its intention to seek a Certificate of Need for an addition to its DeSoto County facility. It ultimately filed an application seeking authorization for a 36-bed nursing home addition on January 12, 1984. No additional information was requested by HRS and the application became complete by operation of law on March 15, 1984. That application is thus in a separate and later batch for purposes of Rule 10-5.08, Florida Administrative Code, and thus was not comparatively reviewed with the application in the case at bar as a competing application. On May 1, 1984, HRS notified Diversicare of its intent to deny its application for the 36-bed addition. Heritage Hall proposes to construct a 60-bed nursing home at a total cost of $1,597,293. This specific cost of construction, not including land acquisition cost, is proposed to be $1,070,740. The nursing home's cost of construction allocated on a per bed basis would be $26,622. Heritage Hall proposes to finance this project to a tax-exempt bond issue in an aggregate amount of $1,436,075, carrying a 10 percent interest rate with a 30-year maturity. Additionally, the Heritage Hall partnership would invest $161,218. Heritage Hall projects that once it begins operation of the proposed new nursing home, that a 97 percent occupancy level for the proposed 60 beds would be reached within six months. Included within that projection, Heritage Hall projects that 49 percent of the patient revenues would come from Medicaid reimbursement, that 10 percent would come from Medicare reimbursement, and that 40 percent of its revenues would be attributable to private paying patients, not included within any relevant government entitlement programs. The remaining one per cent of its patient revenue base would be charged off and attributable to bad debt, or indigent patients. Heritage Hall proposes charges for its Medicare and Medicaid patients to constitute $62.39 per day, and its charges for private paying patients would be $68.00 a day for a private room, and $65.00 per day for a semiprivate room. It proposes to staff its facility with five registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses (LPN), 17 nurses aides, and an administrative and miscellaneous employee staff of 16, for a total staff for a 60- bed nursing home of 44 employees. DeSoto Manor's present patient population is largely composed of Medicaid and Medicare patients, such that 84 percent of its revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare sources. Its private paying patients are a small minority contributing 16 percent of its total patient revenues. DeSoto Manor has consistently experienced 99 - 100 percent occupancy for all of 1983 and 1984, upon which is earned a net income for fiscal year 1983 of approximately $15,000. DeSoto Manor presently employs on its staff 2.2 registered nurses, 5.6 LPN's, 17.1 aides, and 17.4 administrative and miscellaneous employees, those figures being expressed in terms of full-time equivalent employees in those categories. DeSoto Manor's application filed in a later batch is not at issue in this proceeding, in terms of comparative review for the purpose of determining whether Heritages Hall or DeSoto Manor is entitled to a Certificate of Need for DeSoto County nursing home beds as a result of this proceeding. Such a proposal, however, to add additional beds to an existing nursing home, is worthy of consideration as an alternative means of providing nursing home services to the public in District VIII, and specifically the subdistrict of DeSoto County, pursuant to authority cited infra. In that vein, DeSoto Manor proposes to add 36 additional beds at a total cost of $767,337, including involving a construction cost of $541,280, which is equivalent to a $21,260 cost per bed for the proposed 36-bed addition. DeSoto Manor would require the equivalent of 17.3 full time additional staff members, if such an addition (a 36-bed addition) were approved and built. DeSoto Manor charges will be (on January 1, 1985) $45.56 a day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $47.00 a day for its private pay patients. If its 36-bed addition were installed, it would charge $49.31 per day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $53.00 a day for private paying patients. DeSoto County is a relatively small county geographically, located inland from the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico in District VIII. It is a rural county in character, as that term relates to its economic base being largely agriculture, and its low population density, with its population center being in the only sizable community of Arcadia, the county seat, located approximately in the geographic center of the county. It is surrounded by Sarasota, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. Highlands and Hardee Counties are in District VI, with Sarasota, Charlotte and DeSoto Counties being in District VIII, as are Lee, Collier, Glades and Hendry Counties. In 1987, DeSoto County is expected to have a population of 3,749 persons age 65 and over. The county is not experiencing a significant rate of growth at this time, nor is it expected to through 1987, the pertinent "horizon" year. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the nursing home bed need methodology, HRS computes a need for additional nursing home beds in its health care districts and sub-districts, first by determining "actual need" or the "area specific bed need allocation." The actual need for additional nursing home beds is computed by means of a population based formula embodied in that rule. The second step of the need/availability determination process involves determining how many beds above or below the actual need determined may be added before the utilization in the district or subdistrict falls below 80 or 85 percent. The actual need or "area specific allocation" is determined by multiplying the poverty ratio for the district or subdistrict by the statewide nursing home bed need ratio of 27 per 1,000 persons age 65 and older, and the population of the district or subdistrict age 65 and older, and then subtracting from this computation the number of existing nursing home beds within the district or subdistrict. Within District VIII, the poverty ratio equals 8.61 divided by 12.70, the relevant population of the district for the applicable year being 213,561, with the population for DeSoto County, as a subdistrict, being 3,749 persons age 65 and older. There were 3,671 licensed nursing home beds in District VIII at the time of the hearing, and there were 1,130 beds approved, but not yet licensed or open in the district. There were 60 licensed and operating nursing home beds in DeSoto County. There were 3,904 actually "needed" or allocated beds in District VIII, which, when added to those beds approved but not yet licensed and operating, total an aggregate of 4,801 licensed and approved beds in the district. Thus, there are 997 excess nursing home beds over and above those actually needed in District VIII by 1987, according to the population based formula used in the first part of the need/availability determination process embodied in the above-cited rule. There is an actual need in DeSoto County alone of nine additional nursing home beds by 1987, based upon the subdistrict actual need allocation determined by the first part of the above methodology process of 69 beds. The second part of the need/availability determination process computes how many additional beds can be added to a district or subdistrict before the occupancy rates of nursing home beds in the district or subdistrict fall below the applicable rule mandated percentage. In DeSoto County, the applicable percentage is 80 per cent, because the subdistrict of DeSoto County indicates some need for additional beds, although the district as a whole has excess beds with no additional actual bed need shown. Thus, based upon the entire applicable computation, 15 beds may be added to DeSoto County before utilization of nursing home beds in the county will drop below the threshold of 80 percent. It has thus been established that if 60 beds are added to the bed supply in DeSoto County, for instance by a grant of the instant application, the utilization of nursing home beds will decline to approximately 50 percent. Under the above rule methodology, HRS, in adhering to the requirements of that rule, would not normally grant a certificate of need when only a small number of additional nursing home beds are computed to be available under that formula, that is, for a new freestanding nursing home facility. It is undisputed that construction of a new nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered to be financially feasible. That rule of thumb does not apply, however, to the addition of beds to an existing, already-built parent facility, and it is undisputed that the addition of needed beds to an existing facility is more cost-effective in terms of construction costs and staffing, than the construction of a new facility. In its review process, with regard to the instant application and proceeding, HRS did not consider the alternative of adding new needed beds to the existing facility operated by Diversicare (DeSoto Manor), since the Diversicare application was not filed in the same batching cycle as the application at bar filed by Heritage Hall. Although the nursing home bed need determination formula reveals a maximum need of 15 beds for DeSoto County by 1987, HRS proposes to approve 60 beds in conjunction with the Heritage Hall application. In its review process, HRS took into account the fact that DeSoto and surrounding counties in District VIII were experiencing high occupancy rates as to existing licensed beds, and took the position then and in this proceeding that residents of DeSoto County needing nursing home care would have difficulty finding available nursing home beds. HRS failed to take into consideration, in its review process, the additional number of nursing home beds which had been approved in surrounding counties (as pertinent hereto, the surrounding counties of District VIII), but which were not yet licensed and actually operating. Thus, at the time of hearing there were 301 approved but not yet opened beds in Charlotte County, 97 approved but not yet operating beds in Collier County, 222 approved but not yet opened beds in Lee County and 597 approved but not yet operating beds in Sarasota County. Thus, the approved but not yet licensed and operating beds will result in an increase of 1,217 beds available, when open, to the residents of DeSoto and the adjacent counties of District VIII. 1/ The applicant and HRS seek to justify the approval of 60 additional beds in DeSoto County by reference to the high utilization rates being experienced in adjacent counties. As pertinent hereto, Charlotte County was experiencing an occupancy rate of 99 percent, Sarasota was at 88 percent occupancy, Lee County at 91.5 percent, with Collier County at 64.5 percent. Those figures do not take into account the latest nursing home District VIII occupancy figures as of June 29, 1984 which reflect the above-discussed additional approved, but not yet opened beds, and which result in the occupancy rates in these counties falling substantially. Thus, Charlotte is now experiencing only an 80.4 percent occupancy, for instance, with Sarasota County falling to a 78.5 per cent occupancy, with lowered occupancy rates resulting in Lee and Collier County as well with the addition of the approved, but not yet opened beds. These lowered occupancy rates resulting from the opening of these approved, but not yet licensed beds, were not considered by HRS at the time of its initial review, and free form grant of the certificate of need at issue. The opening of these hundreds of additional beds will continue to reduce occupancy in those counties and provide available beds to residents of District VIII and to residents of DeSoto County, to the extent those beds in the other counties are deemed accessible. HRS admitted at hearing that the availability of beds has increased in the district since its first review of the application. The financial feasibility of the Heritage Hall proposal depends upon an assumed 97 percent occupancy in its sixth month of operation, and projects that 40 percent of the revenues will be derived from private, paying patients. The 97 percent occupancy is an optimistic projection however, because only nine beds are shown to be actually needed in the county by 1987, and only 15 beds can be added before occupancy will drop below 80 percent. The addition of 60 beds would drop occupancy at DeSoto Manor and the proposed Heritage Hall facility, if built, to 50 percent. The Heritage Hall projection for revenues from private, paying patients which is 40 percent, is substantially more than the current revenue source from private, paying patients experienced by DeSoto Manor of 16 percent. In order to achieve such an occupancy rate in such a short time, and such a higher percentage of private, paying patient revenues, Heritage Hall must aggressively market its new facility and nursing home service so as to attract private, paying patients. Based upon historical evidence of record, it is likely that the patient base in DeSoto County itself will not support such a high percentage of private, paying patients and such patients will doubtless have to come from other areas or counties in the district, specifically the counties lying along the coast of District VIII. There is no evidence to establish that nursing home patients in the coastal counties have any inclination to seek nursing home care in DeSoto County, particularly because those coastal counties are already experiencing lowered occupancy rates, and nursing homes there need more patients. There is thus no demonstration that residents of the coastal counties in District VIII (or other adjacent counties for that matter) would travel to DeSoto County for nursing home care when there are empty beds available to them closer to their homes or the homes of their families in those counties. Heritage Hall proposes to recruit its staff from DeSoto County and the surrounding geographical area. DeSoto Manor however, itself is currently experiencing severe problems in recruiting registered nurses for its facility, in spite of repeated advertising and recruitment attempts. Potential staff members share a reluctance in becoming employed at DeSoto Manor, which lies in an isolated, rural area, and which must compete with the many nursing homes lying in the coastal areas in the other counties of District VIII for staff, and which areas offer more living amenities in general, than does the isolated, rural, small community setting in which DeSoto Manor is located. Indeed, other District VIII nursing home administrators have contacted the administrator of DeSoto Manor, in her capacity as administrator, as well as in her capacity as president of the Florida Health Care Association for District VIII, seeking assistance in obtaining additional staff for their facilities. Approval of the Heritage Hall application will, in effect, double the competition for staff members for nursing homes in DeSoto County, and will concomitantly, increase DeSoto Manor's present difficulties in obtaining and retaining appropriate employees. In calculating the financial impact which an additional 60-bed nursing home would have on the existing DeSoto Manor facility, DeSoto Manor assumed that the number of nursing home beds said to be available before occupancy dropped below 80 per cent, which includes the proposed 15 additional beds, would be full of patients and that these patients would be evenly split between the two nursing homes in the county. Thus, each nursing home would have approximately 37.5 patients in its respective 60-bed facility. In this event, and taking into account the concomitant reduction in staff, salaries and other per patient expenses because of a reduction in the number of patients, the proposed Heritage Hall facility would likely experience a net loss of approximately $232,587 for the first year of operation of its additional facility. DeSoto Manor's Medicaid reimbursement revenues would fall $31,722 below DeSoto Manor's actual cost of providing Medicaid patient care. Thus, in order to recover lost revenues and achieve a break-even profit and loss status, a significant increase in patient charges over existing charges would be necessary. The weight of such increase in patient charges would have to fall upon the private, paying patients in the revenue mix of each nursing home, because of the inflexible nature of the current Medicaid reimbursement scheme. In evaluating the DeSoto County population's accessibility to nursing home services, HRS admittedly did not take into account the provisions of Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which is the local health plan as it relates to nursing home planning adopted in the most current HRS rules. This local health plan provides for nursing home services to be available within a one hour travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of the residents of District VIII. The president of the District VIII chapter of the Florida Health Care Association, who is the administrator of DeSoto Manor, is aware of at least ten nursing homes within a one hour drive of Arcadia and at least three others within that radius which are under construction, a significant number of which are in District VIII. Arcadia is located in the center of DeSoto County. All counties surrounding DeSoto County in District VIII have substantial numbers of approved beds which have not yet been opened and at least Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, which are adjacent to DeSoto County have occupancy rates in the neighborhood of 80 percent or less. The applicant did not establish, in furtherance of its attempted justification of 60 additional beds for DeSoto County, the lack of accessibility to DeSoto County nursing home patients of beds in the adjoining counties of District VIII, especially Charlotte and Sarasota, inasmuch as it was not established that those nursing homes in those coastal counties are more than an hour's driving time from the center of DeSoto County. Although, as witness Straughn for HRS established, Sarasota or the more westerly parts of Sarasota County, are approximately 49 miles and roughly an hour driving time from DeSoto County, it was not established that there are not nursing homes available in closer parts of Sarasota County which are accessible in less than an hour's driving time to DeSoto County residents and/or patients. Indeed, witness Porter testifying after the hearing by deposition, established that most of the nursing homes in the coastal counties involved in this proceeding, are within "40 some miles" from the present DeSoto Manor facility and the proposed Heritage Hall facility. Indeed, witness Porter established that Port Charlotte, in the immediate vicinity of which are several nursing homes, and which county is experiencing now an 80.4 percent occupancy rate (with the above-mentioned numbers of approved but not yet installed beds) is only 25 miles from the proposed Arcadia location. Thus, the criteria of the above rule which HRS witnesses failed to take into account, encompasses nursing home beds available or approved in the coastal counties referred to, which are accessible to patients in DeSoto County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the relevant legal authority, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING the application of Heritage Hall to construct a new 60-bed nursing home facility in DeSoto County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 28th day of January, 1985.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 15, 1986, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent to construct a 60 bed community nursing home with a 45 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Highlands County, Florida. This application was identified as CON 4700. After preliminary review, Respondent denied this application on or about December 23, 1986, and Petitioner timely filed its petition for formal administrative hearing. Highlands County is in Respondent's Service District VI, Subdistrict IV. The parties stipulated that there was a net bed need in the July, 1989 planning horizon for Highlands County of an additional 28 community nursing home beds, based upon the bed need calculation set forth in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. It was further stipulated by the parties that Petitioner's original application met all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of a CON, but for the issue of need. Since the parties did stipulate to a need for 28 community nursing home beds, Petitioner sought, at hearing, to offer evidence in support of only an "identifiable portion" of its original application. Thus, Petitioner offered no evidence in support of the application it filed with Respondent, and which was preliminarily denied on December 23, 1986. Rather, Petitioner sought consideration and approval of either 28 nursing home beds with 32 ACLF beds, or 30 nursing home beds with 30 ACLF beds. Since the stipulation of the parties could not cover the financial feasibility of either alternative because they were presented for the first time at hearing, Petitioner offered evidence to establish the financial feasibility of these alternatives. Based upon the testimony of Herbert E. Straughn, it is found that Respondent does not normally approve nursing home CON applications for less than 60 nursing home beds. However, Respondent has approved a CON application for 30 nursing home beds in association with 30 ACLF beds or some other similar service when the need for 30 nursing home beds was shown to exist. Respondent has also approved a CON for less than 30 nursing home beds in connection with an existing 60 bed facility when the stipulated need did not reach 30. In this case, Petitioner's original application was for 60 community nursing home and 45 ACLF beds, and it was at hearing that Petitioner sought to down-size its application to meet the stipulated need of 28 nursing home beds. There are no accessibility problems with regard to special programs or services, or any other problems of accessibility, in District VI, Subdistrict IV. Petitioner's request for partial consideration and approval of its application, which was presented at hearing, would not introduce any new services or construction not originally contemplated in its application, although the size of the project and number of beds sought would be reduced. In its original application, Petitioner proposed a nursing home with two 30-bed units, and now seeks approval for only one 28 or 30-bed unit. From a health planning standpoint, nursing home bed units usually occur in multiples of 60 due to staffing and equipment considerations. No evidence was offered to show why the Respondent should deviate from its usual practice in this case, other than the fact that a need for only 28 beds exists. At hearing, Petitioner introduced revised pro formas for 28 and 30 nursing home beds, associated with 32 and 30 ACLF beds, respectively. These revised pro formas were based on the same ratios of patients by payor class as in the original pro forma. The equity to loan ratios in the revised pro formas to finance the project remained the same as in the original application. The revised pro formas combine revenue and expenses for nursing home and ACLF beds. However, if revenue and expenses for nursing home beds is segregated from ACLF beds, it is found that a 30 bed nursing home facility would not be financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990, and a 28 bed nursing home facility would be even less financially feasible than a 30 bed facility. When revenues and expenses for the ACLF component of the project are considered along with nursing home bed income and expenses, the project shows only a marginal profit in the second year of operation with the 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative. It is barely break-even in the second year under the 28 nursing home bed-32 ACLF bed alternative. Thus, under either alternative, the project is not financially feasible in 1989, and the nursing home component of this project, standing alone under either alternative presented at hearing, is not financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990. The 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative is more financially feasible than the 28-32 alternative since the 28-32 alternative is barely break even in the second year of operation. Specifically, under the 28-32 alternative, pretax income of less than $9000 is projected in the second year of operation with total revenues of approximately $1.321 million and total expenses of approximately $1.312 million.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for CON 4700. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 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 7th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0667 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 9. 8-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as simply a statement of position and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 13-16 Rejected as conclusions of law and not proposed findings of fact; this legal argument has been considered in the preparation of conclusions of law contained in this Recommended Order. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 8, 9, 10. However the last sentence in the proposed finding of fact is rejected as unclear. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although from a health planning viewpoint a 30 nursing home bed unit is more functional and cost effective than a 28; it is also more financially feasible in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11, and otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although adopted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. 2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6 Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. 7 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 8-9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Adams, Esquire 215 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
The Issue [Case No. 79-2407] Whether the Department is entitled to reimbursement of certain Medicaid funds previously paid to a nursing home owner in the amount of $118,061.00, based upon a recommendation by the Department and subsequent determination by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, under Section 1122, Social Security Act, that Federal reimbursement of expenses attributable to the purchase of the nursing home should be withheld due to the Owner's lack of timely notice of intent to acquire the nursing home; [Case No. 80-467] Whether, based on the Section 1122 determination, the Department wrongfully disallowed and withheld payment to the nursing home owner, certain medicaid reimbursement funds in the amount of $101,348.00. Conclusions and Recommendation: Conclusions: Here, each party has the burden of presenting a preponderance of evidence in support of its affirmative claim. Each claim rests on the propriety or impropriety of imposition of Section 1122 penalties against the nursing home. Since the Department failed to present sufficient evidence justifying the imposition of Section 1122 penalties and the nursing home failed to establish the Section 1122 penalties were erroneously imposed, neither party sustained its burden of establishing entitlement to the relief requested. Recommendation: That the Department's Medicaid overpayment claim against the nursing home owner, in the amount of $118,061.00 be DENIED, and the nursing home owner's claim against the Department for $101.348.00 in Medicaid underpayments be DENIED. Background: On April 26, 1979, and May 2, 1979, Petitioner/Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("Department") notified Respondent/Petitioners, Lakeview Nursing Home, Robert Becht and R. B. Care, Inc., d/b/a Lakeview Manor and d/b/a Intercoastal Nursing Manor ("Owner") that a desk review of the annual cost report for the Lakeview Nursing Home (a/k/a Lakeview Manor) indicated that the nursing home had been overpaid $18,900.00 by the Department's Medicaid Program during the eight months, ending June 30, 1978, and that such overpayment should be returned to the Department. On October 8, 1979, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that, pursuant to a "Notice of Determination Under Section 1122" issued by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW") the Department had recalculated the nursing home's historic per diem rates and determined that the Owner had been overpaid $61,155.00 in Medicaid funds during the period ending June 30, 1978. On November 19, 1979, the nursing home Owner requested a formal hearing, under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the validity of the Department's overpayment claim. On November 30, 1979, the Department forwarded the Owner's request for a hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. [DOAH Case No. 79-2407] On January 10, 1980, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that an additional $56,906.00 should be repaid to the State of Florida--based upon alleged overpayment to the nursing home during the period ending June 30, 1979. On February 14, 1980, the nursing home Owner filed a Petition with the Department alleging numerous wrongful and negligent Department actions resulting in the withholding and underpayment of Medicaid funds to which the nursing home was entitled, demanding full payment, and requesting a formal Section 120.57 hearing. On March 12, 1980, the Department forwarded the nursing home Owner's Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. [DOAH Case No. 80-467] By Notice of Hearing, dated April 11, 1980, Case No. 80-467 was set for final hearing on May 29, 1980. By agreement of the parties, the two cases were subsequently consolidated for final hearing. At final hearing, the Department called John T. Donaldson, and offered Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9, into evidence, each of which was received. The nursing home Owner called as its witnesses, William McCaulley, Leonard Cordes, and Linda Zarecki, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 5, (Composite) and 6, each of which was received. At the request of the nursing home, and without objection by the Department, official recognition was taken of Rule 10C-7.48(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The nursing home further stipulated that the only allegations which it would pursue in the administrative hearing concerned whether the Department wrongfully withheld from the nursing home certain Medicaid funds to which its was entitled. Neither party submitted post-hearing proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an agreement with HEW, the Department administers the Medicaid Program within Florida which includes allocation and payment of Medicaid funds to nursing homes which provide health care to patients qualifying for Medicaid benefits. (Testimony of Donaldson, Petitioners Exhibit 5; Respondent's Exhibit 9) On November 1, 1977, Robert Becht, on behalf of R. B. Care, Inc. ("Owner") purchased a nursing care facility located at 208 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida, known as Intercoastal Nursing Manor. No evidence was presented to establish the purchase price paid for the facility. Subsequent to its purchase, the name of the nursing home was changed to Lakeview Manor, although Department correspondence frequently refers to it as Lakeview Nursing Home. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 9 [Composite]) On January 9, 1978, a representative of the Regional Health Care Planning Agency--Health Planning Council, Inc.--advised the Department's Bureau of Community Medical Facilities of an apparent change in ownership of the Intercoastal Nursing Home, noted that the new owner had not "sought, applied for, or received the necessary Certificate of Need for this change of ownership transaction," and asked for Department assistance in determining the present status of the nursing facility. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In response to the Health Planning Council's letter, the Department's Office of Medical Facilities sent a letter to the Nursing Home Owner, dated January 26, 1978. That letter enclosed Department rules which provided that, when certain expenditures have been incurred by a health care facility without prior notice of such expenditure being given to the designated planning agency (Office of Medical Facilities), that agency should notify the health care facility that such obligation was subject to review, that timely notice of the proposed expenditure was not given, and that the Agency proposed to recommend to the Secretary of HEW that the expenditure be disapproved. The nursing home was given 30 days to reply, or file the necessary application for approval of the expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home). The letter closed with the following: "You should understand that we must report the purchase of Intercoastal Nursing Manor to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on a no timely notice and that it may affect depreciation, interest, and fair returns on the project and reimbursement on the project." (Respondent's Exhibit 2) By letter dated March 22, 1978 (with copy to the nursing home Owner), the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities subsequently informed the regional office of HEW that notice had been given the nursing home Owner concerning the need to file an application for review of the November 1, 1977, acquisition of and change in ownership of the nursing home, but that it had failed to respond. The recommendation of the Office of Community Medical Facilities was attached to the transmittal letter; however, that recommendation was not offered into evidence by the Department. The letter of transmittal concluded that, because no application for approval was submitted by the nursing home Owner, there was "no indication on the HRA-45 of the amount of capital expended for the acquisition." (Respondent's Exhibit 3) During April, 1978, the Regional Health Administrator of HEW issued a "Notice of Determination under Section 1122--Reimbursement to be Excluded." The Notice was addressed to the nursing home Owner and concluded that reimbursement for expenses related to the capital expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home facility) would be excluded from payment for services provided under the Social Security Act based upon the finding that (1) the expenditure was subject to Section 1122, and (2) Notice of Intent to make the expenditure had not timely been given. By way of explanation, the regional administrator added that reimbursement would be "withheld for an indefinite period" because the State had been unable to make a finding that the expenditure conformed to applicable plans, standards, and criteria due to the failure to submit an application. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) By separate agreements entered into by the Department and the nursing home Owner on November 2, 1977, October 30, 1978, and September 5, 1979 (which enabled the nursing home to participate in Florida's Medicaid Program) the nursing home Owner expressly agreed to comply with state and federal laws and rules applicable to the Medicaid Program. The Owner also agreed that Medicaid cost reporting would be governed by the procedures and methods contained in the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15). The agreements relieve the nursing home from responsibility in "those instances of overpayment due to Agency [Department] errors in eligibility investigation and determination. . ." (Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) Section 2422 of HIM-15 describes the requirements concerning approval of capital expenditures imposed by Section 1122 of the Social Security Act. The Manual cautions providers desiring to make or having made expenditures subject to Section 1122 to familiarize themselves with the regulations and direct questions concerning its implementation to the designated planning agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 8) Notwithstanding having been sent repeated notices by the Department and HEW concerning the requirements of Section 1122, the nursing home Owner has not filed an application for approval of the capital expenditure associated with acquisition of the nursing home; neither has it contended that such capital expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Section 1122 and implementing HEW and Department rules. (Testimony of McCaulley, Donaldson) Despite the Department's withholding and disallowal of payment to the nursing home of expenses relating to the acquisition of the facility (due to the federal Section 1122 determination), the nursing home continued to qualify for and participate in the Medicaid Program. The nursing home provided efficient and satisfactory medical care to Medicaid patients during 1978, and 1979, and the Department does not assert otherwise. The three Medicaid participation agreements entered into during 1977, 1978, and 1979, do not directly address or purport to relieve health care facilities from compliance with Department rules and Section 1122. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) It is probable that the nursing home received actual notice of the requirement that certain capital expenditures by health care facilities must receive Section 1122 approval. Although the nursing home Owner's secretary since June, 1978, does not recall receiving the HEW Section 1122 Notice, she was not employed by the nursing home during the time the notice was issued, and she admitted that she could not testify that the owner had not received the HEW Notice. Moreover, her testimony did not address the earlier Department correspondence to the Owner concerning the need to obtain State and Federal Section 1122 approval, including the Department's Section 1122 recommendation to HEW. (Testimony of Zarecki, Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Between 1977 and 1979, the Department overpaid the nursing home $118,061.00 (which includes the $18,900.00 claimed by the Department in its May 2, 1979, letter) in per diem patient reimbursements which the nursing home was not entitled to under the Section 1122 Notice and Penalty. This overpayment was caused by the Department's failure to exclude that portion of per diem patient reimbursements attributable to the Owner's acquisition of the nursing home property. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 7) If the Section 1122 penalty was incorrectly recommended by the Department, and imposed by the HEW, the Department has withheld between November 1, 1977, and December 31, 1979, $101,348.00 which is now due and owing to the nursing home Owner. (Testimony of McCaulley, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Since January 2, 1979, the Owner has no longer owned or operated the nursing home in question. (Testimony of McCaulley, Cordes)
