Findings Of Fact Cilla McCray, is a resident of Gadsden County. The parties have stipulated that on December 3, 1977, she was admitted to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital in an emergency medical condition, and that the treatment performed by the hospital was of an emergency nature. The parties have further stipulated that the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital is a regional referral hospital within the meaning of Section 154.304(4) , Florida Statutes (1977). Cilla McCray was admitted to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital on December 3, 1977, and was discharged on January 9, 1978. The total bill for her services amounted to $8,753.80. The Hospital submitted a bill to Gadsden County in the amount of $1,521.48 for the services. This latter amount is the maximum allowed to be billed in accordance with the Florida Health Care Responsibility Act. Gadsden County has refused to pay the bill, contending that the patient was not indigent. The patient has not paid the bill. Cilla McCray is married to Lawrence McCray. They have three children but only two of them reside at home. The oldest child is not supported by his parents. During the six months preceding the hospitalization of Cilla McCray her husband had average earnings of $80.00 per week as a logger. Mrs. McCray had earned a total of $732.60 for employment during the six months prior to her hospitalization. The McCray's thus had average monthly earnings during that period in excess of $450.00 per month.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered rejecting the bill submitted by the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for medical services performed for Cilla McCray. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Shaw Curry, Esquire Post Office Box 706 Quincy, Florida 32351 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Chairman Board of County Commissioners Gadsden County Courthouse Quincy, Florida
Conclusions Having reviewed the four Notices of Intent to Deny Application issued May 13-18, 2010, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1, 2, 3, and 4), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 5) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Petitioner shall remit to the Agency, within thirty (30) days of the entry of a Final Order adopting this agreement, an administrative fee in the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to resolve the Agency's allegations of unlicensed activity, in the interest of expediently resolving these matters and in recognition of the expense and uncertainty of litigation. 3. Checks should be made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration.” The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Filed January 10, 2012 1:47 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4. Unpaid amounts pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. 5. Any requests for an administrative hearing are withdrawn. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. This matter is closed. DONE and ORDERED this [0 day of ~ Bettie: ; 20/2, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. — Ds we { izabeth Dudek, retary fey ir wacked 0. th€are Administration A PARTY WHO JS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Lance P. Cohen, Esquire Warren J. Bird, Asst. General Counsel Cohen & Thurston, P.A. Office of the General Counsel 1723 Blanding Boulevard, Suite # 102 Agency for Health Care Administration Jacksonville, Florida 32310 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 (U. S. Mail) Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Roger Bell Health Care Clinic Unit Manager Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Suzanne F. Hood Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (U.S. Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the oa above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the 10 day of aaa » 2012" Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630 Certified Article Number , ?bbO 390) Y5778 8971 SEMDERS RECORD i", Certified Article Number (?160 3901 9846 7935 1337 SENDERS RECORD One Nofice $1149/1° CHARLIE CRIST FIORDAAGENCY FOR HEATH CARE ADMINS TRATION Better Health Care for ail Floridians THOMAS W. ARNOLD GOVERNOR SECRETARY May 12, 2010 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc File Number: 8428 1680 Dunn Ave Case #: 2010004935 Ste 39 Jacksonville, FL 32218 F INTENT TO DENY APP TION It Is the decision of this Agency that the application for certificate of exemption from health care clinic licensure for Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc, located at 1680 DUNN AVE, STE 39, JACKSONVILLE, FL, 32218, be DENIED. The specific basis for this determination is based on the fact that: Requested information was not complete or timely received by the Agency pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes. You were notified by correspondence dated April 9, 2010 to provide further Information addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty-one days (21) from the receipt of the Agency's correspondence. Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on April 15, 2010. The outstanding issues remaining are: A copy of the closing documents, stock or similar certificates signed and dated by both the buyer and seller is required, In addition, the Agency received information that the facility does not meet exemption requirements as it is not wholly owned by a Florida licensed health care practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.9905(4)(g). EXPLANATION OF RIGH Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 ; Legal Intake Unit, Mall Stop 3. EXHIBIT 14 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myflorida.com 2727 Mahan Drive,MS-53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 " Certified Article Number , 7260 3901 9648 57748 8995 SENDERS RECORD FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS W. ARNOLD GOVERNOR Better Health Care for all Floridians SECRETARY May 12, 2010 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc File Number: 8430 9826 San Jose Blvd Case #: 2010004881 Jacksonville, FL 32257 .. : NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY APPLICATION It is the decision of this Agency that the application for certificate of exemption from health care clinic licensure for Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc, located at 9826 San Jose Bivd, Jacksonville, FL, 32257, be DENIED. The specific basis for this determination is based on the fact that: Requested information was not complete or timely received by the Agency pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes. You were notified by correspondence dated March 27, 2010 to provide further information addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty- one days (21) from the receipt of the Agency's correspondence. Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on April 8, 2010, The outstanding issues remaining are: Subpart 1.B, Name-of.Applicant: The name of the applicant must be the corporation or legal entity as it is registered with. the Division of Corporations, it must also match-the FEIN indicated in section 1.C. This subpart was submitted as a response to the omissions, but the. applicant's name indicated does not match the FEIN# listed in section 1.C. of the application. : As this facility did a change of ownership, provide a copy of the closing documents signed and dated by both the buyer (new owner) and seller (previous owner). Acceptable documentation may include any one of the following: Copy of final sale/transfer documents showing date of final transfer and signatures of buyer(s) and seller(s), or a signed, written statement from an attorney, on letterhead, that confirms sale/transfer completion and provides the date of final action. : In addition, the Agency received information that the facility does not meet exemption requirements as it is not wholly owned by a Florida licensed health care practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.9905(4)(g). TION OF HT! Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing, In order to obtain a formal proceeding before -the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120,57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing-must conform to the - requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. ; : : Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myflorida,com 2727 Mahan Drive,MS-53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 EXHIBIT 2 Physicians Medical Centers -. . Inc Page 2 : May 12, 2010 SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 Te thictee-Va thet [9 Number fd60 3901 9848 7495 a2, SENDERS RECORD FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS W. ARNOLD GOVERNOR Better Health Care for all Floridians SECRETARY May 13, 2010 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc File #8427 5960 Beach Blvd : Case #2010004956 Ste3 ; Jacksonville, FL 32207 NOTICE OF INTENT TQ DENY APPLICATION It is the decision of this Agency that the application for certificate of exemption from health care clinic licensure for Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc, located at 5960 Beach Bivd., Ste 3, Jacksonville, FL, 32207, be DENIED. The specific basis for this determination is based on the fact that: Requested information was not complete or timely received by the Agency pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes. You were notified by correspondence dated April 7, 2010 to provide further information addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty- one days (21) from the receipt of the Agency's correspondence. Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on Apri! 9, 2010. The outstanding issues remaining are: As this facility did a change of ownership, provide a copy of the closing documents signed and dated by both the buyer (new owner) and seller (previous owner). Acceptable documentation may include any one of the following: Copy of final sale/transfer documents showing date of final transfer and signatures of buyer(s) and seller(s), or a signed, written statement from an attorney, on letterhéad, that confirms sale/transfer completion and provides the date of final action. ; In addition, the Agency received information that the facility does not meet exemption requirements as it is not wholly owned by a Florida licensed health care practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.9905(4)(g). EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. EXHIBIT 3 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myflorida.com 2727 Mahan Drive,MS-53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Page 2 May 13, 2010 SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. Health Cae Clinic Unit ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 RTE ecm 3901 94a 7935 yy74 SENDERS RECORD FLORIDA AGENCY TOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION oe ERNGS Better Health Care for all Floridians THOMAS W. ARNOLD May 18, 2010 CERTIFIED MAIL / RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED File Number: 8429 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax, Inc 2020 Kingsley Ave Case #: 2010005135 Suite A Orange Park, FL 32073 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY APPLICATION It is the decision of this Agency that the application for certificate of exemption from health care clinic licensure for Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc, located at 2020 Kingsley Avenue, Suite A, Orange Park, Florida, 32073 be DENIED. The specific basis for this determination is based on the fact that: Requested information was not complete or timely received by the Agency pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes, You were notified by correspondence dated April 9, 2010 to provide further information addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty-one days (21) from the receipt of the Agency’s correspondence, Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on April 12, 2010, The outstanding issues remaining are: Evidence of Ownership — Information received by the Agency states that Victoria Critzer is the owner of Physicians Medical Centers-Jax Inc. Provide the following documentation as evidence of ownership: * A copy of the final closing documents such as a bill of sale or stock purchase agreement. signed and dated by both the buyer and seller including the effective date sale or transfer. The closing documents should contain the signature of Gordon Garver DC, previous owner of Physicians Medical Center-Jax Inc and Joseph Thomas MD, new owner of Physicians Medical Center-Jax Inc. ¢ A copy of the cancelled and reissued stock certificates transferring shared to Joseph Thomas MD. ¢ Acopy of the lease agreement that includes the name(s) of the owner(s). e Acopy of the business tax receipt that includes the name of the corporation and owner. In addition, the Agency received information indicating that the facility does not meet exemption requirements as it is not wholly owned by a Florida licensed health care practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.9905(4)(g). EXHIBIT 2727 Mahan Drive,MS-53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myflorida.com . Physicians Medical Centers - Ja... .nc Page 2 May 18, 2010 EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120,569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S. your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. ey SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS, For questions regarding this notice, please contact Ruby Schmigel, Health Services & Facilities Consultant with the Health Care Clinic Unit at (850) 412-4413. oger Bgl, Mandger Health Care Clinic Unit ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS PHYSICIANS MEDICAL CENTERS-JAX, INC., Petitioner, DOAH Case Nos. 10-3202, 10-3203, 10-3204 and 10-3205 vs. AHCA CASE Nos.: 2010004881, 2010004956 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE 2010004935 and 2010005135, ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Respondent, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter the “Agency”), through its undersigned representatives, and Petitioner, Physicians Medical Centers- Jax, Inc. (hereinafter “Petitioner”), pursuant to Section 120.57(4), Florida Statutes, each individually, a “party,” collectively as “parties,” hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) and agree as follows: WHEREAS, the Petitioner applied for four certificates of exemption from licensure pursuant to Section 400.9935(6), Florida Statutes and Chapter 59A-33, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, Victoria Critzer has applied for four initial health care clinic licenses, expressly intending to purchase the interest of Dr. Joseph Thomas in Petitioner upon issuance by the Agency of those licenses; and WHEREAS, the Agency has jurisdiction of the license and exemption applications described in the foregoing paragraphs, by virtue of being the regulatory and licensing authority over the said licenses and exemptions; and EXHIBIT 5 WHEREAS, the Agency served the Petitioner with four Notices of Intent to Deny Application on or about May 13, 2010, notifying the Petitioner of the Agency’s intent to deny the certificates of exemption for the reasons stated thereon, in Agency cases numbered 2010004881, 2010004956, 2010004935 and 2010005135; and WHEREAS, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, and in response to said request the matters were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), and were designated as cases numbered 10-3202, 10-3203, 10-3204 and 10-3205 in that tribunal; and subsequently the parties agreed to, and did abate those cases in DOAH, for the purpose of discussing settlement; and WHEREAS, the Agency alleges, and Petitioner denies, that during the period of processing of the aforementioned applications, Petitioner operated one or more unlicensed health care clinics in violation of Florida law as to which no formal administrative, civil or criminal action has thus far been brought; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that a fair, efficient, and cost effective resolution of this dispute would avoid the expenditure of substantial sums to litigate the dispute; and WHEREAS, the parties stipulate to the adequacy of consideration exchanged; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated in good faith and agreed that the best interest of all the parties will be served by a settlement of these proceedings; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and recitals herein, the parties intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 1. All recitals are true and correct and are expressly incorporated herein. 2. Both parties agree that the “whereas” clauses incorporated herein are binding findings of the parties. 3. Joseph Thomas, M.D. hereby acknowledges, affirms and certifies that, at the time this agreement is executed by him, he is the sole owner of the Florida corporation Physicians Medical Center-Jax, Inc. 4, Victoria Critzer hereby acknowledges, affirms and certifies that, at the time this agreement is executed by her, she is the sole owner of the Florida corporation Physicians Medical Center, Inc. 5. Upon full execution of this Agreement, Petitioner agrees to waive any and all proceedings and appeals to which it may be entitled including, but not limited to, an informal proceeding under Subsection 120.57(2), a formal proceeding under Subsection 120.57(1), appeals under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes; and declaratory and all writs of relief in any court or quasi-court (DOAH) of competent jurisdiction; and further agrees to waive compliance with the form of the Final Order (findings of fact and conclusions of law) to which it may be entitled. Provided, however, that no Agreement herein, shall be deemed a waiver by either party of its right to judicial enforcement of this Agreement. 6. Upon full execution of this Agreement, the parties agree to the following: a. Petitioner's four (4) applications for exemption from licensure are hereby withdrawn, and Petitioner expressly waives its right to challenge or appeal, or both, in DOAH or elsewhere, the denial by the Agency of the exemptions. b. The Agency will resume processing the four initial licensure applications submitted by Victoria Critzer as intended future 100% owner of Physicians Medical Centers-Jax, Inc., now pending, and if the applications are complete and the applicant qualified under applicable law, the Agency will issue the licenses upon full payment by Petitioner of an agreed upon sum, as set forth below, to resolve the Agency's claim of unlicensed activity against Physicians Medical Center, Inc. Ms. Critzer agrees to use reasonable diligence to timely remedy any omissions from the applications cited by the Agency, to make the facilities available as required by law for all inspections required in connection with the licensure of the facilities, and to otherwise comply with all requirements of the application process, and all statutes and administrative rules thereunto appertaining, including background screening as may be applicable. c. The Agency agrees to use all reasonable diligence to process the initial license applications, and to issue the initial licenses as expeditiously as reasonably possible, provided that Ms. Critzer timely complies with all reasonable requests for additional information to which the Agency is entitled as a component of the application and licensure process, and provided that Victoria Critzer, and the applications she presented, are qualified for the licenses under all applicable statutes and administrative rules. d. Victoria Critzer will maintain the health care clinic license #HCC6732 currently held by Physicians Medical Center Inc. (PMC), for purposes of billing health care services provided solely at the licensed location, 9826 San Jose Boulevard, Suite B, Jacksonville, Florida. Whereas, Ms. Critzer, through counsel, has advised the Agency of a change of address for the license from 9826 San Jose Boulevard, to 9826 San Jose Boulevard, Suite B, PMC will submit a change of address application to the Agency together with the appropriate fee, within 10 days of execution of this agreement, and prior to resumption by the Agency of processing of the subject licensure applications. The license will be maintained 7. under a different federal employer identification number from any other licenses issued to Victoria Critzer or any entity in which she has a controlling interest. A separate health care clinic license must be obtained for any other location at which any health care services will be provided and third-party reimbursement sought for on behalf of Physicians Medical Centers Inc. e. Physicians Medical Centers, Inc. agrees to pay the sum of thirty thousand and no/100s dollars ($30,000.00) to the Agency, to resolve the Agency's allegations of unlicensed activity, in the interest of expediently resolving these matters and in recognition of the expense and uncertainty of litigation. The sum will be paid in lump sum at the time that the initial licenses referenced in paragraph b., above, are issued, or within 30 days following rendition of a Final Order by the Agency that incorporates this Agreement, whichever occurs first. f. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit the Agency from denying Petitioner’s application for licensure based upon any statutory and/or regulatory provision, including, but not limited to, the failure of Petitioner to satisfactorily complete a survey reflecting compliance with all statutory and rule provisions as required by law. By executing this Agreement, the Petitioner neither admits nor denies the allegations raised in the Notices of Intent to Deny referenced herein. 8. Upon full execution of this Agreement, the Agency shall enter a Final Order adopting and incorporating this Agreement in its entirety, and closing the above-styled case(s). The cases resident in DOAH, referenced above as DOAH cases numbered 10-3202, 10-3203, 10- 3204 and 10-3205, are currently closed by Order entered in that tribunal on October 7, 2010. The parties hereby further agree that those cases shall remain closed permanently, and each party hereby waives its right to seek to have any of those cases re-opened. 9. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 10. This Agreement shall become effective on the date upon which it is fully executed by all the parties. 11. The Petitioner for itself and for its related or resulting organizations, its successors or transferees, attorneys, heirs, and executors or administrators, does hereby discharge the Agency and its agents, representatives, and attorneys of all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, damages, losses, and expenses, of any and every nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way related to this matter and the Agency’s actions, including, but not limited to, any claims that were or may be asserted in any federal or state court or administrative forum, including any claims arising out of this Agreement, by or on behalf of the Petitioner or related or resulting organizations. 12. This Agreement is binding upon all parties herein and those identified as a party, or a beneficiary, of the provisions of this Agreement, and each signatory acknowledges same and the adequacy of consideration therefor. 13. In the event that Petitioner is or was a Medicaid provider, this settlement does not prevent the Agency from seeking Medicaid overpayments or from imposing any sanctions pursuant to Rule 59G-9.070, Florida Administrative Code. This Agreement does not prohibit the Agency from taking action regarding Petitioner’s Medicaid provider status, conditions, requirements or contract. 14. The undersigned have read and understand this Agreement and have authority to bind their respective principals to it. Both parties have been represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of this Agreement. The Petitioner fully understands that counsel for the Agency represents solely the Agency and Agency counsel has not provided legal advice to or influenced the Petitioner in its decision to enter into this Agreement. 15. This Agreement contains the entire understandings and Agreements of the parties. 16. | This Agreement supersedes any prior oral or written Agreements between the parties. This Agreement may not be amended except in writing. Any attempted assignment of this Agreement shall be void. 17. Venue for any action brought to interpret, challenge or enforce the terms of this Agreement or the Final Order entered pursuant hereto shall lie solely in the Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida. 18. ‘Ifa court of competent jurisdiction finds any part of this Agreement to be void, voidable, or unenforceable, then the remainder of the contract shall remain in full force and effect. 19. All parties agree that a facsimile signature suffices fe 20. The following representatives and beneficiaries hereby ae duly S. to enter into this Agreement. Molly McKéns eputy Secretary {_ panes P. Céhen, Esquire Health Quality ance Cohen & Thurston, P.A. Agency for Health Care Administration 1723 Blanding Boulevard, Suite 102 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3 Jacksonville, Florida 32310 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Counsel to Petitioner DATED: (frolir DATED: 1-1 U~ aye William R. Roberts Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 DATED: /7 [(3l 4 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 DATED: Uf (5) WH Physicians Medical Centers-Jax, Inc. 9826 San Jose Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32257 patep: _})-14~!/ ~~ x. 1 _f- Victoria Critzer as president, sole director and 100% Owner Physicians Medical Center, Inc. 9826-B San Jose Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32257 DATED: _|1- (4-//
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) does not make a "cause" or "no cause" determination, as provided in Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, but rather issues a Notice of Dismissal, pursuant to Section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes. Whether DOAH has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Petition for Relief was not timely filed pursuant to Section 760.11(6), Florida Statutes. Whether DOAH has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if Petitioner fails to name Respondent in the Petition for Relief filed with the FCHR, as required by Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Petition of Manuel Pedraza in DOAH Case No. 02-0237, and FCHR Case No. 99-0849, for failure to timely file his Petition for Relief and for failure to properly name Respondent in the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 21st day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan K. W. Erlenbach, Esquire Erlenbach Law Offices, P.A. 2532 Garden Street Titusville, Florida 32796 W. Russell Hamilton, III, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 5300 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2339 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the challenged portion of Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, as proposed by the Respondent, the Health Care Cost Containment Board, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: The Retreat is a 100 bed short-term psychiatric specialty and substance abuse hospital located at 555 S.W. 148th Avenue, Sunrise, Broward County, Florida. The Retreat admitted its first patient on September 12, 1988. The Retreat operates on a fiscal year from September 1, through August 31. Therefore, The Retreat's 1989 fiscal year was for the period beginning when The Retreat opened on September 12, 1988, through August 31, 1989. The Retreat filed its 1989 budget with the Respondent on June 3, 1988. The Retreat's 1989 budget was approved by the Respondent on August 25, 1988 with an approved gross revenue per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "GRAA"), of $20,323.00, and a net revenue per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "NRAA"), of $17,973.00. The Retreat's 1990 fiscal year is from September 1, 1989, through August 31, 1990. Pursuant to Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), The Retreat submitted a budget letter described in Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes, to the Respondent on May 24, 1989, for its 1990 fiscal year. The budget letter submitted by The Retreat certified that its FY 1990 maximum allowable rate of increase in GRAA over its budgeted GRAA in FY 1989 would be 7.8% and that its GRAA would not exceed $21,908.00 in FY 1990. Said rate of increase stated in The Retreat's budget letter represented the National Hospital Input Price Index (hereinafter referred to as the "NHIPI"), for the 1990 fiscal year plus two percentage points. At the time the Respondent received said budget letter, no administrative rule had yet been adopted that required a hospital entering into its second fiscal year of operation to file a full budget subject to detailed budget review. By letter dated June 5, 1989, the Respondent's staff advised The Retreat that, based on staff's interpretation of the controlling statute, staff could not accept said budget letter filed by The Retreat and a detailed budget would be required for The Retreat's 1990 fiscal year. The June 5, 1989, letter enunciated a non-rule agency policy based upon staff's interpretation of Section 407.50, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), that a hospital filing a budget for its second fiscal year is not eligible to file a budget letter and must file a budget subject to detailed review. On June 29, 1989, The Retreat filed a Petition to determine the invalidity of the non-rule policy explicated in said June 5, 1989, letter. Also on June 29, 1989, The Retreat filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing regarding the decision by HCCCB to reject its budget letter. Said Petition was assigned DOAH Case No. 89-3579H. On May 25, 1989, proposed Rule 10N-5.015 was approved by the HCCCB. Said proposed rule was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, in Volume 15, No. 27, Florida Administrative Weekly (July 7, 1989). The last sentence of proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: A new hospital or replacement hospital relocated to a different medical services area shall submit a budget report for review in the first two years of operation, but may submit a budget letter for its third year of operation if it does not require an increase in GRAA in excess of its hospital specific MARI calculated pursuant to Rule 10N-5.013. The last sentence of proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, codifies, in rule form, the non-rule policy set forth in the HCCCB letter of June 5, 1989. The Retreat filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of Proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, on July 28, 1989. Said Petition was assigned DOAH Case No. 89-4219RP. DOAH Case No. 89-3436RU, 89-3579H and 89-4219RP were subsequently consolidated for a single final hearing. The Retreat has standing in each of the three above-styled causes. Florida hospitals subject to Section 395.509(1), Florida Statutes (1985), were required to file detailed budgets before the start of each fiscal year prior to 1990. The Respondent reviewed each budget, including the hospital's GRAA. Depending upon the rank of a hospital's GRAA among the hospitals it was assigned to for budget review, the hospital's budget would either be automatically approved or subjected to detailed review. During the 1988 legislative session, Chapter 88-394, Laws of Florida, was enacted. Chapter 88-394, which was codified in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), applies to a hospital's 1990 fiscal year and to later fiscal years. Section 407.50, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), provides that a hospital is required to file either a detailed budget or a "budget letter". In particular, Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), provides that each hospital, "[e]xcept for hospitals filing a budget pursuant to subsection (3) . . . shall file with the board a certified statement, hereafter known as the 'budget letter' . . . ." If a budget letter is filed the hospital must acknowledge its maximum rate of increase in its GRAA from the previous year "as calculated pursuant to s. 407.002(17) . . ." and its maximum rate of increase for the next fiscal year, and it must affirm that it will not exceed the applicable maximum allowable rate of increase. If a budget letter is filed by a hospital the hospital's base for budget review is governed by Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.): The base for hospital budget review for fiscal year 1990-1991 shall be the hospital's prior year actual gross revenues per adjusted admission inflated forward by the hospital's applicable current year's maximum allowable rate of increase or the board- approved budgeted gross revenues per adjusted admission, whichever is higher; provided that, in cases where the board has approved a rate of increase below the MARI, the board-approved maximum allowable rate of increase shall apply. For a 1990-1991 budget, a hospital's base is the greater of the hospital's GRAA for its 1988 fiscal year increased by its 1989 MARI or its 1989 budgeted GRAA. Section 407.50(3), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), requires the submission of a detailed budget for "each hospital requesting a rate of increase in gross revenue per adjusted admission in excess of the maximum allowable rate of increase for the hospital's next fiscal year . . . ." [Emphasis added]. If a detailed budget is filed, Section 407.50(3), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), provides that the hospital's "base" shall be determined as follows: In determining the base, the hospital's prior year audited actual experience shall be used unless the hospital's prior year audited actual experience exceeded the applicable rate of increase in which case the base shall be the gross revenue per adjusted admission from the year before the prior year, increased by the applicable rate of increase for the prior year, and then inflated by the applicable rate of increase for the current year. . . . The "maximum allowable rate of increase" for budget letters or detailed budget requests is defined by Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), as follows: (17) "Maximum allowable rate of increase" or "MARI" means the maximum rate at which a hospital is normally expected to increase its average gross revenues per adjusted admission for a given period. The board, using the most recent audited actual experience for each hospital, shall calculate the MARI for each hospital as follows: the projected rate of increase in the market basket index shall be divided by a number which is determined by subtracting the sum of one-half of the proportion of Medicare days plus the proportion of Medicaid days and the proportion of charity days from the number one. Two percentage points shall be added to this quotient. The formula to be employed by the board to calculate the MARI shall take the following form: MARI = NHIPI +2 1-[(Me x .5) + Md +Cc] where: MARI = maximum allowable rate of increase applied to gross revenue. NHIPI = national hospital input price index which shall be the projected rate of change in the market basket index. Me = proportion of Medicare days, including when available and reported to the board Medicare HMO days, to total days. Md = proportion of Medicaid days, including when available and reported to the board Medicaid HMO days, to total days. Cc = proportion of charity care days to total days with a 50-percent offset for restricted grants for charity care and unrestricted grants form local governments. Pursuant to this definition of "maximum allowable rate of increase" hospitals are entitled to a base of the NHIPI plus two percentage points inflated by the hospital's prior year Medicare, Medicaid and charity care days, if any. The Respondent has suggested that calculation of the MARI in accordance with Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes, is a prerequisite to filing a budget letter and that Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes, requires that audited actual experience be available in order for the Respondent to calculate the MARI for a hospital. In support of the Proposed Rule, the Respondent has suggested that it cannot "certify that a budget letter is correct pursuant to s. 407.50(2)(a) . . . ." This argument is rejected because there is no requirement in Section 407.50, Florida Statutes, that the Respondent provide such a certification. Additionally, the Respondent has not adequately explained why it is only concerned about its calculation of the MARI for hospitals in their first or second years of operation and not all hospitals. The problem with the Respondent's position is that, while Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes, does require that the Respondent use audited actual experience to calculate the MARI, Sections 407.50(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), do not require that the Respondent calculate the MARI. If a budget letter is filed by a hospital, the Respondent is only required to "determine if the gross revenues per adjusted admission submitted by the hospital are within the maximum allowable rate of increase for that hospital." The Respondent can accomplish this task without calculating the MARI; it can rely upon the MARI acknowledged by the hospital. If a hospital files a budget letter, only the hospital is required to calculate its MARI. The hospital, unlike the Respondent, is not required by Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes to use audited actual experience in its calculation of the MARI. All of the elements of the MARI may be obtained by the hospital from unaudited experience. The NHIPI is a national standard that is not hospital specific. The two percentage points are also not hospital specific. The only hospital specific information taken into account is the number of Medicare, Medicaid and charity care days. Even the Respondent agrees that audited actuarial experience is not necessary to calculate Medicare, Medicaid and charity care days. Therefore, hospitals may calculate the MARI for purposes of Section 407.50(2), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), without audited actual experience. In further support of the Proposed Rule, the Respondent has characterized the action of The Retreat as using a "zero" in lieu of audited actual 1988 GRAA for purposes of calculating its budget letter base for 1990. The Respondent suggests that Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), requires a "comparison" of the two values which may be used as a hospital's base and that The Retreat's action circumvents such a comparison. The plain language of Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), does not require any comparison of the two values which may be used as a hospital's base. Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), simply provides that a hospital's base for 1990-1991 shall be the greater of the two values. If a hospital only has one of the values, that is obviously the greater value and should be used as the hospital's base.
The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether the methodology for grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB pursuant to Sections 4D-1.03, 4D-1.12(1) and 4D-1.12(2), F.A.C., constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as being arbitrary or capricious and whether the gross revenue per adjusted admission screen should be adjusted by the geographic price level index adjustment factor? Mercy has also raised an issue as to whether the grouping methodology is violative of constitutional guarantees of administrative equal protection and due process. This issue, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact As a part of its responsibilities, the HCCB is required to specify a uniform system of financial reporting for Florida hospitals. Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). So that meaningful comparisons of data reported can be made, the HCCB is required by Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to provide a method of grouping hospitals. Pursuant to Section 395.509(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), every Florida hospital is required to file a budget with the HCCB for approval. Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires that the budgets of certain hospitals be automatically approved based upon a comparison of the gross revenue per adjusted admission of hospitals within groups established pursuant to Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The language of Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which requires the HCCB to establish a method of grouping hospitals, is identical to the language of Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The grouping methodology required by Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), is included in Chapter V, Section B of the Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"). This methodology has been incorporated by reference in Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D- 1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., as the method of grouping hospitals for purposes of the uniform system of financial reporting under Section 395.507, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), and the comparison of gross revenue per adjusted admission for purposes of budget review under Section 395.509, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). After hospitals are grouped, Chapter V, Section C of the Manual provides that the screens used to identify hospitals subject to further review are to be adjusted by adjustment factors. Two adjustment factors are provided; one is a geographic price level index adjustment factor. Mercy is a not-for-profit corporation which operates a general acute care hospital with 550 licensed beds located in Dade County, Florida. Based upon the application of the HCCB's grouping methodology as contained in Chapter V, Section B of the Manual, Mercy was assigned to group 9. Mercy was notified of its assignment by a memorandum dated October 10, 1984. Mercy challenged its group assignment by letter dated November 13, 1984. In its letter, Mercy challenged the grouping methodology used by the HCCB and requested a "more relevant and objective method of establishing the weights utilized in the grouping methodology . . . be developed." Further, Mercy requested that "new weights be applied and that the groups be reformulated," and that "the screening value, Gross Revenue per Adjusted Admission, be adjusted for geographic influences prior to ranking, as has been done in previous budget reviews." Mercy presented its reassignment request before the HCCB on December 13-14, 1984. The HCCB orally rejected Mercy's request. By memorandum dated December 19, 1984, the HCCB denied in writing mercy's request for reassignment. Whether Mercy should be reassigned to a reformulated group depends upon whether Mercy's challenge to Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C. is successful. If that challenge is not successful, the grouping methodology was properly applied to Mercy. The Final Order issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order holds that the grouping methodology is not arbitrary and capricious and therefore, the HCCB's adoption of Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., does not constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislature authority. Mercy's assignment to group 9 was therefore proper. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, it does not appear that the point at which the geographic price level index adjustment factor is to be applied to Mercy has been reached. Despite the fact that the evidence shows that the HCCB has decided not to apply this adjustment factor, even though it is specifically provided for in the HCCB's own Manual, the HCCB has not yet failed to do so in Mercy's case. Therefore, the question of whether the geographic price level index adjustment factor should be applied to Mercy's 1985 budget is premature.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the request for reassignment to a reformulated hospital group and the request to adjust the gross revenue per adjusted admission screen for the geographic price level index adjustment factor be denied. DONE and ENTERED this, 28th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire PARKER, HUDSON, PAINER DOBBS & KELLY 1200 Carnegie Bldg. 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 James J. Bracher Executive Director Hospital Cost Containment Board Woodcrest Office Park 325 John Knox Road, Building L, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Douglas A. Mang, Esquire Charles T. Collette, Esquire MANG & STOWELL, P.A. P.O. Box 1019 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire PARKER, HUDSON, RAINER, DOBBS & KELLY The Perkins House, Suite 101 118 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee. Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10130, filed by Florida Regional Medical Center (FRMC) for an 80-bed acute-care hospital in Palm Beach County, Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) health planning district 9, sub-district 9-4, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant and affiliates The applicant in this case, FRMC, is a Florida, for- profit, corporation formed for the purpose of filing CON Application No. 10130. FRMC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tenet Healthcare Corporation (Tenet). Tenet is one of the largest, for-profit, hospital organizations in the nation. It operates 49 hospitals throughout the country. Tenet owns and operates five hospitals in Palm Beach County: Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center (PBGMC), St. Mary’s Medical Center (St. Mary's), Good Samaritan Medical Center (Good Samaritan), West Boca Medical Center, and Delray Medical Center. PBGMC, St. Mary's, and Good Samaritan are all located in AHCA sub-district 9-4, in the northern half of Palm Beach County. The three hospitals have a combined total of 854 licensed, acute-care beds making up approximately 60% of the licensed, acute-care beds in the sub-district. Jupiter Medical Center JMC is a stand alone, not-for-profit, 163-bed, acute- care hospital in sub-district 9-4 located on a 30-acre campus at 1210 Old Dixie Highway, Jupiter, Florida 33458. JMC also owns and operates a 120-bed, skilled-nursing facility on that campus. JMC is approximately three miles from FRMC's proposed location. West Palm and affiliates West Palm is a 245-bed, acute care, for-profit hospital located at 2201 45th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407, approximately 12 miles from FRMC's proposed location. Its 245 beds include 157 acute-care beds and 88 specialty psychiatric beds. West Palm is affiliated with Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) which operates 163 hospitals in 20 states and Great Britain. HCA’s East Coast Division includes 14 hospitals in South Florida and the Treasure Coast, including two hospitals in addition to West Palm in Palm Beach County: Palms West Hospital (Palms West), located in Loxahatchee, AHCA sub-district 9-4; and JFK Medical Center (JFK), located in Atlantis, sub- district 9-5. Agency for Health Care Administration AHCA is the state health-planning agency responsible for administering the certificate of need (CON) program under the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-.0455, Florida Statutes, and related administrative rules found in chapters 59C-1 and 59C-2 of the Florida Administrative Code.5/ The Proposal Overview FRMC's CON Application No. 10130 (CON Application, Proposal, or proposed hospital) is for "the establishment of a new, general acute-care hospital of 80 licensed beds," to be composed of 64 general, medical-surgical beds and 16 intensive care unit (ICU) beds. The proposed hospital is to be located in Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, AHCA planning district 9, sub-district 9-4. The proposed service area is a ten zip code area with nine of the zip codes in northern Palm Beach County and one in southern Martin County. The Proposal states that "FRMC's CON application represents the first phase of a multi-year development project that is anticipated to result in an academic teaching and research hospital of 200 beds to serve the long-term needs of residents of District 9 and potentially other parts of the State." According to the Proposal, "[t]he first phase of the Hospital's development will be geared toward providing routine medical/surgical services to residents of the immediate area as well as a platform for its future role as an academic medical center and teaching hospital." The Proposal also states that "[n]on-Tertiary types of cases for adults [15 years old and older] are the focus of the proposed [FRMC] during its initial operation and the basis upon which this CON application is being submitted." FRMC defines the "non-tertiary" acute-care services planned to be offered by excluding psychiatric, substance abuse, inpatient rehabilitation, open-heart surgery, major cardiovascular surgery procedures, therapeutic cardiac catheterization, neonatal intensive care, burn care, transplants, neurosurgical and selected spinal surgery procedures, and major significant trauma services. There is a list of diagnostic-related groups (DRGs) attached to the CON Application which further describes additional tertiary services, as well as non-tertiary obstetrical services, that are specifically excluded from the Proposal. In addition, the Proposal explains that no pediatric services will be offered because of the proximity of St. Marys, which offers pediatrics. There is no indication in the CON Application whether the excluded services will ever be offered. The Proposal discusses a "20 Year Build-Out Plan," and maintains that it is appropriate to consider the vision of FRMC becoming a 200-bed, teaching hospital in cooperation with The Scripps Research Institute (Scripps) and Florida Atlantic University (FAU). The CON Application states, however, that "[e]stimation of the parameters of bed need 20 years into the future is speculative and . . . not specifically subject to CON review at this time ” The Proposed Site The site for the proposed hospital is in zip code 33418, between I-95 and Military Trail, on the south side of Donald Ross Road. The proposed hospital would be located on a 70-acre parcel of land owned by Palm Beach County within an 863- acre tract of undeveloped land known as the Briger Tract, east of I-95 in Palm Beach County. The 70-acre parcel is located just south of Donald Ross Road in Palm Beach Gardens, directly across the road from Scripps, FAU Wilkes Honors College MacArthur campus, and the Max Planck Florida Institute. The proposed hospital would occupy approximately 30 acres of the 70- acre parcel. Zoning for the site of the proposed hospital is not an issue in this proceeding. Palm Beach County leases the 70-acre parcel to Scripps for an annual lease payment of $1. The ground lease expires in 2021, but Scripps has an option to purchase the 70-acre parcel for $1 prior to the end of the lease if it meets certain covenants relating to job growth based on operations. If FRMC is constructed on the site, jobs associated with that project will count toward Scripps' job creation goal. On July 25, 2011, Scripps and Tenet entered into a letter of intent (Letter of Intent) regarding the proposed hospital which anticipates that Tenet will sublease the proposed hospital site from Scripps. Under the Letter of Intent, it is contemplated that Tenet will pay Scripps approximately $5,000,000 annually as a combined payment for the sublease, participatory interest distributions, and mission support payments. The commercial value of the sublease is between $560,000 to $680,000 annually. Stated Goals for the Project First, the CON Application states that FRMC is needed to decompress PBGMC and resolve access issues that patients and physicians currently experience there. FRMC proposes that all of its inpatients will be patients “redirected” from PBGMC, and states that, therefore, “[t]he impact of the new hospital will be limited solely to Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center.” According to FRMC, the "decompression" will allow PBGMC to “modernize for the future by re-configuring the space vacated by the non-tertiary patients who will use the new Florida Regional Medical Center.” Second, the CON Application states that the proposed hospital is designed to provide a unique blend of treatment, teaching, and research with the collaboration of Scripps, FAU, and FRMC. According to FRMC, the project will not only meet the needs of Scripps and FAU, but will also advance and improve health care in northern Palm Beach County. AHCA’s Preliminary Review and Approval Tenet met with AHCA officials twice before the CON Application was filed. The first meeting included representatives from Tenet and Scripps and the chief of AHCA's CON unit, Jeff Gregg. During the first meeting, Scripps indicated that the proposed hospital would not be just “another community hospital in Palm Beach County,” but rather a facility to further Scripps’ “translational research”6/ that would complement Scripps’ existing resources. The CON Application, however, does not specify whether or how FRMC would further Scripps’ translational research. At the second meeting, representatives from Tenet and Scripps and the president of FAU met with Mr. Gregg and AHCA Secretary Elizabeth Dudek. The President of FAU suggested that the proposed hospital would become a "facility of regional impact" that would "offer services that [are comparable to or] even differ from those that are available at academic medical centers in Miami-Dade County." Neither the CON Application nor the evidence, however, supports a finding that FRMC would offer services comparable to those that are available at academic medical centers in Miami-Dade County. After the CON Application was filed, AHCA undertook its review and made its preliminary determination, which are detailed in the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). The SAAR was primarily authored by AHCA CON unit manager, James McLemore, and edited by Mr. Gregg. Although draft SAARs often contain a recommendation whether to approve or deny an application, the draft SAAR for the Proposal did not contain such recommendation. Mr. Gregg felt that whether the CON should be granted was a close call. He discussed the Proposal and draft SAAR with Secretary Dudek and then, at Secretary Dudek's suggestion, Mr. Gregg drafted the following language which was incorporated into the final version of the SAAR: . . . . However, the most important factor in project approval is FRMC’s commitment to develop a world-class research and teaching hospital that has the potential to become a regional rather than a local community resource. The coalition of organizations associated with the proposed facility must work together on an ongoing basis to ensure that the population gains access to services that it would otherwise not have. There is no need for an additional small community hospital that offers basic services. Contrary to the language in the SAAR, there is no “commitment to develop a world-class research and teaching hospital” in the CON Application, and the evidence does not support such a finding. Rather, the evidence only supports a finding that FRMC, Scripps, and FAU had a vision of collaboration in the future. The Letter of Intent between FRMC and Scripps regarding the proposed hospital, by its terms, is not binding, and the parties to the letter of intent "acknowledge that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to rely on the expectation of entering into a contract regarding the subject matter of this letter." At the final hearing, Mr. Greg reiterated AHCA's preliminary determination that there "is no need for an additional small community hospital that offers basic services." He confirmed that such determination was based upon AHCA's consideration of the applicable statutory and regulatory criteria in view of the proposal for an 80-bed, acute-care hospital serving the ten zip code service area. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The statutory criteria for reviewing CON applications for new hospitals are found in section 408.035, Florida Statutes. Before 2004, section 408.035 review criteria included: The needs of research and educational facilities, including, but not limited to, facilities with institutional training programs and community training programs for health care practitioners and for doctors of osteopathic medicine and medicine at the student, internship, and residency training levels. § 408.035(5), Fla. Stat. (2003). In 2004, however, the quoted provision was deleted from the CON review criteria. See ch. 2004-383, § 5, Laws of Fla. The 2004 changes also removed the requirement that existing facilities undergo CON review for increasing the number of their acute-care beds, so that now, after notifying AHCA, existing acute-care hospitals can generally add acute-care beds without CON review. Id., § 6 (amending § 406.036). In 2008, the Florida Legislature further modified section 408.035 by limiting the criteria applied to CON applications for general hospitals to "only the criteria specified in paragraph (1)(a), paragraph (1)(b), except for quality of care in paragraph (1)(b), and paragraphs (1)(e),(g), and (i) [of section 408.035(1)]." See ch. 2008-29, § 1, Laws of Fla. As a result of the 2008 amendments, the statutory review criteria found in section 408.035(1), which are no longer applicable to CON applications for general hospitals, are: The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant’s record of providing quality of care. The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. (f) The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. (h) The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction. The statutory CON review criteria in section 408.035 that remain applicable to general hospital applications since the 2008 amendments are subsections 408.035(1): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. (e) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. (g) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. (i) The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Each of the applicable review criterion under section 408.035(1)(a), (b), (e), (g), and (i), as related to the facts of this case is discussed under separate headings, below. Section 408.035(1)(a): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. AND Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. The analyses under subsections 408.035(1)(a) and (1)(b) are generally combined. For instance, in applying the statutory review criteria to the CON Application, the SAAR cites subsections 408.035(1)(a) and (1)(b) in framing the issue as: "Is need for the project evidenced by the availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing healthcare facilities and health services in the applicant's service area?" Following the 2004 changes in the CON law, AHCA repealed its rule relating to the need for acute-care beds.7/ As a result, AHCA does not presently have a need methodology for acute-care hospitals or acute-care beds. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. provides, in pertinent part: . . . . If an agency need methodology does not exist for the proposed project: The agency will provide to the applicant, if one exists, any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service. The applicant is not precluded from using other methodologies to compare and contrast with the agency policy. If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. While there is no evidence that AHCA has a written policy apart from statutory and rule criteria, Mr. Gregg has summarized AHCA’s “policy” regarding criteria for approval of a new hospital as requiring: One, a primary service area with a large and rapidly growing population base. Two, an expanding market in the applicant’s service area, especially the primary service area, which minimizes the impact on existing providers. And three, the benefit of enhanced access outweighs the adverse impact on existing hospitals. AHCA’s unwritten policy as expressed by Mr. Gregg is consistent with existing statutory and rule criteria. The required topics listed in rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2.a.-d., quoted above, are compatible with a combined analysis of the review criteria under subsections 408.035(1)(a) and (1)(b), and a discussion of each in view of the facts is organized under subheadings 1 through 4, below. 1. Population demographics and dynamics FRMC’s proposed primary service area is made up of the five zip codes immediately surrounding the proposed hospital, and its proposed secondary service area is derived from five adjacent zip codes.8/ Population growth in the proposed service area and sub-district 9-4 is estimated to be at an annual rate of approximately 1.4% throughout the five-year planning horizon from 2011 through 2016. While some evidence was presented indicating that the population growth in the proposed primary service area is greater than 1.4%, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the proposed primary service area has a large and rapidly growing population base. 2. Availability, [and] utilization and quality9/ of like services in the district, subdistrict or both In July 2011, there were 1,423 licensed, acute-care beds among seven hospitals located in AHCA district 9, sub- district 9-4, plus approvals for 14 more acute-care beds based upon notifications from JMC and West Palm to add 12 beds and two beds, respectively. Those notifications were voided in favor of subsequent notifications from JMC and West Palm in October, 2011, to add 45 and 29 acute-care beds, respectively. JMC’s intended addition of 45 new-licensed, acute-care beds includes renovation of existing space and the addition of an 80,000- square foot wing scheduled to open in the fall of 2015.10/ During calendar year 2010, sub-district 9-4’s overall acute-care bed occupancy averaged 54.22%. That number declined to 53.8% in 2011, leaving an average daily census of 657 empty, acute-care beds within the sub-district. Projected need in the proposed service area is not sufficient to support a new 80-bed, acute-care hospital. Rather, with population growth projected to be less than 1.5% and flat or declining utilization rates, the projected need for acute-care beds for the proposed hospital's five-year planning horizon is only 21 to 27 beds. 3. Medical treatment trends There is a general trend in the hospital industry away from inpatient utilization in favor of outpatient services. The trend is attributable to advances in medical care and technologies, as well as the move toward managed care and changes in reimbursement under Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act that focus on cost savings and efficiencies. In fiscal year 2011, 37.04% of the weighted revenue average for all acute-care hospitals in Florida came from outpatient services. The trend away from inpatient utilization is expected to continue. 4. Market conditions Discharge data for basic, non-tertiary, acute-care services within FRMC's proposed service area for fiscal years 2009 through 2010, show that JMC has the largest percentage of the market, with a total market share of approximately 39.6%, including 41.7% of FRMC’s proposed primary service area (PSA) and 35.2% of FRMC's proposed secondary service area (SSA). PBGMC follows with approximately 29.7% of the market (36% of the PSA and 17.1% of SSA); then St. Mary's with 5.6% (5.3% PSA and 6.1% SSA); Good Samaritan with 4.3% (4.7% PSA and 3.4% SSA); West Palm with 2.4% (2.2% PSA and 2.6% SSA); JFK with 2% (1.7% PSA and 2.5% SSA); Palms West with 1.8% (0.6% PSA and 2.5% SSA); and the remaining 14.8% of the market divided among all other hospitals. Market share figures derived from updated data presented at the final hearing were not appreciably different. FRMC's proposed PSA completely overlaps JMC's PSA and all of the zip codes making up FRMC's proposed PSA are within JMC's existing PSA. Despite the overlap, FRMC contends that the proposed hospital will not affect JMC's market share, nor other hospitals within the subdistrict except PBGMC, because all of FRMC's inpatient admissions will come from a "redirection" of 70% of PBGMC's non-tertiary inpatients. It is unlikely that FRMC will be successful in filling its beds with patients "redirected" from PBGMC without otherwise affecting the market. The greatest factors driving inpatient admissions are patient preference and emergency admissions, not redirection from existing hospitals. There is a substantial overlap between medical staffs at PBGMC and JMC, and it is likely that many of those physicians would obtain staff privilages at FRMC. PBGMC does not control where physicians with privilages at PBGMC admit patients. For instance, PBGMC's largest admitter of patients, Dr. Baqir Murtaza Syed, while in favor of the proposed hospital, has no intention of redirecting patients from PBGMC to the proposed hospital except in cases where there is an access problem or where complex services not available at PBGMC are offered at FRMC. While sharing some administrative functions through common ownership by Tenet, FRMC is not a satellite to PBGMC. Rather, it is designed to be a stand-alone hospital offering basic, non-tertiary services duplicative and not more complex than those general acute-care services available at both PBGMC and JMC. Section 408.035(1)(e): The Extent to Which the Proposed Services Will Enhance Access11/ to Health Care for Residents of the Service District According to the CON Application, FRMC will enhance programmatic access for patients at PBGMC by decompressing PBGMC, enhance geographic and programmatic access to emergency care and basic hospital services, and enhance access to programs and resources of a teaching and research hospital affiliated with FAU and Scripps. Each of these assertions is addressed under separate headings below. 1. Programmatic Access by Decompressing PBGMC The CON Application states that approval will "[e]nhance programmatic access to inpatient and outpatient [sic] at [PBGMC] by decompressing its patient census and allowing it to re-configure the facility's existing space for modernization projects." It also states that decompression will "ease the capacity constraints and crowding that routinely occurs during the peak season months of January — April . . . ." According to FRMC, PBGMC is landlocked and cannot grow horizontally or expand vertically, has no outpatient surgery rooms, and needs to expand seven of its nine operating rooms. In addition, the CON Application complains that the current 1,291-square feet per bed at PBGMC12/ is less than half of the average 2,814-square feet per bed for new, general acute-care hospitals. As previously discussed, however, "decompression" by "redirection" is unlikely. In addition, while seasonal fluxuations may increase average occupancy levels at PBGMC during peak season, total inpatient days at PBGMC have been declining, and the evidence does not otherwise show that present utilization has interfered with recent renovations. First built in 1963, PBGMC has been renovated over time to meet its needs. In addition to its 199 licensed, acute- care beds, PBGMC has three observation beds and leases 11 of its acute-care beds to an unrelated hospice provider. Sixteen of PBGMC's 199 acute-care beds can be converted into semi-private rooms, which would give PBGMC a 218-bed capacity, not including the 11 hospice beds. In contrast to the CON Application's assertion that PBGMC cannot be expanded, in 2009, the City of Palm Beach Gardens approved a site plan ("Site Plan") authorizing PBGMC to expand its emergency department by 10,000-square feet; expand its surgical suite by 3,800-square feet; add 5,000-square feet of storage; add 300 additional acute-care beds; increase its parking; and construct a new 50,000-square-foot medical office building up to 46-feet in height. PBGMC completed the 10,000- square-foot emergency department expansion in 2010, but has not pursued the other authorized Site Plan expansions. PBGMC is currently undergoing renovations to accommodate a nuclear camera and combine two operating rooms. There is no evidence that those renovations, or the 10,000- square-foot emergency department expansion, were hindered by current utilization. In addition, PBGC has not utilized potential additional excess capacity by, for instance, converting the 16 beds that can be converted to semi-private rooms. PBGMC, like JMC, experiences higher occupancy levels during "peak season" each year from January through March. Evidence indicates that, during peak season, PBGMC's overall occupancy levels approach 80%, with even higher utilization in some specialty units such as surgical and cardio intensive care units.13/ As all beds at PBGMC are private, however, this seasonal influx does not present gender or clinical conflicts. The CON Application asserts an even higher utilization for PBGMC during peak season using a formula to derive what FRMC describes as PBGMC's "functional occupancy." FRMC's formula for "functional occupancy," however, is not reliable. It only considers PBGMC's licensed beds and observation beds, without considering emergency room bays or other available areas. In addition, the data utilized in the formula was defective because it does not reflect the number of outpatients and observation patients on any given day, but rather only reflects the day of the month on which hospital services were billed. While maintaining that renovations are cost prohibitive, PBGMC has yet to develop a formal plan of renovation that would "modernize" PBGMC in the manner suggested by the CON Application. In fact, Tenet has not engaged architects or planners to come up with conceptual documents for such a project, and such renovations have not been discussed between Tenet and PBGMC's board of directors. On the other hand, in addition to evidence of unused, excess-bed capacity and the previously approved Site Plan, evidence at the final hearing reasonably suggested that the Site Plan could be modified to permit additional expansion and improvements. PBGMC has been designated as a Planned Unit Development and, as such, has greater planning and renovation flexibility. The evidence showed that the City of Palm Beach Gardens has been supportive of renovations at PBGMC in the past and would likely continue that support in the future. Further, at the final hearing, FRMC's statement that vertical expansion of PBGMC would be cost prohibitive was shown to be premised on a misinterpretation of the Florida Building Code. The misinterpretation erroneously concluded that provisions of the Florida Building Code, Existing would require the entire hospital to be brought up to new code standards if certain vertical and lateral load thresholds were exceeded. Those provisions, however, do not apply to hospitals and other state-licensed facilities, as clarified by the scoping provisions found at section 419 of the Florida Building Code/Building. 2. Geographic and Programmatic Access to Emergency & Basic Hospital Services According to FRMC, the project will make emergency department services more convenient to residents of the area and enhance geographic access to basic hospital services within the immediate vicinity of the proposed hospital. The proposed hospital, however, is only six miles from PBGMC's recently expanded emergency department and less than four miles from JMC. The emergency department at JMC includes 26 treatment bays with an adjacent 10-bed, clinical-decision unit available to handle any temporary emergency department overflow. These factors, together with evidence of existing available acute-care beds and services available within the proposed service area, do not support a finding that the proposed hospital will appreciably enhance access to emergency department or basic hospital services. 3. Access to Programs and Resources of a Teaching and Research Hospital The CON Application states that "[t]he vision for FRMC is to expand the opportunities for clinical research, graduate medical education and medical surgical services while providing even better access to state-of-the-art medical care." It further states: The location of a medical center next to the Scripps Florida Research Institute and FAU's MacArthur campus will foster the positive relationship between science and medicine. Academic medical centers play a pivotal role in the effort to expand access to undergraduate and graduate medical education in the state that benefits students, faculty, and patients. Florida Regional Medical Center will be one of the clinical training sites for FAU's medical students and residents. Thus, programmatic access will be further enhanced by the opportunities to improve the health of the area's residents as well as to train the next generation of physicians and scientists. The CON Application further observes that "District 9 is one of the five districts in Florida without a statutory teaching hospital." Aside from the fact that the need for research and educational facilities has been removed from CON review criteria, and notwithstanding FRMC's acknowledgement that consideration of bed need beyond its immediate plans for an 80- bed, general acute-care hospital is "speculative," the evidence was insufficient to show that FRMC could reach its suggested goals with regard to research and education. Although the CON Application discusses Florida's nine statutory teaching hospitals, FRMC is not envisioned as a statutory teaching hospital. Rather, discussion of the statutory teaching hospitals was included in the application because data from those facilities were used as "parameters" in evaluating the need for FRMC's 20-year vision of a 200-bed facility. With regard to clinical research, the Proposal states that it will establish a clinical research program that will provide a crucial link to Scripps' research efforts. There is an apparent discrepancy, however, between FRMC's concept of the proposed program and Scripps' expectations. The Proposal only commits to the hiring of one full- time equivalent employee as a "research program coordinator." According to Tenet's chief executive officer over Florida Special Projects, the coordinator would be responsible for "setting up the programs" and assisting with the "enrollment of patients, collection of data, completion of reports and compliance with regulations pertaining to clinical research." In contrast, Scripps envisions the proposed research program coordinator as one who would serve a more general role geared toward learning about Scripps "and to know what the hospital is doing and to connect researchers for potential research topics." Scripps believes, and the evidence shows, that clinical studies are complex activities with multiple phases that require a number of staff to coordinate enrollment, interaction with institutional review boards, and protocol compliance.14/ Tenet hospitals in Palm Beach County, however, have no special expertise in enrolling patients and managing clinical research activities. FRMC did not otherwise provide evidence detailing the clinical research program or programs contemplated by the Proposal. In sum, evidence of FRMC's commitment to provide a crucial link to Scripps' research efforts is lacking. Evidence adduced at the final hearing casts doubt on FRMC's ability to become, in the foreseeable future, "one of the clinical training sites for FAU's medical students and residents." While FRMC and FAU have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which recites FAU's intention to sponsor graduate medical education (GME) and FRMC's intention to accept FAU medical students, FRMC's ability to do so is dependent upon it joining or affiliating with other entities under the FAU College of Medicine GME Consortium Agreement that exists to coordinate and promote the development and implementation of GME in South Florida (the GME Consortium Agreement). FAU is a party to the GME Consortium Agreement, along with Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Boca Raton Regional Hospital, and three Tenet hospitals, which include Delray Medical Center, West Boca Medical Center, and St. Mary's Medical Center. Paragraph B.2. of the MOU provides: GME: Pursuant to the agreement governing the GME Consortium, the admission of additional member institutions to the GME Consortium, as well as the addition of other hospitals and participating sites that may affiliate with the GME Consortium, is subject to the unanimous vote of all members of the GME Consortium, in each member's sole and absolute discretion. FRMC will submit a request to join the GME Consortium and obtain full consideration by the GME Consortium before offering any GME program(s) independently or in concert with any other entity. FRMC will also submit a request to the GME Consortium to be a rotational or participating site for FAU's Residents, as further described in subsequent master affiliation agreements or program letters of agreement as required by the ACGME [Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education]. At least one party to the GME Consortium Agreement, Boca Raton Regional Hospital, would not vote in favor of admitting FRMC as a member or participant under the GME Consortium Agreement.15/ The GME Consortium Agreement has a five-year term ending December 1, 2016, with automatic one-year renewals thereafter. The American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) is a national association representing medical schools and major teaching hospitals in the United States. Although not defined under Florida Law, the term "academic medical center" is understood by AAMC to refer to large hospitals, generally offering tertiary and more complex services, which are affiliated with and often on the same campus as a medical school. The size of the proposed hospital and complexity of the medical services proposed to be offered by FRMC are less than typical for an academic medical center as recognized by AAMC. FRMC does not even have a target date as to when it may offer services other than the general, non-tertiary hospital services that form the basis of the CON application. Section 408.035(1)(g): The Extent to Which the Proposal Will Foster Competition that Promotes Quality and Cost- Effectiveness Tenet is currently the dominant provider in the proposed service area, with five hospitals in Palm Beach County, including three hospitals located in AHCA sub-district 9-4 with 854 acute-care beds between them, including PBGMC, St. Mary’s, and Good Samaritan. Rather than increasing competition, the addition of FRMC would likely further Tenet’s dominance, thereby decreasing competition. As a large hospital system, Tenet has an advantage over non-affiliated hospitals, such as JMC, in negotiating favorable reimbursement rates with commercial insurers, including managed-care plans. The ability to negotiate favorable rates translates into a better “payor mix” with richer reimbursement from private insurance and less from fixed rate, non-negotiable, governmental programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Rather than showing that approval of FRMC would promote cost effectiveness, the evidence indicates that another Tenet facility within sub-district 9-4 could further boost Tenet’s negotiating leverage, resulting in a higher payment structure16/ within the area for FRMC’s services reimbursed by private insurance. These factors, together with the fact that the CON Application was submitted for approval of a facility with a focus on non-tertiary acute-care services amply available in the area, do not support a finding that the proposed hospital will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. Moreover, as further discussed under the heading "Adverse Impact," below, approval of the proposed hospital would have a negative impact on both JMC and West Palm. Section 408.035(1)(i): The Applicant’s Past and Proposed Provision of Health Care Services to Medicaid Patients and the Medically Indigent As noted in the CON Application, “[FRMC] is newly incorporated and not an existing healthcare provider with a historical track record of utilization.” As a Proposed CON Condition, FRMC states that it “will provide a minimum of 4% of its total annual patient days to a combination of Medicaid, Medicaid HMO, and Charity patients.” In 2010, 6.3% of the total combined patient days in the proposed service area for non-tertiary, non-OB, adult services were Medicaid, Medicaid HMO, and charity patient days. As FRMC’s proposed 4% condition is less than the 6.3% actually served in the proposed service area in 2010, based on patient days, the evidence does not support a finding that the proposed hospital will enhance access for the medically indigent or underserved. Adverse Impact FRMC contends that there will be no adverse impact from the proposed hospital because its patients will come from a 70% “redirection” of PBGMC’s patients. As previously discussed, however, PBGMC does not have the ability to direct where patients are admitted for hospital care. As FRMC's success in redirection without affecting the market is unlikely, its assumption that neither JMC nor West Palm will lose patients to FRMC is unreasonable.17/ JMC JMC has a good reputation in its community and enjoys strong patient satisfaction and loyalty. As part of its mission to care for the health and welfare of its community, some of the needed services which JMC offers are not profitable for JMC, including obstetric services. No other hospital in north Palm Beach County provides obstetric services. JMC also provides benefits beyond the direct provision of hospital services. In 2011, JMC provided $3 million in charity care, $3.5 million in Medicaid underfunding, plus uncompensated services valued at $1.3 million through the operation of specialty healthcare clinics, including a diabetes clinic and oncology services clinics. JMC also expends approximately $300,000 each year for health education programs and community health screenings. In addition, JMC provides support to the Jupiter Volunteer Health Clinic, a free clinic established through collaboration with the Town of Jupiter, local physicians, Palm Beach County, and the community volunteer organization known as "El Sol." Despite the affluence in northern Palm Beach County, there is also a substantial population of poor without health insurance. The clinic is particularly important because there are no primary care doctors in northern Palm Beach County who accept Medicaid patients in their practice. Patients are often lined up outside the clinic before it opens. Clinic patients that require hospital admission are admitted to JMC. Even though JMC has a reputation for community service and patient loyalty, the establishment of FRMC would have a material effect on JMC’s operations. Proximity of a proposed facility to an existing hospital significantly affects the potential for adverse impact. JMC is the closest hospital to FRMC’s proposed site. The likelihood that JMC will lose patients to FRMC is increased by the fact that FRMC proposes to offer the same services, with the exception of obstetrics, as currently offered by JMC. In addition, there is currently substantial overlap between the medical staffs of JMC and PBGMC. FRMC anticipates that it will be staffed primarily by physicians who now practice both at JMC and PBGMC. The overlap of the medical staffs is yet another factor demonstrating the potential adverse impact on JMC, as many physicians who currently practice at PBGMC and JMC are likely to obtain medical staff privileges and admit a substantial number of their patients to FRMC, including patients they would otherwise admit to JMC. As an independent, not-for-profit, community provider, JMC's operating margins are very thin at 1.5% to 2% annually. JMC would lose a substantial number of inpatient admissions if the proposed hospital is approved. JMC reasonably anticipates the loss of 1,533 cases to FRMC in the first year of operation of the new hospital. There is insufficient population growth in FRMC's proposed service area to offset this adverse impact. Applying JMC's current contribution margin to JMC's projected lost patient volume results in a projected adverse impact to JMC of $11,254,000 in combined inpatient and outpatient lost contribution margin, including a projected loss of up to $5,000,000 of inpatient contribution margin, in the first year of operation of FRMC. While the ability to negotiate favorable payment rates is critical to the financial viability of all hospitals, it is particularly crucial for small, stand-alone, community hospitals like JMC. As the only hospital in its primary service area, JMC presently enjoys some leverage in negotiating terms with private insurers and managed care companies. The establishment of FRMC will eliminate JMC’s geographic advantage and erode JMC's ability to achieve favorable payment rates. The anticipated adverse financial impact on JMC will interfere with JMC's ability to invest in technology and human resources, and will threaten the viability of the Jupiter Volunteer Health Clinic. The evidence is insufficient to show that approval of FRMC will bring countervailing benefits to the community that would offset the adverse impacts on JMC. WEST PALM Although West Palm stands to lose fewer cases than JMC if FRMC is approved, the adverse impact on West Palm is substantial, especially considering its current financial condition. West Palm incurred a bottom line net loss of $7,502,651 in 2011, with a negative operating margin of $14,002,922. If FRMC is approved, a reasonable estimate of lost cases shows that West Palm will lose 118 discharges to FRMC in 2014, 120 discharges in 2015, and 122 in 2016. The 122 lost cases in 2016 amount to 466 patient days. For 466 lost patient days, West Palm’s combined lost contribution margin is estimated at $886,377.18/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a Final Order denying CON Application No. 10130. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2013.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the applications of Urban Edge Family, Ltd. (Application No. 2011-236C), and Urban Edge Apartments, Ltd. (Application No. 2011-235C), are entitled to Proximity Tie-Breaker Points with regard to a "medical facility," as defined in the 2011 Universal Cycle Instructions.
Findings Of Fact Findings of Fact 1 through 29 were stipulated to by the parties and appeared in their Prehearing Stipulation. Each Petitioner is a Florida limited partnership with its address at 700 West Morse Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida 32789. Each is in the business of providing affordable rental housing units in the State of Florida. Florida Housing is a public corporation, with its address at 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32310, organized to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing and refinancing housing and related facilities in the State of Florida. Background Florida Housing administers various affordable housing programs, including the following: Housing Credit (HC) Program pursuant to section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and section 420.5099, Fla. Stat., under which Florida Housing is designated as the Housing Credit agency for the state of Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48, F.A.C.; and HOME Investments Partnerships (HOME) Program pursuant to section 420.5089, and Rule 67-48. The 2011 Universal Cycle Application, through which affordable housing developers apply for funding under the above- described affordable housing programs administered by Florida Housing, together with Instructions and Forms, comprise the Universal Application Package or UA1016 (Rev. 2-11), adopted and incorporated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004(1)(a). Because the demand for HC and HOME funding exceeds that which is available under the HC program and HOME program, respectively, qualified affordable housing developments must compete for this funding. To assess the relative merits of proposed developments, Florida Housing has established a competitive application process known as the Universal Cycle pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48. Specifically, Florida Housing's application process for the 2011 Universal Cycle, as set forth in Rule 67-48.001 through 67-48.005, involves the following: The publication and adoption by rule of a "Universal Application Package," which applicants use to apply for funding under the HC and HOME Programs administered by Florida Housing; The completion and submission of applications by developers; Florida Housing's preliminary scoring of applications (Preliminary Scoring Summary); An initial round of administrative challenges in which an applicant may take issue with Florida Housing's scoring of another application by filing a Notice of Possible Scoring Error ("NOPSE"); Florida Housing's consideration of the NOPSEs submitted, with notice (NOPSE scoring summary) to applicants of any resulting change in their preliminary scores; An opportunity for the applicant to submit additional materials to Florida Housing to "cure" any items for which the applicant was deemed to have failed to satisfy threshold or received less than the maximum score; A second round of administrative challenges whereby an applicant may raise scoring issues arising from another applicant's cure materials by filing a Notice of Alleged Deficiency ("NOAD"); Florida Housing's consideration of the Cures and NOADs submitted, with notice (final scoring summary) to applicants of any resulting change in their scores; An opportunity for applicants to challenge, by informal or formal administrative proceedings, Florida Housing's evaluation of any item in their own application for which the applicant was deemed to have failed to satisfy threshold or received less than the maximum score; Final scores, ranking of applications, and award of funding to successful applicants, including those who successfully appeal the adverse scoring of their application; and An opportunity for applicants to challenge, by informal or formal administrative proceedings, Florida Housing's final scoring and ranking of competing applications where such scoring and ranking resulted in a denial of Florida Housing funding to the challenging applicant. Petitioners timely submitted their two applications for financing in Florida Housing's 2011 Universal Cycle. In Application No. 2011-236C (DOAH Case No. 12-1615), Petitioner Urban Edge Family, Ltd., applied for $1.46 million in annual federal tax credits to help finance the development of its project, a 64-unit multi-family apartment complex in Pinellas County, Florida, known as Urban Edge--Phase II. In Application No. 2011-235C (DOAH Case No. 12-1616), Petitioner Urban Edge Apartments, Ltd., applied for $1.66 million in annual federal tax credits to help finance the development of a second project, an 80-unit multi-family apartment complex in Pinellas County, Florida, known as Urban Edge Apartments. For both applications, Petitioners initially submitted for Proximity Tie-Breaker Points medical facility coordinates purporting to be an entrance to Bayfront Medical Center in Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioners' applications were initially awarded the full 4.0 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for proximity to Bayfront Medical Center. Subsequently, competing applicants submitted NOPSEs asserting that the coordinates submitted for Bayfront Medical Center were, in fact, located at the nearby All Children's Hospital (the "Hospital"). In response to the NOPSEs filed against Petitioners' applications, Florida Housing rescinded its preliminary scoring with regard to the medical facility and awarded Petitioners zero points for proximity to a medical facility. Petitioners subsequently submitted Cures to their applications providing different medical facility coordinates, this time for the Hospital emergency department and asserting that the emergency room of the Hospital met Florida Housing's definition of "medical facility" for purposes of awarding Proximity Tie-Breaker Points. In response to the submitted Cures, competing applications filed NOADs disputing the status of the Hospital as a medical facility under the definition included in the 2011 Universal Cycle Instructions. After review of the submitted Cures and NOADs regarding the status of the Hospital emergency room as a "medical facility," Florida Housing again rejected the Hospital emergency room as a medical facility and awarded zero Proximity Tie-Breaker Points to both applications for this service. Urban Edge (235C) Application Status and Scoring The Urban Edge application (2011-235C) meets all threshold requirements for consideration for funding. The Urban Edge application (2011-235C) is entitled to 79.00 points (excluding all Tie-Breaker points). The Urban Edge application (2011-235C) is entitled to 6.00 Ability to Proceed Tie-Breaker Points. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge on the Exhibit 25 (Surveyor Certification form), submitted with its Cure for a medical facility, represent a point on the doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the emergency department at the Hospital. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure for the Tie Breaker Measurement Point (TBMP) were unchanged from its original TBMP, and they represent a point that is on the Urban Edge development site. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge for a medical facility in the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure represent a point that is within .25 miles of the Urban Edge TBMP. If the medical facility designated by Urban Edge on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure qualifies as a medical facility under Florida Housing's rules, then Urban Edge is entitled to 4.0 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for a medical facility; and Urban Edge would be entitled to a total of 34.75 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points. If Urban Edge had relied on the alleged location of the exterior entrance to Bayfront Medical Center as stated in NOPSE No. 519, then it would have received only 3.5 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for a medical facility, for a total Proximity Tie-Breaker Point score of 34.25. Urban Edge II (236C) Application Status and Scoring The Urban Edge II application (2011-236C) meets all threshold requirements for consideration for funding. The Urban Edge II application (2011-236C) is entitled to 79.00 points (excluding all Tie-Breaker points). The Urban Edge II application (2011-236C) is entitled to 6.00 Ability to Proceed Tie-Breaker Points. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge II on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure for a medical facility represent a point on the doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the emergency department at the Hospital. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge II on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure for the TBMP was unchanged from its original TBMP, and they represent a point that is on the Urban Edge II development site. The coordinates provided by Urban Edge II for a medical facility on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure represent a point that is within .25 miles of the Urban Edge II TBMP. If the medical facility designated by Urban Edge II on the Exhibit 25 submitted with its Cure qualifies as a medical facility under Florida Housing's rules, then Urban Edge II is entitled to 4.0 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for a medical facility, and Urban Edge II would be entitled to a total of 34.00 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points. If Urban Edge II had relied on the alleged location of the exterior entrance to Bayfront Medical Center as stated in NOPSE No. 515, then it would have received only 3.5 Proximity Tie-Breaker Points for a medical facility, for a total Proximity Tie-Breaker Point score of 33.50. Urban Edge II timely filed its Petition contesting Florida Housing's scoring of its application, whereupon Florida Housing forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The following Findings of Fact are based on testimony and documentary evidence presented at final hearing: Florida Housing defines medical facilities, for purposes of determining Proximity Tie Breaker Points, as "[A] hospital, state or county health clinic or walk-in clinic (that does not require a prior appointment) that provides general medical treatment or general surgical services at least five days per week to any physically sick or injured person." (This definition is found on page 34 of the Florida Housing Instructions portion of the application.)1/ All Children's Hospital is licensed by the State of Florida as a Class II hospital with 162 acute care beds, 35 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) Level 2 beds, and 62 NICU Level 3 beds. The Hospital is classified as a specialty hospital for children and is known as a pediatric health care facility. Emergency services at the Hospital are provided through an on-site emergency department. The emergency department, per the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), must provide emergency services to any person, regardless of age, who presents in an emergent state. The emergency department at the Hospital is within .25 miles of the sites proposed for Petitioners' projects. Florida Housing contends that the emergency department of the Hospital is not a medical facility as defined by Florida Housing's rules. Because the emergency department is part of a specialty hospital which serves only children, Florida Housing takes the position that the medical facility selected by Petitioners does not provide services to "any" physically sick or injured persons. Florida Housing's director, Mr. Auger, stated that no distinction is made between a hospital and its emergency room, i.e., if a hospital holds a specialty license, then the entire hospital is considered a specialty hospital. He did not opine as to the impact of EMTALA on that statement. Mr. Auger did, however, address the correlative situation of a specialty grocery store (as grocery stores are another place which can provide tie-breaker points to an applicant in close proximity). If an ethnic grocery was located near a proposed project, it could be counted for proximity points if it also met all the rule requirements for a grocery store, e.g., sufficient square footage, appropriate air conditioning, necessary food products, etc. Presumably, a specialty hospital could also satisfy the proximity requirements, so long as it met all other requirements for a medical facility. Petitioners provided a letter from the Hospital in its Cure documents which stated in full: "This letter confirms that the Emergency Center at All Children's Hospital is open 24/7 and will treat all patients in accordance with EMTALA." The letter was written by Tim Strouse, the Hospital's vice-president of facilities and support services. Mr. Strouse is not a physician. Mr. Strouse did not know the Hospital's protocol for handling non-pediatric patients in its emergency center. He was of the opinion that generally such a patient would be sent across the street to Bayfront Medical Center. However, he did believe that essentially all services offered in the Hospital were available in the emergency center. Two expert witnesses testified, in the abstract, concerning the process for treating patients who present to an emergency room.2/ It is clear that once a person appears at a specialty hospital's emergency room, there is an initial triage performed to determine the level of treatment needed. If the person requires medical care to stabilize his or her condition, such care must be provided by the emergency room under EMTALA. It does not matter whether the person would be a candidate for admission to the specialty hospital after stabilization; any and all care the hospital is authorized to provide can be given to that patient in order to resolve the emergency situation. There was no testimony provided by a physician or other health care worker from the Hospital concerning how it handled emergency center patients. Absent such testimony, it is not possible to ascertain exactly how the Hospital complies with EMTALA requirements. If, as Mr. Strouse believed, an adult patient would merely be transferred 130 feet across the street to Bayfront Medical Center without further treatment, then there would not seem to be any provision of medical services. However, if the medical experts who testified were correct and stabilization of patients involved the provision of medical services, then the Hospital may be a medical facility under the Florida Housing rules. The Hospital representative was provided several scenarios involving the treatment of different kinds of patients presenting with various and sundry ailments. In each case, the representative, who was not a physician, attempted to suggest how the Hospital might treat those individuals. The representative could not opine, however, as to whether general medical treatment would be provided in any of the scenarios. From the evidence presented, the Hospital provides an extensive array of services to its pediatric patients, including, but not limited to: cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, colon and rectal surgery, endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology, internal medicine, nephrology, neurology, obstetrics, ophthalmology, orthopedics, plastic surgery, pulmonary medicine, radiology, thoracic surgery, and urology. It must be presumed that those same services could theoretically be provided in the emergency department as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, finding that Petitioners, Urban Edge Family, Ltd., and Urban Edge Apartment, Ltd's, applications satisfy the requirements for all four Proximity Tie-Breaker Points relating to proximity to a medical facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Florida Hospital, is a tertiary care hospital located in Orange County, Florida, and consisting of three different campuses, with a total of 1,075 licensed beds. It is the second busiest and biggest hospital in Florida. T2. 9,20. Florida Hospital submitted its original FY 1984 budget to the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) on October 31, 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. The FY 1984 budget was revised at least once through informal negotiation with HCCB staff before it was considered by the HCCB, and these revisions were accepted by the staff of the HCCB. T1. 54, 104. These changes were not placed in evidence. The HCCB reviewed Petitioner's FY 1984 budget at its meeting on April 19, 1984. T1. 54; Petitioner's Exhibit 4. The budget was accepted and not selected for public hearing, and the HCCB found that Petitioner's hospital had one of the top three highest case mixes in the state. Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Petitioner's 1984 fiscal year ran from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984. T1. 52. Although the budget was not considered by the HCCB until April, 1984, the budget was effective for all of fiscal year 1984. T1. 54. By letter dated October 11, 1984, but received October 15, 1984, Florida Hospital submitted an amended FY 1984 budget to the Hospital Cost Containment Board. T1. 54; T2. 51; Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The amendment thus was submitted 289 days after the beginning of Petitioner's 1984 fiscal year, using the date of receipt as the date of submission, and 77 days from the end of the fiscal year. By letter dated February 11, 1985, the HCCB staff notified Florida Hospital that its amended 1984 budget would not be accepted because it was received less than 90 days before the end of Florida Hospital's 1984 fiscal year. T1. 54-55; Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Florida Hospital is not aware of any analysis made by the staff of the HCCB with respect to the merits of the proposed amendment. T1. 56. In the fall of 1984, the HCCB applied the 90 day policy to all hospitals which submitted proposed budget amendments. T1. 7, 13. The policy was initiated in late summer or early fall, 1984. T1. 6,7. The HCCB did not provide the Petitioner with any other reason for the proposed denial of its amendment. T1. 23. The HCCB has now abandoned its policy of refusing to accept budget amendments within the last 90 days of the fiscal year, and that issue is not present in this case because the HCCB does not rely upon it to deny the amendment proposed by the Petitioner. T1. 11, 27. Effective May 18, 1984, the Legislature substantially amended the Health Care Cost Containment Act of 1979, section 395.501, et seq., Fla. Stat. Chapter 84-35, Laws of Florida (1984). Historically, there was no practice or policy of the HCCB or its staff to either encourage or discourage amendment of budgets after submission to the HCCB, and although such amendments were not required by law, amendments were routinely allowed. T1. Under prior law, the HCCB had no regulatory authority over hospital budgets, and could not require a hospital to revise its budget or to abide by its budget. T1. 40. The HCCB only had the power to subject the hospital to a public hearing. Id. It often occurred that hospitals would revise a budget under the former law, after preliminary staff analysis and recommendation, and it is inferred that often such amendments were prompted by the possibility that the unrevised budget would trigger a public hearing. T1. 39. In fiscal year 1984, ninety-nine hospitals submitted amendments or other changes to their budgets after initial budget Submission to the HCCB. Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Sixty-five of those amendments were accepted by the staff of the HCCB or the HCCB and became a part of the hospital's 1984 budget. Id. At least fifteen or twenty of the attempts to amend the FY 1984 budget set forth above were filed after the particular fiscal year had already begun. T1. 70. The majority of these fifteen or twenty were changes or amendments submitted prior to the time that the particular budget was submitted to the board of the HCCB. Id. In most eases, these fifteen or twenty amendments were accepted by the HCCB. T1. 71. Thus, it was common for the HCCB to accept amendments to the FY 1984 budget after the beginning of that fiscal year. There is no evidence, however, that any of these amendments accepted by the HCCB had the effect, under the amended 1984 law, of reducing the variance between a 1984 budget as originally filed and 1984 audited actual experience to diminish or entirely avoid the base year adjustment required by section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1985). On March 6, 1984, Kissimmee Memorial Hospital submitted an amendment to its FY 1984 budget after the beginning of that fiscal year. Its fiscal year was calendar year 1984. This amendment was accepted by the HCCB in April, 1984, and was effective retroactively and prospectively, for the entire fiscal year. T1. 71-77; Petitioner's exhibit 7, worksheets C-3, C-4 and X-4. Of the fifty FY 1984 files reviewed at the HCCB by Scott Miller, witness for the Petitioner, one contained an amendment to a budget which was accepted by the HCCB after the HCCB had approved the budget. T1. 77. That hospital was Central Florida Regional Hospital. Id. The fiscal year for Central Florida Regional Hospital was calendar year 1984. T1. 79. The HCCB accepted the budget during their June, 1984, meeting. T1. 79; Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Subsequently, by letter dated September 21, 1984, Central Florida Regional Hospital submitted a proposed amendment to its FY 1984 budget. T1. 79-80. The proposed amendment was received by the HCCB on September 24, 1984, and sought an amendment due to receipt of favorable prior year Medicare settlements. Petitioner's Exhibit 8, letter of September 21, 1984, and worksheets C-2 and X-4; T1. 81. This was 22 days before the HCCB received the amendment proposed by the Petitioner in this case, and was more than 90 days from the end of the 1984 fiscal year. Apparently the amendment proposed by Central Florida Regional Hospital was subjected to the same 90 day amendment policy as Petitioner's amendment, but since the amendment of Central Florida Regional Hospital was submitted with more than 90 days left in the fiscal year, the amendment was not precluded by application of that policy. T1. 7, 13. The amendment proposed by Central Florida Regional Hospital related to past and future periods, and was proposed to be effective for the entire fiscal year. T1. 136, 81. The amendment was concerned solely with actual experience, the receipt of a Medicare settlement, which was a single unusual revenue event. The HCCB accepted the amendment, T2. 69, and the amendment became effective for the entire 1984 fiscal year. T1. 80-81; T2.69. (Specifically, staff of the HCCB accepted the amendments, the amendments were entered into the HCCB computer, this was deemed to be acceptance by the HCCB itself, and the amendments were averaged on the computer for the entire 12 month period. T2. 67, 69-70.) The effect of the amendment was to increase net revenue per adjusted admission by about $180, and this increase was too small to have any impact upon the issue of whether Central Florida Regional Hospital would be subject to a base year adjustment pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1984). T1. 61-62. The policy described in finding of fact 8 above was never promulgated by the HCCB as a rule. T1. 9, 12. No general written notice was given to hospitals potentially affected by the policy. T1. 13. The first notice given to hospitals of the existence of the policy was when staff of the HCCB notified a particular hospital in response to proposed fiscal year 1984 budget amendments. Id. Florida Hospital first learned of the existence of the policy when its attempted budget amendment was rejected by the HCCB staff on February 11, 1985. T1. 54-55. The amendment proposed by the Petitioner to its FY 1984 budget included a reduction of about 21,000 patient days, and a reduction of about 1900 admissions from the original budget. T1. Additionally, the amendment sought to increase revenue amounts which resulted primarily from a change in case mix. Id. Finally, there were increases in expenses for malpractice insurance and data processing software. Id. Revenues respond quite directly to increases or decreases in case mix. T1. 68. Case mix is a mathematical expression of the intensity of services provided to the patient, T2. 16, which correlates to the degree of illness of the patient. Id. The average case mix is 1.0. T2. 17. In the summer and early fall of 1983, when the Petitioner prepared its original budget for 1984, case mix standards did not exist, T1. 61, and the 1984 budget was not based upon a case mix. Id. Case mix data for fiscal years 1982 and 1983 became available in January, 1984. T1. 135. Florida Hospital's case mix, and its revenues, increased in fiscal year 1984 primarily due to the introduction of the Medicare prospective payment system on October 1, 1983. T1. 59, 65, 96. Additionally, in the market served by Florida hospital there was increased activity from health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations. T1. 59. The Medicare prospective payment system was a major change in the reimbursement system. T1. 119. These changes in the health care market caused Florida Hospital to experience a decrease in length of stay and an increase in the intensity of services rendered to sicker patients. This occurred because the new Medicare System, as well as HMO's and PPO's, were intended to reduce hospital stays and treat less sick patients outside the hospital. T1. 59. The budget of Florida Hospital was initially prepared and submitted in October, 1983, with virtually no actual experience under the new Medicare prospective payment system. T1. 95-96. See also findings of fact 2 and 19, supra. Florida Hospital hired two consultants to assist it in trying to predict the impact of the new Medicare program. T1. 95. Florida Hospital receives many of its patients on referral from other hospitals which cannot provide services to such patients. T2. 18, 33-34. Thus, Florida Hospital is relied upon by the surrounding area to treat sicker patients. T2. 25. It is hard to predict trends in such referrals, and consequently, it is difficult to predict the impact of other market changes, such as the Medicare changes and the success of health maintenance organizations described above, since Florida Hospital must rely on referrals. Health maintenance organizations in the first year of operation in the surrounding community were able to substantially reduce days of care, and this success was not predictable by Florida Hospital when it formulated its FY 1984 budget. T2. 14- Additionally, the Orlando area in the last two years has experienced significant unpredictable increases in population, which added to the foreseeability problems of Florida Hospital. T2. 18-20. Over the several years preceding fiscal year 1984, Florida Hospital experienced a trend of increasing open heart surgical procedures. T1. 60. In 1984, Florida Hospital originally budgeted for a significant increase over 1983, to its maximum capacity using a 5 day week. Id. But the demand continued, and in 1984, Florida Hospital began doing open heart surgery on weekends. T1. 61. This decision, coupled with a decrease in length of stay per surgery, resulted in an increase in open heart surgeries greater than originally predicted in the 1984 budget. Id; T1. 110-111. Florida Hospital might have anticipated using weekends when it prepared its 1984 budget, but did not do so because weekend work is not a normal practice. T1. 112. In the fall of 1983, the national trend for open heart surgery was showing a decrease in such procedures. T1. 135-36. Additionally, Florida Hospital experienced a shift of less complicated surgeries, such as cataract surgeries, from inpatient to outpatient procedures, resulting in an overall increase in intensity of the remaining surgical procedures. T1. 62-63. The Hospital has no control over this choice, since it is made by physician and patient and is affected by reimbursement policies of insurance and governmental programs. Id. Florida Hospital monitors its budget on a monthly basis, but does not have specific criteria for evaluating the meaning of trends. T1. 86-87. A change of 5 percent would cause concern to Florida Hospital but other circumstances would be evaluated. T1. 87. In the first two months of the first quarter of FY 1984, Florida Hospital experienced a slight increase of admissions over budget estimates. T1. 85-88. In a letter to the HCCB dated March 23, 1984, Florida Hospital noted that the intensity of its case mix for Medicare patients had increased about 50 percent since 1979, and that the length of stay had dropped 0.2 days from 1983 to 1984. Intervenor's Exhibit I. At the time the letter was prepared, the Hospital had no way of knowing if the non-Medicare case mix was the same. T1. 109. The data further showed a trend away from psychiatric patient days, which produce less revenue per day, toward more intense forms of care, which produce more revenue per day. Id. The letter was sent to provide information requested by staff of the HCCB, and to explain changes to the budget as originally submitted. Id.; T1. 104. While March and April of 1984 showed some signs of a change from predictions in the budget, it was not until June, 1984, that Florida Hospital experienced a significant decline in patient days. T1. 97-98. Even then, it was determined that the June, 1984, experience was not a good trend indicator, but was an anomaly. Id. This was shown to be the case when June, 1984, was compared to June, 1985. Id. Moreover, these were only gross trends in patient days and admissions, and were not specific for case mix. T1. 99. In fact, Florida Hospital finished the fiscal year at about the gross revenue level it had predicted in its 1984 budget; the problem was an increase in intensity of case mix, with lower patient days generating higher revenue per adjusted admission. Id. In June, 1984, Florida Hospital received a Medicare settlement for two or three prior years. The settlement was $10 million, and the timing of the receipt of such settlements was not within the control of Florida Hospital. T1. 63, 93. Significant variances were first noticed by Florida Hospital in revenue per adjusted admission in July, 1984. T1. The variances were cumulative from April, 1984. T1. 100. The vice president for finance at Florida Hospital, Scott Miller, was first aware of the amendments to the Hospital Cost Containment law, chapter 84-35, Laws of Florida (1984), establishing a base year adjustment for fiscal year 1984 based upon actual experience in 1984, in June, 1984. T1. 100. Section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1984), requires comparison of the 1984 budget for net revenues per adjusted admission filed with the HCCB with the audited actual experience of each hospital for such revenues. The bulk of the work in preparation of the proposed amendment to its FY 1984 budget, Petitioner's Exhibit 6, was done in August, 1984, based upon data to June 30, 1984. T1. 92, 83. One of the reasons for submitting the amended budget was to diminish the base year adjustment described in finding of fact 30 above. T1. 100. Since the potential loss to Florida Hospital is over $10,000,000, it is likely that this was a major cause for the amendment. Additionally, the proposed amendment was submitted to more honestly reflect changes in the predicted budget. T1. 102. From a purely fiscal point of view, without consideration of regulatory consequences, there is an incentive to underestimate revenues and overestimate expenses. T2. 26-27. During the preparation of the proposed budget amendment, Florida Hospital did not consult the Florida Hospital Reporting System Manual, and did not talk with any employee of the HCCB for advice with respect to the proposed amendments. T1. 130. The proposed budget amendment submitted in October, 1984, dealt with the entire fiscal year 1984, and did not distinguish between portions of the year which already had been completed and the remainder of the fiscal year. T1. 131-132. As set forth in finding of fact 16, the basis of the proposed amendment was actual experience in fiscal year 1984, T1. 139-140, and contained revenues actually received that were substantially greater than originally predicated. With respect to future periods, the budget was a projection. Due to seasonal variances, unpredictable receipt of lump sum payments, and variations in changes in admissions for various types of cases, it is not practicable to prorate the budget of Florida Hospital, as proposed to be amended, in daily, monthly, or quarterly segments, T1. 133, and the proposed amended budget does not contain a method for such proration. A budget can be defined as a projection for a future time of expenditure and revenue, and it reflects anticipated goals. T1. 127, 131. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Florida Hospital has ever attempted to avoid a public hearing by underestimating revenue, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Florida Hospital's original FY 1984 budget contained intentional underestimations of revenue or intentional overestimations of reductions from gross revenue. As found in findings of fact 18 through 31, Florida Hospital's original FY 1984 budget was based upon the best information then available. It took six months to prepare, T. 127, and was reasonable at the time submitted. Florida Hospital submitted amendments to its budgets in FY 1982 and 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit 1. In years prior to 1984, Florida Hospital had submitted amendments to budgets after the beginning of its fiscal year. T1. 134. Florida Hospital has claimed in previous years that it offers services not offered by other hospitals in its group. T2. 72-73. Through discussions with the staff of the HCCB, it was agreed between Florida Hospital and the staff of the HCCB that Florida Hospital could delete from its FY 1984 budget revenues and expenses associated with kidney transplant, employee housing, pathologist laboratory fees, sales of gasoline to employees, and a laundry. T2. 73-74. See Petitioner's Exhibit 10, attachment 2 and 3. The effect of deletion of these items from the FY 1984 budget was to delete a predicted $3,231,000 in revenue. Petitioner's Exhibit 10, attachment 1. When Florida Hospital filed its audited actual experience for 1984, the HCCB had a new staff analyst assigned to review the budget of Florida Hospital, and the new analyst concluded that the items described in finding of fact 40 should be included in the actual report initially, Petitioner's Exhibit 10, attachment 4, but that these items would be "pulled back out" for purposes of analysis later. T2. 75. However, Respondent's Exhibit 1 did not implement this agreement. Instead, the items described above were deleted from the FY 1984 budget but were included in the FY 1984 actual experience figures on this exhibit. Id. The total amount of revenue actually received for these items in FY 1984, which should be deleted from the FY 1984 actual experience of Florida Hospital pursuant to the understanding with staff of the HCCB, is $4,074,415. If this amount is not deleted, Florida Hospital's base year adjustment pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. is larger by nearly $3 million. T2. 76. Respondent's Exhibit 1 computes the FY 1984 net revenue per adjusted admission for Florida Hospital for the following: FY 1984 original budget; FY 1984 budget as proposed to be amended; FY 1984 budget if the proposed amendment is allowed for only the last 77 days of the fiscal year; and the 1984 actual experience. T2. 51-53. As discussed in finding of fact 41, the figure for 1984 actual experience does not delete the items discussed in that finding. Respondent's Exhibit 2 computes the adjustment to base year if the proposed amendment is not accepted, and if the items described above in findings of fact 40 and 41 are not deleted from actual experience. T2. 56-58. The amount of this adjustment would be $13,771,310 which is $344.52 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Respondent's Exhibit 2. Respondent's Exhibit 3 computes the adjustment to base year if the proposed amendment is accepted for the 77 days remaining in the fiscal year, and if the items described above in findings of fact 40 and 41 are not deleted from actual experience. T2. 59-60. The amount of this adjustment would be $10,476,400, which is $262.09 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Respondent's Exhibit 3. If the proposed amendment is not accepted, but the items described in findings of fact 40 and 41 are deleted from actual experience, the adjustment to base year would be $10,871,303, which is $271.97 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit 9. If the proposed amendment is accepted for the 77 days remaining in the fiscal year, and if the items described in findings of fact 40 and 41 are deleted from actual experience, the adjustment to base year would be $7,760,747, which is $190.15 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit 9. If the proposed amendment is accepted by the HCCB to be effective for the entire FY 1984, the budgeted net revenue per adjusted admission for Florida Hospital is $4,008.70. Respondent's Exhibit 1. Assuming that the deductions from actual experience in 1984 are not made (see findings of fact 40 and 41), the net revenue per adjusted admission actually experienced by Florida Hospital in 1984 was $4,346.66. Id. Since the difference between these two figures is less than 10 percent above the budgeted amount, $4,008.70, the base year of Florida Hospital would not be adjusted pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat., if the proposed amendment were accepted for the entire fiscal year. This result would occur even though the deductions from revenue described above are not made.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Hospital Cost Containment Board enter its Final Order approving the proposed amendment to the FY 1984 budget of Florida Hospital only for the last 77 days, and, as a result, calculating the adjustment pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1985), in the following amounts: subtraction of a total of $7,760,747 net revenues from FY 1986 budget, which is subtraction of $190.15 net revenues per adjusted admission for the FY 1986 budget. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 7th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-0747H Rulings upon Proposed Findings of Fact. Pursuant to section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., the following are specific rulings upon all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The numbers herein correspond to the numbers of each proposed finding by party. Findings of fact in this recommended order are indicated by the abbreviation "FF". Findings of Fact Proposed by the PETITIONER, Florida Hospital. Adopted, FF 1. Adopted, FF 2. law. law. Adopted, FF 3. Adopted, FF 4. Adopted, FF 6. Adopted, FF 7. Adopted, FF 8. Adopted, FF 9. Rejected because the proposed finding is a question of Rejected because the proposed finding is a question of Adopted, FF 10. Adopted, FF 11. Adopted, FF 12. Rejected because of insufficiency of evidence that this categorical, all inclusive finding of fact can be mode. There is a marked distinction between amendments submitted by Hospitals before acceptance of the budget by the HCCB, and amendments submitted after the budget has been accepted by the HCCB. See FF 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Further, of the ninety-nine instances of amendment, the Petitioner presented only one occasion when an amendment was accepted after the budget had been approved by the HCCB and was accepted for the entire fiscal year, some of which had already been executed. See FF 14. Through 19. Adopted, FF 13. 20. Through 28. Adopted, FF 14. Adopted, FF 8 and 14. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted, FF 8. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted to the extent found in FF 11 end 12, and the remainder rejected for lack of evidence. Adopted, FF 8. Rejected because irrelevant since the basis for the 90 day incipient policy is not at issue because the policy is not at issue. Adopted, FF 7 and 8. Adopted, FF 8. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted, FF 8. True, but irrelevant and therefore rejected. Rejected because not supported by the evidence. As found in FF 17 through 31, Florida Hospital was aware of the amended law, effective May 18, 1984, that subjected hospitals to a potential base year adjustment resulting from FY 1984 budget data, but as also found in those findings, Florida Hospital could not prepare its proposed amendment any sooner due to lack of data. The delay in filing the amendment, on this record, occurred due to lack of data, not lack of notice concerning the 90 day policy. Adopted, FF 39. Adopted in part, FF 39. However, the purpose of prior year amendments cannot be a portion of this finding of fact because there is insufficient evidence. Without evidence as to the nature of such prior year amendments, and given the reverse incentive in those years to understate revenues to avoid public hearing, it cannot be concluded that the motives for such amendments were to "present a fair document to the HCCB." Adopted, FF 8. and 48. Adopted, FF 16. and 49. through 51. Adopted, FF 17. 52. and 53. Adopted, FF 18. 54. and 55. Adopted, FF 19. 56. and 57. Adopted, FF 20. 58. and 59. Adopted, FF 21. 60. and 61. Adopted, FF 22. Adopted, FF 21. Rejected. It is unclear from the evidence whether volume of patient days and admissions "magnifies" the impact of changes in market conditions. It could be statistically true that a greater volume produces more reliable predictions due to a larger base pool of data, which averages out small anomalies in data. Adopted, FF 19. through 69. Adopted, FF 23. 70. and 71. Adopted, FF 24. Adopted, FF 38. Adopted, FF 29. Adopted, FF 31. Adopted, FF 28. and 77. Adopted to the extent modified in FF 38. To the extent not adopted in the modified language, it is rejected for lack of evidence. Adopted, FF 33. Since there were no other definitions given in the record, adoption of this finding as proposed would be misleading. T1. 127-128. Thus, it is rejected as phrased. Adopted, FF 37, except this is the same definition, not "another" definition. Rejected as phrased. There is not evidence in the record that the budget which is the subject of testimony at T1. 129 was prepared or used in any manner with respect to past time in the budget year. Adopted in the introduction, but not, strictly speaking, a finding of fact. Adopted, FF 42. and 86. Adopted, FF 43. and 87. Adopted, FF 44. 88. and 89. Adopted, FF 14. Adopted to the extent relevant in the introduction. Adopted, FF 40. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to FF 40. Adopted, FF 40. through 96. Adopted, FF 41. Adopted, FF 45. Adopted, FF 46. Findings of Fact Proposed by the RESPONDENT, HCCB. The first sentence is adopted, FF 9. The next two sentences are rejected as issues of law, not fact. The next sentence is adopted, FF 7 and 9. The last sentence, also a matter of law, is rejected because not fact. Adopted only to the extent in FF 8, and remainder is rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since the policy is not used by the HCCB to deny amendment in this ease. Adopted, FF 5 and 7. Adopted, FF 8, except the last sentence, which is not relevant as discussed above. The first two sentences are adopted as modified in FF The next sentence is adopted in FF 16. The next sentence is adopted as modified in FF 26. The last sentence is adopted as modified in FF 27 and 29. The first sentence is adopted in FF 16, the second sentence is adopted in FF 19, the last two sentences are adopted in FF 23. The first sentence is adopted in FF 3. The last sentence is true, T2. 51, but not relevant. Adopted, FF 32 and 34. Adopted, FF 35. Adopted, FF 40. The first sentence is rejected for the reasons stated in FF 40 and 41. The second sentence is rejected as an issue of law, and also rejected because irrelevant: there does not appear to be any statute allowing or prohibiting the HCCB to "disregard" any portion of a budget. But as found in FF 10, there is apparently some discretion afforded the HCCB, discretion that is exercised frequently. Adopted, FF 14 and 8. Findings of Fact Proposed by the INTERVENOR, The Public Counsel. Adopted, FF 1. Adopted, FF 9. Adopted, FF 2. Adopted, FF 2, 3, and 4. Adopted as modified in FF 16. and 7. Adopted as modified in FF 16, but there is not enough evidence to show a "trend." Adopted, FF 3 and 4. Adopted, FF 7. Adopted, FF 16. Adopted, FF 31. Adopted, FF 19. Adopted, as modified in FF 27 and 29. Adopted, FF 30. Adopted, FF 30. Adopted, FF 32. The record contains no evidence that the subject matter of the proposed amendment is incorrect, or false, and thus the motive for such amendment is largely irrelevant. For this reason, this finding is rejected. Adopted, FF 34. Rejected because the record citation does not support the proposed finding. Rejected because misleading. The proposed amendment does not relate to a specific future time, but in fact relates to the remaining days of the fiscal year, since that was all that was left of the budget year when the amendment was filed. Adopted, FF 35. Adopted as modified, FF 35. Adopted as modified, FF 36. Adopted as modified, FF 36. Adopted as modified, FF 35. Adopted, FF 36. Adopted, FF 26 and 36. Adopted as modified, FF 35 and 36. Adopted as modified, FF 35 and 36. Adopted, FF 19 and 20, except the last sentence, which is cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected because irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and cumulative to FF 20. Adopted, FF 20. Rejected as irrelevant and cumulative to FF 20. Adopted, FF 19. Rejected as irrelevant. See FF 18 and 20. The record supports only one conclusion regarding the prospective payment system: no one knew what massive changes would occur in the market place prior to actual implementation of that system for a number of months. Awareness that PPS was on the way, without knowing what it would do, is irrelevant. Adopted as modified, FF 30. Rejected as irrelevant. See FF 15 through 31, which conclude that the Petitioner acted in a timely manner to prepare and submit its proposed amendment. Adopted, FF 37. Adopted, FF 38. Adopted, FF 10. Adopted, FF 3 and 10. Adopted, FF 12. Adopted as modified, FF 12. Adopted as modified, FF 12. Further, the point is irrelevant. Rejected because the proposed finding is an issue of law. Rejected because inextricably mixed with the issue of law contained in proposed finding 46. Rejected because inextricably mixed with the issue of law contained in proposed finding 46. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis Ashley Billingsly, Esquire Hospital Cost Containment Board 325 John Knox Road Building L, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve, Public Counsel Office of Public Counsel 202 Blount Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T. L. Trimble, Esquire 2400 Bedford Road Orlando, Florida 32803 James Bracher, Executive Director Hospital Cost Containment Board 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Since April 23, 1975, Tampa Health Care Center, Inc., d/b/a Habana Villa Health Care Center (the provider), has leased and operated a 150-bed skilled nursing facility which initially opened November 23, 1970. The land and physical plant of Habana Villa Health Care Center are owned by Twin Oaks Realty Company, a New York partnership. In July 1974, prior to the present provider's involvement, the land and physical plant of the present provider were leased and operated by an entity known as Habana Plaza Nursing Center, Inc. In July 1974, the then-operators of Habana Plaza Nursing Center were experiencing a financial crisis. Before, during and after July 1974, the then-operators of Habana Plaza Nursing Center were repeatedly cited for violations of both local laws and federal regulations governing the operation of nursing homes. In early 1975, Habana Plaza Nursing Center filed in bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (No. 75-241-T) and on April 4, 1975, was adjudicated bankrupt by default. In April 1975, Habana Plaza Nursing Center was providing nursing care for 137 patients of whom at least six (4 percent) were Medicare beneficiaries and at least 96 (70 percent) were beneficiaries of the Medicaid Program. Habana Plaza Nursing Center was located in Hillsborough County, Florida. In April 1975, Hillsborough County and the surrounding area suffered a severe shortage of nursing home beds, making placement of patients from Habana Plaza Nursing Center in other nursing homes very difficult if Habana Plaza Nursing Center was forced to close. Because of the severe shortage of nursing home beds in the Hillsborough County area, the Trustee in Bankruptcy, William Martin, was unable to place the patients of Habana Plaza Nursing Center in other Hillsborough County Nursing homes. Concern that the patients at Habana Plaza Nursing Center not be abruptly displaced and denied nursing care by the facility's impending bankruptcy caused the Bankruptcy Court, the Trustee in Bankruptcy and Twin Oaks Realty Company to vigorously pursue the possibility of finding a lessee for the facility who would be capable of operating it. In February 1975, Twin Oaks Realty Company and Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. negotiated tentative terms for Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. to take over and operate the facility. The tentative agreement was voidable at the option of Twin Oaks if all necessary permits, licenses, and authorizations sufficient to operate the premises as a nursing home facility were not obtained from Florida state officials. Because at least 74 percent of the patients treated at the former Habana Plaza Nursing Center were beneficiaries of either the Medicare or Medicaid Program, capital expenditure reimbursement for treatment of such patients was and is, as a practical matter, essential to continued operation of the premises as a nursing home. Section 1122, 42 USCA Section 1320a-1, approval is not a statutory prerequisite to continued operation of a nursing home. In the Spring of 1975, because of concern that the impending bankruptcy might force Habana Plaza Nursing Center to close, resulting in displacement of 123 patients, state officials form the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, but no employees of the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities Planning, assisted and encouraged the representatives of Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. to effect the takeover of the operations of Habana Plaza Nursing Center. Officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were intimately involved in and fully and completely informed of the efforts by both the Bankruptcy Court and Twin Oaks Realty Company to transfer and the efforts of Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. to assume operation of Habana Plaza Nursing Center, Inc., but no employees of the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities were ever so involved or advised. On April 14, 1978 Habana Plaza Nursing Center was adjudicated a bankrupt and the Court directed that the receiver transfer both the premises and the operations of Habana Plaza Nursing Center to Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. The lease between Twin Oaks Realty Company and the bankrupt Habana Plaza Nursing Center, Inc. tied rent to the United States Consumer Price Index so that the rent due for 1974 would have been $200,400; for 1975, $214,500 and for 1976, $224,850. The lease entered between Twin Oaks Realty Company and Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. required annual rent of $135,000 per year over a seven year term. (See Exhibits 2-3) As of this date of the lease between Twin Oaks Realty and Tampa Health Care Center, Inc., Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. owned, leased or operated no health care facilities as that term is defined in 42 CFR Section 100.102(e). Generally accepted accounting principles require that the lease of the facility by Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. be classified in the provider's financial statements as an expense of operation. (See Exhibits 5-6) The provider has always classified the rental expense in its financial statements and on its Medicare and Medicaid cost reports as an expense of operation and maintenance. The lease of the subject facility to Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. did not transfer ownership of the property to the lessee at the end of the lease term. The lease of the subject facility did not contain a bargain purchase option. On April 15, 1975, the day on which Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. leased the subject facility from Twin Oaks Realty Co., and at all times prior to April 17, 1975, the Office of Community Medical Facilities Planning, the designated Planning agency for the State of Florida, took the position that a transaction such as the lease between Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. and Twin Oaks Realty Co. was not subject to review under Section 1122, 42 U.S.C. Section 1320a-1, although both HEW and the Office of Community Medical Facilities Planning presently and since April 17, 1975, take the position that said lease transaction is subject to review under Section 1122. Even if personnel in the Bureau (now Office) of Community Medical Facilities Planning had been contacted directly and advised of the lease of the subject facility, that Bureau would have in all likelihood ruled that the transaction was not reviewable under Section 1122, 42 U.S.C. Section 1320a-1, and declined to review the lease under such statute. The lease of the subject facility to Tampa Health Care Center, Inc., resulted in no duplication, growth, expansion or modernization of the provider or health care facilities or services in the planning area. The lease of the subject facility reduces Medicare and Medicaid reimbursable costs by $79,500 in the first year of operation by Tampa Health Care Center, Inc., and by increasingly greater amounts in subsequent years. The subject facility was re-licensed by the Bureau of Health Facilities for 150 skilled and intermediate care beds effective April 23, 1975. The subject facility is located at 2916 Habana Way, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, in health service area IV-1. In January 1978 Medicaid auditors for the State of Florida disallowed the $135,000 rental expense of the provider on the grounds that no Section 1122 approval had been obtained. Disallowance of the rental expense by the Medicaid auditors was the first notification to the provider by state officials that Section 1122 review may have been necessary. On March 23, 1978 the provider completed and returned the required applications for Section 1122 approval. (See Exhibit 7) On June 27, 1978 the Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency unanimously found that the lease of the subject facility conformed to relevant plans, criteria, policies and guidelines and approved the expenditure for reimbursement. The subject facility had an average occupancy rate of 98.3 percent in 1977, 97.5 percent in 1976. The Bureau of Community Medical Facilities Planning of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was in April 1975 the designated planning agency for the State of Florida charged with responsibility for conducting Section 1122 capital expenditure review, pursuant to an agreement with the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare, said agreement being attached and made a part of this stipulation. The designated planning agency, the Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, found the lease of the subject facility conformed to relevant plans, criteria policies and guidelines and approved the expenditure. Operation of the facility by Tampa Health Care Center, Inc., and implementation of effective management and cost control techniques resulted in increased utilization and a decrease in cost per patient day from over $25.00 in April 1975 to $22.49 by year end, and to under $20.00 for the six months ended September 30, 1976. The Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare is aware of Tampa Health Care Center, Inc.'s alleged lack of timely notice to make a capital expenditure under Section 1122, 42 USCA Section 1320a-1 by virture of Atlanta, Georgia Regional HEW officials, John Forrest and Earl Wright, being copied with letters sent to Progressive Medical Group, Inc. and Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. informing them of preliminary determinations that Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. had violated the policy on lack of timely notice, with said letters dated 27 January 1978 and 31 January 1978 being attached and made a part of this stipulation. In order to obtain all necessary permits, licenses, and authorizations necessary for the continued operation of the nursing facility, representatives of Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. met in February 1975 with Joseph Thompson, Charles Carter and Joseph Dowless Licensure and Medicaid - Medicare certification officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, but not with employees of the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities Planning. State officials made no mention of the necessity of capital expenditure (Section 1122, 42 USCA Section 1320a-1) review despite numerous inquiries by Tampa Health Care Center, Inc., regarding the licenses, permits and authorizations necessary for continued operation of the premises as a nursing home. Representatives of Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. never specifically mentioned the requirements of Section 1122, USCA Section 1320a-1 in their contacts with State Officials prior to the lease of Habana Plaza Nursing Center. Tampa Health Care Center made a reasonable good faith effort as defined in the policy on lack of timely notice 42 CFR Section 100.108 (note p.1)(1977) to determine prior to leasing the subject facility whether the expenditure was reviewable under Section 1122, 42 USC Section 1320a-1. (See Exhibit 4) On April 23, 1975, contemporaneously with the adjudication of bankruptcy, Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. and Twin Oaks Realty Company, believing that all necessary licenses permits and approvals had been applied for or obtained, entered a lease transferring the premises and operations of Habana Plaza Nursing Center, Inc. to Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. Subsequent to the lease of the facility by Tampa Health Care Center, Inc., the local health planning agencies including the Bureau (now Office) of Community Medical Facilities Planning, at all times considered and treated the beds available in the facility in reviewing and in determining a need for proposals submitted by proponents of capital expenditures subject to Section 1122 42 USCA Section 1320a-1 review. Representatives of Tampa Health Care Center, Inc. met with officials of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services but not with any employees of the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities, prior to leasing the facility from Twin Oaks Realty Company and inquired regarding all licenses, permits and approvals necessary to operate the facility as a nursing home.
Recommendation That Respondent report to the Secretary of HEW that Petitioner failed to provide timely notice of its intent to make a capital expenditure, but recommend that reimbursement related to said expenditure not be withheld pursuant to current Department of HEW policy. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Albert P. Lima, Esquire Dixon Building 620 Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33603 Malcolm J. Harkins, III, Esquire 1100 Watergate Office Building 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
