Findings Of Fact Procedural issues. In June 1983, Petitioner filed an application for a certificate of need to operate a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Hollywood Medical Center. Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service (HRS) denied the application, and Petitioner filed this petition for administrative review. Notice of hearing was given by order dated August 6, 1984. Two days before the hearing, SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT moved to intervene. The petition was denied because it was filed less than five days before the hearing, and was therefore untimely. Rule 28-5.207, F.A.C. Also shortly before the hearing, HRS filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude evidence of cardiac catheterization utilization other than a base year of 1981. The motion was denied because the relevant rule, rule 10-5.11(15) allows proof of "not normal" circumstances. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed a joint prehearing stipulation, agreeing to certain issues of law and fact. Pursuant to that stipulation, the following criteria are either not applicable in this case or have been satisfied by the Petitioner: section 381.494(6)(c)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11), and (13), Fla. Stat., section 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat., and rule 10-5.11(15)(a) through (f), (g), (h)(1) and (2), (i)(1) through (3) and (5), (j), (m), (n), and (o)(2). It was further stipulated that the Petitioner will not be performing coronary angioplasty in its proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory. HRS further stipulated that if the Petitioner satisfies all other applicable criteria, the project will be financially feasible. Remaining at issue in this case are subparagraphs (6)(c)(1), (2), and (12) of section 381.494, Fla. Stat., and subparagraphs (h)(3), (i)(4), (k)(1), and (o)(1) and (3) of rule 10-5.11(15). F.A.C. The central issue in this case is whether pursuant to the relevant statutory and rule criteria there is a need for a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Hollywood Medical Center. The Hollywood Medical Center is located in the southern portion of Broward County. It is a 334 licensed bed medical/surgical hospital, and its medical staff covers all major medical specialties. The hospital has 24 hour emergency service, 14 intensive care beds, a full service operating room, and does cardiovascular surgery, but does not do open heart or bypass surgery. Hollywood Medical Center, based on zip codes from its own patient records, serves patients primarily from the Dade County line a few miles south to the New River Canal on the north and from the ocean on the east to the Collier County line on the west. In this service area, physicians tend to be located in the eastern section, and do not typically have staff privileges at hospitals in northern Broward County, nor do they tend to refer patients to hospitals in the northern section of Broward County. Patients at Hollywood Medical Center who need cardiac catheterization procedures are now referred to Memorial Hospital, which is approximately 2 miles away. In the south Broward County area, there is no other alternative. There was no evidence of any cardiac catheterization facility in northern Dade County accessible to patients from southern Broward County with the exception of a newly granted certificate of need to Humana Biscayne. There was no evidence as to when Humana Biscayne will be open and providing services. In northern Broward County, there are five operating cardiac catheterization laboratories. The one closest to Hollywood Medical Center, Broward General Medical Center, is approximately 6 miles to the north. Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), F.A.C., establishes a method of projecting the number of cardiac catheterization procedures expected for the year in which the proposed new service would begin. This number is the product of the projected population for the service area and the number of procedures performed in 1981 in the service area for one hundred thousand population. HRS interprets this rule to require analysis based upon HRS district data. The HRS district in this case is district ten, which is Broward County. Once the projected number of procedures is determined, that number is divided by 600 to determine the number of catheterization laboratories needed. This number is derived from rule 10- 5.11(15)(o)3., which forbids approval of a new laboratory if the average volume for all laboratories in the service area drops below 600. HRS now argues that the number 600 is only a floor to protect existing providers, and is not to be used to compute need. In the normal computation of need under the rule, this is not true. Thomas Porter, supervisor of the certificate of need section at HRS calculated his Projections of need using 600 procedures per unit in the district as the means to determine the need for a new laboratory. Mr. Porter testified: "Well, in terms of what I would agree with is in terms of numerically determining the need for the number of labs, we divide by 600 procedures. . . . HRS based its denial of the certificate of need in this case by using a use rate for Broward County in 1981 of 329.5 procedures per one hundred thousand population. This use rate in turn was based upon a 1981 population of 1,046,646 and 3,449 procedures in the county for that year. Since the projected population for Broward County in 1986, two years from the date of the hearing, is 1,179,205, HRS concluded that by 1986 the county will need 6.475 laboratories, which rounds to 6. There are 5 licensed and operating laboratories now in Broward County, and 2 additional laboratories have been approved by HRS in the final order in PLANTATION GENERAL HOSPITAL v. HRS, et al., DOAH case number 84-1838, 6 FALR 6796 (1984). Using the method proposed by HRS to calculate need, there is no need for an additional laboratory as sought by Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 5, computes the same formula set forth above, but uses a 1981 rate of 340 catheterization procedures per one hundred thousand. This rate is incorrect. On table 2 of this exhibit the actual procedures for each Broward County facility is recorded for 1981, and the total number of procedures has been incorrectly added. The correct total is 3,449, not 3,546, and the resultant rate (which is based upon a slightly lower estimate of 1981 population, 1,042,941) is 330.7 procedures per one hundred thousand. Correcting table 5 using the 330.7 rate, the need for cardiac catheterization laboratories is: YEAR DISTRICT 1985 6.3 1986 6.5 Thus, if the rule for determining need in a normal situation is followed, the record in this case shows no need for the catheterization facility proposed by the petitioner. Subpart 15(f) of the rule, however, allows approval of an application if the circumstances are other than normal, in which case approval can occur even though need is not shown by subpart 15(l) and 15(o), above, pertaining to calculation of need using the 1981 use rate, future population projections, and division by 600. Mr. Porter testified for HRS that the 1981 use rate has been a fairly accurate predictor of actual use rates in subsequent years, but that it has not yet been accurate in Broward County. In 1981 the use rate, as corrected above, was 329.5, accepting as true the HRS population estimate for Broward County in 1981. In 1982 the use rate was 393.6. This figure differs from Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 3, because the columns are incorrectly added on table 2. The correct total of procedures for 1982 is 4211. The correct total for 1983 is 5008. In 1983 the use rate was 457.9 using the 5008 figure. Thus, in two years, Broward County has increased its use of cardiac catheterization by 39 percent over the 1981 base rate. HRS argued that the 1981 planning rate should continue to be used because current data may be anomalous, and not reflective of the long range trend. This might be true if the base rate were reflective of a stable prior trend, but it is not. It is only the data from one year, and as such, is less persuasive as a predictor of the future. The trend for at least Broward County in the six years from 1977 is reflected in Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 3. In 1977, the use rate in Broward County was 174 procedures per one hundred thousand. The actual rate has increased steadily each year for six years to the rate indicated above for 1983, 457.9 per one hundred thousand. This is an increase from the 1977 rate of about 263 percent. At least in Broward County, this data indicates that the 1981 rate is probably not static, but is only a point on a trend that shows significant increases annually. There was partial evidence that the trend indicated above may be slowing down. Dr. Silvio Sperber, who is a cardiologist in charge of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Memorial Hospital, testified that Memorial Hospital had had 673 cardiac catheterization procedures from January 1984 through September 1984. He testified that his laboratory was running about 15 percent fewer procedures than the year before. This was not accurate. From Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 2, Memorial Hospital experienced 942 procedures in 1983. By the end of September 1984, it should have experienced about 75 percent of that number at a zero rate of increase, or 706 procedures. Its actual experience in nine months, 673, is only 4.7 percent less than the 1983 expected number of 706.3. The Memorial Hospital experience in 1984 is some evidence that the rate of increase in Broward County may be less or even stabilize in the future at the 1983 utilization rate, but this is evidence from only one hospital. The other four operating laboratories may have experienced a similar decline, or an increase, but there is no evidence on the point. And in any event, Use small decline at Memorial does not persuasively indicate a return to the significantly lower 1981 Broward County rate. There was additional evidence to support the conclusion that the 1983 rate of use would not decline again to the 1981 rate. Atherosclerotic heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States today. Cardiac catheterization is the best tool currently available for evaluation of the condition of the heart. From 1978 to 1982, Broward County has experienced a higher death rate for major cardiovascular disease than Florida as a whole. The death rate was 16.6 percent higher in Broward County in 1982 than in Florida generally. Additionally, cardiac catheterization seems to he coming more and more useful in the treatment of heart disease. Three years ago, when HRS established the 1981 base rate, catheterization was not considered a state-of- the-art procedure for treatment of an acute heart attack. Today, catheterization during the first few hours of a heart attack for the point injection of a clot dissolving substance, streptokinase, is proving to be a remarkably effective means of reducing the long-range damage of clot caused heart attacks. Further, use of catheterization during the attack itself has enabled physicians to see for the first time that most heart attacks are caused by clots. As good uses for catheterization increase, it is only reasonable to expect that the utilization rate will increase. While the foregoing is some evidence that application of subpart 15(l) and (o) of the rule in this case in Broward County produces a "not normal" result, justifying consideration of additional evidence of need, it still does not necessarily follow that the application herein should be granted. First, using the 1983 use rate of 457.9 procedures per one hundred thousand population, and the 1986 predicted population of 1,179,205 in Broward County, the number of expected procedures by 1986 is 5400. There will be 7 approved laboratories by 1986, and thus each would be able to perform approximately 771 procedures, if there is an even distribution within the county. This would be considerably less than approximate maximum capacity of a catheterization laboratory, which is somewhat less than 1300. Dr. Sperber testified that his laboratory could perform 5 procedures per day, 5 days a week, or 1300 per year. This, however, fails to account for emergency work and angioplasty, both of which take more than two hours. Angioplasty at Memorial now runs about 15 percent of all procedures. It is urged by petitioner that once the number of procedures is predicted for 1986, then the need for laboratories should be derived by dividing that number by 600, which is in subpart 15(o) of the rule. While this is the procedure for determining need in the normal case, as found above, it does not follow that the standard of 600 continues to apply to determine need in the abnormal case. The "not normal" exception of subpart 15(f) of the rule operates to except analysis of need not only from the 1981 use rate (subpart 15(l)), but also the 600 procedures standard (subpart 15(o)). Since the 600 standard is only about 50 percent of maximum capacity, it constitutes a rather low threshold number for commencement of a new laboratory. In effect, although the 1981 use rate apparently predicts only 72 percent of the need as compared to the 1983 rate, the 600 standard overpredicts need by at least the same amount. As indicated above, even if the 1983 use rate is used, the seven approved laboratories would be easily able to handle this need since the average spread among these laboratories would be about 771 procedures per laboratory. Though petitioner sought to show that there would be unmet need in the area actually served by Hollywood Medical Center, the evidence falls short of demonstrating a "not normal" situation of actual unmet need in that area justifying approval of its application. This evidence will be considered in the following findings. HRS does not consider district lines to be absolute if the facts justify consideration of services available in an adjacent district. In Broward County the local health council has debated the issue of dividing the district service area into subdistricts, but has not chosen to do so. Mr. Porter testified that he could think of as many reasons to divide the county as reasons not to divide the county. Broward County is divided north and south by the legislature into two hospital districts, however. As found above, physicians in the southern portion of Broward County tend to refer patients to hospitals in the same area, and do not use hospitals in northern Broward County. These physicians tend to use hospitals closer to their offices, and consequently do not usually have staff privileges at hospitals in the northern portion of the county. These patterns of use, however, have not been shown to be an immutable condition, but simply reflect current practices. Patients at Hollywood Medical Center who currently need cardiac catheterization are transferred to Memorial Hospital, a few miles away. Memorial Hospital is about a ten minute drive from Hollywood Medical Center. The cost of transfer is about 5300 to 5400. Although Hollywood Medical Center cardiac patients needing diagnostic catheterization at times must wait a day or two before Memorial can provide that service, such delays were not typically of major significance or life-threatening. A more significant problem experienced on occasion by Hollywood Medical Center has been inability to transfer unstable patients to Memorial for diagnostic catheterization. Acutely ill patients at times may need catheterization for diagnostic purposes, but are too ill to be transferred by ambulance to Memorial for the procedure. However, the record does not contain evidence of how frequently this occurs. In any event, these inconveniences are normal and expected where not every hospital has cardiac catheterization facilities. Stated another way, the above would be evidence of a "not normal" condition only if the normal condition was for all acute care hospitals to have catheterization laboratories, which is not the case. As discussed above, cardiac catheterization is also used for emergency treatment of heart attack by the injection of streptokinase directly to the clot causing the attack. Cardiac catheterization facilities must be available at the hospital initially receiving the heart attack patient because these patients are usually too unstable to be transferred from the emergency room of the receiving hospital to Memorial. Treatment by streptokinase injection is therapeutically most beneficial only in the first few hours of the heart attack, or at least within six hours of the emergency, because it is during this period that the permanent damage caused by the clot will occur. Dr. Stephen Roth, a cardiologist on the staff of Hollywood Medical Center, had from 5 to 10 heart attack patients in 1984 who needed streptokinase injection by catheterization, and who suffered a deterioration of their condition due to the unavailability of facilities for catheterization at Hollywood Medical Center. He implied that his two other partners had a similar experience, but the record does not contain competent evidence to support a finding as to the magnitude of the problem for them. Dr. Jeffrey Erlich, also a cardiologist, has had a similar problem of having heart attack patients arrive at Hollywood Medical Center in need of emergency streptokinase injection by catheterization, but did not testify as to the magnitude of the problem. In Dr. Erlich's opinion, every acute care hospital that treats heart attack victims should have a cardiac catheterization laboratory to provide emergency injection of streptokinase. Dr. Silvio Sperber, who is one of the only three physicians who run the cardiac catheterization facility at Memorial Hospital, testified that he had performed about 7 streptokinase injection procedures since the beginning of 1984. The foregoing is insufficient evidence of a "not normal" need for a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. The number of emergencies are not that great, the problem is not atypical of other hospitals not having cardiac catheterization facilities, and there is no evidence of any failed efforts to have emergency vehicle operators take all heart attack patients directly to the available laboratories in the area. See paragraph 24, ahead. Administratively, the process of transferring a patient from Hollywood Medical Center to Memorial for cardiac catheterization causes the sort of problems normally associated with transfer of ill patients. Though the drive is only ten minutes, the time preparing the patient and actually transferring the patient is much longer, and is a hardship on the patient. However, almost all of the cardiologists at Hollywood Medical Center are on the staff of Memorial, and can follow their patients at that facility without much difficulty, since it is only ten minutes away. In 1983, Memorial Hospital had 942 catheterization procedures. If the 1984 experience continues at 4.7 percent less than 1983, Memorial Hospital will perform about 898 procedures. If thereafter it experiences only a 10 percent growth rate, Memorial Hospital will perform 1086 procedures in 1986, and 1195 procedures in 1987. It is reasonable to conclude that it will reach its maximum capacity in a few years, probably by 1988. However, although not currently used by Hollywood Medical Center, there are or will be two catheterization facilities within less than eight miles. Broward General Hospital is the next closest, apparently about six miles away. In 1983, Broward General performed only 551 procedures, indicating significant future capacity. Additionally, a new laboratory has been approved for Plantation General Hospital, about eight miles away. Since this laboratory will be new, it will have a long way to go before it reaches a 1200 capacity. The driving distance to these two other facilities may be a few miles more than this, but the distance is not significantly greater than Memorial. Although Petitioner's physicians testified that they did not consider the hospitals further north to be acceptable as alternatives to Memorial, the distance alone does not pose a significant problem. The major problem is not in the driving distance, as long as the trip is 10 or 20 minutes driving time, but the administrative preparation time at either end, which would be the same inconvenience for transportation regardless which alternative was used. Typically patients who suffer a heart attack are transported to the emergency rooms of any number of hospitals in Broward County. Dr. Erlich testified that his prior patients do not usually call him before arriving at a hospital, and that he has no ability to direct his patients to a hospital having cardiac catheterization capability. Thus, he felt that all such hospitals should have the capability. There is no evidence that Memorial Hospital could not handle more heart attack patients, or that emergency vehicle operators could not transport more heart attack patients to Memorial. An ambulance carrying a heart attack patient could just as easily arrive at the emergency room of Memorial than it could at Hollywood Medical Center, only ten minutes away. The problem of having heart attack patients arrive in an unstable condition at Hollywood, where there is no catheterization facility, ought to be solved at least in part by greater coordination with emergency vehicle operators in the vicinity of the two hospitals. Dr. Sperber and his two partners apparently have a monopoly over the performance of cardiac catheterization procedures at Memorial Hospital. This factor is somewhat relevant to the issue of need for the proposed new catheterization laboratory, but absent additional evidence that patients will in fact be denied the service, or will receive service of poor quality or at unreasonable expense due to this apparent monopoly, this one factor alone does not show sufficient need to warrant approval of the application. Some patients prefer to go to Hollywood Medical Center, which is a smaller, for-profit hospital, but patient preference of this sort does not show a "not normal" need for the proposed catheterization laboratory. Based upon all of the foregoing, there is not sufficient evidence on this record demonstrating a "not normal" condition of need by 1986 to justify granting this application. However, if there were a need shown by the evidence, the following additional findings are made. Thomas Porter testified for HRS that the requirement that there be adequate care for indigents is satisfied if such care is provided by the District as a whole, and that there was no question that indigents were adequately served in District X. Petitioner will provide cardiac catheterization for indigents only on an emergency basis, and will rely upon Memorial to provide other indigent care. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Porter, the criteria with respect to indigent care, rule 10- 5.11(15)(h)3, F.A.C., has been satisfied. Since nearly all of the cardiologists on the staff of Hollywood Medical Center are also on the staff of Memorial Hospital, it is probable that Hollywood Medical Center would do a substantial number of catheterization procedures in the first year of operation, which is projected to be 1986. By the third year of operation, 1989, the Hollywood Medical Center facility would satisfy the requirement of rule 10-5.11(15)(i)4, F.A.C., that it annually perform at least 300 procedures within three years of initiation of service. For these limited purposes it is appropriate to consider the proximate population served, since this population is the most reliable source of patients and revenue. Most of the patients for the Hollywood Medical Center catheterization laboratory will come from its current actual service area, which was defined by the evidence to be a region in southern Broward County. Given the shared cardiologist staffing at both hospitals, it is not at all unreasonable to project that Hollywood Medical Center will service 30 percent of the need in the southern region of Broward County. Based on the 1983 Broward use rate, Hollywood Medical Center would do 518 catheterizations in 1989 if it handled only 30 percent of the need. Memorial would handle the remaining 70 percent, doing 1207 procedures annually. Even using the lower 1981 use rate provided by HRS, 329.5 per 100,000, Hollywood Medical Center would do 372 procedures in 1989, using the assumed market share of 30 percent. (As noted above, however, these figures do not demonstrate need, however, since existing facilities will be able to serve this same population adequately.) As already found above in calculation of need, rule 10- 5.11(15)(o)1 and 3, F.A.C., is satisfied if the 1983 use rate is used. Beginning with 1986, and in every year thereafter, there will be enough catheterization procedures needed so that the average volume for all facilities in the district will be at least 600 annually. HRS stipulated that if all other criteria were satisfied, the project proposed by Petitioner would be financially feasible. From the foregoing findings, all other criteria in dispute have been satisfied, and the project would be financially feasible. All other findings of fact proposed by the parties which have not been discussed above have been considered and have been deemed to be irrelevant.
The Issue Whether Petitioners (collectively referred to as "Humana") are entitled to exemptions from the Certificate of Need ("CON") Law, to establish certain services at their facilities, pursuant to Subsection 381.713(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), (a provision which was repealed by Chapter 91-282, Laws of Florida). Whether Intervenors have standing to contest the exemption requests of Humana.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Humhosco, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Brandon (Humana Brandon) in Hillsborough County applied for CON exemption to initiate open heart surgery services. Humhosco, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Northside (Humana Northside) in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, applied for a CON exemption to initiate open heart surgery and inpatient MRI services. Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital St. Petersburg (Humana St. Petersburg), in Pinellas County applied for a CON exemption to establish a Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Pasco (Humana Pasco) in Dade City, Pasco County, applied for CON exemption to initiate inpatient cardiac catheterization. Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Bennett (Humana Bennett) in Plantation, Broward County applied for a CON exemption for a Level II NICU. Community Hospitals of Humana, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Cypress (Humana Cypress) in Pompano Beach, Broward County applied for CON exemption to perform inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, and for substance abuse and psychiatric beds. Community Hospital of The Palm Beaches, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Palm Beaches (Humana Palm Beaches) in Palm Beach County applied for a CON exemption to perform inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures. Humana Hospital Pembroke Pines, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Pembroke Pines (Humana Pembroke) in Broward County applied for CON exemptions for open heart surgery, inpatient cardiac catheterization, Level II NICU, psychiatric and comprehensive rehabilitation beds. Intervenors Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. (Adventist) filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on June 3, 1991. Florida Hospital Association (FHA) is a trade association of approximately 225 hospitals in the State of Florida. The Association of Voluntary Hospitals of Florida, Inc. (AVHF) is a not-for-profit corporation representing approximately 90 private and public not- for-profit hospitals in the State of Florida. All Children's Hospital (ACH), a 144-bed children's specialty hospital with Level II and Level III NICU beds, is a Regional Perinatal Intensive Care Center (RPICC) located in St. Petersburg in HRS District 5 for Pinellas/Pasco Counties. Florida Medical Center, Ltd. (FMC) is a 459-bed acute care hospital in HRS District 10, Broward County, at which services include inpatient cardiac catheterization, open heart surgery, and short term psychiatric services. Lakeland Regional Medical Center (LRMC) is an 897-bed acute care hospital, located in Polk County in HRS District 6, with a range of cardiac services, including open heart surgery. Plantation General Hospital (Plantation), a general acute care hospital in HRS District 10, Broward County, offers cardiac catheterization and Level II NICU among its procedures and programs. South Broward Hospital District (SBHD), a legislatively-created special taxing district, operates a 737-bed Memorial Hospital in HRS District 10, Broward County, at which its services include open heart surgery, inpatient cardiac catheterization, Level II and III neonatal intensive care, short-term inpatient psychiatric treatment, and inpatient comprehensive rehabilitation. St. Anthony's Hospital is a 434-bed community hospital in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, which is in HRS District 5, and offers inpatient cardiac catheterization. St. Joseph's Hospital is a 649-bed facility in Tampa, Hillsborough County, which is in HRS District 6, and provides inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. St. Mary's Hospital, a 378-bed general, acute-care hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida, offers Level II and III NICU, and inpatient cardiac catheterization. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, operates Tampa General Hospital (Tampa General) in HRS District 6, with 1,024 beds and a range of cardiac services, including open heart surgery. University Community Hospital (UCH) is located in HRS District 6, and is an existing provider of open heart surgery. Standing Adventist failed to present evidence of standing. FHA members include all of the petitioners and intervenors in this case. AVHF members include at least one member providing the same service in the same HRS District as the services which the eight Humana hospitals seek to establish by the exemption requests. ACH is an existing provider of Level II NICU in HRS District 5, the same service in the same area as proposed in the exemption request of Humana St. Petersburg. FMC provided 10% of its cardiac services in 1990 to HMP enrollees and is an existing provider of inpatient cardiac catheterization, open heart surgery, and short term psychiatric services in HRS District 10, which are, in part, the subjects of the Humana Cypress and Pembroke exemption requests. At LRMC, from October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990, 163 open heart surgeries, 215 cardiac catheterizations, 22 angioplasties, and 1,434 other cardiology procedures were performed on patients discharged to zip codes included by Humana Brandon in its service area for its exemption request for open heart surgery. Plantation is an existing provider in HRS District 10 of inpatient cardiac catheterization, for which Humana Cypress requested exemption, and Level II NICU, for which Humana Bennett requested exemption, and both of which services are included in the Humana Pembroke exemption request. SBHD estimates the range of patients lost, as a result of approval of the exemption requests of Humana Pembroke and Humana Bennett, at between 25-344 cardiac catheterizations, 58-434 open heart surgeries, up to 232 substance abuse treatments, between 8-352 comprehensive rehabilitations, 25-1933 short-term inpatient psychiatric, and 58-1354 neonatal patients. St. Anthony's provides inpatient cardiac catheterization in St. Petersburg and Southern Pinellas County, the same service in an overlapping service area as proposed in the Humana Pasco exemption request. St. Joseph's service areas for inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery overlap those in the exemption requests of Humana Pasco for cardiac catheterization, and overlap those of Humana Brandon and Humana Northside for open heart surgery. St. Mary's is a Humana Care Plan provider for inpatient cardiac catheterization, in a service area overlapping that proposed for inpatient cardiac catheterization by Humana Palm Beaches, and for NICU at Humana Bennett, since St. Mary's is one of the designated statewide Regional Perinatal Intensive Care Centers. Tampa General is under contract to Humana HMO, PPO and insurance subscribers, and provided 116 open heart surgeries to patients included within the service area of the Humana Brandon exemption request, and projects its loss of gross revenue at $1.5 million from the approval of the Humana Brandon exemption request for open heart surgery. At UCH, which has a service area within the area proposed for open heart surgery at Humana Brandon, twenty open heart surgeries in fical year 1990, and forty open heart surgeries in the first six months of 1991 were performed on HMP enrollees, the latter generating approximately $2 million in gross revenues. Amendment of Applications for Exemption (Costs) The June 1990 Humana exemption requests failed to include the costs of the services proposed, as required by Florida Administrative Code 10- 5.005(2)(a). HRS reviewed the requests, failed to notify Humana of the omission of cost data, and failed to cite the absence of that data as a basis for its decisions. The cost of services is included implicitly within the statutory criterion for review of exemption requests, because cost may be a factor in distinguishing between services which are or are not available by exemption. Tertiary and Inpatient Institutional Health Services or Beds Subsection 381.702(20), Florida Statutes, defining "tertiary health services" was enacted subsequent to the HMO exemption in Subsection 381.713(1), Florida Statutes, without any concurrent, material amendment of the latter. NICU and comprehensive rehabilitation are included in Subsection 381.702(2), Florida Statutes, as examples of tertiary health services. Open heart surgery is included within the definition of tertiary health services in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.002(66). Inpatient cardiac catheterization is an inpatient institutional health service. Short-term inpatient psychiatric and substance abuse services are included in "alcohol treatment, drug abuse treatment and mental health services" as defined in Subsection 381.702(9), Florida Statutes. Because they are within the definition of "health services" but not within the definition of "tertiary services", short-term inpatient pschiatric and substance abuse are also included within the definition of "institutional health services" which may be exempt from CON regulation if all other provisions of the HMO exemption provision are met. Certain inpatient institutional health services, such as substance abuse and psychiatric services are authorized by the issuance of licenses designating the number of approved beds which may be used in offering the service. Need methodology and physical plant requirements are factors which differ in the requirements for services offered in approved licensed beds. The HMO exemption provision encompasses inpatient services provided in licensed bed inventories, in the phrase "inpatient institutional health services." Nature and Control of Facilities Each of the eight Humana hospitals are health care facilities, as defined in Subsection 381.702(7), Florida Statutes. Each of the eight Humana hospitals are licensed acute care hospitals which primarily provide inpatient health services, as required by Subsection 381.713(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (1989). Humana Pembroke Humana Pembroke Pines, Inc. was incorporated in December 1989. It acquired the assets of Pembroke Pines General Hospital, pursuant to an asset sale and purchase agreement, the performance of which was guaranteed by Humana, Inc. Humana Medical Plan, Inc. (HMP), an HMO, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Group Health Insurance, Inc., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc. Although HMP acquired 100% of the stock in Humana Pembroke Pines, Inc., documents filed with state and federal agencies, other than HRS and the Department of Insurance, continued to list Humana, Inc. as the insured or controlling entity. Humana first indicated to HRS that the acquisition of Pembroke Pines General Hospital would be made by Humana Hospital Pembroke Pines, Inc., with a possible change of ownership to another Humana subsidiary, and subsequently notified HRS that the acquiring subsidiary would be HMP. Based on Humana's notice that the acquisition would not result in a change in beds or services, HRS determined that the acquisition of Pembroke Pines was not reviewable under CON requirements. An internal memorandum dated February 1, 1990, indicates that Humana planned to take advantage of the HMO exemption request prior to the acquisition of Pembroke Pines General Hospital, but did not report its plans to HRS. On March 2, 1990, HRS issued a license to Humana Hospital Pembroke Pines, Inc. There is no evidence to support the assumption that HRS would not have approved the acquisition of Humana Pembroke, or that Humana's plans to utilize the HMO exemption would have invoked CON review of the acquisition and resulted in a denial of the acquisition. Humana Pembroke is controlled directly or indirectly by HMP, the Humana HMO, as required by Subsection 381.713(1)(b)2. Enrollment of 50,000 Individuals Within the Service Area Subsection 381.713(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes, required the enrollment of at least 50,000 enrollees within the HMO's service area. The term "service area" is not used in the statute on CON application review criteria. Rather that statute, in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, uses the term "service district", which is defined in Subsection 20.19(7), Florida Statutes, as the organizational components of HRS. The term "service area" is also not used in Subsection 641.47(3), Florida Statutes; that statute defines the area in which an HMO does business as an approved "geographic area". The HMO service area, under the exemption provision, is the HMO's geographic area, because the requirement in subsection (2), that the HMO have 50,000 enrollees, otherwise would be indistinguishable from the requirement in subsection (3), that the facility's access area have 50,000 enrollees. HMP's appoved service area includes Broward, Dade, Flagler, Hillsborough, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Seminole and Volusia Counties, and approximates 400,000 enrollees. Facility Geographically Located So That Service Is Reasonably Accessible To The 50,000 Enrollees Accessibility standards for various services are established for CON applications by rules. There is no reason to distinguish between the standards used for the determination of accessibility to health services within the CON application process and the standards applicable to making that same determination within the CON exemption request process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)6. establishes a standard of 45 minutes maximum ground travel time under average travel conditions for access to inpatient psychiatric services, which is the equivalent of a 15-mile radius for Humana Pembroke. Humana Pembroke's exemption request, filed in June 1990, as up-dated in July, identified 55,592 enrollees within a 15-mile radius of the hospital. This enrollment data was given by zip code in Attachment 3B for inpatient cardiac catheterization and in Attachment 3D for short term inpatient psychiatric services. 1/ In its September 1990 CON application for inpatient cardiac catheterization, which has the slightly longer travel time of one hour, Humana Pembroke identified a service area with zip codes which would include only 21,375 of the 55,592 enrollees. When compared to enrollment data for the same zip codes in Humana's Exhibit 41, the most recent data available, enrollment in Humana Pembroke's zip codes for inpatient cardiac catheterization services and short term inpatient psychiatric services equals 27,083 HMP members, although one zip code, 33154, does not appear on Exhibit 41. Even accepting Humana's assertion that 321 enrollees reside in zip code 33154, total enrollment would equal 27,404. Humana has failed to demonstrate that Humana Pembroke is geographically located so as to be reasonably accessible to provide either inpatient cardiac catheterization or short term inpatient psychiatric services to 50,000 HMP enrollees. Limitation of Service to HMO Enrollees HRS preliminarily determined that Humana Pembroke's exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization services should be granted but that the service should only be available to HMP members. The text of subsection 381.713(1)(b), Florida Statutes, does not however restrict the provision of services to HMO enrollees, and the fact that a minimum number of enrollees must be in the service area to maximize the utilization of the service by enrollees does not compel such a conclusion. Subsection 381.713(1)(a), Florida Statutes, is a similar exemption provision which requires the enrollment of 50,000 individuals in an HMO's service area and a reasonably accessible facility, but also requires that 75% of reasonably expected patients be HMO enrollees. The Legislature was, therefore, obviously aware of the issue, yet in the applicable subsection failed to include any provision conditioning CON exemption approved upon provision of services only to HMO enrollees. Exemption Requests Based On Voting Trust Agreements Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress requested exemption approval to establish various inpatient institutional health services based on the control of those facilities by HMP by virtue of a voting trust agreement. The license-holder of Humana Pasco, Humana of Florida, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc. The license-holder of Humana Palm Beaches, Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc. The license-holder of Humana Cypress, Community Hospitals of Humana, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc. On behalf of Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress, Humana, Inc., entered into Voting Trust Agreements (Agreements) designating HMP, the Humana HMO, as trustee, but did not report the change of control to state and federal agencies. The Agreements, dated May 29, 1990, have identical substantive provisions. The term of the Agreements is ten years, terminating May 28, 2000, with a provision that Humana, Inc. may not unilaterally terminate the Agreements, although Humana, Inc. subsequently offered to terminate one of the agreements. Each Agreement authorizes HMP to hold and vote the shares of stock of the respective Humana, Inc. subsidiary. Each Agreement obligates HMP to vote the shares in the best interest of Humana, Inc. and the applicable wholly-owned subsidiary. Each Agreement requires HMP to pay over all profits and dividends to Humana, Inc., with all convenient speed. Each Agreement provides that without the consent of Humana, Inc., HMP shall not increase or reclassify capital stock; sell, lease or exchange all or substantially all property or assets; or vote to consolidate, merge, or dissolve the Humana, Inc. subsidiaries. The Agreements provide that the trustee accepts the specified responsibilities, but recite no compensation. The Humana hospitals, including Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress, have chief operating officers who are known as executive directors, who report to HMP Vice-Presidents, but the executive directors receive incentive compensation for maximizing hospital utilization, as do all their superiors throughout the chain of command, up to and including the president of Humana Inc. Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress pay management fees to Humana, Inc., as does HMP, and are directly owned by corporate entities which have the same officers and directors as HMP. By virtue of the voting trust agreement, HMP votes the shares of stock in Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress, but no operational changes in the facilities have resulted from the establishment of the voting trust agreements. HMP, as voting trustee, has control of the assets of Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress. HMP is an HMO with in excess of 50,000 enrollees in its service area. See, Findings 60 and 61, above. The standard for determining if a proposed service is geographically accessible for 50,000 enrollees is the same as that established in the rules for CON applications for the same service. See, Findings 62 and 63, above. Humana Pasco. Humana Pasco's exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization asserted that 74,225 HMP enrollees reside within one hour's travel time of the facility. The applicable travel time standard for inpatient cardiac catheterization subject to CON review is one hour, under Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.032. Areas within a forty-mile radius of Humana Pasco are within one-hour average travel time of the facility. The zip codes for enrollees in the Humana Pasco exemption request are substantially different from those included within its service area in a 1987 CON application and from Hospital Cost Containment Board data on actual utilization of the facility. Humana failed to demonstrate that 50,000 HMP enrollees have geographic accessibility for inpatient cardiac catheterization services to Humana Pasco, based on the applicable travel time standard of one hour. 2/ Humana Palm Beaches. In the June 7, 1990 Humana Palm Beaches' exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization services, Humana asserted that there were 58,268 HMP enrollees within a 40-mile radius, or one-hour average travel time of the facility. In the July 31, 1990 submission of corrected information, Humana's attachment 3a asserts that 50,592 HMP enrollees reside in areas within 45 miles of Humana Palm Beaches. 3/ Humana's Exhibit 41, a computer printout of enrollees for May 1990, demonstrates that the enrollees in the zip codes listed on attachment 3a of the July submission equal 49,894 HMP members. Although not determinative of enrollment in the service area, HMP's reports to the Department of Insurance on enrollment in Palm Beach County and the Hospital Cost Containment Board data on zip codes with greater than 5% actual utilization of Humana Palm Beaches also show fewer than 50,000 enrollees. Humana attempted to assert that its enrollment figures are constantly increasing. Because the number of HMP members is so close to 50,000, that assertion becomes significant. A comparative review of the individual zip code enrollments asserted in Attachment 3A to the Humana Palm Beaches' July submission to those in Humana Exhibit 41 demonstrates that some zip codes lost members, presumably due to changing residential patterns. Therefore, it is impossible to make a general assumption that HMP's growth in membership is evenly distributed across zip codes within an area geographically accessible to a hospital. Humana has failed to establish that 50,000 enrollees have geographic access to Humana Palm Beaches for inpatient cardiac catheterization services using the one-hour travel time standard for CON review. Humana Cypress. Humana asserted that 50,962 HMP enrollees are geographically accessible to Humana Cypress for inpatient cardiac catheterization, or within the one-hour travel time or 15 miles, although its September 1990 CON application for the same service defines an area including approximately half that number. Humana asserted that 68,412 HMP enrollees are geographically accessible to Humana Cypress for inpatient substance abuse and short term inpatient psychiatric services, or within the 45-minute travel time or a 15-mile radius, although its September 1989 CON applications for the same services encompass an area with approximately 41,000 of the enrollees. When zip codes in the exemption requests are compared to Humana's exhibit 41, a computer printout of enrollees for May 1990, 4/ the enrollees in the zip codes submitted in the exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization total 50,581 and those submitted in the exemption requests for inpatient substance abuse and short term inpatient psychiatric services total 67,812. 5/ Humana has established that Humana Cypress is geographically accessible to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization to 50,000 HMP enrollees under the one-hour travel time requirement. Humana has established that Humana Cypress is geographically accessible to 50,000 HMP enrollees under the 45 minute travel time requirement for short term inpatient psychiatric and inpatient substance abuse services.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered Dismissing the Petition to Intervene filed by Adventist based on its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Denying the exemption requests of Humana Brandon for open heart surgery, Humana Northside for open heart surgery, Humana St. Petersburg for Level II NICU, and Humana Bennett for Level II NICU, Humana Pembroke for open heart surgery and Level II NICU, because those services are tertiary services, not institutional health services. Denying the exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization and short-term inpatient psychiatric services at Humana Pembroke for failure to establish geographic accessibility to 50,000 HMP enrollees. Denying the exemption requests of Humana Pasco and Humana Palm Beaches for failure to establish that 50,000 HMO enrollees have reasonable access to inpatient cardiac catheterization services at these facilities. Granting the exemption request of Humana Cypress for inpatient cardiac catheterization, short term inpatient psychiatric services, and inpatient substance abuse services, without limiting the provision of services to HMP enrollees. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of October, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. Eleanor M. Hunter Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1991.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner, Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital (Englewood), is a 100 bed general acute care hospital located in Englewood, Florida. Englewood is owned and operated by Columbia/HCA Health Care (Columbia), a for-profit corporation. Englewood operates an outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in a mobile unit located in the hospital parking lot. Patients and some physicians have been reluctant to use the mobile unit. Venice Hospital, Inc. (Venice) is a not-for-profit, community owned hospital with 342 beds. Venice operates an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory for invasive cardiac diagnostic procedures. Venice has unsuccessfully applied twice for a certificate of need (CON) to provide open heart surgery. The Sarasota County Public Hospital Board (Sarasota Hospital Board) is a publicly elected, nine member organization, which is responsible for the operation and oversight of Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Memorial). Memorial is a 952 bed hospital with services including inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Memorial is located in Sarasota, Florida. Englewood, Venice, and Memorial are all located in Sarasota County which is in the Agency for Health Care Administration Planning District 8. There are nine other inpatient cardiac catheterization programs in District 8. The existing inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are distributed as follows: Sarasota County (3); Charlotte County (3); Lee County (4); Collier County (1). Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency which administers CON laws in Florida. The Agency published on February 4, 1994, a fixed need pool projection for inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, showing a need for three additional programs in District 8 for the batch in which Englewood's application was reviewed. This calculation counted an earlier application of Englewood as approved. THE PROJECT Englewood proposes to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, placing inside the hospital facility the equipment which is currently located in its mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory. Englewood timely filed the letter of intent, CON application, and response to omissions for CON Number 7663. The Agency originally denied the application because a previous application by Englewood for inpatient cardiac catheterization services had been granted. The previous application proposed to keep the equipment in the mobile unit and build a walkway from the mobile unit to the hospital facility. Englewood withdrew its application for the previous application. The Agency has filed an official notice of changing its position to support Englewood's CON Application Number 7663. NEED FOR THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE LOCAL AND STATE HEALTH PLANS The 1993 Florida State Health Plan provides four allocation preferences relevant to the review of the certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes the establishment of both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services provided that a need for open heart surgery is indicated. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to establish a new cardiac catheterization program if the applicant can demonstrate that patients are currently seeking cardiac catheterization services outside the respective county or HRS district. Preference shall be given to hospitals with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share criteria. Preference shall be given to an applicant who agrees to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has projected that charity and indigent care for cardiac catheterizations at less than 1.0 percent of total revenue. Given Englewood's past history, 1.0 percent of total revenue is a gross overstatement. At the final hearing, Englewood stated that it would not agree to condition the CON on Englewood providing charity and indigent care equal to 1.0 percent of the total revenue. The Agency's 1992 Hospital Financial Data showed that Englewood's reported charity and uncompensated care was approximately .09 percent and .06 percent of total revenues for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, respectively. Englewood has agreed to provide adult cardiac catheterization services to anyone in need without ability to pay; thus, Englewood is entitled to a partial preference for providing services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has not demonstrated that it should receive a preference for the other three factors. The 1993 District 8 Allocation Factors Report addresses the following preferences relevant to the review of certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services. Preference shall be given to applicat- ions for new or expanded cardiac catheterization services that clearly indicate the impact of the proposed services on other health providers offering similar services in the same area. Preference shall be given to applicants which agree to provide services to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has agreed to provide services to all patients without ability to pay and is entitled to a partial preference for the second factor in the district plan. AVAILABILITY, QUALITY OF CARE, EFFICIENCY, APPROPRIATENESS, ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENT OF UTILIZATION, AND ADEQUACY OF LIKE EXISTING HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE SERVICE DISTRICT. Englewood's proposed inpatient cardiac catheterization program would not adversely affect the quality of care provided by the cardiac catheterization programs at Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Venice Hospital. Memorial has a comprehensive cardiac catheterization program. It operates three dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratories. The Memorial laboratories provide diagnostic catheterizations as well as all available therapeutic catheterization techniques. Prior to performing a diagnostic catheterization, cardiologists are able to determine with a high degree of confidence and reliability whether a patient with cardiovascular disease will require, during a particular hospitalization, therapeutic intervention, e.g. angioplasty or open heart surgery. Cardiologists rely on an array of sophisticated non-invasive diagnostic tests in making such determinations. When a cardiologist determines that a patient is not sufficiently ill to require therapeutic intervention, the patient will customarily receive a diagnostic catheterization on an outpatient basis. During the last several years, there has been a shift in Sarasota County from inpatient catheterization to outpatient catheterization. In fact, the Medicare program requires that Medicare patients receive outpatient catheterization, unless a patient's medical condition requires inpatient care. Normally only patients with unstable medical conditions receive inpatient cardiac catheterization. That group of patients is likely to require therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission to resolve their medical problems. Between 80 to 90 percent of patients who receive inpatient cardiac catheterization receive therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission. If an unstable patient presents at a facility which lacks the capability to perform therapeutic intervention, it is in the best medical practice to stabilize the patient and then transfer the patient to a facility which can perform both the diagnostic catheterization and the therapeutic intervention. If the unstable patient requires intervention in the form of angioplasty, it is in the patient's best interest to receive both the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during a single visit to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The provision of both procedures in one visit enhances comfort, safety, and efficiency. It is Memorial's practice to provide both types of services in one visit to the catheterization laboratory when possible. Adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are available within a maximum automobile travel time of one hour, under average travel conditions, for at least 90 percent of District 8's population. The Sarasota Hospital Board's policy is to provide cardiac catheterization services at Memorial to all residents without regard to their ability to pay. In its most recently completed fiscal year at the time of the final hearing, the Sarasota Hospital Board provided $268,000 of charity care and $720,000 of Medicaid care, related to cardiac catheterization patients. In its application, Englewood stated: "There is no evidence to indicate that the efficiency, appropriateness and adequacy of adult inpatient cardiac catheterizations services in District VIII are less than adequate." Each of the seven hospitals in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, with the exception of Englewood, operate an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. There is excess capacity at the existing cardiac laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. A single cardiac catheterization laboratory can safely perform approximately 1500 cases annually. Three of the existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties operate a volume between 300-400 cases annually: Fawcett, St. Joseph's, and Doctors'. Fawcett is owned and operated by Columbia. Venice operates the existing laboratory closest to Englewood. Venice's catheterization laboratory has the capacity to perform 1,500 procedures annually. Over the last five years, the number of cases has grown from 500 to approximately 800, where it has leveled off, leaving almost half the laboratory's capacity unused. Venice's catheterization laboratory is available and accessible to Englewood residents. The catheterization laboratory at Venice has been serving Englewood patients and will continue to do so. Venice currently serves a significant share of the market in three of the six zip codes identified by Englewood as its service area. There is adequate capacity at the existing laboratories in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties to treat the existing volume of cardiac catheterization patients, as well as the volume that Englewood proposes to serve. Patients in the Englewood area will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient cardiac catheterization services in the absence of Englewood's proposed program. Under these circumstances it is more appropriate and less expensive to the health care system as a whole to fully utilize existing catheterization laboratories. ABILITY OF APPLICANT TO PROVIDE QUALITY CARE AND APPLICANT'S RECORD OF PROVIDING QUALITY OF CARE Englewood has a record of providing appropriate quality of care to its patients. Englewood is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. Englewood submitted a written protocol for transfer of emergency patients to a hospital providing open heart surgery within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions as part of its application. Englewood's cardiac catheterization program policies and procedures manual is appropriate. The equipment which Englewood proposes for its inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory was purchased from Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center in Fort Myers, Florida, where it had been used successfully for approximately one year. The equipment is currently being used in Englewood's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. The equipment uses analog imaging, and includes video playback to allow instant review. Digital imaging is newer technology than analog imaging and allows the image of the cardiac areas to be magnified, processed and measured while the physician is performing the catheterization. Regardless whether analog or digital imaging is used the physician will rely on a 35mm film which is made during the catheterization procedure to make the diagnosis. The digital imaging equipment is more expensive than the analog imaging equipment. Although, digital imaging is nice to have, it is not necessary to provide quality cardiac catheterization services. Englewood has plans to move the outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory from the mobile unit to inside the hospital facilities. As of the date of the final hearing, Englewood had not begun construction of this project to relocate the outpatient laboratory. The cost of renovating space for the cardiac catheterization laboratory and moving the equipment inside is estimated to be $400,000. Two or three people are required to assist the physician perform an inpatient cardiac catheterization. One person circulates, moving outside the sterile area surrounding the procedure table to get medications, log information and generally oversee and monitor the patient's condition. The staff should include cardiovascular technicians, who may be but do not have to be nurses. Englewood proposes the following staffing and salary: FTE'S YEAR 1 HOURLY RATE SALARIES FTE'S YEAR 2 HOURLY RATE SALARIES RNS 3.0 19.92 118,061 5.0 19.68 204,672 Nurse Manager 1.0 0 1.0 0 Cath Lab Tech 2.0 14.43 60,029 2.0 15.01 62,442 Subtotal 6.0 178,090 8.0 267,114 Lab Director 1.0 0 1.0 0 Subtotal 1.0 0 1.0 0 Unit Secretary 0.5 7.96 8,278 1.0 8.28 17,222 Subtotal 0.5 8,278 1.0 TOTAL 7.5 186,368 10.0 284,336 The radiology technician's job is to assist with quality assurance, help maintain and oversee the equipment, and monitor safety. The radiology technician does not have to be present in the laboratory during procedures. Englewood already employs a radiology technician in its radiology department. This technician has had training for cardiac catheterization laboratory duties. Dr. DeGuia currently performs the duties of a medical director and will continue to do so if the inpatient laboratory is established. The nurse manager who is currently employed as the nursing manager for the intensive care, progressive care and outpatient will be utilized in the inpatient laboratory as well. The staff will be cross trained in each position's functions. Englewood will have the assistance of Fawcett Memorial Hospital and Southwest Heart Institute in staffing and training when needed. Englewood's proposed staffing will provide an adequate number of properly trained personnel. The salaries Englewood proposes to pay its staff are reasonable and competitive. UTILIZATION In its application, Englewood projects that the first year of operation of the inpatient laboratory, there will be a total of 236 cardiac catheterizations performed consisting of 132.9 inpatients and 103.1 outpatients. In the second year of operation, Englewood projects the total cardiac catheterizations to be 345 with 194.3 being inpatient and 150.7 being outpatient. Englewood has included six specific zip code in its service area. Based on Englewood's experience with MDC 05 diagnoses1, Englewood's expert witness Scott Hopes opined that Englewood's market share for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services would be as follows: ZIPCODE MARKET SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 33981 43.8 percent 34223 50 percent 34224 65.2 percent 34287 6.4 percent 34293 2.0 percent In order to project inpatient utilization of the Englewood laboratory, it is appropriate to rely upon the historical pool of patients in the Englewood service area who have received inpatient catheterization during a hospital admission, without receiving angioplasty or open heart surgery during that admission. Englewood proposes to serve primarily "low risk" inpatients who are not expected to require intervention during that hospital admission. For the period July 1991 through June 1992, there were 490 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients residing in Englewood's service area. For the period July 1992 through June 1993, there were 479 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients in the same service area. In its application, Englewood applied an aggregate market share to the total number of inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on the residents of the proposed service area. This method distorts the projected number of inpatient procedures which could be performed by Englewood because of the variability of the market shares in each zip code. Based on the method employed in Englewood's application, Englewood would have performed 145 and 160 inpatient cardiac catheterizations in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 periods, respectively. When one applies the actual market share by zip code to the actual number of procedures performed on patients from each zip code, a more accurate projection based on historical data can be made as shown in the chart below. ZIP CODE MARKET SHARE 1991-1992 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 1992-1993 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 21 11 18 10 33981 43.8 percent 35 15 29 12 34223 50.0 percent 68 34 72 36 34224 65.2 percent 42 27 34 22 34287 6.4 percent 145 9 146 9 34293 2.0 percent 179 4 180 4 100 93 Englewood performed 50 outpatient cardiac catheterizations in 1994. This low utilization is based on the physical location of the outpatient facility in the hospital parking lot and the lack of marketing. Fifty procedures is not a representative number of the outpatient procedures which Englewood could expect if the laboratory was located inside the hospital and the program was marketed effectively. The application states that in 1992 the percentage of inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures of the total cardiac catheterizations performed in hospitals with an inpatient program in District 8 was 56.33 percent.2 Thus based on Englewood's market share by zip code, the total amount of cardiac catheterizations which Englewood could have expected in 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 would have been 177 and 165, respectively. In its application, Englewood uses three different methodologies to project the number of cardiac catheterizations Englewood could expect during its first and second year of operation. Method 1 (pgs. 28 and 32 of the Response to Omissions) subtracts the amount of catheterizations Englewood would have expected in 1991-1992 from the amount it would have expected in 1992-1993 and increases the projection each year by this amount to project the number of catheterizations for the first two years of operation. Using Method 1 would result in a decrease in the number of cardiac catheterizations each year because the number of cardiac catheterizations declined by 12 procedures from 1991-1992 to 1992-1993. Method 2 (pgs. 30 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) employs an annual increase of 8 percent. This increase is the lowest annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 208 procedures for 1996 and 224 procedures for 1997. Method 3 (pgs. 31 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) uses a 12.78 percent annual increase based on the average annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 237 procedures for 1996 and 267 procedures for 1997. Using any of the three methods to project the number of procedures to be performed in the second year, Englewood will not perform a minimum of 300 catheterization procedures by the end of the second year of operation of the inpatient laboratory. The Intermedic Health Center is a large multi-specialty group with a five cardiologist heart group based in Port Charlotte. Intermedic has offices in Englewood. The heart group was to begin regular office schedules in Englewood in February, 1994. The group plans to recruit one or two additional physicians to staff the office. At the time of final hearing the physicians of Intermedic's heart group performed cardiac catheterizations at hospitals other than Petitioner's because some of the cases were inpatient and some of their outpatients were uncomfortable with a portable laboratory. For 1995, Intermedic projected 90 to 100 cases; thereby resulting in some increase in business with Englewood relating to cardiac catheterizations. The population in the Englewood service area consists of a large number of residents who are 65 or older. This segment of the population is more likely to have a high demand for cardiac catheterization than a younger segment of the population. The 65 or older category is a fast growing part of the population in the Englewood service area. IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROGRAM Englewood has the financial ability to fund the construction of the project. The pro forma statement contained in the CON application is flawed. Englewood has double counted a profit layer that it is already enjoying from inpatients that it transfers to an inpatient catheterization provider. Englewood does not account for the contribution margin attaching to Englewood's inpatient portion of their care before transfer. In projecting its revenues from outpatient utilization, Englewood has included in its figures outpatient catheterizations it would perform whether or not its application is approved rather than basing their pro forma on the incremental difference attributable to approval of an inpatient program. The projected revenues contained in the pro forma are suspect. First, the proposed procedure charges shown on the outpatient service revenues page of Englewood's application are high. It is unusual to find outpatient procedure charges that are higher than the inpatient procedure charges. In Table 7 in the application, Englewood asserts that patient days for Medicaid and private pay will net the highest revenues per patient day. Typically those two payor sources are at the bottom of the list of revenue producers than the top. Englewood's pro forma understates revenue deductions by assuming Medicaid and private pay reimbursement that is unrealistic and by failing to take into account anticipated growth in managed care. Englewood's financial expert agreed that managed care will see significant growth over the next five years. Because the pro forma overstates net revenue, it understates revenue deductions. Englewood has understated expenses. The marginal cost per case is understated, relocation expenses are understated, and the nurse manager's time is not allocated to the expense side of the pro forma. The State Agency Action Report also calls into question the adequacy of the expenses in Englewood's pro forma.3 Based on the flawed pro forma, Englewood has not demonstrated that the project is financially feasible. OTHER STATUTORY CRITERIA The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including consideration of the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction are reasonable. The proposed design of Englewood's inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory is reasonable and appropriate. Englewood submitted the list of capital projects required by Section 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1993); the audited financial statements required by Section 408.037(3), Florida Statutes (1993); and the resolution required by Section 408.037(4), Florida Statutes (1993). I. STANDING OF VENICE AND MEMORIAL If Englewood were to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, both Venice and Memorial would have patients diverted from their programs to Englewood's. Based on the projections contained in Englewood's application, Venice would lose 82 catheterization procedures in the second year of operation of Englewood's proposed program, resulting in a net profit lose of $234,000. Although Englewood's application projections are inaccurate, the application does contemplate that Venice would lose procedures as a result of the implementation of Englewood's proposed program. In order for Englewood to reach its projected volume of procedures, approximately 40 to 50 procedures would have to be redirected annually from Memorial to Englewood. There is also a strong potential that Memorial would lose angioplasty and open heart surgery cases as well. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center (SWFRMC), in Fort Myers, is owned by Columbia. It is a tertiary cardiovascular referral center for other Columbia hospitals in Southwest Florida. The development of an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at Englewood would assist in the development of referral patterns from the Englewood area to SWFRMC for angioplasty and open heart surgery. It would be in Columbia's interest to encourage utilization of SWFRMC's cardiovascular services by patients residing in the Southwest Florida area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the application of Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital's for Certificate of Need 7663 to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1995.
Findings Of Fact A. whether the "Grandfather" Issue Should Be Determined. The Petitioner, Mease Hospital and Clinic (Mease), operates a 278 bed hospital in Dunedin, a 100 bed hospital in Countryside, and a medical clinic. All are located in north Pinellas County, in the North Pinellas subdistrict of HRS District 5. In 1982, Mease applied for a certificate of need to equip and operate a cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL). At the time, Mease was of the view that a CCL would be a new service and would therefore require a certificate of need. When Mease determined that approval would not be likely under then current rules, Mease withdrew its application because it understood that a final denial legally would preclude Mease from re-applying for three years. On July 11, 1986, the Respondent, HRS, entered a Final Order adopting a Recommended Order and acknowledging that Humana Hospital Northside, also located in Pinellas County, HRS District 5, continuously had been providing cardiac catheterization services since before July 1, 1977, the effective date of certificate of need regulation of CCLs, and therefore was not required to obtain a certificate of need for a CCL as a new service. Final Order, Humana Hospital Northside v. Department of Health, etc., 8 F.A.L.R. 3910 (DHRS July 11, 1986). When Mease reviewed the Humana Northside Final Order and final hearing transcript, it concluded that it, too, should be "grandfathered." Mease was doing the same type catheterization procedures as Humana Northside. Mease decided to re-apply for a certificate of need both on the basis of need for a CCL at Mease and on the basis of the "grandfather" claim. In October, 1986, Mease filed the pending certificate of need application. In addition to the more typical components of a CON application, the Mease application states in pertinent part: EQUIPMENT/SERVICE TYPE: Mease Hospital and Clinic maintains that the Cardiac Catheterization Program is not a new service, as procedures similar to those performed at Humana Northside, which was recently approved on a grandfathering basis for cardiac catheterization have been performed at Mease Hospital and Clinic in Dunedin for more than 20 years. * * * ADDITIONAL PROJECT DETAILS/REMARKS: Mease Hospital and Clinic believes its historic performance of procedures identical to those for which Humana Northside was grand fathered a cardiac catheterization lab is sufficient to justify similar action, resulting in approval of Mease' proposal. HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) was completed in April, 1987. It evaluated the Mease proposal as a typical certificate of need application and denied it on the basis of lack of need. There was no direct mention of the "grandfather" claim, but the SAAR concludes in pertinent part: "Deny a certificate of need for [the Mease] project [among others] in its entirety... Reasons for decision: Insufficient need for an additional cardiac cath lab." Mease's petition for formal administrative proceedings on the denial does not specifically address the "grandfather" claim, either. During the pendency of this proceeding, Mease continued to seek a "grandfather" exemption apart from this proceeding. But Mease's prehearing proceedings in this case were conducted in a way that indicated its assumption that the "grandfather" issue would be determined by final agency action in this case, if not before by informal means. The other parties recognized this assumption and were not prejudiced by Mease's failure to formally specify the issue in its pending petition for formal administrative proceedings or by amendment to it. By letter dated November 23, 1987, HRS finally responded to Mease's continued efforts to obtain "grandfather" status and denied the request. Mease still did not amend its petition for formal administrative proceedings (nor did it file a new, separate petition in response to the November 23 letter.) But it continued to conduct prehearing procedures in a manner so as to have the "grandfather" claim heard as part of this case. HRS and the Intervenor, Morton Plant Hospital, Inc. (Morton Plant) first objected on the record to consideration of the "grandfather" issue in this case in the Prehearing Stipulation filed on January 6, 1988. The "grandfather" issue should be determined in this proceeding. Whether Mease Has A "Grandfathered" CCL. Before July 1, 1977, and continuously since, Mease has operated a special procedures room at its Dunedin hospital. The special procedures room is the largest room in the x-ray department, with adjoining rooms that contain sinks for sterile technique and housing computers. Equipment in the room includes an x-ray generator with a high MA capability to do moderately rapid sequence films and fluoroscope. There is a table of special design to allow movement in all directions to facilitate fluoroscopy. Three different film changers are used. The room contains a large array of catheters, wires and needles for use in the catheterization process. There is a defibrillator monitor, pressure monitors, and various physiologic monitors also in the room. Finally, there is a digital vascular imaging ("DVI") machine to facilitate the computerized processing of digital subtraction studies. The DVI machine has been used to perform coronary arteriographies. During the time the special procedures room has been operational, it has been staffed with persons specifically trained in critical care of patients, with special knowledge of cardiovascular medication and catheterization type equipment. There has always been ample support staff available for patient observation, handling blood samples, performing blood gas evaluations and monitoring physiological data. The catheterization team usually consists of the physician, a special procedures nurse (an R.N. with critical care training) and at least two dedicated radiographer technologists with special knowledge of the equipment. A special procedures log is maintained by physicians using the special procedures room. Procedures typical of those contained on the log prior to and consistently since 1977 include renal arteriograms, pulmonary arteriograms, cerebral arteriograms and femoral arteriograms. Pulmonary arteriograms involve passing a catheter through a right side chamber of the heart into the lungs; the other procedures do not involve passing a catheter into the heart. Pulmonary angiograms, right ventriculography and right atrial injections are all currently performed at Mease in the radiology laboratory. Right heart catheterization procedures are being performed in the CCU units and the special procedures lab at Mease. The special procedures room is not used by radiologists or cardiologists to do any therapeutic or diagnostic studies of the left chambers of the heart. Unlike procedures such as pulmonary arteriograms, in which the catheter is inserted into or through a chamber on the right side of the heart, fluoroscopy is required for insertion of a catheter into a chamber of the left side of the heart. With fluoroscopy, left heart catheterization procedures involve no significantly increased danger to the patient. Left heart catheterization procedures require faster film sequencing equipment for fluoroscopy because the left heart is a higher pressure (faster flow) system than the right heart chambers. Mease's cardiologists perform these procedures in a CCL at either Morton Plant or Largo Medical Center in Clearwater. The Mease special procedures room does not have, and has not had, the more sophisticated equipment needed to perform catheterization procedures in the left chambers of the heart. The sophisticated equipment needed for left heart catheterizations customarily is part of a CCL. It is commonly understood that a CCL is a laboratory which includes this equipment and uses this equipment for left heart catheterizations. Mease shared this understanding until it learned of the Final Order in Humana Hospital Northside. It never contested the omission of cardiac cath services from its hospital license, never reported cardiac cath procedures to the local health council and applied for a CON for a CCL in 1982. On review of the Humana final order and the record of the case, Mease correctly concluded that its special procedures room was being operated in the same way as Humana Northside's. Mease also concluded that it, too, was entitled to "grandfather" status. But the Humana final order points out: The respondent HRS offered no evidence to dispute the fact that petitioner has indeed been providing cardiac catheterization services on a regular and continuous basis from pre-July 1, 1977 to the present time. Instead, HRS takes the position that since petitioner never reported to the Local Health Council that it was performing such services, it is now somehow estopped from claiming a "grandfather" exemption from Certificate of Need review. There is competent and substantial evidence demonstrating that petitioner began performing cardiac catheterization procedures prior to July 1, 1977, at a time when Certificate of Need review was not required, and has continued to perform such services on a regular basis. Accordingly, petitioner was exempt from Certificate of Need review when it initiated such services and continues to maintain that exempt status so long as it regularly and continuously performs such services. In this case, there was persuasive evidence disputing that Mease has been operating a CCL. Mease's special procedures room had some, but not all, of the equipment customarily used in cardiac catheterization. Its special procedures room is not the kind of room customarily used to perform cardiac catheterization procedures. This is why Mease never before claimed entitlement to "grandfather" status but rather presumed that it did not have a CCL and would need a CON to open a CCL. Mease has not been operating a CCL continuously since July 1, 1977. Need For Mease's Proposed CCL. Mease filed the pending CON application in October, 1986. At the time, the local health council for District 5 was reporting an inventory of four CCLs: St. Anthony's; Morton Plant; Largo; and All Children's. Mease also knew that HRS had entered a final order in July, 1986, recognizing "grandfather status" for Humana Northside and allowing Humana Northside to upgrade its CCL by adding up-to-date equipment required for left heart catheterization procedures. At the time of the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) denying Mease's application in April, 1987, HRS was aware of, and also counted in the inventory at the time of the SAAR, a second CCL at Morton Plant which was added without CON review. The second Morton Plant CCL became operational in July, 1986, but was not reported to the local health council until early 1987, and was not reported by the local health council until September, 1987. A second CCL also opened without CON review at Largo Medical Center. But the evidence was not clear when the second Largo lab opened. It was not reported to, or by, the local health council before the SAAR either, and HRS did not count it in the inventory for purposes of the SAAR. Since the SAAR, two additional CCLs have been approved without CON review at Bayfront Hospital/All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg. Finally, on November 24, 1987, the District Court of Appeal, First District, rendered an opinion reversing HRS' final order denying an application for a CON for a CCL at Bayonet Point Regional Medical Center in Pasco County in District 5. This CCL was approved for purposes of meeting the need existing as of 1986. The actual District 5 CCL use rate for the period July, 1985, through June, 1986, using local health council data, was 308.47 procedures per 100,000 population. The year in which the proposed CCL would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future, is July, 1988. The District 5 population in July, 1988, is projected to be 1,124,986. The number of procedures projected for District 5 in July, 1988, is 3470. Allocating 600 procedures per CCL, 3470 procedures would create a numerical need for 6 CCLs in District 5 in July, 1988. The local health council did not report any procedures done at the "grandfathered" CCL at Humana Northside, and none were included in the data for the time period July, 1985, to June, 1986. Counting the "grandfathered" Humana Northside CCL in the inventory at the time of the SAAR without attributing any procedures to it for purposes of calculating the use rate for July, 1985, to June, 1986, amounts to a recognition that Humana Northside, while given "grandfather" status based on the facts presented in DOAH Case No. 84-4070, was not in fact operating a CCL continuously since July, 1977. Refusal to attribute procedures to Humana Northside reflects a rational policy decision in this case not to perpetuate the error resulting from the apparently less-than-adequate HRS presentation of its case in the Humana Northside case. There was evidence officially recognized in this case without objection--namely, the Final Order, Bayonet Point Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 4342 (DHRS 1986)--that 1200 Pasco County (District 5) residents were being referred to Tampa for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery in the year preceding June, 1986. (300 were open heart surgery patients.) But there was no evidence to prove how many of the 900 cardiac catheterization patients who were referred to Tampa in the period July, 1985, to June, 1986, would have had the procedure performed in District 5 if Bayonet Point had a CCL. It necessarily follows that there was no evidence to prove that any additional cardiac cath procedures for Pasco County patients performed in District 5 as a result of the Bayonet Pont CCL will not be absorbed by and performed at the Bayonet Point CCL. District 5 has the highest percentage of 65 and over population in the state (29.7 percent for calendar year 1986), but next to the lowest number of catheterizations per thousand of all the districts in the sate. District 5 also has a large cohort of population age 45 to 64. Over 50 percent of the population in District 5 is in the age cohort for which cardiac catheterization is most frequently needed as a diagnostic or therapeutic tool. Seasonal fluctuations increase the elderly winter population. Resident death rate from heart disease is almost 50 percent higher in District 5 than it is for the state of Florida. These factors combine to create an actual use rate in District 5 that, for the past two years (1986 and 1987) has exceeded (or, for 1987, was projected to exceed) the projected horizon year (July 1988) use rate derived from using the 1985 use rate data. The actual use rate for January through September 1987, when extrapolated for the entire calendar year of 1987, shows that the number of procedures expected to be actually performed in District 5 in 1987 is 46 percent (approximately 1,000 procedures) greater than the number of procedures projected to be needed in July 1988 using the 1985 use rate. The projection of procedures for July 1988 is 700 procedures less than actually occurred in District 5 in 1986. Use of July, 1985 to June, 1986, use rate in a demographic configuration like that found in District 5 underestimates projected procedures for July, 1988. Some trends in health care and area population growth do not support the addition of a cath lab at Mease. While the population of north Pinellas County, where Mease is located, is equal in age distribution to south Pinellas County, the new growth in north Pinellas and Pasco is younger than south Pinellas. Increased use of non-invasive diagnostic procedures, such as MRI and CAT scan, will reduce the growth of cardiac cath procedures in the future. The growth in the use rate in cardiac caths is in the number of therapeutic caths, which by rule are required to be done in a facility with open heart surgery and therefore cannot be done at Mease at this time. Indeed, the number of right heart caths being done at Mease has remained constant over the past several years. Also, death from heart disease is decreasing due to improvements in life style. All the cath labs in District 5 are within a two hour drive time of 90 percent of the population in District 5. Morton Plant is six miles from Mease Dunedin. Mease Countryside is twelve miles from Morton Plant and eight miles from Mease Dunedin. One-third of the Mease cardiologist's patients are at Mease Countryside and for catheterization these patients would have to be admitted at or transported to Mease Dunedin where the proposed lab would be located. There is sufficient capacity in the existing cath labs to serve growth in the near future. Approximately 600 more procedures could be done at Morton Plant. There is no problem scheduling caths at Morton Plant. There has been some difficulty getting beds for Mease patients before and after the procedure, but Morton Plant just opened new ICU beds with specially trained nurses to accommodate Dr. Gibbs' patients. The existing labs in District 5 are financially accessible. A significant number of the labs are located in not- for-profit hospitals that serve all types of patients. E.g., Morton Plant, which has an overlapping service district with Mease, offers twice the number of Medicaid days as Mease. In addition, as previously mentioned, new approved labs at Bayfront/ALL Children's (2) and Bayonet Point (1) will be coming on line to provide additional capacity (and bring the total number of CCLs in District 5 to ten.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a final order: (1) denying Mease's request for recognition of a "grandfathered" CCL at its Dunedin hospital; and (2) denying its application for a CON for a CCL at its Dunedin hospital, CON Action No. 5108. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1988.
The Issue The central issues in these cases are: As to case no. 89-1293--whether Indian River Memorial Hospital (Indian River) meets the statutory and rule criteria for a certificate of need (CON) to operate an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, and therefore, whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) should approve CON application number 5726. This application is opposed by Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. (Lawnwood). As to case no. 89-1294--whether Lawnwood meets the statutory and rule criteria for a CON to operate an open heart surgery program and an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, and therefore, whether the Department should approve CON application number 5729. Indian River opposes the proposed approval of Lawnwood's inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in case no. 89-1295. St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's) opposes the proposed approval of the inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in case no. 89-1297.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Indian River is a private, not-for-profit hospital which is operated pursuant to a lease between itself and the Indian River Hospital District, a special tax district. Indian River is located in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, and has 347 licensed beds of which 293 are medical-surgery beds, with 18 intensive care and critical care beds. Ad valorem tax monies support indigent care for Indian River County residents. Lawnwood is a 335 bed acute care hospital located in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida. Lawnwood is owned and operated by Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). Lawnwood has an established outpatient catheterization laboratory located in a free-standing building on the hospital grounds. St. Mary's is an acute care hospital located in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. St. Mary's has an established inpatient catheterization laboratory program. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering those sections of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, which govern the review process under which applications for CONs are either granted or denied. Indian River, Lawnwood, and St. Mary's are located within the Department's District IX. The geographical boundaries for District IX encompass Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach Counties. With the exception of Martin Memorial Hospital (whose entitlement to inpatient cardiac cath is disputed by Lawnwood), all existing providers of inpatient catheterization services are located in Palm Beach County. The Applications On August 25, 1988, Indian River submitted a letter of intent to advise the Department of its plan to construct a cardiac catheterization laboratory within the hospital and to establish an inpatient cardiac cath program. The proposal set forth in that letter made reference to Indiarn River's patients who are generally routed to hospitals located in another district for cardiac cath services. The application submitted by Indian River on August 26, 1988, estimated that the capital expenditure of the project, $1,779,750, would provide for the construction of a second floor addition to the hospital which would accomodate the new laboratory. The application alleged that, in the majority of cases, residents of Indian River County in need of cardiac catheterization are sent out of district for such services. On October 13, 1988, the Department responded to Indian River's application by listing omissions from the proposal which the Department required in order to complete its review. This "omissions letter" specified that Indian River was to update its application utilizing the "new rule" for cardiac cath. The responses to the omissions were to be provided by November 14, 1988. Indian River timely responded to the omissions letter on November 9, 1988. The Department deemed Indian River's application to establish an inpatient cardiac cath laboratory complete effective November 14, 1988. On August 26, 1988, Lawnwood submitted a letter of intent to the Department to announce its intention to establish a cardiac cath and open heart surgery program. Lawnwood sought to be included in the application group for which the deadline was September 28, 1988. The timeline for this group required applications to be complete by November 14, 1988. Agency action on the applications submitted in the September, 1988 batch was scheduled for January 13, 1989. Lawnwood's application was received and reviewed by the Department. The omissions letter which outlined approximately six questions requiring further elaboration was issued on October 13, 1988. Lawnwood's omissions response was timely provided on November 14, 1988. The Department deemed Lawnwood's application for an inpatient cardiac cath laboratory and an open heart program complete effective November 14, 1988. Inpatient cardiac catheterization is not currently available in Indian River and St. Lucie Counties. As a result, potential patients residing in these counties are geographically isolated from the existing District IX providers of the same services. State Agency Action Report On January 20, 1989, the Department issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR) which recommended the approval of an inpatient cardiac cath program for Lawnwood. The portion of Lawnwood's application which sought a CON for an open heart program was denied. The SAAR evaluated the applicants based upon the following criteria: Section 381.705, Florida Statutes; Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code; and the 1988 District IX Health Plan (DHP). The Health Plans Pertinent to these proceedings are the following portions of the DHP: B. In planning for the specialized services of cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgical services, District IX, in its entirety, shall be the subdistrict. * * * Priority shall be given to area facilities for specialized services which can show a commitment to, or an historical record of, service to Medicaid/Indigent, Handicapped and Underserved population groups. * * * Priority shall be given to Certificate of Need applicants who propose to have both inpatient cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services in the same facility. However, should it become evident, at any time, that there is a need for one service and not for both services, then an applicant would not be expected to have to apply for both. The State Health Plan (SHP) sets a goal of ensuring the appropriate availability of cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services at a reasonable cost. In pursuit of that goal two objectives are specified: Objective 4.1.: To maintain an average of 600 cardiac catheterization procedures per laboratory in each district through 1990. * * * Objective 4.2.: To maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990. The "Old Rule" Need determination for cardiac catheterization capacity under the version of Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code, which was effective on April, 1988, provided for a calculation whereby the number of catheterization procedures for the projected year equaled the actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand population) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline (the batching group) multiplied by the projected population in the service area for the projected year. The projected year was the year in which the proposed cardiac cath laboratory would initiate service (not more than two years into the future). The "old rule" further provided that no additional cardiac cath laboratories would be established in a service area unless the average number of caths performed per year by the existing and approved laboratories were greated than 600. This volume level contemplated inpatient and outpatient procedures. Consequently, applications for proposed cardiac cath laboratories may not be approved if they would reduce the average volume of procedures performed below 600. The Department did not publish a fixed need pool for this batch of applicants under the "old rule." The Department's goal under the "old rule" provided that it will not normally approve applications for new cardiac catheterization laboratories unless additional need is indicated based upon the calculations explained above. The number of cardiac cath procedures performed in District IX during the relevant time period was 4765. The population during the use rate period was 1,151,929. The historic use rate is therefore 413.65 per 100,000 population. The projected population for the planning horizon is 1,259,178. The projected use for the period is 5208.6. That number divided by 600 yields a total need for the planning period of 8.68 cath laboratories for this District. Applying the Department's historical practice of rounding the number to the nearest whole number establishes a need for 9 cardiac cath laboratories. By subtracting the existing cath laboratories (Boca Raton, JFK, St. Mary's, Palm Beach Gardens, and Delray) results in a need for an additional 4 cardiac cath laboratories. Pursuant to the "old rule," both applicants in this case have established numeric need for their proposed program. The "New Rule" The need formula expressed in the "new rule" is as follows: NN=PCCPV - ACCPV - APP Where: NN is the annual net program volume need in the service planning area projected 2 years into the future for the respective planning horizon. Net need projections are calculated twice a year. The planning horizon for applications submitted between January 1 and June 30, shall be July of the year subsequent to the following calendar year. The planning horizon for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31, shall be January of the year 2 years subsequent to the following calendar year. PCCPV is the projected adult cardiac catheterization program volume which equals the actual adult cardiac catheterization program volume rate (ACCPV) per thousand adult population 15 years and over for the most recent 12 month period available to the department 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool, multiplied by the projected adult population 15 years of age and over 2 years into the future for the respective planning horizon. The population projections shall be based on the most recent population projections available from the Executive Office of the Governor which are available to the department 3 weeks prior to the fixed need pool publication. ACCPV equals the actual adult cardiac catheterization program volume for the most recent 12-month period for which data are available to the department 3 weeks prior to the publication of the fixed need pool. APP is the projected program volume for approved programs. The projected program volume for each approved program shall be 300 admissions. The Department did not publish a fixed need pool for this batch under the "new rule." The projected program volume contemplates 300 admissions which relate to inpatient procedures. In addition to the formula set forth above, the "new rule" provides that the actual outmigration from one service planning area to another shall be considered in the review of a CON application. In this case, the actual number of cardiac cath procedures for District IX is understated. The actual number utilized by the Department in the evaluation of these applicants failed to consider the outmigration of patients residing in Indian River County who travelled out of the district for services. The actual number of Indian River patients who travelled out of the District for cardiac catheterization during the period was understated by at least 500. Prior to the evaluation of these applicants, neither the Department nor the applicants had data to calculate the outmigration for cardiac cath services from District IX. That it was occurring was obvious--there were no inpatient facilities in the northern counties. Further, the established referral patterns suggest that patients in the northern counties preferred the outside facilities which were geographically closer than existing programs within District IX. However, no study quantifying the number of residents receiving services elsewhere had been performed. Regardless of the net need calculated under the "new rule" formula above, the rule further provides that no additional cardiac catheterization programs shall normally be granted unless ACCPV, divided by the number of operational programs for the service planning area, is at or exceeds a program volume of 300 patient admissions. Utilizing the most conservative ACCPV (4133) divided by the number of operational programs (5) would yield an average program volume well in excess of 300. In that instance, the average volume per program would be 827. That assessment assumes a translation of "admissions" to equal "procedures." In contrast, utilizing the 600 figure set forth in the SHP, yields a program need for 7 facilities. That figure confirms that two additional cardiac catheterization programs would be appropriate and adequately supported by District use. In reaching this conclusion, the cardiac catheterization program located at Martin Memorial Hospital has not been included in the number of existing programs. The program at Martin was reportedly approved in the settlement of a prior batch CON case. As such, it may not reduce the number of facilities calculated in this case under the pertinent rule. Based upon the "new rule," both of these applicants have established numeric need for their proposed program. The number of projected procedures (4565) divided by 600 further establishes a need for 7 programs. Open Heart Need Pursuant to the Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code, the need for open heart surgery programs is determined by computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area for a projected year. That number equals the actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand population) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent multiplied by the projected population in the service area for the year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service (not more than two years into the future). Based upon the open heart need formula there is no numeric need for additional open heart surgery programs in District IX. Further, the approval of an additional open heart program would reduce the average volume of existing open heart surgery facilities to below 350 open heart procedures annually. The Department will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in any district unless there is a finding of numeric need coupled with a finding that the additional program will not reduce the volume of existing providers below 350. Not Normal Circumstances Reviewed There are three open heart programs currently operating in District IX (Palm Beach Gardens, Delray, and JFK). All of these programs are located within Palm Beach County which is south of Lawnwood's service area. The closest of these programs (Palm Beach Gardens) is approximately 44.3 miles from Lawnwood. Another open heart program which is located outside of District IX, Holmes Regional Medical Center (located in Brevard County to the north), is approximately 49.8 miles from Lawnwood. Not normal circumstances warranting the approval of an open heart program require a showing of financial, programmatic or geographical conditions which establish that residents of the given service area are unable to access the service. In this case, District IX must be examined and considered as a whole. It is inappropriate to "subdistrict" for purposes of reviewing not normal circumstances. While a number of the residents of the northern counties do avail themselves of services outside of District IX, the basis for that outmigration may be the physicians' established referral patterns, patient preference, or the provider's reputation in the medical community for quality care. Open heart services are available and accessible to all residents of District IX. Consequently, no persuasive not normal circumstances have been established. Ouality of Care Indian River and Lawnwood are properly accredited and have established records of providing quality care in their existing programs and departments. Lawnwood's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory has operated without question to its quality of care. Since neither applicant currently provides open heart services, it is anticipated that both will operate their inpatient cardiac cath laboratories in accordance with a transfer agreement for emergency patients. Such agreement could provide for the relocation of patients to a hospital authorized to provide open heart surgery. By rule, the receiving hospital must be located within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle to the inpatient cath facility. In this case, Indian River intends to transfer emergency patients to Holmes Regional Medical Center, a hospital currently authorized to provide open heart surgery services. That hospital is within 30 minutes emergency travel time of Indian River. Lawnwood also proposes to transfer emergency patients to Holmes Regional Medical Center. In order to meet the 30 minute travel time criteria, transfer in this instance must be by helicopter. Lawnwood intends to meet this requirement by agreement with Holmes. Holmes has four pilots, two mechanics, one full-time helicopter, and one backup helicopter to provide this service. By helicopter, the travel time from Lawnwood to Holmes is within 30 minutes. Availability and Access With the addition of the programs at Indian River and Lawnwood, residents in the northern counties of District IX will have an increased access to inpatient cardiac cath. This geographic accessibility will lessen the outmigration for these services by providing more convenient, locally situated programs. It is anticipated that local programs will reduce patient anxiety incidental to the travel associated with attaining the services. Further, when considered in connection with the outpatient programs (existing at Lawnwood and planned for Indian River), a significant volume of cath procedures will be performed without requiring travel to adjacent counties/hospitals. Increased volume will improve the efficiency and skill of personnel administering the procedures. Since the service areas for Indian River and Lawnwood have not, historically, conflicted, it is anticipated that patients of each facility will access their respective hospital for the service required. Personnel Availability and Costs The staffing, training and costs of providing same proposed by Indian River and Lawnwood are reasonable and adequate to fully support inpatient cardiac cath laboratories. Both hospitals have established procedures to monitor and to provide for quality assurance in connection with the services to be performed. Additionally, both have ongoing educational training to enhance their programs. Both hospitals have a cardiologist or other appropriately credentialed physician on staff to anchor the cardiac cath team. Financial Feasibility There are sufficient procedures anticipated to be performed by these hospitals to assure a level of utilization which will provide for the financial feasibility of the inpatient cardiac cath programs. Indian River currently refers approximately 500 cardiac cath procedures to facilities outside District IX. Lawnwood has commenced an aggressive outpatient progrom. With the availability of extending that program (in Lawnwood's case) and recapturing its referrals (in Indian River's case), both of these hospitals should have no financial difficulty in establishing their inpatient programs. Effect on Competition and Costs There should be no appreciable impact on costs or competition in the health care community within District IX if these applications for cardiac cath are approved. While there will be a decline in the service utilization of other facilities outside the district when referrals cease, there is no data from which it must be concluded that such decrease will adversely affect the health care community as a whole. Further, the increased service availability within District IX should not affect competition or costs since historically these facilities do not compete for patients. Similarly, since the potential patients do not currently utilize existing and approved programs (for the most part) within District IX, the approval of these applications for inpatient cardiac cath will not adversely affect the ability of existing providers to attract and retain the personnel or patients for their programs. In the case of Lawnwood's proposal for open heart, such program would, however, detract from the existing providers. Since, on average, the existing providers are not operating at appropriate levels, the creation of an additional provider would significantly affect the existing programs' abilities to attract patients. Theoretically, the existing providers should have the first opportunity to secure outmigrating patients. This would assure that their programs develop and retain a volume to assure quality of care. Indigent Care As stated previously, Indian River is a tax-supported hospital which pledges tax revenues to provide health care for the indigent. It is anticipated that such practice will continue and that those residents of Indian River County who are unable to afford inpatient cardiac cath services will obtain indigent care according to Indian River's historical record. Lawnwood's historical record for providing indigent care (as supported by its outpatient cardiac cath data) is less than exemplary. It is anticipated that as a conditon upon the issuance of the CON, Lawnwood will be required to provide a minimum of 2 percent of the total annual visits to Medicaid patients and a minimum of 3 percent of total annual visits o medically indigent/charity care patients. Those amounts are an appropriate commitment to assist the medically needy within Lawnwood's service area. Miscellaneous Criteria The applicants did not propose the operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The applicants did not predicate need for their requested service on the need for research and educational facilities. The special needs and circumstances of health maintainance organizations was not at issue. The parties stipulated as to the reasonableness of the costs and methods for construction of the proposed facilities. Both hospitals intend to construct new laboratories. The costs associated with Indian River's proposed construction are less than those proposed by Lawnwood.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final oider approving the certificate of need applications filed by Indian River Memorial Hospital and Lawnwood Regional Medical Center to establish inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories. It is further recommended that Lawnwood's application to establish an open heart surgery program be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1990. Appendix to Case Nos. 89-1293 et seq. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY INDIAN RIVER: Paragraphs 1 through 16 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 17, it is accepted that Indian River physicians have established referral patterns outside of District IX for inpatient and outpatient cath procedures. To the extent that Indian River's application and response to the omissions letter made reference to this phenomenon, it is accepted that such activities were properly placed at issue in these proceedings. As to the calculations expressed in paragraph 17, no formal study was performed by any party to accurately quantify the number of procedures performed outside District IX on residents of Indian River and St. Lucie Counties. It is accepted that Dr. Celano and his partner performed outpatient procedures cn approximately 200 patients. It is further accepted that another 300 procedures were performed on Indian River residents at Holmes or Florida Hospital. Consequently, the utilization rate has been significantly understated. The total volume of which is unknown except as addressed herein, paragraph 17 is rejected as speculation or unsupported by the record in this cause. The first three sentences of paragraph 18 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as speculation. With regard to paragraph 19, it is accepted that referrals to other hospitals can cause patient anxiety due to waits or transfer difficulties. Otherwise rejected as comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unnecessary. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as speculation unsupported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Paragraph 26 is accepted. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is accepted. To the extent that the "new rule" requires consideration of inmigration and outmigration, paragraph 29 is accepted. That data became available subsequent to the finding that these applications were complete is irrelevant. Since no data quantifying outmigration/inmigration was available, the rule read as a whole must dictate whether the applicants have established numeric need. The applicants and the Department knew of the outmigration, consequently, reading the rule as a whole establishes that the existing providers are performing an ample number of procedures to guarantee their continued success and that an additional two programs are warranted. See response to paragraph 29 above regarding paragraph 30. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument--see response to paragraph 29 and findings reached in paragraphs related to "new rule." Paragraph 32 is rejected as argument, comment or unnecessary. Paragraphs 33 through 41 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 42 through 80, except as noted by findings of fact related to the applicants and the assessment of their proposals, such paragraphs are unnecessary (need for two programs has been established), argument, irrelevant (as to allegations regarding Lawnwood's open heart proposal), or contrary to the weight of competent evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY LAWNWOOD: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 8, it is accepted that currently Indian River does not have an outpatient cardiac cath program; however, regardless of the outcome of this proceeding, Indian River will establish an outpatient facility. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is unnecessary since it does not provide a fact related to the conclusions reached in this order. Except as accepted in the findings of fact related to the "old rule," paragraphs 12 through 15 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. In theory, Lawnwood's proposed findings correctly state how the "old rule" should be applied. The actual numbers differ slightly with the findings reached in the recommended order. Except as accepted in the findings of fact related to the "new rule," paragraphs 16 through 20 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. In theory, Lawnwood's proposed findings correctly state how the "new rule" should be applied. The actual numbers and conclusions differ slightly with the findings reached in the recommended order. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Except as accepted in the findings of fact related to open heart need, paragraphs 22 and 23 are rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 28 are accepted. Paragraph 29 is rejected as contrary to the weight of competent evidence, irrelevant (an out of district provider would not have standing to oppose the request), or argument. Paragraph 30 is accepted to the extent that it states Martin's inpatient cath program located in Martin County has improved accessibility; however, that program did not exist when these applications were filed and evaluated by the Department otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence related to open heart. Open heart facilities are available and accessible for District IX residents. Transfers to open heart facilities under emergency circumstances after cardiac cath procedures would be the exception and not the rule. Paragraphs 33 and 34 are rejected as irrelevant to the issue of open heart. While outmigration is to be considered in determining need for cardiac cath under the "new rule," such outmigration does not establish inaccessibility for open heart services. Paragraphs 35 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, contrary to the appropriate rule application, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 42 (deleting open heart) through 44 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 45, the program located at Martin has not been considered in the evaluation of these applicants since approval for that program occurred after this batch closed. Paragraph 46 is accepted. Paragraph 47 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 48 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 50 and 51 are rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 52 is accepted. Paragraph 53 is accepted. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 55 is accepted. Paragraph 56 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 57 through 61 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 62 is accepted. Paragraphs 63 through 80 are accepted. Paragraph 81 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 82 through 85 (related only to cardiac oath) are accepted. Related to the allegations foil open heart, such paragraphs are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 86 through 90 are accepted. Paragraphs 90 through 96 are accepted only as to representations of facility and staffing it is agreed Lawnwood will have. Otherwise, assumption that volume of surgical cases will exist is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 97 through 105 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 106, it is accepted that the term emergency vehicle includes helicopter; otherwise, rejected as a conclusion of law. Paragraph 107 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 108 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. The conclusion reached in paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 5 is accepted. The conclusion reached in paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as to the conclusion reached regarding the cardiac cath program as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to the conclusion reached regarding the open heart program, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraphs 10 through 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 15 through 16 are accepted. Paragraph 17 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 18 is rejected as argument, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant or multiple facts. Paragraphs 24 through 25 are accepted. Paragraph 26 is rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are accepted. Paragraph 29 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 30 is rejected as repetitive or argument. The second sentence of paragraph 31 is accepted; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 39 is accepted. With the substitution of the word "maintenance," paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted. Paragraphs 42 through 47, with the exception of the conclusion that only one cath program is needed (that conclusion is contrary to the weight of the evidence), are accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY ST. MARY'S: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 2 are accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as unsupported by the record. The first two sentences of paragraph 3 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 4 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument. It is accepted that Lawnwood does not have a significant history in connection with the outpatient cath facility. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 7 through 18 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence or recitation of testimony. The first sentence of paragraph 19 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 23 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 26 is accepted. The balance is rejected as argument or conclusion of law. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 29 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 30 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 33 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 34 is accepted. Paragraph 35 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 36 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraphs 38 and 39 are accepted. Paragraph 40 is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 John Radey Jeffrey L. Frehn Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas 101 North Monroe Street Suite 1000, Monroe Park Tower Post Office Box 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Watkins Patricia A. Renovitch Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Lesley Mendelson Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Ft. Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine?
Findings Of Fact At the times relevant to the inquiry Petitioner was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician within the state of Florida, having been issued license No. ME0045474, effective December 28, 1984. Respondent's last known address is 1401 Centerville Road, Suite 202, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. Respondent is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. The board certification is by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Respondent is a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Respondent received his undergraduate degree from Florida State University and his medical degree from Howard University. His training at Howard University included a four- year residency program from 1982 to 1986. Respondent holds staff privileges at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital (TMH) in Tallahassee, Florida. Patient A.G. Patient A.G. began treatment with Respondent in 1998 and continues as Respondent's patient. A.G. is an Hispanic female who is not proficient in English. When seen by Respondent in his office she has been accompanied by an interpreter that would allow Respondent to discuss details of her health care in English for translation into Spanish for the patient's benefit. Respondent's understanding of Spanish is limited to education in high school and a year at the university. He has the ability to describe some matters that are pertinent to gynecologic practice or obstetric practice and in particular as it relates to telling patients, for example "how to push and when not to push." The record does not reveal that Respondent has the ability to discuss A.G.'s overall health care in Spanish, her language. A.G.'s husband, T.Q., who accompanied her at relevant times principally spoke Spanish and not English. He is somewhat proficient in English. On June 16, 1999, A.G. had an office appointment with Respondent. At that time A.G. had undergone gallbladder surgery but her pelvic pain persisted. In consultation on that day it was decided that A.G. would undergo diagnostic laparoscopy to explore the reason for her chronic pelvic pain. Through the discussion the patient was told that biopsies of the pelvic anatomy might be performed during the procedure and that any problems that could be addressed through laparoscopy would be addressed as Respondent felt comfortable in carrying out that correction. Otherwise, Respondent said that he would "take pictures" and "get out of the case" with the decision to offer further treatment left for another time. Patient A.G. had been referred to Respondent for her persistent pelvic pain following an examination on April 27, 1999, that had been made by Margaret Cantor, a Nurse/Mid-Wife and Registered Nurse. She conducted a pelvic examination of the patient that date. The examination included the use of speculum to examine the cervix and vagina in the interest of looking for abnormalities, lesions, growths, and discolorations. No cervical lesions were found in this examination. A pap smear taken at the time revealed normal results with some inflammation. Diagnostic laparoscopy is a surgical procedure involving an incision in the abdominal wall through which a scope is inserted to visualize the abdominal cavity. Typically the workup for performing a diagnostic laparoscopy would include use of ultrasound, pelvic examination, and a pap smear. Possible complications in this procedure include vascular injury, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection, and bleeding. Preliminary to the diagnostic laparoscopy it is the custom and practice in the medical community to perform a vaginal examination with the use of a speculum. On July 1, 1999, patient A.G. was seen by the Respondent in his office for her pre-operative check. On this occasion A.G. was unaccompanied by a translator. Nonetheless, Respondent was able to perform a brief physical and obtain a history with the assistance of A.G.'s husband. Respondent listened to the patient's heart and lungs and performed a bi- manual examination in which one or two fingers were inserted in the vagina and with a hand on the abdomen compression was performed on the pelvic viscera, uterus, tubes, and ovaries and the lower section of the pelvis. Nothing significant was observed in the patient since last seen. On July 1, 1999, an employee in Respondent's office witnessed patient A.G. sign a consent form allowing the diagnostic laparoscopy. The consent form makes no reference to the agreement for Respondent to perform a loop electrocautery excision procedure, referred to by abbreviations as a "LEEP" conization biopsy procedure or a LEEP cone. No evidence of such consent is contained in patient A.G.'s medical records maintained at Respondent's office. The diagnostic laparoscopy was to be performed at TMH. On July 1, 1999, Patricia Charbonneau, a clinical nurse at the hospital, reviewed a consent form with patient A.G. concerning the diagnostic laparoscopy for the purposes of that facility. Nurse Charbonneau was aware of the scheduling of the diagnostic laparoscopy by reference to the history and physical prepared by the Respondent. This conference involved the discussion of potential risks and complications of the laparoscopy. No discussion was conducted concerning possible risks and complications of a LEEP conization biopsy. The consent form from TMH pertaining to patient A.G. and the diagnostic laparoscopy stated "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure, I request and authorize my physician to proceed." Nurse Charbonneau was left with the impression that the patient understood the explanation concerning the upcoming procedure and gave her consent. Ms. Charbonneau was assisted in this communication by A.G.'s husband. No discussion was held concerning the performance of a LEEP cone biopsy, in that the permit from Respondent made no mention of that procedure. Ms. Charbonneau took steps for an interpreter to be available the next morning when the surgery was to be performed given the nature of the surgery, the use of anesthesia and the desire to have "everything" reviewed again. A LEEP conization is a form of biopsy performed either in an office or hospital setting with anesthesia. The cervix is examined with the assistance of a speculum. Lugol solution is placed on the cervix to identify any abnormal cells and an excesion is made by shaving a small piece of the cervix for examination. The workup for LEEP conization includes a pap smear and a colposcopy. The performance of LEEP conization presents potential risks and complications related to infection, endometrious, bleeding, cervical stenosis, and cervical incompetence. On July 2, 1999, patient A.G. came to the TMH outpatient surgery center for her scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy to be performed by Respondent. She was the fourth patient on a schedule of surgeries to be performed by Respondent on that date. Respondent was conversant with the sequence of surgeries to be performed. Patient A.G. was placed in a holding area in the outpatient surgery center to prepare her for her surgery and to await transport to the operating room. Sometime before moving the patient to the operating room Respondent saw the patient in the holding area. Respondent addressed patient A.G. by saying hello and asking her how she was doing. This was not a visit intended to educate the patient and was not involved with any other medical purpose. At the time the patient's husband was with her during this brief encounter which was intended to confirm that the patient was there for the surgery as had been previously arranged. Several hours may have passed between the time Respondent saw patient A.G. in the holding area and when he next encountered the patient in the operating room. Respondent also saw patient N.C. in an adjacent cubicle to where patient A.G. was located while the patients were awaiting their surgery. Patient N.C. was the third patient on the schedule, there for the performance of a LEEP conization biopsy. Respondent followed his surgical schedule for the first two patients in the intended sequence. Some delay was occasioned by a problem experienced in the surgery performed on the second patient. Valerie Anne Lazzell, M.D., is an anesthesiologist licensed to practice in Florida. She is employed by Anesthesiology Associates of Tallahassee, Florida. It was intended that she provide anesthesia during Respondent's performance of the diagnostic laparoscopy for patient A.G. It was anticipated that the patient be subjected to general anesthesia which involves a rapid loss of consciousness and blocks the sensory, mental and motor functions of the patient. A general anesthesia can be provided by using an endotracheal tube, with a mask or with an LMA. This is as distinguished from the use of a neurolept employed in most instances when performing LEEP conization biopsies. In that setting the patient is generally anesic, not really aware, and has analgesia "on board." The use of a neurolept promotes a pain-free state of immobility and an insensitivity to pain and is usually accomplished by use of IV medications. From the record, it appears that Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., with Anesthesiology Associates was scheduled to provide anesthesia by neurolept for the third patient N.C. who was scheduled for LEEP conization biopsy. Patient A.G. at the time in question was 4'9" tall and weighed 103 pounds. Patient N.C., an African-American woman was 5'2" tall and weighed 242 pounds. Their skin tone was similar in color. Dr. Lazzell saw patient A.G. before the patient was taken for surgery. In this examination the doctor filled out the patient's airway, listened to her heart and lungs, and considered the patient's ASA classification which was one of good health. Dr. Lazzell considered the plan for anesthesia with an endotracheal tube. She gained the assistance of a Dr. Becker who was fluent in Spanish in explaining the use of anesthesia to the patient. Dr. Lazzell sought Dr. Becker's assistance when the hospital did not make an interpreter available. Dr. Lazzell discussed the possible risks and complications of use of this form of anesthesia and a consent form was signed and dated. While this assessment was being made A.G.'s husband was in attendance. It was Dr. Lazzell's expectation that the patient A.G. would next be seen as scheduled when the nurse anesthetist called Dr. Lazzell to the operating room to intubate patient A.G. in association with the provision of anesthesia for the diagnostic laparoscopy. Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., when performing her duties in the operating room setting at TMH outpatient surgery center was expected to induce anesthesia, maintain the anesthesia, monitor vital signs, treat untoward events during surgery and maintain fluids in the patient while under the supervision of the physician, in this instance, Dr. Lazzell. Nurse Mauch was principally responsible for providing the anesthesia for the third procedure on patient N.C., the LEEP conization biopsy. This included preparation in the operating room of medications and other related tools and supplies. The third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy for N.C., was referred to on a typed surgical schedule in the preoperative desk in the outpatient surgery center. Having checked the schedule Nurse Mauch obtained the chart for N.C. and went to the cubical, not of N.C. but A.G. When Nurse Mauch arrived at A.G.'s cubical, Jamie Martin, R.N., the pre-op nurse and Dale Dunsmore, R.N., the circulating nurse, were there. Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch arrived at the cubicle where patient A.G. was located at about the same time. When arriving at the cubicle for patient A.G., Nurse Mauch had in mind that the process was one in which she was getting ready for the surgery to be performed on patient N.C. While in the cubical Nurse Mauch introduced herself to the person she believed to be the patient N.C., at which time Nurse Dunsmore said that the patient only speaks Spanish. Nurse Mauch recalls that a translator was not available for assisting in any communication with patient A.G. Realizing that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband for identification, the reference to the fact that the patient only spoke Spanish did not cause Nurse Mauch any concern. Nurse Mauch never heard Nurse Dunsmore orally refer to patient A.G. by name. Nurse Mauch continued with her presentation by commenting that she was the nurse anesthetist who was going to put the patient to sleep. Patient A.G. nodded her head in response to Nurse Mauch's physical gesture that the patient was going to be put to sleep. Beyond that point Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore took patient A.G. to the operating room ostensibly as the third patient on the schedule for provision of a LEEP conization biopsy wherein Nurse Mauch would provide the necessary anesthesia. The chart for N.C. was brought to the operating room. Before the patient was removed from the cubicle Nurse Martin provided pre-op medication to patient A.G., phenergan robinul. The fact that Nurse Martin was giving preoperative medication and that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband on what turned out to be patient A.G. led Nurse Mauch to believe that patient A.G. was patient N.C. the third scheduled patient, according to Nurse Mauch. As Nurse Mauch recalls, when the Respondent entered the operating room where the third scheduled procedure was to be performed he checked the chart for patient N.C. Respondent went out and washed his hands, returned and started the procedure. At the end of the procedure Nurse Mauch recalls Respondent commenting that the next patient speaks only Spanish, to which Nurse Mauch said, "No, this patient," meaning the patient who had been subjected to the procedure is the one who speaks Spanish. Respondent replied "I must be mixed up." Nurse Mauch recalls Dr. Lazzell arriving at the door of the operating room with patient A.G.'s chart. Dr. Lazzell looked surprised to find the circumstances. Nurse Mauch told Dr. Lazzell that this is the neurolept, the case involving the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Lazzell commented that "No it isn't." Nurse Mauch heard Dr. Lazzell ask Respondent, "What procedure did you do?" Respondent replied "LEEP conization." Dr. Lazzell said "No, this was supposed to be the diagnostic laparoscopy." Nurse Mauch observed Respondent leave the room and return. Patient A.G. was re-preped and the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be provided was performed with the patient being intubated by the use of an endotracheal tube. Nurse Martin in her capacity as pre-op nurse was responsible for receiving patients and getting the patients ready for administering medications that were prescribed and getting IVs and things started on the patients prior to the patients being sent to the operating room. She recalls performing pre- operative duties on the patient A.G. Nurse Martin was familiar with the schedule of patients, the sequence. She understood that patient A.G. was the fourth patient in the schedule and provided the pre-anesthetic to patient A.G. in preparation for the operation. This involved the use of phenergan. Nurse Martin made no mistake in identifying patient A.G. when providing care. Nurse Martin heard Nurse Dunsmore identify patient A.G. in Nurse Martin's presence and agreed with that identification. Nurse Martin had seen the patient A.G. before the occasion at which Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore were there with the patient in Nurse Martin's presence and the patient A.G. was taken to the operating room. Nurse Martin had reviewed patient A.G.'s chart earlier in caring forward responsibilities for preparing the patient for the operation. Nurse Dunsmore identified her duties as circulating nurse at TMH outpatient surgery center as being related to setting up rooms for surgeries, transporting patients from pre-op holding areas, identifying patients, verifying surgeries, verifying allergies, and so forth. Ordinarily Nurse Dunsmore in performing her duties would read the chart of the patient scheduled for a procedure to make certain that all permits were signed. She would then go to where the patient was being held, introduce herself to the patient and ask for identification, verifying the surgery that is scheduled for the patient, and perform other related assignments. In performing her duties Nurse Dunsmore would accompany the patient with the anesthesiologist to the operating room. The method of identification in effect at the time in question would be to compare an addressograph card which accompanied the patient's chart with the information on an identification bracelet worn by the patient. Nurse Dunsmore verified that the operating room for the third procedure was set up for a LEEP conization biopsy. After the second procedure on the schedule, Nurse Dunsmore recalls that she went to patient A.G.'s room. However Nurse Dunsmore had handed Nurse Mauch patient N.C.'s chart. Nurse Mauch carried the chart to patient A.G.'s cubicle. The two nurses essentially entered the cubicle together. Nurse Martin and patient A.G.'s husband were already there. Nurse Martin left the cubicle shortly thereafter. Nurse Dunsmore introduced herself to the patient and reached for the patient's identification bracelet and read it out loud. The patient smiled and nodded in response. In turn the patient's husband smiled and nodded in response. Patient A.G. was then taken to the operating room by Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch. The patient was sedated by Nurse Mauch and positioned for provision of the LEEP conization biopsy. Nurse Dunsmore observed the Respondent enter the operating room and look at the chart which was in relation to patient N.C., not patient A.G. Nurse Dunsmore saw Respondent leave the operating room to scrub. Nurse Dunsmore was in attendance when the procedure was performed. Nurse Dunsmore recalls Dr. Lazzell entering the operating room at the end of the procedure with the chart belonging to patient A.G. and the realization by those in attendance that the chart in the operating room was for N.C., whom they understood to be undergoing the procedure when in fact the patient undergoing the procedure was A.G. Diane Jordan was a surgical technician assigned to assist in the third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy. She recalls the patient being put to sleep by Nurse Mauch and the patient being prepared for the procedure. The patient was covered by draping towels across the upper portion of the thighs. A blanket was placed over the patient's torso. The patient was placed in the lithotomy position allowing observation of the patient's buttocks, vulva, vagina and external pelvic organs. The patient had a mask on her face and a surgical hat to cover her hair. All of these arrangements had been made before Respondent entered the operating room. Ms. Jordan recalls that the chart in the room was for N.C., the patient anticipated to undergo the LEEP conization biopsy. Ms. Jordan did not realize that the patient in reality was patient A.G. Ms. Jordan recalls that the Respondent when entering the room asked is this "such and such" in relation to a LEEP conization biopsy and that Nurse Dunsmore replied in the affirmative. Ms. Jordan remembers Respondent looking at the chart for N.C. and signing it. Ms. Jordan was in attendance while the procedure was performed. Ms. Jordan heard Respondent mention something about a lesion before he started. Ms. Jordan provided medication to be injected during the LEEP conization. Ms. Jordan identified the fact that a specimen was obtained which was given to her and provided to the nurse to send to pathology for evaluation. When Respondent entered the room for what he anticipated to be the third procedure what he asked specifically was "Is this Ms. C our case for the LEEP?" referring to the LEEP conization to be performed on patient N.C. That is when Nurse Dunsmore responded in the affirmative. After inquiring about the identification of the patient in association with the nature of the procedure Respondent expected to perform and in receiving an affirmative response, Respondent took no further steps to personally confirm the identity of the patient. Respondent opened the chart that was patient N.C.'s chart. Respondent took a drawing from his pocket that a Dr. Thompson had made of patient N.C.'s cervix when he had treated the patient. The drawing was in association with a colposcopy. Respondent intended to compare that drawing with what was observed in the patient during the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy in locating the suspected pathology. In proceeding with what he considered to be the third scheduled procedure for N.C., Respondent placed the speculum, applied the tenaculum and observed what looked to be a lesion that roughly approximated what he anticipated it would be based upon the drawing from Dr. Thompson. Respondent applied Lugol's solution and proceeded with the LEEP conization biopsy. Having applied the solution there was an indication of some pathology in roughly the position as the drawing had depicted. Respondent obtained the sample from the cervix. The size of the specimen was less than the diameter of a dime with a depth or thickness of about two dimes. The performance of the LEEP conization biopsy took less than five minutes. As Respondent finished Dr. Lazzell came to the operating room and informed Respondent that this was not the patient the he thought he was treating. Having been told by Dr. Lazzell that there was a misidentification, Respondent for the first time while engaged with the patient in the operating room proceeded to the front of the table and looked at the patient while the patient was being unmasked. By doing so Respondent discovered that indeed the patient had been misidentified and that he had actually performed surgery on patient A.G., not patient N.C. Respondent left the operating room and informed patient A.G.'s husband of the problem. Respondent returned to the operating room. The patient was provided anesthesia by Dr. Lazzell and the diagnostic laparoscopy that was scheduled was performed. Notwithstanding that it was never intended that Respondent perform a biopsy on patient A.G. from the cervix, Respondent expresses the opinion that if the physician encounters a visible lesion some form of biopsy is in order. Respondent expresses the opinion that in performing procedures such as a diagnostic laparoscopy greater latitude is afforded in terms of what the physician can do when he or she discovers "What's amiss with the patient." This in Respondent's view is because the patient is going into the procedure with the understanding that there may be an unanticipated problem and if the unexpected problem can be addressed, it should be taken care of. Of course this assumes that the biopsy that was performed on patient A.G. was in association with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy, when in fact the biopsy was the product of happenstance, in that, Respondent when addressing what he considered to be the condition in the patient N.C., by chance observed a similar condition in the patient A.G. Respondent concedes that prior to patient A.G.'s arrival at the outpatient surgical center that LEEP conization was not an indicated procedure for that patient. The biopsy that was performed was with the misapprehension as to the patient whose needs were being addressed, not merely an unanticipated circumstance in a patient whose identity was established when Respondent performed the biopsy. This was not an additional surgical procedure that came about in connection with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy; it was perceived by Respondent as the intended surgery being performed on a different patient when the case began. As a consequence it is the planned- for diagnostic laparoscopy which became the additional procedure. Nonetheless, Respondent tries to explain his result by expressing the opinion that other unexpected and unplanned-for procedures may be undertaken in the instance "Within the realm of the comfort level of the physician and the patient ahead of time; where they know each other, other things can be done as well." Respondent believes that the ability to proceed with the biopsy on patient A.G. while thinking that he was responding to the case involving patient N.C. is implicit and is promoted by "A feeling of trust that we had developed at the point in time." This refers to the point in time at which the other surgery, the diagnostic laparoscopy was being discussed with the patient A.G. The type of pathology that was encountered by Respondent with patient A.G. that led to the biopsy was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. That is what Respondent observed and collected for evaluation. The laboratory confirmation of the specimen was performed by Dr. Woodard Burgert, a board-certified anatomic and clinical pathologist. In his assessment Dr. Burgert observed that the cone biopsy in question was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. There was no significant dysplasia. Expert Opinions Dr. Edward Zelnick is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who practices in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Hollywood Medical Center and Memorial Regional Hospital. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. In the instance where pathology is found in examining the cervix, Dr. Zelnick believes that action should be taken in addressing that pathology, but only in the instance where the pathology has been discussed with the patient and the appropriate alternative treatment has been discussed. Absent an emergency it is necessary to provide the patient the alternative to surgery and identify the risk of surgery. Absent life-threatening circumstances, a biopsy such as that performed on patient A.G. should not be performed without the patient's consent, which had not been given. Dr. Zelnick further describes the instance in which a biopsy in a case such as this would be in order, would be in relation to an instance in which it appeared that the circumstance was an immediate threat to the health of the patient that needed to be addressed. None of the exigent circumstances existed in this case. Therefore, Dr. Zelnick expresses the opinion that the performance of the biopsy by Respondent did not meet the expected standard of care. Based upon his familiarity with the form of consent in this case which states, "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure I request and authorize my physician to proceed," Dr. Zelnick believes that the physician's responsibility there is to respond during the course of the surgery, if medically necessary, to such matters as repairing of a blood vessel that has been cut or damage to an internal organ or bowel. None of those circumstances were associated with the biopsy performed on the patient A.G.. While Dr. Zelnick delegates patient identification to surgical staff or nursing staff, he believes that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification to make certain that the right operation is performed on the proper patient resides with the surgeon. To do less is to practice below the standard of care universally accepted and a matter of common sense. According to Dr. Zelnick, Respondent did not meet that standard when performing the biopsy on patient A.G. who was misidentified. Whatever rules and procedures may be in place setting standards for identification in a hospital, Dr. Zelnick does not believe those standards abrogate the duty of the physician to properly identify the patient. What is expected of a physician is 100 percent certainty as to who the proper patient is and to assure that the proper procedure is carried out on the proper patient. The method of arriving at that determination is not significant, in Dr. Zelnick's view. Dr. Roberto Fojo is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist licensed to practice medicine in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Jackson Memorial and North Shore Medical Center in South Florida, and he is affiliated with the University of Miami, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecology. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He does not view a diagnostic laparoscopy as being intended to discover and diagnose cervical lesions, where, as here, the lesion is on the surface of the cervix and vagina. A diagnostic laparoscopy is not intended to promote an examination of the cervix, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo is familiar with the consent form executed by patient A.G., the language previously described. He has seen that language before or something similar to it and considers it part of the standard surgical consent in connection with a diagnostic laparoscopy that was intended in this case. The consent is designed to allow the surgeon to address matters such as puncture of the bowel or a problem with a major artery or veins or scar tissue or adhesions. This consent would not include addressing lesions on the cervix. A LEEP conization procedure is not an accepted procedure to perform in the patient undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy unless the LEEP conization had already been discussed and there was a problem with the cervix that the patient knew about. There, in Dr. Fojo's perception, the patient would be undergoing what he refers to as dual procedure. Dr. Fojo does not believe that surgery should be performed on a patient absent the patient's consent as being part of the original procedure or in an emergency. The LEEP conization biopsy by Respondent was not related to the consent that had been provided nor pertaining to an emergency. In this sense, Dr. Fojo expresses the opinion that Respondent failed to meet the standard for medical practice when performing the LEEP conization biopsy on Patient A.G. Dr. Fojo believes that a surgeon should ascertain without any doubt that the patient in the room is a patient that he or she should be performing surgery on, the appropriate surgical procedure. This need for identification is an independent responsibility of the physician and may not be delegated. It requires 100 percent accuracy, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo holds to the opinion that the physician is responsible for the identification regardless of his or her efforts that may have been compromised by others in attempting to properly identify the patient and perform the indicated procedure. He believes this to be common medical practice. Respondent was not within the standard of care in performing the LEEP conization procedure on patient A.G. under Dr. Fojo's assessment. Dr. Michelle McCallanahan is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida and practices in Jacksonville, Florida. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. The consent form executed by patient A.G. is not unfamiliar to Dr. McCallanahan. Her perception of this consent language is that it relates to complications that occur during the course of the diagnostic laparoscopy that were not foreseen and constitute an emergency requiring an immediate procedure to correct the condition. Examples are vascular injuries to vessels, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection and bleeding. By contrast, lesions on the cervix do not constitute an example of an unforeseen circumstance. Dr. McCallanahan expresses the opinion that an appropriate workup for LEEP conization was not done for the patient A.G. Nonetheless, there are some circumstances in which it would not be violative of the standard of care to perform LEEP conization without conducting a workup. That circumstance would be in the instance where the lesion that was observed was highly suggestive of cervical cancer, according to Dr. McCallanahan. The case that Respondent was presented with did not constitute such a condition. Ordinarily, the standard of care contemplates the discussion of possible risks or complications associated with LEEP conization procedures before performing them. According to Dr. McCallanahan it would be appropriate to perform a surgical procedure without discussion of the risks and possible complications in an emergency when the patient was unconscious and could not give consent in advance. Those are not the facts here. While Dr. McCallanahan relies upon the assistance of other persons within the surgical and nursing staff, she expresses the opinion that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification prior to the performance of surgery resides with the physician. She believes that it is below the standard of care to not correctly identify the patient before the procedure is done and perform an improper procedure or non- consenting procedure on that patient, as was the case here. Dr. Jana Bures-Forstheoefel is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida. She practices in Tallahassee, Florida, and has privileges at TMH and performs surgeries in the outpatient surgery center. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. She believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying patient A.G. before performing surgery on the patient. The method used by Respondent to identify the patient was common to the practice of other physicians who performed surgeries in that setting, according to Dr. Forstheoefel. In the event that Dr. Forstheoefel was performing a diagnostic laparoscopy and observed a cervical lesion she would evaluate the condition to include the performance of a biopsy, the most common method for cervical biopsy being a LEEP conization. Notwithstanding the lack of specific consent by the patient for Respondent to perform the LEEP conization, Dr. Forstheoefel holds to the opinion that it was correct to biopsy, given what was observed in the patient. The prospect that a physician would be 100 percent accurate in identifying a patient undergoing surgery is not humanly possible and is a standard that should not be imposed upon a physician in Dr. Forstheoefel's opinion. She considers that the matter of proper identification preoperatively is a team effort. One person should not be solely responsible for all things in making certain of the patient's safety and assuring that the right thing is done. Dr. Kenneth John McAlpine is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He believes that Respondent met the standard of care in identifying the patient A.G. before performing the surgery and in performing the LEEP conization on that patient. Although Dr. McAlpine has not experienced a situation in which he observed a reason to do a LEEP conization in a diagnostic laparoscopy case, where consent for LEEP conization had not been given ahead of time, he does not question the decision to address the condition observed, such as in the case at issue. From his point of view, it was acceptable to do a LEEP conization biopsy to address the lesion. Although no prior indication existed before the lesion was observed during the procedure Dr. McAlpine would not want to ignore the lesion. Dr. McAlpine believes that the process that Respondent undertook in identifying the patient A.G. before surgery was consistent with practices in effect at the hospital, this included reliance on staff in the operating room. Dr. McAlpine does not believe that it is necessary for a physician to be 100 percent accurate in the identification as a person ultimately in charge. No matter as to the facts, he sees the issue of the identification being a multi-disciplinary approach among health care providers. Dr. David O'Bryan practices obstetrics and gynecology. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. The method employed by Respondent in identifying the patient was consistent with the practice used in the immediate medical community at the time, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the Respondent performed the appropriate surgery on Patient A.G. For Dr. O'Bryan, what is more important in addressing the patient's needs is the apparent pathology, not the consent that may have been provided by the patient in advance of the procedure. It would be negligent not to address the lesion on the cervix in his view. The pathology present determines the response even without a consent for the procedure. Dr. O'Bryan did not consider that the pathology constituted an issue of life or death. The fact that the LEEP conization biopsy was not planned was less significant than the need to address the pathology. It does not matter if the patient were A.G. or N.C. or some other patient, Dr. O'Bryan believes that it was appropriate to perform the biopsy. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the surgeon bears a great deal of responsibility in patient identification, but the ultimate responsibility for identification does not reside with the physician or any other operating room staff member in Dr. O'Bryan's assessment. Dr. O'Bryan does not conceive that there can be any greater comfort in the identification than in the instance where the "operating room crew" tells the physician who it is and the physician has a chart in his hands which indicates that it is the same patient as the operating staff has identified and the pathology that was found is consistent with what had been anticipated according to the patient chart and the staff identification. Nothing in medicine involves the imposition of a 100 percent standard of care to include properly identifying the patient preoperatively, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. Roberto Morales is a board-certified obstetrician in gynecology licensed to practice in Florida. At times relevant, he performed surgery at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in Patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. Dr. Morales believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying the patient A.G. in that hospital and in other places as well. Dr. Morales believes that the patient was correctly identified by Respondent earlier in the day and that the incorrect patient was brought back to the operating room. Under those circumstances, Respondent did what was appropriate to identify the patient in the performance of the LEEP conization on patient A.G. and was within the standard of care, according to Dr. Morales. Assuming the patient was scheduled for a diagnostic laparoscopy, if during the examination, visualization of the cervix, a lesion was observed, a biopsy would be the typical next step, according to Dr. Morales. The caveat to his opinion in the ability to perform that biopsy would depend upon the patient that was being taken care of and the sense that the physician had about the patient's expectations of what should be done and not done. It is assumed that Dr. Morales believed that the level of relationship between Respondent and Patient A.G. would allow the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Morales believes that the attempt to be 100 percent accurate in the identification of patients preoperatively is an aspirational goal, not a requirement. For him all persons concerned have the responsibility for taking care of the patient. Having considered the opinions expressed by the experts, the ultimate facts to be determined must be based upon the realization that Respondent proceeded to perform the LEEP conization biopsy on patient A.G. without advance written consent, that Respondent believed that he was confronting the case of patient N.C., and that the performance of the LEEP conization on Patient A.G. was not in its timing and justification part of the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be performed on Patient A.G. The earlier effort by Respondent to identify his patient in the holding area was sufficient for that stage of the process. Respondent acted in the customary manner in relying upon his knowledge that Patient N.C. was to be the third patient based upon the schedule. It was not unexpected that Respondent would rely upon the surgical staff in orally confirming the patient identity and the procedure to be performed when entering the operating room for the scheduled third procedure. This identification was further confirmed by the presence of the chart for Patient N.C. Respondent's failure to take further steps to physically identify the patient by looking at her arm bracelet, by looking at her face, or in some other manner recognizing the mistake that had been made by others in readying Patient A.G., and not Patient N.C. for surgery could be forgiven if there were no consequences, but there were. Although Respondent should not be the absolute guarantor in the identification of the patient, what he did in the operating room was not enough, when the result is that Respondent performed the LEEP conization that was not consented to in advance, and performed believing that the patient was N.C., the patient for whom the procedure was intended, and was not in response to an emergency regardless of patient identity. As a result, Respondent failed to meet the standard of care for reasonably prudent similar physicians under acceptable similar conditions and circumstances in his actions. In mitigation, the outcome was not harmful to the patient. Moreover, other health care professionals were in great measure responsible for the failure to properly identify the patient.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine and costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 8th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Kim Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 David W. Moye, Esquire Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue At issue here is whether Memorial should be authorized to operate the cardiac catheterization service it has already initiated. The parties have stipulated that criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c)(5), (7), (9), (10) and (13), Florida Statutes (1983), are not in contention and that Section 381.494(6)(d)(5), Florida Statutes (1983), does not apply. Still in dispute is whether Memorial's application conforms to the criteria set out in Section 384.494(6)(c)(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (8), (11), (12) and (6)(d)(1), (2), (3) and (4), Florida Statutes (1983), and Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code. Among the parties' posthearing submissions are proposed findings of fact. By order entered February 3, 1984, Fort Myers Community Hospital's motion to strike DHRS' proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and final order was denied. Proposed fact findings have been considered in preparation of the following findings of fact, and have been adopted, in substance, except where not supported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Findings Of Fact Community and Memorial are in Fort Myers, Florida, about three miles apart. Since 1974, Community has offered cardiac catheterization services. Memorial instituted these proceedings in hopes of obtaining authority to establish a second cardiac catheterization service in Fort Myers. Memorial already had an arteriographic radiology room and had only to spend approximately $232,835 in order to acquire a polydiagnostic-parallelogram, a cine pulse M-400 single plane system, a 35 millimeter camera, a "CMB-A Combilabor 2 Cine" film processor and a film projector. With this new equipment, Memorial has gained cardiac catheterization capability, but it is still unequipped for open heart surgery. Memorial instituted cardiac catheterization service in July of 1983. Under an agreement between the hospitals, Memorial's Exhibit No. 5, cardiac patients at Memorial needing open heart surgery can be transferred to Community, once the need is apparent. DISTRICTS In 1981, and as late as the time of the hearing, Lee, Collier, Hendry, Glades, Charlotte, Sarasota, DeSoto, Highlands, Hardee and Polk Counties comprised District 8. As of October 1, 1983, however, the district shrank to seven counties, with the shift of Highlands, Hardee and Polk Counties to District No. 6. In 1981, there were three cardiac catheterization laboratories in what was then District 8: one each at Community, Lakeland Regional Medical Center and Sarasota's Memorial Hospital. Lakeland Regional in Polk County is now in District 6. Population projections for the ten counties originally in District 8 are as follows, for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985: 1981 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 62088.0 66.146 41086.6 33.854 21019.4 12.258 COLLIER 91456.8 80.428 73557.1 19.572 17899.7 18.464 DESOTO 19531.2 83.715 16350.5 16.285 3180.7 21.719 GLADES 6153.6 84.737 5214.4 15.263 939.2 22.697 HARDEE 19663.2 88.488 17399.6 11.512 2263.6 27.396 HENDRY 19339.2 91.255 17647.9 8.745 1691.3 28.362 HIGHLANDS 49460.8 73.075 36143.6 26.925 13317.2 17.605 LEE 215752.8 77.297 166770.2 22.703 48982.6 17.485 POLK 329801.6 85.519 282043.7 14.481 47757.9 21.750 SARASOTA 209440.8 69.897 146392.8 30.103 63048.0 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1022688.0 78.470 802588.5 802508.3 21.530 220099.5 220179.7 18.389 PROJECTION 1982 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 65716.0 66.255 43540.2 33.745 22175.8 12.258 COLLIER 96942.6 79.921 77477.6 20.079 19465.0 18.464 DESOTO 20023.4 83.655 16750.5 16.345 3272.9 21.719 GLADES 6315.2 84.177 5316.0 15.823 999.2 22.697 HARDEE 19947.4 88.350 17623.5 11.650 2323.9 27.396 HENDRY 20079.4 91.112 18294.8 8.888 1784.6 28.362 HIGHLANDS 51395.6 72.509 37266.4 27.491 14129.2 17.605 LEE 226239.6 76.941 174070.8 23.059 52168.8 17.485 POLK 337951.2 85.350 288440.7 14.650 49510.5 21.750 SARASOTA 216630.6 69.761 151124.0 30.239 65506.6 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1061241.0 78.184 829904.3 829719.6 21.816 231336.7 231521.4 18.389 PROJECTION 1983 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 69344.0 66.364 46019.7 33.636 23324.3 12.258 COLLIER 102428.4 79.414 81342.5 20.586 21085.9 18.464 DESOTO 20515.6 83.594 17149.8 16.406 3365.8 21.719 GLADES 6476.8 83.617 5415.7 16.383 1061.1 22.697 HARDEE 20231.6 88.211 17846.5 11.789 2385.1 27.396 HENDRY 20819.6 90.969 18939.5 9.031 1880.1 28.362 HIGHLANDS 53330.4 71.942 38367.1 28.058 14963.3 17.605 LEE 236726.4 76.585 181296.7 23.415 55429.7 17.485 POLK 346100.8 85.180 294810.1 14.820 52190.7 21.750 SARASOTA 223820.4 69.625 155835.7 30.375 67984.7 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1099794.0 77.897 857023.3 856710.0 22.103 242770.7 243084.0 18.389 1984 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 72972.0 66.474 48507.1 33.526 24464.9 12.258 COLLIER 107914.2 78.907 85151.7 21.093 22762.5 18.464 DESOTO 21007.8 83.534 17548.6 16.466 3459.2 21.719 GLADES 6638.4 83.057 5513.7 16.945 1124.7 22.697 HARDEE 20515.8 88.073 18068.8 11.927 2447.0 27.396 HENDRY 21559.8 90.827 19582.1 9.173 1977.7 28.362 HIGHLANDS 55265.2 71.376 39446.0 28.624 15819.2 17.605 LEE 247213.2 76.229 188447.9 23.721 58765.3 17.485 POLK 354250.4 85.011 301152.3 14.989 53098.4 21.750 SARASOTA 231010.2 69.490 160527.9 30.510 70482.3 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1138347.0 77.611 883945.6 883479.4 22.389 254401.4 254867.6 18.389 PROJECTION 1985 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 76600.0 66.583 51002.4 33.147 25597.6 12.258 COLLIER 113400.0 78.400 88905.3 21.600 24494.7 18.464 DESOTO 21500.0 83.473 17946.7 16.527 3353.3 21.719 GLADES 6800.0 82.497 5609.8 17.503 1190.2 22.697 HARDEE 20800.0 87.934 18290.3 12.066 2509.7 27.396 HENDRY 22300.0 90.684 20222.5 9.316 2077.5 28.362 HIGHLANDS 57200.0 70.809 40503.0 29.191 16997.0 17.605 LEE 157700.0 75.873 195524.4 24.127 62175.6 17.485 POLK 362400.0 84.842 307466.2 15.158 54933.8 21.750 SARASOTA 238200.0 69.354 165200.5 30.646 72999.5 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1176900.0 77.324 910671.1 910027.8 22.676 266228.9 266872.2 18.389 PROJECTION These figures come from Community's Exhibit No. 1, as to which all parties stipulated. USE RATES The parties also agreed that, during the calendar year 1981, cardiac catheterization procedures in the district amounted to 743 at Community, 739 at Memorial Hospital in Sarasota, and 409 at Lakeland Regional, for a total of 1891 procedures, of which 1482 occurred at cardiac catheterization laboratories still in District 8. Since no cardiac catheterization laboratory in District 8 takes pediatric patients, this segment of the population must be excluded in calculating District 8 cardiac catheterization use rates. Of the total 1981 population of what was then District 8, 18.389 percent was under the age of fifteen. It follows that 834,626 persons 15 or older lived in District 8 in 1981. 1/ Dividing 1891 cardiac catheterization procedures by the adult population yields a 1981 use rate of 226.56854 per 100,000 persons for "old" District 8. Excluding cardiac catheterization procedures performed at Lakeland Regional and excluding the population of Highlands, Hardee and Polk Counties, the 1981 use rate for what has become District 8 can be calculated by dividing 1482 by 521526.76. This yields a use rate of 284.15666 per thousand persons resident in 1981 in the area of which District 8 is now comprised. In the state as a whole, 28,497 adult cardiac catheterizations occurred in 1981. Community's Exhibit No. 2. Dividing by Florida's projected 1981 population of 10,028.317, Community's Exhibit No. 1, the statewide cardiac catheterization use rate in 1981 was 284.16532. HRS no longer uses the cardiac catheterization projections in the State Health Systems Plan. CALCULATIONS REQUIRED BY RULE The parties have stipulated to the applicability of Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, which is in evidence as Joint Exhibit No. 4, and of which official recognition has been taken. This rule prescribes multiple numerical standards. First is a minimum service volume of "300 cardiac catheterizations performed annually . . . within three years . . . [of] initiation of service." Rule 10-5.11(15)(i)(4), Florida Administrative Code. Without a need for catheterization services, no applicant could meet this requirement but the minimum service volume requirement is designed to ensure that the technicians do their work often enough to remain proficient and is not, strictly speaking, a need criterion. It is clear from the evidence that Memorial can meet this minimum service volume requirement. Fifty or sixty procedures had already occurred at the Memorial laboratory by the time of the hearing. The other arithmetic calculations called for by the cardiac catheterization rule relate specifically to need. Because 1983 is the year in which Memorial initiated cardiac catheterization services, Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the number of cardiac catheterization procedures in the service area "Nx" be calculated for 1983. The rule specifies that this is to be accomplished by multiplying the 1981 use rate by the 1983 population. For purposes of the rule, the pertinent 1983 population is the adult population of present District 8, which, based on Community's Exhibit No. 1, amounts to 568,097 persons. Whether the statewide use rate or the use rate prevailing in what has become District 8 is used, the result is virtually identical. Multiplying by the 1981 use rate calculated with reference to the territory that is now District 8 yields 1614.3365 procedures in 1983. Multiplying by the 1981 use rate for Florida statewide yields 1614.3346. Multiplying by the 1981 use rate for what was then District 8 yields 1287.126, but this number cannot be said to relate to the population to be served in District 8 as it is presently constituted. For purposes of Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), Florida Administrative Code, therefore, "Nx" equals 1614. Rule 10-5.11(15)(o), Florida Administrative Code, requires that "Nx" be divided by the number of "existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area." Memorial's program has never received final approval, even though it is in fact operating and therefore "existing" within the meaning of the rule. Since Community and Sarasota's Memorial also have existing programs, the rule requires that 1614 be divided by three, yielding 538 as the average number of procedures per laboratory per year. Rule 10- 5.11(15)(o)(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that there shall be no additional adult cardiac catheterization laboratories established in a service area unless: The average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area is greater than 600. . . . No party contends that Memorial's application meets this rule criterion. All agree that three is the appropriate divisor. Nor is there any justification for adding the minimum service volume (300) to the need for cardiac catheterizations (1614) which the rule establishes for District 8. The rule treats the 300 as a subset of the 1614 total. COMMUNITY'S LABORATORY UNDERUTILIZED During the period January 3 to June 30, 1983, the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Community performed 517 catheterizations 2/ for an average of 4.34 procedures per day the laboratory was open. The cardiologists schedule their own procedures, by asking their office staff to arrange times with the Community employee who keeps the appointment book for the laboratory. Tuesday is most popular. During the period from January 3 to June 30, 1983, an average of 4.75 cardiac catheterizations occurred on Tuesdays in Community's laboratory. Wednesdays and Thursdays saw comparable, although lower utilization, but the average number of procedures dropped to 4.08 for Mondays and to 3.74 for Fridays. As a rule, cardiologists in Fort Myers do not perform these procedures on weekends. The cardiac catheterization laboratory at Community can handle five procedures a day comfortably. A single crew of technicians occasionally did seven cases a day, but this involved working overtime. The laboratory normally in operation no earlier than eight in the morning and no later than two or three in the afternoon. The average case takes an hour and fifteen minutes or so. When manipulation of the catheter beyond a heart valve proves exceptionally difficult, a case may take as long as two and a half hours. Without adding staff or lengthening its hours or changing its methods, the Community laboratory easily has the capacity to perform 25 cardiac catheterization procedures a week or 108 a month. In no month has this number been exceeded. In only one was it approached. On the basis of a 50 week year, 1250 procedures can be done without changing anything other than physicians' schedules on Mondays and Fridays. In 1982, Community performed only 806 procedures. The laboratory at Community has substantial unused capacity. Changes short of increasing hours of operation could increase the laboratory's capacity drastically. Of the time expended in a normal cardiac catheterization at Community, only 15 to 20 minutes actually entails use of specialized laboratory equipment. Preparing the patient for catheterization and administering post-catheterization care need not take place inside the laboratory proper. Experience in Florida has taught that moving pre- and post- care outside the laboratory itself makes seven or eight cases a day possible without going beyond two in the afternoon. Changes that would not require a certificate of need could increase Community laboratory's capacity substantially. There are eight cardiologists in the Fort Myers area, all of whom are on staff both at Community and at Memorial, and one possibility would be adding a second shift, or a sixth or seventh day. Either of these steps might entail adding not only catheterization technicians but also additional personnel for ancillary services, however. There is talk of introducing coronary transluminal angioplasty at Community, which would increase the demands on the laboratory, by some ten percent. (Approximately five percent of cardiac catheterization patients are candidates for coronary transluminal angioplasty and this procedure takes twice as long as the ordinary catheterization, on average.) Changes at Community's laboratory not requiring a certificate of need could readily offset any such an increase in utilization. EMERGENCY CATHETERIZATIONS A cardiac catheterization constitutes emergency therapy when, in order to restore normal blood flow, the catheter is used to introduce streptokinase, an enzyme that dissolves blood clots. Streptokinase may be injected intravenously so that it reaches a blockage at the desired strength, but there is a risk of untoward side effects. Use of the catheter permits local application of the enzyme to a blood clot blocking an artery. Neither of the cardiac catheterization laboratories in Fort Myers has ever administered streptokinase through a catheter, however. When a patient is admitted to hospital complaining of chest pains, and other tests do not indicate otherwise, cardiac catheterization may be appropriate, before the patient leaves the hospital. Once or twice, when there was an equipment failure at the Community laboratory, patients in this category had to be discharged and readmitted in order to be catheterized. On about ten occasions in the course of a year patients admitted with severe chest pains had to wait more than 12 hours for the laboratory to be free and in some of these cases the wait exceeded 24 hours. By comparison, the laboratory is idle for much longer periods weekends. Between two o'clock Friday afternoon and eight o'clock Monday morning, there are of course 66 hours; and there was no evidence of any use of the Community cardiac catheterization laboratory on weekends in recent times. CONTINUITY OF CARE About forty percent of the patients who are catheterized are deemed appropriate candidates for open heart surgery. Since Memorial does not have open heart surgery capability, patients must be transferred by ambulance to Community, in emergency situations. Otherwise they are discharged from Memorial and later enter Community or another hospital where open heart surgery is performed. EQUIPMENT COMPARABLE Nobody questions the adequacy of Community's laboratory. Memorial and Community offer identical cardiac catheterization services and each has all the equipment necessary to perform the services offered. Both Memorial and Community have digital vascular imaging equipment, but Community's vascular imaging equipment is not available for cardiac catheterization procedures. It is used in connection with other radiological techniques and is located elsewhere in the hospital. Since Memorial does cardiac catheterization in its radiology room, its digital vascular imaging equipment is available for cardiac catheterizations. Memorial cannot get more precise images with its equipment, but computer enhancement does allow precise images to be obtained with the use of less dye. According to uncontroverted testimony, however, the difference in the amount of dye is not large enough to affect the risk "as regards [anaphylactic] type reactions" (T. 403) to the dye. Memorial also has a U-arm apparatus that Community does not have. This facilitates taking pictures from different angles, but increased facility in this regard is only important in the performance of angioplasty procedures, which Memorial does not offer. Pursuant to Rule 10-11.5(15)(i)(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code, Memorial cannot offer coronary angioplasty because, unlike Community, it does not have facilities for open heart surgery. FINANCES Memorial's charges for a routine left heart catheterization exceed Community's charges for the same procedure by half, and are about 25 percent higher than average in the country. Memorial's charges exceed Community's for all catheterization procedures. There was no showing that anybody has ever been denied a cardiac catheterization at Community for inability to pay. The evidence suggested that this is more to the credit of the medical staff than to Community's administration, however. Memorial obviously had money available to finance initiation of its cardiac catheterization service, and might even make money on the service after a couple of years, if allowed to continue. It is losing money now, at least if its catheterization service is viewed apart from the "spinoff." One effect of permitting Memorial to operate a duplicative cardiac catheterization service in Fort Myers would be to divert revenues Community would otherwise have received to Memorial. Not only revenues for the catheterization procedures themselves, but also revenues attributable to the use of hospital rooms and other hospital services would be diverted, making the resulting marginal profit available to subsidize medical care at Memorial for which full charges go unpaid. Memorial has a high charity load and about double the proportion of medicaid patients that Community has. This undoubtedly contributes to making Memorial's charges in many categories among the very highest in the state. Community realizes profits of about $3,500,000 annually and could, at least theoretically, absorb the drop in profit that would attend its loss of revenue, without raising charges. But the fact remains that the cost of medical care to the community has increased because of Memorial's higher charges for identical services. In this case, competition increases rather than decreases total charges, as well as costs. The community could expect to pay more for catheterization services in the future if there are two laboratories in Fort Myers. MANPOWER Memorial hired its chief cardiac technician away from Community, which was still seeking a replacement at the time of the hearing. There is every reason to believe that enough staff can be obtained to man both laboratories, but it is the duplication of these salaries, more than the relatively insignificant duplication of capital costs, that makes two cardiac laboratories in Fort Myers a wasteful proposition at present.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services deny Memorial's application for a certificate of need for a new catheterization service. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August 1984.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, the Department of Professional Regulation, should pay the Petitioner, Kirk A. Woodson, M.D., attorney fees and costs under Section 57.011, Fla. Stat. (1989), the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, the parties stipulate that the Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party" and that reasonable fees and costs exceed $15,000, the statutory cap. The only remaining issue under the statute is whether the Respondent was "substantially justified" in filing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 90- 5986 against the Petitioner. 1/
Findings Of Fact On or about June 7, 1988, a complaint was filed against the license of the Petitioner, Kirk A. Woodson, M.D., subsequent to closure of a professional malpractice liability claim against him without payment of indemnity. The substance of the complaint was that, on January 1, 1986, Woodson saw and performed a hysterectomy on a patient who had presented at the emergency room at University Community Hospital in Tampa, Florida, with heavy and continuous vaginal bleeding. The complaint stated that post-surgery the patient developed Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and died. The complaint questioned whether Woodson failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. By letter dated June 30, 1988, the Department of Professional Regulation (the Department or DPR) notified Woodson that it had received the complaint and that it was initiating an investigation. DPR subpoenaed the hospital records which revealed that the patient arrived at the UCH emergency room at 5:28 a.m. on January 1, 1986, with at least a three-day history of vaginal hemorraging. An emergency room physician saw the patient, gave her two units of packed blood cells, and admitted her to Woodson's service. Woodson was called at approximately 8:30 a.m. and saw the patient later that morning. The patient's admission to surgery to determine the cause of the bleeding and perform necessary procedures was delayed until at least approximately 2:00 p.m. because the patient refused to consent to a dilation and curettage (D and C); she was insisting on a hysterectomy only. She finally consented to a D and C to be followed by a hysterectomy if Woodson found it to be medically necessary. During this delay, the patient continued to bleed and was transfused with two more units of packed blood cells at approximately 1:45 p.m. After the consent was given, there was a further delay, not explained by the records, until approximately 6:00 p.m. in getting the patient to surgery. The patient continued to bleed. Surgery took almost five hours. During surgery, the patient's bleeding got worse, and she was transfused with four more units of whole blood during the surgery. The DPR investigator was unable to ascertain from the hospital records the reason for the length of the surgery. The DPR investigator attempted to arrange an interview with Dr. Woodson and his attorney on or about February 28, 1989. The appointment was cancelled. When the DPR investigator contacted Woodson to reschedule the interview, Dr. Woodson questioned why DPR was pursuing the complaint when the malpractice claim was closed without payment of indemnity. Dr. Woodson agreed to be interviewed but expressed his preference that the investigator first review the "extensive depositions" taken in the malpractice litigation. 4/ Having already determined to request an expert evaluation of the case, the investigator decided to postpone the interview with Dr. Woodson. On July 10, 1989, the DPR asked a probable cause panel of the Board of Medicine to authorize the retention of an expert in gynecology to review the information obtained through investigation to that point in time to assist in the determination whether Woodson's treatment of the patient fell below that level of care, skill and treatment which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. On July 22, 1989, the probable cause met and authorized the expert review. On or about November 2, 1989, the DPR requested an expert review by Doris N. Carson, M.D., a Board-certified gynecologist with extensive surgical experience, including emergency room experience. Dr. Carson reviewed the hospital records supplied by DPR, some of which were difficult to read. By letter dated November 20, 1989, Dr. Carson reported her impressions. Dr. Carson believed the records supported Dr. Woodson's diagnosis and ultimate course of treatment. In the patient's condition, the proper course of treatment was to attempt to stop the vaginal bleeding by doing a D and C; a hysterectomy only should have been attempted if the D and C did not stop the bleeding. However, Dr. Carson perceived other problems that were not explained to her satisfaction by the hospital records. First, Dr. Carson did not see anything in the records to justify the length of the surgical procedures performed by Dr. Woodson. She reported: Careful review indicated that the subject attempted to remove the fibroids vaginally, and when this only increased the bleeding, then decided to do a laparotomy. The uterus, although enlarged, was not huge and the procedure as described seemed to move along without difficulty. When, however, the time is reviewed five hours would indicate very serious problems of technique or what seems more likely a lot if indecision about how to proceed. Evidently there was no physician surgical assistant, and the subject proceeded alone. In retrospect better operationg room help should have been available. Second, Dr. Carson felt that the patient received too much whole blood replacement during the course of the day and the surgery. Her reading of the hospital records indicated to her that five units of whole blood were given to the patient in addition to four units of packed cells. She felt: "Packed cells altogether would have been a better choice in light of the volume given to the patient." Her concern was that "volume overload," rather than ARDS, may have resulted ultimately in the death of the patient. However, she disclaimed the necessary expertise to render a conclusive opinion on the question and recommended that, if the DPR wanted a conclusive opinion on the cause of death, it should have a specialist in intensive care or a respiratory expert review the records. Dr. Carson had some difficulty with the delay in getting the patient to the operating room. The records indicated that at least some of the delay was caused by the patient's unwillingness to give consent to the recommended D and C. But Dr. Carson nonetheless had concerns that the delay added to the amount of blood transfused. Dr. Carson closed her letter with this remark: "In conclusion: A poorly done sugical proceeding below the recognized normal level of care." For reasons not apparent from the evidence presented, DPR did not interview Dr. Woodson before asking the probable cause panel to find probable cause and file a draft Administrative Complaint against Dr. Woodson based on Dr. Carson's expert review and the rest of the investigative report, including the hospital records. The draft Administrative Complaint, drawn in two counts, sought to discipline Dr. Woodson under Count I for failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, in two respects: first, for allegedly causing volume overload in the patient by ordering units of whole blood, instead of packed blood, to replace the patient's blood loss; and, second, for allegedly taking too long, without justification, to perform the necessary surgery. Count II alleged that Woodson failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, specifically with respect to ordering whole blood instead of packed units and with respect to the length of the surgical procedures. The probable cause panel considered the matter at its meeting on June 22, 1990. Counsel for the panel pointed out that the "extensive depositions" Woodson had indicated he wanted the DPR investigator to read before Woodson was interviewed were not in the packet of materials reviewed by the panel. 5/ But members of the panel indicated that they had reviewed the material that was in the packet and that they thought the information contained in it was adequate to make a probable cause determination. One of the doctors on the panel called it a "horrendous case." She felt that Woodson had "swamped out the patient" and had performed "inappropriate types of fluid therapy and blood therapy." The other member mentioned the "five-hour operating time . . . without any real explanation." The panel's attorney pointed out the part of the report of investigation that referenced the patient's refusal to consent to Dr. Woodson's proposed surgery and asked whether it constituted "any semblance of an explanation for a delay?" It is not clear from the transcript of the probable cause proceeding how the panel resolved the attorney's question, but the panel voted to find probable cause notwithstanding the question. 6/ There is information in the materials reviewed by Dr. Carson, and by the probable cause panel, which tends to explain some of the time it took for Dr. Woodson to perform surgery on the patient. Some of this partially exculpatory information was difficult to read and decipher in the records. Some of the partially exculpatory information was acknowledged by Dr. Carson and may also have been taken into account independently by the panel. Notwithstanding this partially exculpatory information in the record, the finding of probable cause was substantially justified.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the application of Venice Hospital for a CON should be approved. The factual issue is whether Venice Hospital meets the criteria set forth in the statute and rules.
Findings Of Fact The Department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer would recommend that this CON be granted with appropriate conditions relating to the maintenance of staff and the level of training of the staff which must be met and maintained in order for Petitioner to continue the operation of the laboratory. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 26th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire David Watkins, Esquire 646 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas Mannheimer, Esquire 137 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 and Lamar Matthews, Esquire 1550 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33578 Courtesy Copy to: William B. Wiley, Esquire 666 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
