Findings Of Fact In December, 1984, Petitioner, a black female, began employment with the Respondent. The Petitioner was hired for two positions. In one position, the Petitioner was employed as a (40 percent FTE) Cook, working 40 percent of a full time 40 hour work week, or 16 hours weekly. In the other position, the Petitioner was employed as an "on-call" Mental Health Technician I. The Mental Health Technician employment was an OPS (other personnel services) position with no regularly scheduled working hours. Her place of employment was the geriatric residential treatment system (GRTS) center at Bristol, Florida. On July 11, 1986, the Petitioner was transferred from the OPS Mental Health Technician position to a (50 percent FTE) Mental Health Technician position. In the new position, which entailed completion of a six month probationary period, the Petitioner worked 50 percent of a full time 40 hour work week, or 20 hours weekly. Combined with the job as Cook, Petitioner was employed for 36 hours weekly. At some point prior to the end of 1986, the Petitioner wrote to Ronald Kirkland, executive director for the Respondent. The Petitioner apparently felt that she was the subject of discrimination. The Petitioner demanded that Mr. Kirkland meet with her. She was advised to proceed in accordance with the Apalachee Center's personnel grievance procedure. Assistance in filing a grievance was offered to her, but she refused and continued to demand that Mr. Kirkland personally meet with her. The demand was rejected. In January, 1987, the Petitioner was informed that her job performance in the Mental Health Technician position was not satisfactory. At a meeting, held January 20, 1987, the Petitioner was given a memorandum (dated January 12, 1987) detailing a number of issues which were the basis for her unsatisfactory evaluation. (R-1) Such issues generally included disagreements over working hours, noncooperation with coworkers and abusiveness towards the Program Supervisor. The Petitioner acknowledged the memorandum, and stated that she believed it to be "unreasonable." Due to the unsatisfactory nature of her performance, the probationary period was extended for three months. At the end of the three month extension, in April, 1987, she was again evaluated. She received an above satisfactory evaluation in all categories except attitude, which was satisfactory. By March, 1987, the Respondent had determined that problems existed with the day treatment program at the Bristol GRTS facility and began planning to fully evaluate the operation. The Petitioner was working in the day treatment program. Laura Harris, Day Treatment Coordinator for the Respondent, was assigned to perform the review by Dr. William Perry, Respondent's Director of Geriatric Services. The process began in April, 1987. The staff of the Bristol GRTS facility was notified that the review was being performed and that Ms. Harris would be visiting at specific times to observe their performance. Ms. Harris requested that each day treatment staff person prepare four activities for GRTS clients and attempted to schedule times to observe the staff's presentation of the activities. The Petitioner failed to respond to Ms. Harris' request and did not schedule activity observation sessions. Eventually, Ms. Harris attended one of the Petitioner's activities periods without providing advance notice. Other day treatment staff were responsive to Ms. Harris' requests and cooperated with her suggestions. The Petitioner was not cooperative. The review period continued through August, 1987. On May 5, 1987, the Petitioner resigned from her position as Cook, effective May 18, 1987, and advised her program supervisor that she was available for additional employment as an OPS Mental Health Technician. The Petitioner's requested additional employment would have been during the evening, night and weekend shifts. The request was based on the departure, several weeks earlier, of the person employed as the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Mental Health Technician. The 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift is less popular and more difficult to staff than other work periods. Janey Hall, a black female, is the Bristol GRTS supervisor responsible for securing staff coverage for the evening shifts. The OPS evening shift assignments were generally rotated among staff members. However, due to the difficulty in staffing the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, Ms. Hall proposed assigning the coverage to a single individual. The proposal was approved by the Bristol GRTS program supervisor and by Dr. Perry. Ms. Hall selected Penny Mize, a white female, to work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift until a permanent employee was hired for the shift. Ms. Mize began working the shift immediately upon the departure of the former employee. There were occasions when black employees filled in for Ms. Mize. As to the Petitioner's request for additional employment hours, the Respondent's supervisory staff was concerned about the Petitioner's ability to successfully respond to the demands of evening, night and weekend shifts. Those shifts provide less supervision of employees than does the day shift. Due to previously noted problems with the Petitioner's job performance, as reported to Dr. William Perry, it was determined that the Petitioner required greater supervision than was available to her on the OPS shifts. Accordingly, her request for additional OPS hours was rejected on May 13, 1987, by Dr. Perry. On May 21, 1987, the Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, FCHR No. 87-3619, alleging that the denial of her request for OPS hours as a Mental Health Technician was based on racial discrimination. The Petitioner alleged that Ms. Mize, a white employee, was permitted to work the additional hours, 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. There was no evidence presented by the Petitioner which would indicate that the denial of her request for the additional hours was racially motivated or based on any factor other than her job performance and the decision to limit her employment to more closely supervised shifts. Subsequent to the Petitioner's filing of FCHR 87-3619, Laura Harris completed the review of the Bristol GRTS facility. Based upon her review she prepared an evaluation of the Petitioner's job performance and a corrective action plan which specified steps the Petitioner was directed to complete in order to continue her employment and improve her job skills, both dated August 26, 1987. (R-3, R-4). The evaluation was severely critical of the Petitioner's attitude, and her unwillingness to work towards improving her interaction with co-workers and facility clients. The evaluation recommended that her employment "be terminated immediately". The Petitioner received the documents on September 10, 1987. Her written comments on the documents indicate that she disputed Ms. Harris' evaluation, and noted that she alone was being required to comply with the corrective action plan. However, the plan was related to the lack of effort and cooperation the Petitioner demonstrated during the Harris review. Other employees, black and white, were cooperative and no other corrective action plans were necessary. During the summer of 1987, the Respondent determined that additional assistance in providing nursing services to Bristol GRTS clients was required. The Respondent initiated establishment of a part-time Licensed Practical Nurse position and decided to delete the Petitioner's Mental Health Technician position to fund the new LPN. On October 15, 1987, the Petitioner was advised by Dr. Perry that the Mental Health Technician position was being eliminated to provide for the LPN position. Dr. Perry proposed to the Petitioner that she accept a position as Cook which would provide 32 hours weekly employment. The Petitioner's period of employment as Cook had been satisfactory. The Petitioner did not agree or refuse to accept the position, but said she would consider it. On October 26, 1987, Laura Harris prepared a follow-up evaluation to the corrective action plan of August 26, 1988. Ms. Harris noted improvement in the Petitioner's performance, although there were substantial problems remaining. Apparently, unaware that the Petitioner's Mental Health Technician position was being eliminated to provide for an LPN position, Ms. Harris recommended that the Petitioner be reevaluated on November 30, 1987. On October 27, 1987, Dr. Perry contacted the Petitioner and informed her that she would be transferred to the Cook's position and that her salary as Cook would remain at the same level as her Mental Health Technician salary, causing no reduction in her rate of pay as could have occurred. The following day, Dr. Perry met with the Petitioner and reiterated the proposal. There was no response from the Petitioner. On November 12, 1987, Dr. Perry delivered a letter, dated November 2, 1987, from Mr. Kirkland, executive director of the Respondent, confirming the prior discussions between Dr. Perry and the Petitioner. The letter stated that her employment as Mental Health Technician would cease on November 12, 1987, and that she would be paid for two additional weeks in lieu of notice. Alternatively, the letter stated that she could begin employment in the Cook's position on November 13, 1987. At the time the letter was delivered, the Petitioner stated that, due to the lack of child care availability, she could not begin the Cook's job on November 13. Dr. Perry suggested she begin on November 16, but the Petitioner refused. The Petitioner's employment at the Bristol GRTS facility concluded on November 12, 1987. In December, 1987, she filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, FCHR 88-1288, alleging that the elimination of her position as Mental Health Technician was in retaliation for the filing of her earlier complaint. There was no evidence that the Respondent's decision to employ an LPN instead of a Mental Health Technician was in retaliation for the earlier complaint or based on any consideration other than to better provide nursing care to the elderly clients of the Bristol GRTS facility. The evidence indicates that the decision to eliminate the Petitioner's position, rather than the position of another Mental Health Technician, was based on the Petitioner's poor job performance during the Harris evaluation period and was made without regard to the earlier complaint. Although at the hearing, the Petitioner repeatedly accused the Respondent's witnesses of perjured testimony, there is no evidence to support the accusation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter final orders dismissing the Complaints and Petitions for Relief in FCHR Cases No. 87-3619 and 88-1288. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 21st day of December, 1988.
Findings Of Fact In 1993, the US Health Care Financing Administration gave Respondent approval to design and implement a pilot program for the delivery of mental health services in part of Florida. The pilot program is limited to Medicaid Area 6, which consists of Hardee, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk counties. The purpose of the pilot program is to change the way in which the State of Florida pays for mental health services under the Medicaid program. At present, the State makes "fee-for- service" payments based on predetermined fees for defined services. RFP, 1.1 KK. Under the new method, the State will make "capitation" payments consisting of a monthly fee paid in advance to the contractor for each enrolled Medicaid recipient, regardless whether the enrollee receives the services during the payment period. RFP, 1.1.H. On November 23, 1994, Respondent issued Request for Proposals 9501 (RFP). The purpose of RFP 9501 is to procure a contract with a "single, comprehensive mental health care provider on a prepaid, capitated basis, to provide mental health benefits to Medicaid recipients who are residents of Medicaid Area 6 . . .." RFP, 1.4. The second paragraph of RFP 1.4 identifies four goals of the procurement: that the procurement proceed in a timely manner, (2) that the . . . RFP . . . encourages free and open competition, (3) that the procurement effort and resulting new contract operations be completed in a timely manner without disruption of service to Medicaid clients, and (4) that the procure- ment result in a single contractor for Area 6 with sufficient resources to provide services to all AFDC related and SSI Without Medicare Medicaid eligibles in Area 6. Section 2.2 requires that the contractor provide "[i]npatient hospital care for psychiatric conditions," "[o]utpatient hospital care for psychiatric conditions," "[p]sychiatric physician services," "[c]ommunity mental health care," "Mental Health Targeted Case Management," and "Mental Health Intensive Case Management." Section 2.3 defines the six categories of services identified in the preceding paragraph. Referring to "Community mental health care" as "Community Mental Health Services," Section 2.3 states: Community Mental Health Services Community Mental Health Services are rehabil- itative services which are psychiatric in nature, rendered or recommended by a psychia- trist; or medical in nature, rendered or recommended by a psychiatrist or other physician. Such services must be provided in accordance with the policy and service provision specified in the Community Mental Health Services Provider Handbook. The term "Community Mental Health Services" is not intended to suggest that the following services must be provided by state funded "Community Mental Health Centers" or to preclude state funded "Community Mental Health Centers" from providing these services: There are eight categories of mental health care services provided under community mental health: Treatment planning and review; Evaluation and testing services; Counseling, therapy and treatment services provided by a psychiatrist or physician; Counseling, therapy and treatment services provided by a direct service mental health care provider; Rehabilitative services; Children's mental health services; Specialized therapeutic foster care, Level 1 and 2; and Day treatment programs. Community mental health services for children in specialized therapeutic foster care and resi- dential treatment will be provided by HRS District 6 Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office to the same degree as in the past. Services are limited to those covered services provided by or under the recommendation of a psychiatrist or physician and related to a plan of care provided or authorized by a psychiatrist or physician, as appropriate, based on the patient's diagnosis. Targeted Case Management The contractor shall adhere to the requirements of the Medicaid Case Management Services Provider Handbook, but will not be required to seek certifications from the HRS Districts' Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office in regard to clients, agency designation, or mental health care case manager qualifications. Case manager training materials will be made available through the agency for reproduction by the contractor. Intensive Case Management This is a new mandatory service which is intended to provide intensive, team case management to highly recidivistic persons who have severe and persistent mental illness. Section 2.5 requires that the contractor "adhere to the following minimum staffing, availability, and access standards": The contractor shall provide access to medically necessary mental health care (with the exceptions noted in section 2.4 B.) The contractor shall make available and accessible facilities, service locations, and service sites and personnel sufficient to provide the covered services (specifically, non-hospital outpatient, emergency and assessment services) throughout the geographic area, within thirty minutes typical travel time by public or private transportation of all enrolled recipients. (The typical travel time standard does not apply to waiting time for public transportation--it applies only to actual time in transit.) The contractor must allow enrollees to choose one of the capitated services, as provided in Section 5.1 F.1., when the plan offers another service, not reimbursed under the contract, as a downward substitution. The maximum amount of time between an enrollee's request for mental health services and the first point of service shall be as follows: For emergency mental health services as defined in section 1.1 BB., service shall be immediate. For persons initially perceived to need emergency mental health services, but upon assess- ment do not meet the criteria for emergency care, they are deemed to require crisis support and services must be provided within twenty-three hours. For routine outpatient intake, assessment shall be offered within seven calendar days. Follow-up service shall be offered within fourteen calendar days after assessment. Minimum staffing standards shall be as follows, and failure to adhere to these staffing standards, or the staffing standards indicated in the winning proposal, whichever are greater, may result in termination of the contract (if the contractor's "staff" person does not fill one of the "key staff" positions listed on page 81, the staff persons may be a subcontractor.): * * * The contractor's outpatient staff shall include at least one FTE direct service mental health care provider per 1,500 prepaid members. The Agency expects the contractor's staffing pattern for direct service providers to reflect the ethnic and racial composition of the community. The contractor's array of direct service mental health care providers for adults and children must include providers that are licensed or eligible for licensure, and demonstrate two years of clinical experience in the following specialty areas: Adoption, Separation and loss, Victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse, Victims and perpetrators of physical abuse, Court ordered evaluations, and Expert witness testimony. Mental health care case managers shall not be counted as direct service mental health care providers. The contractor shall provide Spanish speaking and Spanish literate direct service providers at each service location at which there are Spanish speaking enrollees. The contractor shall provide staff approp- riately trained and experienced to provide psychological testing. The contractor shall provide staff approp- riately trained and experienced to provide rehabilitation and support services to persons with severe and persistent mental illness. For all persons meeting the criteria for case management as specified in the Medicaid Case Management Provider Handbook, the contractor shall adhere to the staffing ratio of at least 1 FTE mental health care case manager per 20 children, and at least 1 FTE mental health care case manager per 40 adults. Direct service mental health care providers shall not be counted as mental health care case managers. * * * Section 2.10 provides, in part: The contractor shall be responsible for the coordination and management of mental health care and continuity of care for all enrolled Medicaid recipients through the following minimum functions: A. Minimizing disruption to the enrollee as a result of any change in service providers or mental health care case manager occurring as a result of the awarding of this contract. An offeror may not propose rates exceeding Medicaid's upper payment limit, which "is that amount which would have been paid, on an aggregate basis, by Medicaid under fee-for-service for the same services to a demographically similar population of recipients." 4.11. Section 1.1 TTT defines "Upper Payment Limit" similarly: "The maximum amount Medicaid will pay on a capitated basis for any group of services, based upon fee-for- service Medicaid expenditures for those same services." Section 4.11 sets the range of payment rates at 92-98 percent of the upper payment limit. Each offeror is required to propose a specific payment percentage within the range. Section 4.17 allows offerors to propose a risk corridor of up to 16 percentage points plus and minus the proposed range. The corridor must be equal above and below the capitation rate. The RFP illustrates the risk corridor by applying an 8 point corridor to a 95 percent capitation rate. In this case, the contractor absorbs any plan costs up to 4 percent over the actual payments made to the plan by Respondent or retains any excess plan payments up to 4 percent over the actual costs. Beyond the corridor, the contractor and Respondent share equally in the costs or savings, subject to Respondent's upper payment limit. In no event, however, shall the contractor be entitled to payment from Respondent for "start- up" or "phase-down" costs. Section 4.18 addresses subcontractors: The contractor is fully responsible for all work performed under the contract resulting from the RFP. The contractor may, with the consent of the agency, enter into written subcontract(s) for performance of certain of its functions under the contract. The contractor must have subcontracts with all administrative and service providers who are not salaried employees of the plan prior to the commencement of services under this contract. The contractor shall abide by the requirements of Section 1128A(b) of the Social Security Act prohibiting HMOs and other such providers from making payments directly or indirectly to a physician or other provider as an inducement to reduce or limit services provided to Medicaid enrollees. The contractor must submit signed subcontracts, for a complete provider network in order to obtain agency approval for operation in an area, within sixty days of the execution of this contract, for each proposed subcontracted service provider. Any additional subcontracts must be submitted to the agency twenty days prior to the subcontract effective date. Subcontracts must be approved in writing by the agency's Technical Project Manager prior to the effective date of any subcontract. No subcontract which the contractor enters into with respect to performance under the contract resulting from the RFP shall in any way relieve the contractor of any responsibility for performance of its duties. Amendments to subcontracts must be approved by the agency before taking effect. The contractor shall notify the agency in writing prior to termination of approved subcontracts. The contractor will agree to make payment to all subcontractors within 35 days of receipt of all invoices properly documented and submitted by the subcontractor to the plan. All subcontracts executed by the contractor under the resulting contract must meet the following requirements and be approved by the agency in advance of implementation. All subcontracts must adhere to the following requirements: Be in writing. Specify the functions of the subcontractor. Identify the population covered by the subcontract. Specify the amount, duration and scope of services to be provided by the subcontractor, including a requirement that the subcontractor continue to provide services through any post- insolvency period. Provide that the agency and DHHS may evaluate through inspection or other means the quality, appropriateness, and timeliness of services performed. Specify that the subcontractor has read and agreed to the subcontract and the service provision requirements under section 2 of RFP, for services to be provided under the subcontract, and to the contractor's admission and retention criteria for the services the subcontractor will provide as indicated in the subcontractor's response to section 5.1 F3.b,(5). Provide for inspections of any record pertinent to the contract by the agency and DHHS. Specify procedures and criteria for extension and renegotiation. Provide for prompt submission of information needed to make payment. Require an adequate record system be maintained for recording services, charges, dates and all other commonly accepted information elements for services rendered to recipients under the contract. Require that financial, administrative and medical records be maintained for a period of not less than five years from the close of the contract and retained further if the records are under review or audit until the review or audit is complete. Prior approval for the disposition of records must be requested and approved by the contractor if the subcontract is continuous. Require safeguarding of information about recipients according to 42 CFR, Part 431, Subpart F. Require an exculpatory clause, which survives the termination of the subcontract including breach of subcontract due to insolvency, that assures that recipients or the agency may not be held liable for any debts of the subcontractor. Provide for the monitoring of services rendered to recipients sponsored by the contractor. Specify the procedures, criteria and requirements for termination of the subcontract. Provide for the participation in any internal and external quality assurance, utilization review, peer review, and grievance procedures established by the contractor. Make full disclosure of the method and amount of compensation or other consideration to be received from the contractor. Provide for submission of all reports and clinical information required by the contractor. Make provisions for a waiver of terms of the subcontract, if appropriate. Contain no provision which provides incentive, monetary or otherwise, for the withholding of medically necessary care. Require adherence to the Medicaid policies expressed in applicable Medicaid provider handbooks. Require that the subcontractor secure and maintain during the life of the subcontract worker's compensation insurance for all of its employees connected with the work under this contract unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded by the provider. Such insurance shall comply with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and Contain a clause indemnifying, defending and holding the Agency and the plan members harmless from costs or expense, including court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the extent proximately caused by an negligent act or other wrongful conduct arising from the subcontract agreement. This clause must survive the termination of the subcontract, including breach due to insolvency. The contractor shall give the agency immediate notification in writing by certified mail of any action or suit filed and prompt notice of any claim made against the contractor by any subcontractor or vendor which in the opinion of the contractor may result in litigation related in any way to the contract with the agency. In the event of the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against a principal subcontractor or the insolvency of said subcontractor, the contractor shall immediately advise the agency. The contractor shall assure that all tasks related to the subcontract are performed in accordance with the terms of the contract. The contractor shall identify any aspect of service that may be further subcontracted by the subcon- tractor. Subcontractors shall not be considered agents of the agency. For evaluation purposes, the RFP divides proposals into two parts: technical and rate, including any rate corridor. The six categories under the technical part, with point values in parentheses, are: Management Summary (0 points), Organization and Corporate Capabilities (100 points), Proposed Staffing Pattern and Licensure of Staff and Facilities (250 points), Operational Functions (400 points), Mental Health Care Service Delivery (400 points), and Transition Workplan (100 points). RFP, 6.1. Section 5.1.C describes the 100-point Organization and Corporate Capabilities as follows: The proposer shall provide in this tab a descrip- tion of its organizational and corporate capabi- lities. The purpose of this section is to provide the agency with a basis for determining the contractor's, and its subcontractors', financial and technical capability for undertaking a project of this size. For the purpose of this tab, the term proposer shall refer to both the contractor and its major subcontractors. It does not refer to the plan's "parent company" unless specifically indicated. Section 5.1 D states the elements of the 250-point Proposed Staffing Pattern and Licensure of Staff and Facilities. Section 5.1 D.3 requires the offeror to disclose "actual and proposed" FTE professionals, including psychiatrists, case managers, psychologists, nurses, and social workers. Section 5.1D.4 requires the offeror to explain how the plan will allocate staff to meet various demands, such as for adoption, sexual and physical abuse counseling, and psychological testing of children. Section 5.1 D.5 requires the proposal to: Describe how the plan will ensure that it has the staff resources appropriately trained and experienced to provide rehabilitative and support services to low income adults with severe and persistent mental illness and, under separate heading, to children with severe and persistent mental illness. Denote the number and percent of total FTEs which will be filled by persons with this type of experience and who will be providing these types of services. Explain the contractor's rationale for the staffing levels indicated and provide a brief, one or two line, description of the training and exper- ience of such persons who will provide these services under the plan. Section 5.1.E describes the elements of the 400-point Operational Functions, in part, as follows: Within this tab, the proposer shall explicitly address its operational capacity to serve Medicaid recipients, and its previous history serving the Medicaid and other low income populations. Separately, the proposer shall address the member services the plan will offer, grievance procedures, quality assurance procedures, the contractor's proposed reporting systems, and the contractor's proposed handling of subcontracts. Service Area of Proposed Plan 42 CFR 434.36 Describe, for each county, how the proposer will meet throughout the lifetime of the contract the 30 minute typical travel time requirement specified in section 2.5 A.1. Describe, for each county, how the proposer will meet throughout the lifetime of the contract the 30 minute typical travel time requirement for child psychiatrists specified in Section 2.5 B.2. Describe, for each county, how the proposer will meet throughout the lifetime of the contract the 30 minute typical travel time requirement for adult psychiatrists specified in Section 2.5 B.1. * * * Section 5.1.F describes the 400-point Mental Health Care Service Delivery category. Section 5.1 F states, in relevant part: This section shall include a detailed discussion of the proposer's approach to providing mental health care. The proposer must be able to document a demonstrated ability to provide a comprehensive range of appropriate services for both children and adults who experience impairments ranging from mild to severe and persistent mental illness. Plans must provide services up to the limits specified by the RFP. They are encouraged to exceed these limits. However, in no instance may any service's limitations be more restrictive than those specified in the Florida Medicaid fee- for-service program. The plan cannot require payments from recipients for any mandatory services provided under this contract. Summary of Services * * * The following is a summary list of the services which may be provided . . . * * * Optional Services Crisis Stabilization Unit * * * z. Other Services (List) * * * Care Coordination 42 CFR 434.52; 10C-7.0524(16), F.A.C. Attach the plan's written protocol describing the plan's care coordination system, which should include the plan's approach to care coordination, utilization review, and assuring continuity of care, such as, verifying medical necessity, service planning, channeling to appropriate levels of treatment, and develop- ment of treatment alternatives when effective, less intensive services are unavailable. The protocol should also address the following questions: * * * 3. Indicate how the contractor will establish services in such a way as to minimize disruption of services, particularly to high risk populations currently served by the department, for children and, separately, for adults. * * * Section 6.3 describes the criteria for evaluating proposals. For Proposed Staffing Pattern and Licensure of Staff and Facilities, the evaluation criteria include, at 6.3 B.3.c: The ability of the proposer to ensure it has, and will continue to have, the resources necessary to provide mental health rehabilitation and support to children who are in the care and custody of the state or who have special needs, such as children who have been adopted or have been physically or sexually abused. About a year ago, Respondent issued RFP 9405, which also sought to procure mental health services on a capitated basis for Medicaid Area 6. Respondent received four proposals, which contained numerous deficiencies. Respondent later withdrew RFP 9405 for revisions to encourage more competition. Concerns over competition involve the role of Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC) in the procurement. CMHCs are publicly funded, not-for-profit entities that traditionally have provided five types of services: emergency, outpatient, day/night, inpatient, and prevention education. CMHCs now also operate crisis stabilization units and supply case management services, as well as specialized children's services, services for aged persons with severe and persistent mental illness, and services for persons with alcohol or drug dependencies. The RFP calls for a wide range of mental health care services, only part of which are community mental health services or other services presently provided by CMHCs. However, CMHCs constitute the only available network of existing providers of community mental health services to Medicaid clients in Medicaid Area 6. Medicaid payments account for about 30 percent of the revenue of Area 6 CMHCs. In late 1992, six CMHCs in Area 6 formed Florida Behavioral Health, Inc. in response to competition from one or more other provider networks, such as Charter. The competitive network of six CMHCs consisted of Manatee Glens Corp., Mental Health Care, Inc., Northside Mental Health Hospital, Peace River Center for Personal Development, Inc., Winter Haven Hospital, and Mental Health Services. Although the six CMHCs are not all of the CMHCs in Area 6, they provide nearly all of the community mental health services to Medicaid clients in Area 6. By early 1993, Florida Behavioral Health, Inc. formed Florida Health Partnership with Options Mental Health, Inc., which is a managed-care provider owned by First Hospital Corporation--a behavioral health management company. With the assistance of Florida Health Partnership, Options Mental Health, Inc. submitted a proposal in response to RFP 9405. An oral or written agreement between Florida Behavioral Health, Inc. and Options Mental Health, Inc. prohibited the six CMHCs from assisting any entity but Options Mental Health, Inc. in responding to RFP 9405. This agreement continues to prohibit the six CMHCs from assisting any entity but Options Mental Health, Inc. in responding to the RFP. The six CMHCs have shared with Options Mental Health, Inc. cost and utilization information. The importance of the unpublished cost information is unclear, and Petitioner has not yet made a public records request to obtain this information. The same is true of unpublished utilization information, which includes information on waiting lists for community mental health services. Any delay in providing community mental health services would have a bearing on the projected demand and thus the cost of a capitated plan. After withdrawing RFP 9405, Respondent revisited the requirement that offerors propose an existing network of providers. In an effort to encourage competition, Respondent deleted a requirement in RFP 9405 that proposals contain existing provider networks. Respondent substituted a requirement that proposals describe provider networks generally, without necessarily including names of subcontractors. Petitioner did not prove any fraudulent, illegal, arbitrary, or dishonest act by Respondent. The main thrust of Petitioner's case is that the effect of the RFP is illegal or arbitrary. Petitioner asserts that the RFP requires a sole source provider or, at minimum, precludes free and open competition. Petitioner argues that the RFP illegally and arbitrarily favors offerors of CMHCs, in partnership with CMHCs, or with subcontracts with CMHCs. Through testimony and argument, Petitioner asserts that various provisions of the RFP either exacerbate or fail to ameliorate the advantages enjoyed by CMHCs, especially due to RFP requirements of implementation of the new provider network in 60 days and with minimal disruption to Medicaid clients. RFP 1.4(2) encourages open and free competition. RFP 2.3 D disclaims any intent that only CMHCs may supply community mental health services. Petitioner's chief witness, Dr. Ronald Mihalick, testified that RFP 2.3 D favors CMHCs because state regulations have designated them the sole provider of community mental health services and government grants have funded their capital expenditures. Neither Dr. Mihalick, Petitioner's other witness, nor Petitioner's counsel has suggested a practical means by which to eliminate this advantage of CMHCs, which cannot, by executive or legislative fiat, be stripped of their buildings, equipment, or experienced staffs, nor of the advantages that may accrue to them by virtue of such assets. It would be counterproductive to eliminate CMHCs from direct or indirect participation in the subject procurement. Nor is Respondent required, if it were legally able, to assign to CMHCs the status of universal providers in order to eliminate illegality or arbitrariness from the RFP. The RFP seeks a broad range of mental health services, of which a substantial part are community mental health services. RFP 2.3 D represents a simple description of community mental health services and expressly negates the inference that only CMHCs may provide such services. RFP 2.3 E and F describes two of the five categories of mental health services: targeted case management and intensive case management, respectively. Intensive case management is a new service, and nothing suggests that Area 6 CMHCs have any direct experience that would give them an advantage in providing this new service, Targeted case management is an existing service provided by CMHCs. There is some doubt whether the RFP provides detailed cost information, including information about targeted case management. However, Petitioner has never made a public records request for such information from any of the CMHCs or Respondent. In any event, Petitioner has hardly presented sufficient evidence regarding targeted case management that the inclusion of such a service in the RFP is arbitrary or illegal. RFP 2.5 prescribes standards for minimum staffing, availability, and access. The minimum staffing standards do not require that existing service providers supply the specified services. For instance, "direct service mental health care providers" must be "licensed or eligible for licensure," as provided in RFP 2.5 B.3.a. Petitioner's objection is that the RFP expresses staffing standards in accordance with Medicaid guidelines, under which the CMHCs are already operating. This objection is puzzling because the procurement is for Medicaid services. In any event, the presence of such a provision does not render the RFP illegal or arbitrary for the reasons already stated. RFP 2.5 B.4 requires staffing ratios of one fulltime equivalency (FTE) per 20 mental health care case managers for children and one FTE per 40 mental health care case managers for adults. Again, though, the RFP does not require that such case managers must be currently employed by a CMHC or even currently providing such services. Petitioner legitimately objects to specifications expressed in terms of FTEs when applied to non-administrative services. The use of FTEs applies to fulltime employees, not to individual therapists who may see Medicaid clients on an occasional basis. The requirement that non-administrative services be expressed in FTEs unduly emphasizes process over product or outcome and is inconsistent with the spirit of the RFP. However, the use of FTEs in RFP 2.5 B.4 does not rise to the level of arbitrariness or illegality. As Respondent's chief witness, Marilyn Reeves, testified, an offeror may convert individual therapists to FTEs, even though the contractor may bear the risk of a faulty conversion formula. RFP 2.10 requires that the contractor implement the new capitated plan with minimal disruption to Medicaid clients, whose mental conditions may worsen from such disruption. Petitioner does not challenge this sensible provision. Petitioner instead argues that other pro-CMHC provisions preclude the implementation of a new plan with minimal disruption. Petitioner has failed to prove that the pro-CMHC provisions, except for 4.18 as discussed below, necessitate more than minimal disruption during the transition. RFP 4.17 provides that Respondent shall not pay the contractor's start-up or phase-down costs. Petitioner's objection is that government grants have paid for the capital expenditures of the CMHCs. For the reasons discussed in connection with RFP 2.3 D, Petitioner has failed to prove how this provision is arbitrary or illegal. RFP 5.1 D assigns 250 points for the proposed staffing pattern and requires the offeror to disclose "actual and proposed" FTE professionals, such as psychiatrists, case managers, and social workers. An offeror that has already identified its personnel may be able to provide a more detailed description and earn more points than another offeror that has yet to find its subcontractors. Likewise, RFP 5.1 D.5 requires a discussion of FTEs, although an offeror with as yet unidentified subcontractors probably can satisfy this section with a more generic discussion and not lose points. In any event, to the extent that the specification in terms of FTEs favors CMHCs, such a provision is not so onerous or unnecessary as to be arbitrary or illegal, as discussed in connection with 2.5 B.4. RFP 5.1 E assigns 400 points for operational functions and requires the offeror to "explicitly address its operational capacity to serve Medicaid recipients, and its previous history serving the Medicaid and other low income populations." Unlike RFP 5.1 C, which requires a proposal to address the contractor and its "major subcontractors," 5.1 E does not mention subcontractors, so this provision favors CMHCs even less than the other provisions of 5 and 6. Perhaps for this reason, neither Petitioner's witnesses nor Petitioner's proposed recommended order addressed RFP 5.1 E. RFP 5.1 F requires an offeror to provide a "detailed discussion," in which it shall "document a demonstrated ability to provide a comprehensive range of appropriate services . . .." An offeror with as yet unidentified subcontractors will likely be unable to supply nearly as much detail as an offeror with subcontractors already in place, but this provision would, if challenged, not be deemed arbitrary or illegal. However, Petitioner challenges only RFP 5.1 F.1 (Optional Services) and 5.1 F.4.a.3. Section 5.1 F.4.a.3 reiterates the requirement that the new capitated plan be implemented so as to "minimize disruption of services." As noted above, Petitioner of course does not object to this requirement, but uses it to show how other provisions are arbitrary or illegal. Petitioner objects to the portion of 5.1 F.1 identifying crisis stabilization units as an Optional Service. Although only CMHCs are licensed to operate crisis stabilization units, the same services are available from other sources, although often not as economically. Moreover, the crisis stabilization unit is only an Optional Service, which Respondent mentioned only for illustrative purposes. The last-cited option, "Other Services (List)," encourages offerors to devise creative options that may not involve such traditional providers as crisis stabilization units. RFP 6.3 B.3.c requires the offeror to ensure that "it has, and will continue to have, the resources necessary to provide mental health rehabilitation and support . . .." Satisfaction of the criteria of 6.3 B, like 5.1 C, D, and F, is easier for CMHCs and harder for contractors with as yet unidentified subcontractors. However, the advantage conferred upon CMHCs is not so great as to render 6.3 B arbitrary or illegal. To varying degrees, RFP 5.1 D.5, E.1, and F.1 (Optional Services) and 6.3 B.3.c prefer CMHCs or offerors affiliated with CMHCs. These provisions potentially conflict with the RFP provisions encouraging free and open competition and prohibiting more than minimal disruptions in service. The potential conflicts are partially attenuated by the ability of an offeror, prior to submitting a proposal, to identify subcontractors that may provide similar services to non-Medicaid clients or provide similar services to Medicaid clients in other areas of Florida or other states. RFP 5.1 D.5, E.1, and F.1 (Optional Services) and 6.3B impose qualitative standards upon the contractor and any subcontractors, whose employees have direct contact with the Medicaid clients. Non-CMHC offerors may nonetheless be able to identify, at the proposal stage, their subcontractors so as to earn the maximum points in these categories. For instance, offerors may find non-CMHC subcontractors providing community mental health services to non- Medicaid clients or to Medicaid clients elsewhere in Florida or the United States. With greater difficulty, non-CMHC offerors with as yet unidentified subcontractors may be able to project, at the proposal stage, features of their subcontractors. They may not be able to score as well as CMHCs and other offerors with already identified networks of community mental health service providers. However, to the extent that non-CMHCs are disadvantaged by these provisions, Petitioner has not shown that the inclusion of these provisions is arbitrary or illegal. These provisions ensure the delivery of quality mental health services. As likely as not, Petitioner has included these provisions after careful consideration of the benefits of further competitiveness and the costs of further limitations upon the participation of CMHCs. The final provision challenged by Petitioner is RFP 4.18, which acknowledges that the contractor may not itself provide the mental health services, but may contract with subcontractors for the provision of these services. Requiring that the contractor have subcontracts prior to the commencement of services under the new capitated plan, Section 4.18 adds that the contractor must submit for Respondent's written approval: signed subcontracts, for a complete provider network in order to obtain agency approval for operation in an area, within sixty days of the execution of this contract, for each proposed subcontracted service provider. Petitioner's challenge to RFP 2.3 D, E, and F; 2.5 A and B.3 and 4; and 4.17 fails because these provisions confer upon CMHCs an insignificant advantage, an advantage upon that could not be removed without eliminating CMHCs from the procurement, or an advantage while specifying an important substantive requirement. Petitioner's challenge to RFP 5.1 D.5, 5.1 E.1, 5.1F.1, and 6.3 B.3.c fails because these provisions, even if conferring significant advantages upon CMHCs, impose important qualitative requirements upon the delivery of mental health services to Medicaid clients. However, RFP 4.18 is different from these other provisions. It does not involve the actual delivery of mental health services to Medicaid clients. Section 4.18 dictates only how long after signing the contract with Respondent the contractor has to implement the new capitation contract. The advantage conferred by 4.18 upon CMHCs is neither trivial nor necessary. The federal waiver runs two years from the actual start-up date of the new capitation plan. Obviously, an inordinate delay in implementation might suggest that the contractor is unable to do the job, but nothing in the record suggests that 60 days marks the beginning of an inordinate delay. Respondent understandably wants to get the pilot project started quickly, presumably in anticipation of important cost savings. But these considerations do not rise to the importance of other provisions involving the actual delivery of mental health services to Medicaid clients. Non-CMHCs, especially offerors with as yet unidentified subcontractors, face a considerable task in plan implementation. For this procurement, only one offeror will have the assistance of the CMHCs, which gives that offeror a clear advantage in at least the community mental health and targeted case management categories. There is no good reason to increase this advantage by imposing an unrealistically short implementation timeframe on contractors. On the other hand, there are two reasons why the 60-day implementation timeframe is arbitrary and illegal: it conflicts with RFP provisions encouraging open competition and it conflicts with RFP provisions prohibiting more than a minimal disruption to clients. The new capitation plan represents a marked departure from past practice. The successful contractor is assuming considerable financial risks when it sets its fees and risk corridor, if any. This risk is spread over a wide geographic area containing some of Florida's most densely populated areas. Anticipated cost savings to the State may result in narrowed profit margins before the contractor can safely realize savings from reductions in the cost of mental health services provided to Medicaid clients. The success of the capitation plan is jeopardized if the contractor underestimates the revenue needed for the successful operation of the plan. The offeror without subcontractors at the time of submitting a proposal needs time to enlist the cooperation of CMHCs or other subcontractors. A witness of Respondent described a possible scenario in which CMHCs declined to cooperate with the contractor and were forced to terminate employees. Although these employees would be available to the contractor, they would not likely be available in a 60-day timeframe. A multitude of tasks confront the non-CMHC contractor, especially if the contractor does not have a subcontractor network in place when submitting the proposal. Not surprisingly, Respondent's witnesses did not offer a spirited defense of the 60-day implementation timeframe, as is partly illustrated by the following testimony of Respondent's chief witness: Q: Is there a reason that the language on Page 61 says "must have signed subcontract within 60 days?" A: No. What it is trying to get at there is that if you are going to start being operational within 60 days, you got to know that you got to get those subcontracts approved by us prior to being able to do that. Respondent's witness readily testified that the deadline would not be enforced, if the enforcement jeopardized the welfare of the Medicaid clients. Of course, given the vulnerability of the clients, Respondent would not require the implementation of an unfinished plan at the end of the contractual implementation timeframe, regardless of the duration of the implementation timeframe. But a rational deadline for implementation would not so readily invite discussions of waivers and extensions. The presence of an impractical deadline misleads offerors. Some offerors may obtain an unfair advantage by structuring their proposals without regard to the implementation timeframe, secure in the knowledge that it will not be enforced. Other offerors may limit Optional Services or avoid more creative delivery or administrative programs in order to ensure that their plans can be implemented within the arbitrarily short implementation timeframe. To eliminate arbitrary and illegal conflicts with other RFP provisions encouraging open competition and prohibiting more than minimal disruptions in service, the implementation timeframe of 60 days must be extended to at least 120 days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order amending RFP 4.18 by inserting "120" days for "60" days in the second paragraph and making any necessary conforming changes elsewhere in the RFP, and, after making these changes, proceed with the subject procurement. ENTERED on January 31, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 31, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: (except that "poisonous" in paragraph 2 is rejected as melodramatic and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence): adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except for 4.18. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Petitioner did not challenge 5.1 E at the hearing or in the proposed recommended order. 8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner did not prove that the actual information shared by the CMHCs was crucial--only that certain information could theoretically be crucial. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, although other CMHCs operate in Area 6, but do not possess much share of the community mental health services market. 16-17: rejected as irrelevant. 18: adopted or adopted in substance, except for the last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence (except for 4.18). 19-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as repetitious. 22: adopted. 23-25: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence of paragraph 25, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 26-27: adopted or adopted in substance. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29-33: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence of paragraph 33, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance. 35-36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-38: adopted or adopted in substance, although this was hypothetical testimony of one of Respondent's witness, not a formal statement of Respondent's "position." 39 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 39 (second sentence): adopted. 40-44 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 44 (third sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence. 45: adopted. 46-47: adopted or adopted in substance. 48: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 49: rejected as irrelevant and, except for 4.18, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6: adopted or adopted in substance, except for 4.18. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: adopted or adopted in substance, at least to the extent that Petitioner failed to prove the contrary. 9 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 9 (last sentence): rejected as speculative. 10-16: adopted or adopted in substance, although the extent of Petitioner's ability to respond satisfactorily is questionable, as is the rationale for the use of FTEs for non-administrative positions. Additionally, all proposed findings that RFP provisions do not place non-CMHCs at a disadvantage, when such proposed findings conflict with findings in the recommended order, are rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Seann M. Frazier Mark A. Emanuele Panza Maurer P.A. 3081 East Commercial Blvd. Suite 200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Paul J. Martin William H. Roberts Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Patricia Ann Dewees (hereinafter "Dewees"), seeks to take the examination for licensure as a marriage and family therapist. In an effort to comply with the experience requirements which are prerequisites to eligibility to take the examination, Dewees applied for, and was accepted into, the post graduate program at the Samaritan Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Samaritan Center is a nationally and locally recognized non-profit corporation dedicated to the delivery of affordable mental and emotional health care to persons in need. Originally begun as a center in which highly trained clergy would provide psychotherapy and marriage and family counseling, the center is now non-sectarian. It hires only licensed or license eligible professional therapists. The Samaritan Center is one of 67 affiliates nationwide of the Samaritan Institute in Denver, Colorado. The center is dedicated to a holistic approach to therapy, including the balancing of physical, emotional, and spiritual elements of treatment. Dewees participated in a three year post-master's program at the Samaritan Center in Fort Lauderdale. Her participation in that program is the basis upon which she claims to have the necessary experience to take the licensure examination for marriage and family therapist. 2/ Regarding her experience at the Samaritan Center, Dewees has documented slightly more than 1500 hours of supervised experience during each of the three years. Dewees spent at least fifty percent of that time, and perhaps as much as sixty-seven percent of that time, engaged in attending classes, attending training sessions, attending workshops, and participating in activities directly related to classes, training sessions, and workshops. These activities do not constitute practice of the profession of marriage and family therapy. At best, they constitute preparation for the practice of that profession. During her participation in the program at the Samaritan Center, Dewees engaged in a number of other activities that did constitute practice of the profession of marriage and family therapy. These activities included such things as providing counseling and therapy to clients, as well as supervision of such counseling and therapy, preparation directly related to such counseling and therapy, and paperwork and administrative duties directly related to such counseling and therapy. These types of activities comprised no more than half of the supervised experience Dewees received at the Samaritan Center. During her participation in the program at the Samaritan Center, Dewees documented 550 hours of direct individual, group, or family counseling, including at least two of the following categories of cases: unmarried dyads, married couples, separating and divorcing couples, family groups including children. During her participation in the program at the Samaritan Center, Dewees received at least 156 contact hours of supervision, spread out more or less evenly over the three year period. This supervision was supervision of all of her experiences at the Samaritan Center, including the experiences that did not constitute practice of the profession of marriage and family therapy.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Patricia Ann Dewees, has not met the necessary experience requirements and denying her application to take the licensure examination for Marriage and Family Therapist. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of October, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In November of 1983, HMA filed its application for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate a 60-bed adolescent treatment center in Orlando, Florida. An omissions response was filed by HMA in January of 1984. Thereafter, HRS issued its initial intent to grant the application and PIO requested an administrative hearing. HMA is a privately held corporation which owns or manages twelve or thirteen acute care hospitals in the States of Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas and Florida, several of which are psychiatric hospitals. The proposed long-term psychiatric treatment facility for adolescents is patterned after a 55-bed program currently operated by HMA in Arlington, Texas. The proposed facility will be a freestanding campus-like setting located on ten to fifteen acres of land in the southern portion of Orlando. The precise site has not yet been selected. The single-story facility will have a total size of approximately 45,000 to 50,000 square feet and will be divided into two separate units which connect into a core area containing various support services, such as offices, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, a media center, and an occupational therapy area. While the location finally selected for the facility will have a bearing on the site costs of the project, the estimated construction costs of approximately 3.1 billion do contain a contingency factor and are reasonable at this stage of the project. Each unit will be served by two interdisciplinary treatment teams headed by a physician or a psychiatrist. Key personnel for the facility, such as department heads and program directors, will most likely be recruited from outside the Orlando area in order to obtain persons with experience in long-term care for adolescents. The treatment program is designed to serve adolescents between the ages of 10 and 19, though the bulk of patients will be middle school and high school individuals between the ages of 13 and 17. While the primary service area will be adolescents in District 7, the remainder of the central Florida region is identified as a secondary service area. A full educational program at the facility is proposed. The concept of the hospital will be to treat the whole person, not just his psychiatric problems, and the treatment program will include and involve family members and other factors which may have a bearing on the adolescent's ability to fit into society. The form of treatment is based upon a "levels" approach -- a form of behavior modification wherein privileges are granted for appropriate behavior and the patient is allowed to move up to the next succeeding level of privileges. It is contemplated that the average length of stay for a patient will be approximately six months -- the average time anticipated for a patient to move from the admission level to the level of discharge. HMA intends to seek accreditation of its proposed facility from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. The total estimated project cost for the proposed facility is $6,307,310.00. Financing is to be obtained either through a local bond issue or by a private lending institution. Based upon an evaluation of HMA's audit reports for the past three years, an expert in bond financing of health care facilities was of the opinion that HMA would be eligible either for a private placement or a bond issue to finance the proposed project. HMA intends to charge patients $325.00 per day, and projects an occupancy rate of 80 percent at the end of its second year of operation. This projection is based upon a lack of similar long-term psychiatric facilities for adolescents in the area, the anticipated, experience at the Arlington, Texas adolescent facility and the anticipated serving of clients from CYF (Children Youth and Families -- a state program which; serves adolescents with psychiatric and mental problems). Although no established indigent care policy is now in existence, HMA estimates that its indigency caseload will be between 3 and 5 percent. It is anticipated that the proposed facility will become a contract provider for CYF for the care and treatment of their clients and that this will comprise 20 percent of HMA's patient population. HRS's Rule 10-5.11(26), Florida Administrative Code, relating to long- term psychiatric beds, does not specify a numerical methodology for quantifying bed need. However, the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee (GMFNAC) methodology for determining the need for these beds is generally accepted among health care planners. The GMENAC study was initially performed in order to assess the need for psychiatrists in the year 1990. It is a "needs- based" methodology, as opposed to a "demand-based" methodology, and attempts to predict the number of patients who will theoretically need a particular service, as opposed to the number who will actually utilize or demand such a service. Particularly with child and adolescent individuals who may need psychiatric hospitalization, there are many reasons why they will not seek or obtain such care. Barriers which prevent individuals from seeking psychiatric care include social stigma, the cost of care, concerns about the effectiveness of care, the availability of services and facilities and other problems within the family. Thus, some form of "demand adjustment" is necessary to compensate for the GMENAC formula's overstatement of the need for beds. The GMENAC formula calculates gross bed need by utilizing the following factors: a specific geographic area's population base for a given age group, a prevalency rate in certain diagnostic categories, an appropriate length of stay and an appropriate occupancy factor. In reaching their conclusions regarding the number of long-term adolescent psychiatric beds needed in District 7, the experts presented by HMA and PIO each utilized the GMENAC formula and each utilized the same prevalency rate for that component of the formula. Each appropriately used a five-year planning horizon. However, each expert reached a different result due to a different opinion as to the appropriate age group to be considered, the appropriate length of stay, the appropriate occupancy factor and the factoring in of a "demand adjustment." In calculating the long-term adolescent psychiatric bed need for District 7 in the year 1989, HMA's expert used a population base of ages 0 to 17, lengths of stay of 150 and 180 days, an occupancy level of 80 percent and an admissions factor of 96 percent. Utilizing those figures, the calculation demonstrates a 1989 need for 158 beds if the average length of stay is 150 days, and 189 beds if the average length of stay is 180 days. If the population base is limited to the 10 to 19 age bracket, the need for long-term psychiatric beds is reduced to between 70 and 90, depending upon the length of stay. From these calculations, HMA's expert concludes that there is a significant unmet need for long-term adolescent psychiatric beds in District 7. This expert recognizes that the numbers derived from the GMENAC formula simply depict a statistical representation or indication of need. In order to derive a more exact number of beds which will actually be utilized in an area, one would wish to consider historical utilization in the area and/or perform community surveys and examine other site-specific needs assessment data. Believing that no similar services or facilities exist in the area, HMA's need expert concluded that there is a need for a 60-bed facility in District 7. In applying the GMENAC methodology, PIO's need expert felt it appropriate to utilize a base population of ages 10 through 17, an average length of stay of 90 days and an occupancy rate of 90 percent. Her calculations resulted in a bed need of 37 for the year 1990. Utilizing a length of stay of 120, 150 and 180 days and a 90 percent occupancy rate, a need of 50, 62 and 75 beds is derived. If an occupancy rate of 80 percent is utilized, as well as a population of ages 10 - 17, the need for beds is 42, 56, 70 and 84, respectively, for a 90, 120, 150 and 180 day average length of stay. The need expert for PIO would adjust each of these bed need numbers by 50 percent in order to account for the barriers which affect the actual demand for such beds. Since the HMA proposed facility intends to provide service only to those patients between the ages of 10 and 19, use of the 0 - 17 population would inflate the need for long-term adolescent psychiatric beds. Likewise, PIO's non-inclusion of 18 and 19 year olds understates the need. PIO's use of a 90-day average length of stay would tend to understate the actual need in light of HMA's proposed treatment program which is intended to last approximately six months. While some demand adjustment is required to properly reflect the barriers which exist to the seeking of long-term adolescent psychiatric care, the rationale of reducing by one-half the number derived from the GMENAC methodology was not sufficiently supported or justified. Even if HMA's calculations were reduced by one-half, a figure of between 79 and 94 beds would be derived. The existence of other long-term adolescent psychiatric beds in District 7 was the subject of conflicting evidence. West Lake Hospital in Longwood, Seminole County, holds a Certificate of Need and a license as a special Psychiatric hospital with 80 long-term beds. However, the Certificate of Need was issued prior to the adoption of Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, when anything in excess of 28-days was considered long- term. The West Lake application for a Certificate of Need referred to a four- to-six week length of stay -- or a 28 to 42 day period --for adults, and a ten week, or 70 day length of stay for children and adolescents. In preparing inventories for planning purposes, HRS considers the 40 child and adolescent psychiatric beds at West Lake Hospital to be acute or short-term beds. The West Lake facility is not included in HRS's official inventory of licensed and approved long-term care beds as of October 1, 1984. In fact, the only long-term care beds listed for District 7, in addition to HMA's proposed psychiatric facility, are beds devoted to the treatment of substance abuse. PI0 is the holder of a Certificate of Need to construct and operate a 60-bed short-term adolescent psychiatric hospital in Southwest Orange County, and is currently planning the actual development and construction of the facility. If PIO is not able to reach the census projections contained in its Certificate of Need application, its ability to generate earnings could be adversely impacted. Even a five percent decrease in PIO's census projections would require PIO to either raise its rates or make reductions in direct costs. This could include a decrease in staffing, thus affecting a reduction in the available programs, problems in attracting quality staff and ultimately a reduction in the quality of care offered at the PIO facility. In a batch subsequent to the HMA application, PIO requested the addition of 15 long-term adolescent psychiatric beds and 15 substance abuse beds. When an adolescent psychiatric patient is evaluated for placement in a hospital setting, it is generally not possible to determine how long that patient will require hospitalization. The adolescent psychiatric patient is often very guarded, distrusting both parents and other adults, and it is difficult to obtain full and necessary information from both the patient and the parents. Several weeks of both observation and the gathering of data, such as school records, are necessary in order to access the adolescent patient's degree of disturbance. With respect to treatment programs, there is no sharp medical demarcation between a 60-day period and a 90 day period. Patients in short-term facilities often stay longer than 60 days and patients in long term facilities often stay less than 90 days. The length of stay is very often determined by the parents, in spite of the treatment period prescribed by the physician. The treatment programs in both short-term and long-term psychiatric facilities are very similar, and short- and long-term patients are often treated in the same unit. Staffing for the two types of facilities would be basically the same, with the exception, perhaps, of the educational staff.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that HMA grant HMA's application for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate a 60-bed long-term adolescent psychiatric facility in Orlando, Florida. Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Gary Williams and Michael J. Glazer P. O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John M. Carlson Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert S. Cohen O. Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent Judith M. H. Bandlow Gioia, R.N. #26105- 2 should be suspended or revoked, or whether Respondent should be put on probation or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact During the period of time from March 1, 1978 through March 13, 1978, while employed as a Registered Nurse at Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Cocoa, Florida, Respondent converted to her own use on numerous occasions, a controlled narcotic drug, to wit: Demerol (meperidine) and injected herself with said narcotic on a daily basis. Respondent altered the narcotic control record in order to hide the taking of said drugs noted in the foregoing paragraph and, in some instances, failed to chart the narcotic on the patient's medication sheet or nurses notes. On or about March 13, 1978, on being confronted with the facts stated in the foregoing paragraphs 2 and 3 by the Director of Nurses, Nelda C. Mitchell, R.N., Respondent admitted her guilt and at that time gave Ms. Mitchell four ampules of Demerol 100 mg. which she had in her uniform pocket. Respondent was thereupon discharged from her position on March 13, 1978. The Petitioner, State Board of Nursing, filed an administrative complaint against Respondent on March 27, 1978 charging Respondent with unprofessional conduct and with engaging in the possession of controlled substances contrary to Chapter 464 Florida Statutes. Respondent was notified that unless she requested an administrative hearing the Board would either place the license of Respondent on probation or suspend or revoke her license as a Registered Nurse. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Respondent at the hearing admitted allegations one to four (4) of the administrative complaint and conceded such conduct was in violation of Section 464.21(1)(b) and 464.21(1)(d) The Respondent through her attorney, and personally, testified that she requested the hearing, not to refute the allegations of the complaint but to mitigate the action pending by the State Board of Nursing. A deposition entered into evidence by Respondent, without objection from the Petitioner, was taken on behalf of the Respondent. The witness was Cynthia H. Clowes, the therapist of Respondent when she was admitted to the Palm Beach Institute on March 16, 1978. Ms. Clowes stated that if the Respondent were to undergo therapy by a person qualified in giving therapy in addiction that at the end of two years, more or less, Respondent would be ready to be exposed to access to drugs. She did not recommend that Respondent be exposed to drugs at the time of the deposition on August 7, 1978. Ms. Clowes recommended that Respondent regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. It was Ms. Clowes' opinion that Respondent Gioia had the capability to resume her duties as a nurse on a part-time, but not a full-time basis. The parties agreed that Michelle E. Vollard, Out-patient Therapist Substance Abuse Services, Brevard County Mental Health Center, Inc. would submit a statement to the Hearing Officer subsequent to the hearing. The letter was received December 1, 1978 in the office of the Hearing Officer and was signed by Michelle Vollard, Out-patient Therapist Substance Abuse Services and Rene S. Turla, M.D., Team Psychiatrist. The statement recommends that Ms. Gioia continue individual counselling for a period of at least a year and recommended that her access to narcotic drugs be limited, if not totally eliminated, while she is undergoing therapy. It was recommended that the Respondent attend an alcoholic orientation (education group), and an ongoing alcohol group. The Hearing Officer further finds: Subsequent to her discharge from Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital Respondent voluntarily placed herself in the Palm Beach Institute for a period of six weeks. The purpose was to seek treatment for an apparent addiction to Demerol and to alcoholic substances. After leaving the Palm Beach Institute as an impatient she returned on several occasions to consult with her therapist as an outpatient. She has attended meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous in Brevard County and has sought aid of the Brevard County Mental Health Center. Respondent is at present under stress and may take narcotic drugs without a prescrip- tion, and may also drink alcoholic beverages to excess. She should continue treatment to control alcohol consumption. Respondent should have no access to drugs prescribed for patients.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent for a period of no less than two years. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Gescheidt, Esquire Amdur Building - Suite 2-D 40 Southeast First Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Investigation & Licensing Coordinator State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B. Jacksonville, Florida 32211
