The Issue The parties have stipulated that Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party" as defined in Section 57.111, F.S., and that the attorney fees requested are reasonable, up to the $15,000.00 statutory limit. The issue remaining for resolution is whether the expungement proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by [the] state agency", as provided in Section 57.111, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are adduced from the record, consisting of the transcript and exhibits in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C, from the stipulations of the parties, and from the final order of the agency adopting the recommended order of Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers, dated March 20, 1990. Petitioners are sole proprietors of Forest Haven, an unincorporated adult congregate living facility (ACLF) licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, F.S., and located at 8207 Forest City Road, Orlando, Florida. Petitioners and Forest Haven have their principal office in Orlando, Florida and are domiciled in Orlando, Florida. They have less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of less than $2 million. On March 17, 1989, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) survey team visited Forest Haven to conduct an annual survey of the facility. The survey team was comprised of 10 persons, enlarged due to a training exercise. Several of the team members were registered nurses; several members were Office of Licensure and Certification supervisors. During the course of the visit and observations of the residents, members of the team determined that eight residents required a higher level of care than could be provided at the ACLF. As found in the recommended order adopted by the agency, the basis for this determination was, As to T.M., age 81, the need for a restraining vest, and the existence of bruises and gashes on the face and head; As to H.L., age 89, the presence of a foley catheter, total disorientation, low weight and poor skin turgor (brittle skin); As to F.W., age 72, the presence of a foley catheter, observation of fresh blood in the catheter bag, and low body weight; As to M.B., age 81, incontinence and nonambulatory status; As to R.T., age 84, a foley catheter and contraction of both legs; As to L.O., age 94, edema of lower extremities, contracture of both knees, low body weight, skin tear on left buttocks, and possible bed sore on right buttocks; As to P.B., age 88, incontinence, low body weight, and inability to transfer from wheelchair to bed without assistance; and As to F.H., age 89, one-half inch bed sore on coccyx, pitting edema of legs, incontinence and somewhat confused state. An adult protective services investigator was summoned, as well as law enforcement personnel, and the above residents were removed from the facility on an emergency basis and were placed in a nursing home. They were evaluated at the nursing home the following day by Carolyn Lyons, a Registered Nurse Specialist with HRS, who found that intermediate or skilled nursing home services were required. A ninth resident, C.K., was evaluated by a medical review team nurse and an adult protective services worker at the ACLF on March 20, 1989, and was removed from the facility and placed in a nursing home the same day. C.K., age 89, was found to be confused, incontinent, with bruises, a swollen foot, non- ambulatory, and with a red rash on the trunk of her body. HRS obtained orders from the Circuit Court to provide protective services for seven of the above-mentioned residents. Of the remaining two, one was competent to consent to the nursing home placement and another was returned to his own home by relatives. On March 22, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Annette Hair, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. of the eight residents who had been removed from the ACLF. She relied on her own observations of the individuals, on the medical assessments performed by the survey team nurses at the ACLF, and the subsequent assessment of Carolyn Lyons, the HRS staff person responsible for making an evaluation of the level of care required for medicaid nursing home placement. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Hair's report provides, in pertinent part: * * * Based on the facts obtained during the course of this investigation this case is being classified as CONFIRMED. In accordance with F.S. Section 415.102(4) it is clearly estab- lished that [S. and J.G.] were the caregivers of the eight alleged victims of this report as they had been entrusted with the care of said individuals. The allegation of neglect is verified for each of the eight alleged victims in that [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the care and service necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of an aged person that a prudent person would deem essential for the well-being of an aged person (F.S. Section 415.102(13)). Specifically each of the eight alleged victims has a medical condition which required twenty-four hour skilled nursing care and supervision which the caregivers, [S. and J.G.] failed to provide for said individuals. Five of the eight alleged victims, [H.L., L.O., T.M., F.H. and P.B.] had Scabies (a highly contagious disease caused by parasitic mites that burrow under the skin. This disease is associated with unsanitary conditions and causes a painful itch). [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the supervision necessary to detect this disease and in so doing jeopardized the health and well-being of the other residents in the facility. [H.L.] in addition to having Scabies, was semi-comatose, had bed sores on her buttocks and pelvic area and had a foley catheter. [T.M.] had open lacerations on her face, was extremely mentally confused and was known to wander and fall which required her to be physically restrained. [L.O.] had two open skin areas and Edema. [M.B.] has an excoriated area on her buttocks, Edema of the feet, and her right knee was swollen. [R.T.] had a cough of unknown origin, contraction of both legs, and an in-dwelling catheter. [F.W.] had an in-dwelling catheter which was draining bloody urine and appeared malnourished. [P.B.] appeared malnourished and was incontinent of both bowels and bladder, was extremely confused, and had an open draining wound. [F.H.] had bed sores, and Pitting Edema in addition to Scabies. [S. and J.G.], in addition to being negligent for failing to provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of the alleged victims, were in direct violation of F.S. Section 400.426(1) as they did not perform their responsibility of determining the appropriateness of residence of said individuals in their facility. (Petitioner's exhibit 2, in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) On April 4, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Kathleen C. Schirhman, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. She relied on her own assessment of the resident, and on the medical assessments by Nurse Lyons, and by medical staff at the receiving nursing home, including a physician, Dr. Parsons. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Schirhman's report provides: Based upon the facts obtained during the course of this investigation, both alle- gations of medical neglect and other neglect were determined to be verified, and the case is being classified as CONFIRMED. [J.G. and S.G.] assumed the responsibility of care for [C.K.] and, therefore, became her caregivers. They did not provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of [C.K.] that a prudent person would deem essential for her well-being. She required medical services and nursing supervision in a skilled nursing facility. Pursuant to F.S. 400.426 "the owner or Admini- strator of a facility is responsible for determining the appropriateness of admission of an individual to the facility and for deter- mining the continued appropriateness of resi- dence of an individual in the facility." The assessment by the CARES nurse determined that [C.K.] was being medically neglected, because she required 24 hour nursing care, which she was not receiving. She had Scabies, for which she was not being treated. The CARES nurse believed that the alleged victim was at risk and requiring immediate nursing home placement. Allegation of "other neglect" was added to the original report. [C.K.] was being neglected, because she was a total transfer patient, who required restraints, which were not used and cannot be used in an ACLF. Furthermore, the potential for harm to her was great: She was blind, confused, and unable to self-preserve. (Petitioner's exhibit number 1 in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) S.G. and J.G. requested expungement of the reports but the request was denied on July 10, 1989. Thereafter, through counsel, they made a timely request for a formal evidentiary hearing. The hearing was conducted on February 14 and 15, 1990, by DOAH Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers. Depositions of David J. Parsons, M.D. and Gideon Lewis, M.D. were filed after the hearing, by leave of the Hearing Officer. In his recommended order issued on March 20, 1990, Hearing Officer Ayers found that the HRS investigators did not contact the physicians who had signed the admissions forms when each of the residents at issue had been admitted to the ACLF. Nor did the HRS staff obtain records from the home health agency which, at the treating physicians' direction, was providing, or had provided, home health care to most of the residents at Forest Haven. Skin lesions (decubitus) and scabies were found to be frequently present in nursing home and ACLF residents. Edema and underweight conditions are also common in these residents. Dr. Lewis, the treating physician for most of the residents at Forest Haven, had ordered the vest restraint for T.M.'s protection. He had also written to HRS about a year prior to the survey, recommending that efforts be made to relocate H.L. to a skilled nursing facility. The recommended order found that no evidence of exploitation or neglect, other than medical neglect, was presented at the hearing. The order also found that evidence of medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. was not presented, but rather, "[t]o the contrary, the evidence was unrebutted that Respondents [Petitioners in this proceeding] promptly reported to the resident's physician all changes in the resident's physical condition." The agency's final order was filed on May 29, 1990, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law recommended by Hearing Officer Ayers, and granting J.G. and S.G.'s requests for expungement. The Final Order addressed the department's exceptions to the recommended order, as follows: RULING ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT The dispositive issue is whether retention of a resident (or residents) in an ACLF whose medical condition is more serious than the established criteria for residence in an ACLF (see Section 10A-5.0181, Florida Administra- tive Code for the criteria) constitutes per se neglect under Chapter 415. Inappropriate retention of a resident may constitute grounds for disciplinary sanctions under the licensure rules, but it does not automatically consti- tute abuse under Chapter 415. See State vs. E. N. G., Case Number 89-3306C (HRS 2/13/90). The evidence of medical neglect was based on the inappropriate retention of certain resi- dents. The Hearing Officer's finding that these residents were not medically neglected is based on competent, substantial evidence; therefore, the department is obligated to accept this finding. Johnson vs. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), B. B. vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 542 So2d 1362 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989). In pursuing expungement, Petitioners incurred fees, costs and interest in the total amount of $22,772.49. The amount of interest included in that total is $1,000.91. As stipulated, the fees, up to the $15,000.00 statutory maximum, are reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (FCC), filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), on October 14, 1983, seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home facility in Manatee County, Florida. /1 The proposed project carries an estimated cost of $3,530,000. After reviewing the application, HRS issued its proposed agency action on February 21, 1984, in the form of a state agency action report in which it advised petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The report stated in part that "(e)xisting and approved bed capacity in Manatee County... is sufficient to satisfy projected need for 1986," that 240 nursing home beds had just been approved for the county, and when added to the existing nursing home supply, would "maintain a reasonable subdistrict occupancy level through 1986 and satisfy the need for additional beds in Manatee County." The service area in which FCC proposes to construct its new facility is the Manatee County subdistrict of HRS District 6. That district contains five counties, including Manatee. In order to determine need, HRS has adopted Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, which contains a formula (or methodology) for determining need at both the district and subdistrict level. Under that formula, HRS is required to utilize the "most recent 6 month nursing home utilization in the subdistrict." In this regard, HRS prepares on an on- going basis an internal document entitled "Quarterly Report" which contains the latest available data over a six-month period. In this proceeding, HRS used a report containing data for the period October, 1983, through March, 1984. This was the most current and complete available data at the time of hearing. According to the methodology in Rule 10-5.11(21), there is a gross need in District 6 for 7,336 nursing home beds. At the same time, there are presently 4,910 licensed and 960 approved beds in the District. Therefore, this results in a district-wide shortage of 1,466 nursing home beds through the year 1987, which is the three year planning horizon used by HRS in determining need. Evidenced introduced by HRS indicated there are presently 765 licensed and 240 approved beds in Manatee County. Under the rule, the methodology reflects a need for 1,518 beds, or a subdistrict deficiency of 513 beds through the year 1987. But even if beds are mathematically required under the formula at the subdistrict level, the rule requires that the current utilization of existing facilities be at least 85 percent, and the prospective utilization rate exceed 80 percent. If they do not, no additional beds may be authorized. The current utilization rate in Manatee County is 91.7 percent which meets the 85 percent threshold. However, the prospective utilization rate for the existing and approved operating nursing homes within the county is 69.8 percent, or substantially less than the minimum threshold of 80 percent called for by the rule. If petitioner's proposed beds are added to the calculation, the prospective utilization rate drops to 62.9 percent, or far below the requisite minimum rate. Therefore, there is no need for additional beds in Manatee County. FCC points out that special circumstances are present which justify a deviation from the rule. These include the allocation under the rule of only 15 percent of the district beds to Manatee County even though 21 percent of the elderly population (over 65 years) resides within the county, and the fact that Manatee has the highest percentage of people over 75 years of age of any county within the district. FCC also contends that the county has more persons in poverty than the statewide average, and that it will dedicate some 50 percent of its beds to Medicaid patients if the application is approved. However, these factors are taken into account in the formula devised by HRS, and do not constitute special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the need calculation encompassed in the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home facility in Manatee County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1984.
The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Alachua General Hospital, Inc., Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corporation and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., meet the requirements of law and should be approved based on application of the statutory review criteria or upon other considerations.
Findings Of Fact Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center is a community-based skilled nursing facility of 120 beds located in Ocala, Florida. Oakhurst has a history of high occupancy and is a superior rated facility. At hearing, Oakhurst acknowledged a number of inaccuracies in its application. Some staffing ratios were misstated. The data utilized to calculate financial ratios is different from the data set forth in the combined statement. The physical location of the facility was incorrectly identified. The application misstated the existing number of beds in the facility. Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health. As to the application of Oakhurst, utilization rates indicate that need exists for additional community nursing care services in Marion County. Oakhurst experiences full occupancy. Projected occupancy levels set forth in the Oakhurst application are reasonable. The evidence establishes that the need for additional beds exists and that the application of Oakhurst is consistent with the applicable district and state health plans. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. Approval of the Oakhurst application will increase the availability of community nursing care at a superior rated facility and will meet the projected need determined by the AHCA's determination of the fixed pool. Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's ability to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Oakhurst is a superior rated facility with a history of providing high quality care. There is no indication that the 60 bed unit addition will result in a decline in quality of care. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the Oakhurst application will result in probable economies and improvements in service from joint, cooperative, or shared health care operations. Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Since purchase by the current owners, Oakhurst's financial performance has been satisfactory. Losses experienced during the two years following the purchase are attributed to accelerated depreciation. The facility is currently profitable. Although there was evidence that insufficient funds are being generated to maintain the facility's physical plant, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Oakhurst is unable to maintain the facility. Projected occupancy rates are reasonable. Funds for capital and operating expenditures are available to Oakhurst. Notwithstanding current operation of the facility and availability of funds, Oakhurst's proposal is not financially feasible. Oakhurst's revenue projections are not reasonable. This finding is based on the credible testimony of expert Charles Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki opined that the Oakhurst application is not financially feasible in the short and long term and that the financial projections in the Oakhurst application are not reliable. Mr. Wysocki's testimony was credible and persuasive. Oakhurst's current Medicaid rate is $71.68. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicaid rates as follows: $77.41 during the construction year; $104.69 during operation year one; and $99.75 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicaid rates are unreasonable. Projected Medicaid rates are overstated and do not appear to account for Medicaid program rate ceilings. Medicaid program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates during years one and two. Oakhurst's current Medicare rate is $186.87. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicare rates as follows: $340 during the construction year; $361 during operation year one; and $328 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicare rates are overstated and unreasonable. Medicare program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates. Oakhurst's application overstated revenue projections related to private pay patients. Further, according to Mr. Wysocki, Oakhurst has underestimated expenses related to depreciation, amortization and property taxes. Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Approval of Oakhurst's application can be expected to have a positive competitive impact on the supply of services being proposed based on the fact that the addition of beds will increase the supply of appropriate placements. Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Although Oakhurst has historically participated in the Medicaid program, Oakhurst is currently not subject to Medicaid participation requirements. If the CON at issue in this proceeding is awarded, Oakhurst will be required to provide at least half of the expanded facility's 160 beds to Medicaid patients. Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. To the extent that such information is available, there is no evidence that these services are used inappropriately or inefficiently. Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the proposed new service. As to community nursing home beds, the AHCA has determined that a need exists for additional capacity in the planning area's nursing homes. It is likely that failure to meet projected need will result in difficulty in locating appropriate placements. The state health plan sets forth "preferences" which are considered in comparative evaluations of competing CON applications. Preference is given to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate is higher in the Alachua planning area than in the Marion planning area. Oakhurst is in the Marion planning area and has the highest occupancy in the planning area. Oakhurst meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds or propose the development of multi-level care systems. The Marion County Medicaid participation average is 72.93 percent. Oakhurst's application subjects the facility to a 50 percent Medicaid average. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Oakhurst intends to operate a separate 20 bed subunit specializing in skin and wound care. A distinct subacute care program targeted at a specific patient population is a specialized service. Oakhurst does not have specialized Alzheimer services. Oakhurst does not provide care to AIDS patients. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. The Oakhurst proposal does not address respite care or adult day care. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. These special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual room temperature controls, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. Oakhurst's application meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. No party proposes to offer any therapeutic programs which may credibly be identified as "innovative." Preference is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Oakhurst's projected rates exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, therefore Oakhurst does not meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states. HRS' evaluation of existing facilities shall consider, but not be limited to, current ratings of licensure facilities located in Florida. AHCA is the successor agency to HRS. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents than other applicants shall be given preference. Although FCC and Oakhurst propose reasonable staff levels, Alachua's hospital-based unit, by virtue of location, more closely meets this preference than FCC or Oakhurst. Preference is given to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants who document plans to will ensure residents' rights and privacy, to use resident councils, and to implement a well-designed quality-assurance and discharge-planning program. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst has higher administrative costs and lower resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. The district health plan sets forth preferences which are to be considered in comparative evaluations of CON applications. The first applicable district preference is directed toward providing geographic access to nursing home beds. None of the applications meet this preference. The second applicable district preference requires consideration of existing bed utilization. Based on the percentage of elderly population and utilization of existing beds in each area, relative priorities are established. Oakhurst is in a "high need" planning area. Existing nursing homes in the Marion planning area are experiencing occupancy levels between 80 and 90 percent placing Oakhurst in a "moderate occupancy" planning area. According to the preference matrix set forth in the district plan, Oakhurst is in a priority two planning area (high need and moderate occupancy.) The evidence establishes that Oakhurst meets this preference. The third preference relates to the conversion of acute care beds to skilled nursing use. Oakhurst does not intend to convert underutilized hospital beds into skilled nursing beds for step-down or subacute care. The fourth and fifth preferences apply to new facilities of at least 60 beds. No application meets these preferences. The sixth preference states that priority consideration should be given to facilities which propose to offer specialized services to meet the needs of the identified population. Oakhurst proposes to offer a subunit specializing in skin and wound care. Oakhurst meets this preference.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the application of Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center for Certificate of Need #7326 to be incomplete and withdrawn, GRANTING the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for Certificate of Need #7325 for the 60 remaining beds in the applicable fixed need pool and GRANTING the application of Alachua General Hospital for Certificate of Need #7320 to convert 30 existing acute care beds into a skilled nursing unit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 5th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6264 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Alachua General Hospital, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, irrelevant as to the AHCA's review of the proposals prior to notice of intended award. 16, 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 21-26. Rejected, subordinate. 30. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 32, 34. Rejected, subordinate. 42-50. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. The preferences set forth in the proposed finding are not those contained within Alachua's exhibit #1, which has been utilized in this Recommended Order. 52. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected, evidence fails to establish that therapy offered is "innovative." 62. Rejected, cumulative. 63-64. Rejected, subordinate. 72. Rejected as to SAAR, unnecessary. 73-76. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corp.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4,6, 8-51. Rejected, unnecessary, application rejected as incomplete and withdrawn from consideration. 52-54, 56-58. Rejected, irrelevant. Although it is true that the application contained the combined audited financial statements for the Harborside facilities, such statement fails to meet the requirement that the application contain an audited financial statement for the applicant. Harborside is not the applicant. 55. Rejected, irrelevant. The agency has cited no authority which would permit the waiver of the statutory requirement. 59. Rejected, immaterial. The document was admitted to demonstrate that the material required by law was not submitted with the CON application. Further consideration constitutes an impermissible amendment to the CON application and is rejected. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-91. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 93. Rejected, unnecessary. 102-143. References to Oakhurst application, rejected, unnecessary. Agency for Health Care Administration's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. 13-16. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 19. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, wherein the CON application sets forth such information. Rejected, unnecessary. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Comparison is inappropriate. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The CON application sets forth the information which the agency asserts was not provided. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence as related to applicable criteria for review set forth in the statute. 35. Rejected, not supported by credible evidence or the administrative rules cited in the proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Dean Bunton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald Sternstein, Esquire Frank Rainer, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH 215 South Monroe Street Barnett Bank Building, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Thelma S. Malmberg, is a 47-year old director of nursing at Americana Health Care Center (Americana) in Winter Park, Florida. Americana is a 138-bed skilled nursing facility. She has been employed at that facility since October, 1984. Prior to that time, she served as both director and assistant director of nursing at New Horizon Rehabilitation Center (New Horizon), a nursing home facility in Ocala, Florida, for approximately two years. Before that, she was manager of the quality assurance department at Marion Community Hospital in Ocala from 1974-1982, and at Munroe Memorial Hospital in Ocala from 1971-1974. Malmberg was also a registered nurse from 1968 to 1971. Using her lengthy experience in the health field, Malmberg made application for licensure as a nursing home administrator on April 26, 1984, with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (Board). After reviewing the application and supporting documentation, the Board issued its proposed agency action in the form of a letter on May 30, 1984, advising Malmberg that her application was being denied on the grounds her "work experience and education appears to be limited to nursing," and that "additional detailed administrative experience is required to meet Florida's administrative standards in the health care area." The denial prompted the instant proceeding. According to statutory requirements, as codified in Section 468.1695, Florida Statutes, an applicant for licensure by examination must be 18 years of age or older, a high school graduate or equivalent, and meet one of four criteria in the educational and work experience areas. As is pertinent here, Malmberg contends she has had "24 years of practical experience in a related health administration area," and is therefore eligible to take the examination. The Board has promulgated Rule 21Z-11.09, Florida Administrative Code, which describes the practical experience in a related health administration area as follows: (2) function in a position of total responsibility for the operation and administration of a health care facility which treats and houses patients such as a hospital (or a major subunit thereof), adult congregate living facility of at least 50 beds, hospice, or infirmary. The applicant must show evidence of the performance and practical application of executive duties and management skills including planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling. The parties agree it is this experience which Malmberg must possess in to take the examination. In her present position as director of nursing at Americana, Malmberg supervises a 100-employee nursing department. She interfaces with all other departments of the nursing home, reports directly to the administrator, and acts as administrator in the administrator's absence. To date, however, the administrator has not been absent. While serving as director and assistant director of nursing at New Horizon, she supervised an 80-employee department, and reported directly to the nursing home's administrator. She also performed the duties of an administrator in the administrator's absence, which occurred for approximately 1 1/2 months during her total tenure with New Horizon. In both Americana and New Horizon, Malmberg has been responsible for planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling the nursing department. From 1974 till 1982, Malmberg was the manager of the quality assurance department of a large hospital in Ocala. The quality assurance department is considered a major department within the hospital and Malmberg had responsibility for planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling its various functions as well as interfacing with other departments. On this job, she reported directly to the hospital administrator. Malmberg has also attended various seminars in the health field area over the last ten years or so, and served for six years on the Board of Directors of the Marion-Citrus Mental Health Center, a community mental health board. According to uncontroverted testimony of the Board's chairman, a director of nursing is not in a position of "total responsibility" within the meaning of the rule unless she is designated as a designee to act in the absence of the administrator. Further, the administrator must be absent for at least four years in order for the designee to fulfill the four years of practical experience requirements. In Malmberg's case, she has acted in the administrator's stead for only a few months which is far short of the necessary time. Similarly, her supervision of a single hospital department for a number of years does not qualify for "total responsibility," nor does attending seminars add to her credentials. Therefore, she has not been in a position of total responsibility for the operation and administration of a health care facility for the requisite period of time and is presently unqualified for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Thelma Malmberg for licensure by examination as a nursing home administrator be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-0675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John S. Lynch, Esquire Post Office Box 696 Ocala, Florida 32678 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Room 212, 400 West Robinson St. Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issues are thus whether the acts and omissions charged occurred, whether they constitute violations of Section 400.022(1)(j) and 400.141, Florida Statutes, and related rules, and whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to 400.102(c) and Section 400.121, Florida Statutes. Upon the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner moved to amend paragraph 8 of its Complaint, so that the date "March 4" would read March 14." The motion was granted on the basis that there was only a clerical error involved and paragraph 8 correctly alleges that there-was a nursing staff shortage from February 20 to March 14, 1980. Eight witnesses were called by the Petitioner, and two by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were adduced as evidence. The Respondent has submitted and requested rulings upon ninety-five proposed findings of fact. In that connection, all proposed findings, conclusions, and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments made by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith they have been rejected.
Findings Of Fact Manhattan Convalescent Center is a nursing home facility located in Tampa and licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On January 22, February 20, February 25, March 3, March 6, and March 14, 1980, a number of Department employees representing the Department's medical review team, and the Office of Licensure and Certification, consisting of registered nurses, hospital consultants and Department surveillance team members, made inspections of the Respondent's facility for the purpose of ascertaining whether the premises, equipment and conduct of operations were safe and sanitary for the provision of adequate and appropriate health care consistent with the rules promulgated by the Department and whether minimum nursing service staff standards were being maintained. Thus, on January 22, 1980 a member of the medical review team, witness Maulden, observed a rat run across the floor in one of the wings of the nursing home facility. On February 20, Muriel Holzberger, a registered nurse and surveyor employed by the Petitioner, observed rodent droppings in one of the wings of the facility and on February 20, March 12 and March 14, 1980, numerous roaches were observed by various employees of the Department making inspections throughout the facility. On February 20, 1980 strong urine odors were present on the 200, 300 and 400 wings of the facility as well as in the lobby. The odor was caused by urine puddles under some patients' chairs in the hallway, wet sheets, and a spilled catheter. On February 20 and 25, 1980 the grounds were littered with debris and used equipment, the grass and weeds on the grounds needed cutting and there was a build up of organic material, food spills and wet spots on the floors. The Respondent's witness, Ann Killeen, as well as the Petitioner's hospital consultant, Joel Montgomery, agreed that a general state of disrepair existed at the Respondent's facility, consisting of torn screens, ill fitting exterior doors with inoperative or missing door closers and missing ceiling tile. Interior and exterior walls were in need of repair and repainting. Additionally, eleven bedside cords for the nurse paging system were cut, apparently by patients, and on February 25, 1980, a total of 36 nurse paging stations were inoperative. A substantial number of these cords were cut by a patient (or patients) with scissors without the knowledge of the Respondent and steps to correct the condition were immediately taken. On January 22, 1980 Petitioner's representatives, Mary Maulden and Alicia Alvarez, observed a patient at the Respondent's facility free himself from physical restraints, walk down the hall and leave the facility. A search for nursing staff was made but none were found on the wing. After three to five minutes the Assistant Director of Nurses was located and the patient was apprehended. Nurse Alvarez's testimony revealed that the Respondent's nursing staff was in and out of, and working in that wing all that morning except for that particular point in time when the patient shed his restraints and walked out of the facility. On March 3, 1980 Department employee, William Musgrove, as part of a surveillance team consisting of himself and nurse Muriel Holzberger, observed two patients restrained in the hall of the facility in chairs and Posey vests, which are designed to safely restrain unstable patients. The witness questioned the propriety of this procedure, but could not establish this as a violation of the Respondent's patient care policies required by Rule 10D-29.41, Florida Administrative Code. The witness reviewed the Respondent's written patient care policy required by that Rule and testified that their policy complied with it and that the policy did not forbid restraining a patient to a handrail in the facility as was done in this instance. The witness was unable to testify whether patients were improperly restrained pursuant to medical orders for their own or other patients' protection. A hospital consultant for the Department, Bill Schmitz, and Marsha Winae, a public health nurse for the Department, made a survey of the Respondent's facility on March 12, 1980. On that day the extensive roach infestation was continuing as was the presence of liquids in the hallways. On February 20, 1980 witness Joel Montgomery observed a lawn mower stored in the facility's electrical panel room which is charged as a violation in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint. The lawn mower was not shown to definitely contain gasoline however, nor does it constitute a bulk storage of volatile or flammable liquids. Nurse Holzberger who inspected the Respondent's nursing home on February 20, February 25, March 3 and March 6, 1980, corroborated the previously established roach infestation and the presence of strong urine odors throughout the facility including those emanating from puddles under some patients' chairs, the soaking of chair cushions and mattresses and an excess accumulation of soiled linen. Her testimony also corroborates the existence of 36 instances of inoperative nurse paging devices including the 11 nurse calling cords which had been cut by patients. This witness, who was accepted as an expert in the field of proper nursing care, established that an appropriate level of nursing care for the patients in this facility would dictate the requirement that those who are incontinent be cleaned and their linen changed more frequently and that floors be mopped and otherwise cleaned more frequently. Upon the second visit to the facility by this witness the nurse call system had 9 paging cords missing, 11 cords cut, and 15 of the nurse calling devices would not light up at the nurses' station. This situation is rendered more significant by the fact that more than half of the patients with inoperative nurse paging devices were bedridden. On her last visit of March 6, 1980 the problem of urine puddles standing on the floors, urine stains on bed linen, and resultant odor was the same or slightly worse than on the two previous visits. An effective housekeeping and patient care policy or practice would dictate relieving such incontinent patients every two hours and more frequent laundering of linen, as well as bowel and bladder training. On March 6, 1980 controlled drugs were resting on counters in all of the facility's four drug rooms instead of being stored in a locked compartment, although two of the drug rooms themselves were locked. The other two were unlocked, but with the Respondent's nurses present. Ms. Holzberger participated in the inspections of March 3 and March 6, 1980. On March 3, 1980 there were no more than 14 sheets available for changes on the 4:00 p.m. to midnight nursing shift. On March 6, 1980 there were only 68 absorbent underpads and 74 sheets available for changes for approximately 65 incontinent patients. The unrefuted expert testimony of Nurse Holzberger established that there should be available four sheets for each incontinent patient per shift. Thus, on these two dates there was an inadequate supply of bed linen to provide changes for the incontinent patients in the facility. On March 6, 1980 Nurse Holzberger and Nurse Carol King observed 12 patients who were lying on sheets previously wet with urine, unchanged, dried and rewet again. This condition is not compatible with generally recognized adequate and appropriate nursing care standards. Incontinent patients should be examined every two hours and a change of sheets made if indicated. If such patients remain on wet sheets for a longer period of time their health may be adversely affected. On March 6, 1980 these same employees of the Petitioner inspected a medical supply room and found no disposable gloves, no adhesive tape, no razor blades and one package of telfa pads. There was no testimony to establish what the medical supply requirements of this facility are based upon the types of patients it cares for and the types and amounts of medical supplies thus needed. The testimony of Robert Cole, the facility's employee, who was at that time in charge of dispensing medical supplies, establishes that in the medical supply room (as opposed to the nurses' stations on the wings) there were at least six rolls of tape per station, 50 razors, four boxes or 80 rolls, 300 telfa pads and 200 sterile gloves. Nurses Holzberger and King made an evaluation of the Respondent's nurse staffing patterns. Ms. Holzberger only noted a shortage of nursing staff on February 24, 1980. Her calculations, however, were based on an average census of skilled patients in the Respondent's facility over the period February 20 to March 4, 1980 and she did not know the actual number of skilled patients upon which the required number of nursing staff present must be calculated on that particular day, February 24, 1980. Further, her calculations were based upon the nurses' "sign in sheet" and did not include the Director of Nurses who does not sign in when she reports for work. Therefore, it was established that on February 24 there would be one more registered nurse present than her figures reflect, i.e., the Director of Nurses. Nurse King, in describing alleged nursing staff shortages in the week of March 7 to March 13, 1980, was similarly unable to testify to the number of skilled patients present on each of those days which must be used as the basis for calculating required nursing staff. She rather used a similar average patient census for her calculations and testimony. Thus, neither witness for the Petitioner testifying regarding nursing staff shortages knew the actual number of patients present in the facility on the days nursing staff shortages were alleged. In response to the problem of the roach infestation, the Respondent's Administrator changed pest control companies on March 26, 1980. The previous pest control service was ineffective. It was also the practice of the Respondent, at that time, to fog one wing of the facility per week with pesticide in an attempt to control the roaches. Further, vacant lots on all sides, owned and controlled by others, were overgrown with weeds and debris, to which the witness ascribed the large roach population. The problem of urine odors in the facility was attributed to the exhaust fans for ventilating the facility which were inoperable in February, 1980. She had them repaired and, by the beginning of April, 1980 (after the subject inspections), had removed the urine odor problem. The witness took other stops to correct deficiencies by firing the previous Director of Nurses on March 14, 1980, and employing a new person in charge of linen supply and purchasing. A new supply of linen was purchased in February or March, 1980. The Respondent maintains written policies concerning patient care, including a provision for protection of patients from abuse or neglect. The Respondent's Administrator admitted existence of the torn screens, broken door locks, missing ceiling tiles and the roach infestation. She also admitted the fact of the cut and otherwise inoperable nurse paging cords in the patients' rooms, but indicated that these deficiencies had been repaired. The various structural repairs required have been accomplished. All correction efforts began after the inspections by the Petitioner's staff members, however.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED that for the violations charged in Counts I, II, IV, VI, IX and X of the Administrative Complaint and found herein to be proven, the Respondent should be fined a total of $1,600.00. Counts III, V, VII and VIII of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1981. (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: AMELIA PARK, ESQUIRE JANICE SORTER, ESQUIRE W. T. EDWARDS FACILITY 4000 WEST BUFFALO AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR TAMPA, FLORIDA 33614 KENNETH E. APGAR, ESQUIRE EDWARD P. DE LA PARTE, JR., ESQUIRE 403 NORTH MORGAN STREET, SUITE 102 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602
The Issue The issue presented is whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast- Florida, Inc.; JFK Medical Center, Inc.; and Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc., should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast- Florida, Inc. (hereinafter "Beverly"), is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly- California Corporation which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc., one of the largest providers of long-term care services in the country. Beverly operates 41 nursing homes in the state of Florida, with all of these facilities receiving substantial financial, managerial, operational, and program support from Beverly's Florida regional office. Three of those nursing homes are located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Beverly proposes in its certificate of need (hereinafter "CON") application #7372 to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in zip code 33414, which is the Wellington area of Palm Beach County, to be known as Wellington Terrace. The facility would provide high acuity nursing services with an emphasis on rehabilitation. The proposed special programs include an adult day care program, respite care services, and an Alzheimer's unit, and the facility will accept patients with AIDS. The proposed facility will encompass 53,348 square feet and will have a total project cost of approximately $5.6 million. The facility is designed to minimize institutional effects and emphasize a home-like atmosphere for residents, featuring such amenities as a large day room with an aquarium and wide-screen television and VCR, a screened gazebo, and a greenhouse. Quality of life enhancements will be a consideration in all aspects of the facility. The building will meet or exceed all licensure requirements for construction and safety codes. Beverly's goal is to achieve a superior-rated facility. Beverly has agreed, if it is awarded a CON in this proceeding, that its CON for this facility will be conditioned upon the facility having a 25-bed Medicare-certified sub-acute unit which will include 4 beds dedicated to ventilator-dependent care. Wellington Terrace's CON will also be conditioned upon the provision of 56 percent of its annual patient days to Medicaid patients, and Beverly will give Florida State University's Institute on Aging a grant in the amount of $10,000 to be used for gerontological research. Petitioner Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc. (hereinafter "Manor Care"), is a Florida-based operating subsidiary of Manor Care Healthcare Corporation, one of the largest operators of nursing homes in the country. Manor Care Healthcare Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Care, Inc., a publicly-traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Through its corporate structure, Manor Care, Inc., devotes substantial financial, manpower, and other resources to its individual nursing homes. The individual facilities are directed by corporate policies in the areas of finance, quality of care, quality assurance, prototype services, structural design, and all areas of nursing home operations. Manor Care's parent owns 10 nursing homes and 4 adult congregate living facilities in Florida. Two additional nursing homes are under construction in Florida, including one in Palm Beach County. In the last 4 years, Manor Care has constructed and opened 2 nursing homes in Florida, and both received superior-rated licenses as soon as they were eligible. Manor Care seeks in its CON application #7375 to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in the Lake Worth area of Palm Beach County. The facility is a one-story fully equipped nursing center, using a design which conforms with all federal, state, and local regulations. It incorporates residential features to meet the physical, social, and psychological needs of the residents and promote independence. The space-efficient design emphasizes a home-like atmosphere which ensures quality of care and quality of life. The design is patterned after Manor Care's "prototype" facility and is very similar to Manor Care's two newest Florida nursing centers in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. The facility encompasses approximately 49,500 square feet and has a total project cost of approximately $6.8 million. The facility will contain 16 private rooms and 52 semi-private rooms. The proposed facility includes a 30-bed self-contained unit for residents with Alzheimer's disease and a 15-bed self-contained sub-acute unit. The sub-acute unit will be adjacent to speech, physical and occupational therapy/rehabilitation/dining spaces to facilitate patient recovery. The therapy spaces are 50 percent larger than Manor Care's standard therapy spaces to better accommodate the sub-acute patients. Like Beverly's, the proposed facility will offer skilled care, intermediate care, rehabilitative care, respite care, restorative care, sub- acute care, and specialized care for Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. It will also provide the following support services: pre-admission screening, appropriateness review, resident care plans, discharge plans, quality assurance, pharmacy, consulting (for physician visits, and dental, radiology, podiatry, and other diagnostic evaluations), community outreach, family programs, and chaplaincy. Beverly offers similar support services. Manor Care has agreed, if it is awarded a CON in this proceeding, to condition its CON on its 30-bed dedicated, secured Alzheimer's unit and its 15- bed sub-acute unit. Manor Care has also agreed to condition its project on providing a minimum of 55.5 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid residents, and on providing an adult Alzheimer's day-care program, a respite care program, and 2.8 nursing hours per patient day for the Alzheimer's unit. Petitioner JFK Medical Center, Inc. (hereinafter "JFK"), is a general acute care hospital located in the Atlantis/Lake Worth area, in central Palm Beach County. It is licensed to operate 369 beds. JFK enjoys tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. JFK provides services to patients of high acuity. Its overall case mix index, which serves to measure acuity, is 1.56. The normal case mix for acute care hospitals is 1.0. JFK's case mix index places it among the top five percent of all hospitals in the state. JFK focuses its acute care services in three specific areas. It serves as a regional referral center for cardiovascular services. It serves as a regional referral center for oncology and is the only hospital in Palm Beach County accredited by the American College of Surgeons as a comprehensive cancer center. JFK also has a large orthopedic surgery program. JFK serves predominantly an elderly patient population. Approximately 75 percent of its patients exceed 65 years of age. JFK's patient population includes many patients with multiple system medical problems. Such patients are more difficult to care for than patients with single system problems. In addition to acute care services, JFK provides a full range of outpatient and ambulatory services. JFK operates a diagnostic breast institute, an ambulatory surgery center, an outpatient cancer center, and a home health agency. JFK also employs twenty-three primary care physicians. JFK's outpatient and physician services constitute a portion of JFK's continuum of care, as do its acute care services. Sub-acute services are the only link missing from JFK's continuum of care. By its CON application #7374, JFK seeks authority to convert 26 existing adult psychiatric and substance abuse beds to establish a 20-bed sub- acute skilled nursing unit. JFK proposes to treat patients: (1) who have experienced an episode of acute care; (2) who no longer have need for acute care; and, (3) whose medical needs require higher intensity of care than is provided in a community nursing home. These "sub-acute care" patients fit somewhere in the continuum between acute care and nursing home care. The project involves 14,100 square feet of renovated space, a capital expenditure of $633,285 to be funded from internal sources, and the conversion of underutilized beds to a highly-utilized service. Sub-acute care is a comprehensive inpatient care program designed for patients who have experienced an acute illness or injury. Sub-acute care is designed to treat complex medical conditions through coordinated complex medical treatments. The rendition of sub-acute care requires an interdisciplinary team of professionals and paraprofessionals. In order to render sub-acute care to its patient population, the JFK program will provide the following staffing and service components: 24-hour registered nurse coverage; 5-6 hours of hands-on nursing care daily per patient, which is twice the care required of a community nursing home; and, 7 day/week, 24-hour access to all of JFK's ancillary services, including laboratory, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, blood transfu- sions, emergency services, and physician services. The JFK program will provide a full range of rehabilitative, restorative, and therapeutic services to patients, including radiation therapy, intravenous therapy, chemotherapy, complex tracheotomy, ventilator, and hyperalimentation care. JFK will provide services to the following patient groups: orthopaedic patients including joint replacement, fracture or amputation patients, cerebrovascular patients including stroke and other CVA accident patients, post-operative open-heart surgery patients requiring transitional care, oncology/radiation therapy patients requiring high level sub-acute care, pulmonary disorder patients including respiratory/ventilator dependent or other chronic pulmonary disease patients, patients with drug resistant infections including MRSA or tuberculosis patients, HIV-infected patients, patients with severe decubitus ulcers, and psychiatric patients with skilled medical care requirements. The JFK program is not designed to compete with community nursing homes. JFK proposes in its application a condition that 90 percent of the patients served in the sub-acute unit will originate from within JFK. JFK also proposes a condition that 90 percent of the patient days provided in the unit be provided to Medicare patients, or non-Medicare patients requiring physician certified rehabilitative or restorative care. JFK also proposes a condition that it serve high acuity or "heavy care" patients. In order to be awarded a CON, an application must be evaluated to determine compliance with the priorities or preferences stated in the appropriate District or Local Health Plan and in the State Health Plan. The District 9 Local Health Plan includes 3 allocation factors to be used in evaluating nursing home applications. The first states that priority should be given to applicants for new nursing homes or expansion of existing homes who agree to provide a minimum of 30 percent Medicaid days to their patients. Both Manor Care and Beverly comply with this priority in that they have committed to a minimum of 55.5 percent and 56 percent, respectively. The slight difference in their commitments does not give Beverly an advantage. JFK is not specifically proposing to provide care to Medicaid patients in its sub-acute unit. JFK's proposal is to serve primarily Medicare patients with the remaining patients being without resources or having other insurance. Medicaid-eligible patients occasionally need sub-acute services, and Medicaid does reimburse currently for nursing services provided in hospital-based skilled nursing beds. However, at the time that JFK filed its CON application, Medicaid did not reimburse hospitals for such services. More importantly, the allocation factor does not apply to JFK's application since it only applies to applicants for new nursing homes or expansion of existing homes, and JFK is neither. The second allocation factor in the District 9 Local Health Plan provides that priority shall be given to applicants who demonstrate (a) a documented history of providing good residential care; (b) staffing ratios, particularly for registered nurses and aides, that exceed the minimum requirements; (c) provision for the treatment of residents with mental health problems; and (d) the inclusion of intensive rehabilitation services for those short-stay patients who require rehabilitation below the level of an acute care hospital. Manor Care meets this allocation factor better than Beverly. As to the first criterion in the second allocation factor, during some of the 36 months prior to the filing of its application, two of Manor Care's ten Florida nursing homes held a conditional license. Currently, nine of those ten nursing homes hold superior licenses, and the other holds a standard license. Manor Care's two nursing homes opened most recently received superior licenses as soon as they were eligible. On the other hand, during some of the 36 months prior to the filing of its application, 17 of Beverly's 41 Florida facilities held a conditional license. Beverly's most recent composite shows that 31 of its 41 Florida facilities are superior-rated, with three of those 41 facilities rated conditional. Hospitals do not provide residential care, and JFK, therefore, has no history of "residential care" to evaluate; however, JFK has met stringent quality of care requirements by obtaining accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. The second criterion in the second allocation factor is met by the staffing ratios of all three applicants. Similarly, all three applicants will treat residents with mental health problems, the third criterion. The last criterion of the second allocation factor seeks applicants offering intensive rehabilitation services below the level of an acute care hospital. All three applicants comply with this criterion since JFK's application is for a sub-acute unit including intensive rehabilitation services, and Manor Care and Beverly each include such a unit within their proposed nursing home facilities. The Local Health Plan's third allocation factor seeks applicants proposing to serve a distinct population that is currently not being served within the subdistrict, Palm Beach County. As written, none of the applicants meets the third allocation factor since none has identified a distinct patient population that is not being served. However, the Agency interprets this allocation factor as being fulfilled by an applicant who addresses a distinct population which is being underserved rather than unserved. As interpreted by the Agency, all three applicants meet this allocation factor, Manor Care and Beverly with their Alzheimer's units, and all three applicants with their sub- acute units. Both services are greatly needed by Palm Beach County residents. Beverly suggests that it meets the third allocation factor as it is written because it will provide Jewish services, Kosher food, care to AIDS patients, and bi-lingual services. However, there are facilities with bi- lingual and multi-lingual employees, and patients with AIDS are receiving services. Further, there are dedicated Jewish nursing homes in Palm Beach County, and Beverly's project design does not include a Kosher kitchen. Beverly also suggests that its application is more consistent with the Local Health Plan than Manor Care's. Beverly relies on language within the Plan which states an interest in increasing access to nursing home services to the westernmost region of Palm Beach County. First, that language is not contained in any of the allocation factors utilized by the Agency in reviewing CON applications. Second, Beverly does not include the westernmost regions of the county in its primary service area for the proposed facility. Third, Beverly's Royal Manor facility is already serving the area which Beverly proposes as the primary service area for its Wellington Terrace facility. The State Health Plan contains 12 allocation factors. The first states that preference shall be given to applicants proposing to locate a nursing home in areas within the subdistrict with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. Palm Beach County has an occupancy rate in excess of 90 percent, and all applicants meet this preference. The second allocation factor states that preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. It further provides that exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds, or who propose the development of multi-level care systems. The average percentage of nursing home Medicaid patients in the Palm Beach County subdistrict is 55.44 percent. Since Manor Care proposes a minimum of 55.5 percent and Beverly proposes a minimum of 56 percent, they both meet this preference. Beverly's reliance on a higher state-wide average to obtain an advantage over Manor Care as to this factor is misplaced since the factor does not call for any statewide average but rather speaks to the Medicaid commitment of the specific facility being proposed. Although JFK, as a hospital, does not meet the average subdistrict-wide percentage of Medicaid usage, JFK is still entitled to preference under this allocation factor since its proposal is specifically for the development of a multi-level care system. JFK specifically proposes its sub-acute unit to fill in the only gap in its vertical continuum of care. The third allocation factor in the State Health Plan gives preference to an applicant proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. All applicants meet this allocation factor. JFK meets this factor with its unique hospital-based sub-acute unit proposal. Manor Care meets this factor with its dedicated, secured Alzheimer's unit, sub-acute unit, and comprehensive rehabilitation program. Beverly meets this factor with its sub-acute unit and comprehensive rehabilitation program and its Alzheimer's unit. Further, all three applicants will provide services to AIDS patients and to the mentally ill. Factor four gives preference to applicants proposing a continuum of services to community residents including, but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. Manor Care will provide Alzheimer's adult day care, respite care, a 30-bed Alzheimer's unit, and a 15-bed sub-acute unit. It will provide skilled and intermediate care, rehabilitative care, hospice care, restorative care, telephone re-assurance, referral and counseling services, and various community outreach programs. Manor Care meets this allocation factor. Beverly proposes a continuum of services, including its sub-acute unit, Alzheimer's unit, adult day care, and respite care. Beverly proposes an outpatient adult day care program for up to eight guests, with services available five days a week. The Wellington Terrace design allocates 735 square feet to multi-purpose space for adult day care. Direct care staff, consisting of a nursing assistant and a part-time activity aide along with volunteer programs staff, meals, and snacks will be offered in conjunction with the full array of recreational, personal care, therapeutic, and social services activities available at the facility. Manor Care also offers a full array of services to the participants in its Alzheimer's day care program. Although Manor Care has fewer slots available, its program will operate seven days a week. The respite care programs offered by both Beverly and Manor Care provide short-term nursing and therapeutic care for elderly adults who require care currently provided by family and other caretakers but whose caretakers require relief from their care-giving activities. All of the services available to in-patients will be available to respite residents. Although JFK's proposal does not include respite care or day care, its proposal would result in a continuum of services to community residents ranging from acute care services through home health care services. JFK, accordingly, also meets this preference. The fifth allocation factor gives preference to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum residents' comfort and quality of care. The factor states that the special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual rooms, temperature control, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. This allocation factor envisions services offered in a traditional community nursing home rather than services provided in a hospital-based skilled nursing unit. JFK, like any hospital, cannot meet the portion of this preference which evaluates the level of comfort in a residential, custodial setting, but it does meet the portion relating to quality of care. Beverly's facility seeks to minimize the effects of institutionalization on residents through patient rooms which exceed state requirements, private toilets in each room, a physical therapy suite with a physical therapy gym and hydrotherapy area, an outdoor ambulation court, outside courtyard with screened gazebo, and a solarium/greenhouse. Private dining space and separate areas for visitation are provided, and thermostat controls are placed in every room. Its Wellington Terrace facility will feature 50 semi- private rooms and 20 private resident rooms in a single-story structure. Manor Care's facility would have many of these amenities. Its design incorporates residential features that support the physical, social, and psychological needs of the residents and which emphasizes a comfortable atmosphere that ensures quality of care and quality of life for the residents. Both Beverly and Manor Care meet this factor. The sixth allocation factor in the State Health Plan gives preference to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. All three applicants meet this preference. Beverly's comprehensive rehabilitation program at Wellington Terrace will encompass physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech/language pathology. Rehabilitation programs will be offered seven days per week in order to provide continuity, decrease the time associated with recovery and rehabilitation, and serve the increased needs for rehabilitation services attendant to the sub-acute patient. Upon admission, every resident will be screened by all therapies to assess the need for specific services with periodic screenings during all stays. Out-patient rehabilitation services will be offered to the community in a physical therapy suite with a separate entrance. Manor Care envisions a similar comprehensive rehabilitation program offering the same therapies with the same intended results. Its rehabilitation program for its sub-acute unit offers one advantage not proposed by Beverly, i.e., the patients in the sub-acute unit will receive care under the supervision of a physiatrist. Manor Care's physical and occupational therapy will be designed to increase tolerance and maximize function in relation to the disease process. The frequency and duration of therapy will increase as the patient's tolerance, skill level, and confidence improve. Manor Care will provide a restorative and normalizing program to enable each resident to achieve maximum functioning and independence. An inter- disciplinary team of specialists will develop an individualized resident care plan. Restorative care for sub-acute patients will incorporate the same approach and will focus on achieving medical stability and discharging patients to their homes. Beverly's Wellington Terrace will provide therapeutic programs which enhance the residents' physical and mental functioning and emphasize restorative care. Specialized rehabilitation programs, a restorative nursing program, and normalizing activities are three main components of Beverly's approach. Its therapists work as a team to develop a treatment program designed to improve the residents' ability. Training is provided in the use of prostheses, pain management, rehabilitative dining, and other restorative therapies. Allocation factor number seven gives preference to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Both Manor Care and Beverly meet this preference. JFK has not proposed a specific charge for Medicaid patients since it expects to serve few of them, and it is anticipated that its Medicaid charges would be higher than those in a community nursing home. JFK does not meet this factor in that it will be serving Medicare patients, and the cost of providing care to Medicare skilled patients is higher than the cost of providing services to Medicaid patients. Allocation factor number eight gives preference to applicants with a record of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states and calls for consideration of the current licensure ratings of Florida facilities. Nine of the ten Manor Care facilities in Florida are rated superior, and its two newest facilities received superior ratings as soon as they were eligible. Accordingly, Manor Care has a documented history of providing superior resident care programs to its residents in Florida. On the other hand, Beverly has a superior rating for 31 of its 41 Florida facilities, and three of the facilities are rated conditional. Manor Care better meets this allocation factor than Beverly. JFK does not have a record of providing residential nursing home care, but JFK does provide a high quality of patient care as evidenced by its accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. The ninth allocation factor gives a preference to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules and further provides that applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs and LPNs to residents than other applicants shall be given preference. All three applicants propose staffing levels exceeding state minimum standards. As to the higher ratios, Manor Care's Schedule 6 for Year 2 shows 8.4 RNs and 14.9 LPNs. In comparison, Beverly's schedule 6 for Year 2 shows 8 RNs and 10 LPNs. Thus, Manor Care has a greater number of RNs and LPNs even though Beverly projects more utilization than Manor Care, and Manor Care is entitled to preference over Beverly on this factor. Allocation factor number ten gives preference to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the resident needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. It provides that the professionals used shall include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All three applicants propose an interdisciplinary approach to meet the residents' needs in nursing, all therapies, nutrition, social services, and spiritual guidance, and JFK is likely to have a wider variety of professionals available than the two community nursing home applicants. The eleventh allocation factor of the State Health Plan states that preference shall be given to an applicant who provides documentation as to how it will ensure residents' rights and privacy, use resident councils, and implement a well-designed quality assurance and discharge planning program. All three applicants ensure residents' rights and privacy, and all have a well- designed quality assurance program in addition to a detailed discharge planning program. All three applicants meet this preference. The twelfth allocation factor gives preference to an applicant proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. This factor is difficult to accurately assess because the terms "administrative costs" and "resident care costs" are not defined, and there is no uniformity in reporting by county nursing homes. For example, some facilities such as Manor Care include salary benefits as an administrative cost, while others such as Beverly include that considerable expense as a resident care cost. Although it is also unknown how those costs are reported by the "average nursing home" or even what an average nursing home is, it is apparent that this factor seeks to encourage nursing homes to devote resources for direct delivery of care. Manor Care and Beverly comply with this preference. However, their applications in Schedule 6 reflect that Manor Care will have more staff for nursing, ancillary, and dietary services than Beverly and that Manor Care will have overall more full-time employees than Beverly. JFK will have higher resident care costs than the average nursing home, but any hospital-based program will have higher administrative costs than a free-standing nursing home because of the infrastructure required to operate a hospital. To the extent that this factor is intended to apply to a hospital-based skilled nursing unit, JFK cannot meet this factor. There is a need for the proposed Manor Care facility in Palm Beach County. First, Manor Care proposes to locate its facility in the west Lake Worth area of Palm Beach County. This area has a very high concentration of elderly people. In zip code 33467 (the western Lake Worth area), 14.7 percent of the projected 1997 population will be 75 years of age or older. It is good health planning to locate a new facility there. Second, there is a great need for additional Alzheimer's nursing home beds in a dedicated, secured unit. While the demand for Alzheimer's beds is substantially increasing, there are only a few dedicated Alzheimer's units in the entire county. Manor Care's 30- bed unit would help meet this need. Third, there is a need for additional sub- acute beds. Manor Care's proposed 15-bed unit will help meet this need particularly where Manor Care proposes to locate its facility. Fourth, Manor Care's commitment to provide a minimum of 55.5 percent Medicaid will enhance access to nursing home services. Fifth, Manor Care's application includes many letters of support from health care providers and practitioners, which substantiate the need and demand for another Manor Care nursing home in the county. It is not required for a CON applicant to propose a specific site for its facility. However, Beverly's application asserts that its proposed facility, Wellington Terrace, will be located in zip code 33414, which is the zip code for Wellington, a planned unit development. Beverly's witnesses also asserted that the facility would be built in Wellington, and Beverly's vice president in charge of nursing home development offered in his testimony to add as a condition for the award of a CON in this proceeding that Beverly would build its facility in Wellington. Beverly's proposed facility is not needed in the Wellington area of Palm Beach County. First, Beverly's proposed facility would not promote Medicaid access. Zip code 33414 has the highest income per elderly resident in Palm Beach County. Locating nursing home beds in the wealthiest elderly section of the county does not promote Medicaid access. Second, the small elderly population in Wellington does not show need for a new nursing home. The 75+ age cohort is that population group which truly demands nursing home services. Only 2.5 percent of the zip code 33414 residents are 75+. In comparison, the Palm Beach County average is 10.8 percent and the Lake Worth area where Manor Care proposes to locate is 14.7 percent. The other four zip codes in Beverly's primary service area (33414, 33411, 33470, 33467, and 33413) do not show need for the facility in Wellington. Zip codes 33470 and 33413 are scantly populated. Zip code 33411 is where Beverly's Royal Manor facility is located. Zip code 33467 is where Manor Care proposes to locate. Third, the closest nursing home to the proposed Beverly facility is Beverly's Royal Manor facility, which is only five miles from the proposed facility. Royal Manor already serves the Wellington area. The two Beverly facilities would be inappropriately competing with each other and duplicating each other's services, which is not logical given the limited elderly population in that area of the county. Fourth, Beverly is currently developing a sub- acute unit at Royal Manor and has indicated that unit might include ventilator- dependent beds. Royal Manor, therefore, already serves the limited sub-acute care and ventilator-dependent needs of elderly patients in that area. There is no need for an additional 25-bed sub-acute unit just five miles from Royal Manor. Also, Royal Manor currently has in place the same rehabilitative program proposed by Beverly in its new facility. Fifth, maximizing the resources at Royal Manor is a better alternative than building a new facility in zip code 33414. Notably, Beverly's application includes letters of support for a bed addition at Royal Manor, not the new proposed facility at Wellington. Beverly proposes a condition of a 25-bed Medicare-certified sub-acute level unit as a integral part of its project, following a company-wide focus which began in 1991. The goal for sub-acute residents is functional improvement rather than wellness. The majority of sub-acute patients will be discharged home or into an assisted living center. Beverly describes its sub-acute program as a level of medical/rehabilitative health services rendered to individuals who have completed the acute phase of recovery. The individual is medically stable, but continues to require complex medical intervention from nurses and therapists. Frequent diagnoses/conditions include post-operative fractured hip, renal failure (dialysis), cardiac rehabilitation, spinal cord injury, and respiratory conditions. Many patients will need IV therapy, parenteral nutrition and chemotherapy. A physician specializing in pulmonary medicine serves as medical director of the unit. That physician supervises a unit staff consisting of an RN, clinical coordinator, licensed nurses with critical care experience, and respiratory services contractual staff. As a condition to the award of a CON in this proceeding, Beverly will dedicate four of its sub-acute beds to a respiratory recovery program for ventilator-dependent patients. An RN with critical care/ventilator experience and a respiratory therapist will be on duty at the facility seven days per week, 24 hours per day. The ventilator-dependent residents will be those with a strong potential for being weaned from the respirator, with an average length of stay from four to six months. The goal is to discharge these patients to their homes or to a setting offering a lower level of care. The four rooms in the sub-acute unit closest to the nursing station will be equipped with headwall units, containing oxygen, vacuum, and compressed air systems. Four beds for ventilator-dependent patients is a good aspect of Beverly's application but does not approach the need of Palm Beach County residents for ventilator beds. The proposed 15-bed sub-acute unit at Manor Care is patterned on its "prototype" sub-acute program. This prototype provides a progressive therapeutic environment for patients who require medical monitoring along with an aggressive rehabilitation program. The interdisciplinary approach establishes measurable functional outcomes while avoiding re-hospitalization. The program is individualized and geared toward assisting patients and their families in coping with traumatic injury and disease to assist them in their return home. There are six primary features to Manor Care's prototype. First is a special physical layout of the unit, including a separate entrance, which creates an atmosphere for short-term stay. The second is a separate unit director who has both clinical and administrative experience. The third feature is the staffing model of the unit, which provides a minimum of 5.0 nursing hours per patient day. Most of the nursing hours are provided by licensed staff. The fourth feature is a case manager who is assigned to insure individualized treatment for each resident. The fifth feature is a dedicated staff for the unit, who have specific education and background in sub-acute care. The sixth feature is a physiatrist who oversees the operation of the unit. Manor Care's clinical profile of diagnoses to be treated in its sub- acute include: cardiac disorders, wound/skin care, renal disorders, general rehabilitation needs, pulmonary disease, brain injury, neurological disorder, medical, post-surgical, and orthopedic. Manor Care's prototype has been very successful; 83 percent of all sub-acute residents are discharged directly home. Many of Manor Care's sub- acute units are accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. On the other hand, Beverly's witnesses did not even know that CARF accreditation was available for comprehensive rehabilitation services in nursing homes. Further, while Beverly is still in the development stages of its sub- acute program, Manor Care has an established prototype with measured outcome. Lastly, Beverly's prototype does not include a physiatrist, and Manor Care's does. Alzheimer's disease affects the ability to remember, to communicate properly, and to perform activities of daily living. The needs of Alzheimer's patients are distinct from other nursing home residents. Their special needs require them to be treated in specialized units. Beverly will offer Alzheimer's services in an 18-bed area specifically designed for Alzheimer's patients. The unit includes separate dining and activity areas with an enclosed courtyard. This design allows for controlled wandering, with Wanderguard alarms placed on all exit doors throughout the facility. The goal of the program is to maintain the resident's sense of dignity and improve his or her quality of life. Mealtimes and therapeutic activities will be focused in small groups and will allow for individual assistance and partialization of activities. The program will have its own dedicated staff, trained to understand the symptoms and manifestations of Alzheimer's residents. Beverly currently operates similar Alzheimer's programs in Florida. Manor Care created a task force which lead to the development of Manor Care's prototype Alzheimer's unit. Currently, the Manor Care group operates over 90 dedicated units throughout the country. Manor Care's prototype encompasses five components: environment, staffing and training, programming, specialized medical services, and family support. The proposed 30-bed unit is self-contained, with its own dining room, activities room, lounge, quiet/privacy room, nurses' sub-station, director's office, day care lounge, and outdoor courtyard. A separate lounge area is provided for family visits. The enclosed, outdoor courtyard allows residents to walk outside freely. The unit is especially designed to reduce environmental stress. Manor Care's Alzheimer's unit has specialized staff including a unit director, activities director, and nursing staff. The unit is staffed with a high "nurse to resident" ratio. The staffing patterns emphasize continuity to ensure that residents receive individualized care. The goal of programming and activities is to improve quality of life. This specialized programming results in reducing the use of medications and restraints necessary to manage these residents. The activity program is success-oriented. The use of consultant medical specialists is an integral part of Manor Care's program. Specialists provide diagnostic treatment services for the Alzheimer's resident upon admission to the unit and thereafter when deemed medically appropriate. Families are very supportive of the unit programming and have benefited from the understanding and support available to them. The benefits of Manor Care's prototype Alzheimer's unit include: minimizing the use of physical restraints, decreasing the use of medications, improvement in residents' nutrition, reduction in agitation and combative behavior, a freer and safer living environment, an increase in independence and functional abilities, enhancement of family involvement, and better guarantor satisfaction. The uncontroverted medical evidence is that Manor Care's Alzheimer's unit is state-of-the-art and Beverly's is not. In addition to being dedicated and self-contained, Manor Care's unit is secured, i.e., the doors are locked, preventing the Alzheimer's patients from leaving that unit unaccompanied. On the other hand, Beverly proposes to use the Wanderguard system which sounds an alarm when an Alzheimer's patient leaves the unit or facility. The alarm alerts staff that they must stop what they are doing and go after the Alzheimer's resident to return the patient to the proper location. Although other nursing homes use the Wanderguard system, such is done only when Alzheimer's patients are distributed throughout the facility. It is not used in conjunction with a dedicated unit where all the Alzheimer's residents are located in one area. Accordingly, Manor Care's Alzheimer's unit is superior to Beverly's. Manor Care establishes links with state and local health care providers to maintain a continuum of care for admissions, treatment, referral, and discharge coordination. In addition to building upon the linkages already established by Manor Care's two facilities in Palm Beach County, Manor Care will pursue working relationships, referral arrangements, and transfer agreements with advocacy groups, adult day care groups, home health services, hospitals, recreational and senior citizen organizations, and respite care centers. Beverly establishes similar links and can utilize the linkages already established by its nearby Royal Manor facility. Manor Care will affiliate with local nursing schools, such as the South County Vocational Technical Center, Palm Beach County Community College, and the North County Vocational Technical Center to promote clinical rotations and internship programs at its facility. Through working relationships with health professional training programs, students will benefit from the training and practical experience gained within an operating facility. The proposed facility will offer the advantage of training in specialty Alzheimer's care and sub-acute care programs. Additionally, the research programs at Manor Care's parent company will assist the proposed facility in its provision of nursing home services, particularly in the areas of Alzheimer's care and sub-acute care, by developing new programs and services for its nursing centers. Manor Care has a team of staff, outside consultants, and other research entities conducting studies of health care needs, including studies on rehabilitation programs, sub-acute programs, diabetes programs, wound care management, adult day care, and Alzheimer's disease. This multi-disciplinary task force researches new technologies, with the ultimate goal of providing the highest quality of care. Beverly will also use Wellington Terrace as a clinical rotation training site for long-term care nursing students. Arrangements for training rotations have been made with the Institute on Aging and School of Nursing at Florida State University. Further, if Beverly is awarded a CON in this proceeding, it will establish a research fund of $10,000 allocated to a long- term care issue to be determined in conjunction with the Institute on Aging. Manor Care's project cost of $6,835,130 is reasonable. The costs and methods of construction, including energy provision, are reasonable and appropriate. There are no less costly or more effective methods of construction available. Its project cost is similar to the cost of a 120-bed facility that Manor Care currently has under construction in Palm Beach County, which gives Manor Care a credible benchmark for estimating its project cost. The estimated project cost is broken out by cost items, which, in turn, are reasonable. Manor Care estimates a total land cost of $1.42 million. Of this, $900,000 is for the purchase of land, and $520,000 is for land improvement costs. In evaluating land, Manor Care considers the distribution of other Manor Care nursing homes in the county, whether there are utilities available to service the land, and whether there is sufficient zoning and land use approval to develop the land for a nursing home. There are several available 5-acre sites in the west Lake Worth area that meet these land eligibility requirements, all in the range of $900,000. The estimate of $520,000 for land improvement is based on Manor Care's experience in Palm Beach County. These improvement costs include water and sewer hook-up. Manor Care estimates approximately $3.87 million for the building cost and $840,000 for total equipment costs: $150,000 for fixed equipment and $690,000 for movable equipment. These costs are reasonable and based on Manor Care's experience in Florida, including the facility under construction in Palm Beach County. Equipping a sub-acute unit is more expensive than regular residents' rooms. It requires more expensive beds, diagnostic machines, special support tables, and expensive nurse station equipment. Manor Care's total equipment cost includes appropriate equipment for its 15-bed sub-acute unit. Manor Care reasonably projects $67,000 for development costs and $339,000 for construction interest. It estimates $300,000 in start-up costs: $125,000 for pre-opening salaries and recruitment, $125,000 for marketing, and $50,000 for pre-opening inventories and miscellaneous costs. The expenses are reasonable and consistent with Manor Care's recent experience in opening two nursing homes in Florida. To the contrary, Beverly's projected project cost is likely understated due to the questionable reasonableness of several components. First, Beverly commits to locating its facility in zip code 33414. There is no land available in that zip code with the necessary zoning and the necessary land use designation for nursing home development. Beverly would have to obtain a change in zoning and may also have to obtain a change in the land use designation which requires a modification of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which requires approval of both the county and the state. Beverly's chances for success are speculative. Further, of the four sites which Beverly has considered for locating its facility, one of those sites is smaller than the five acres which Beverly requires to develop its facility. Another of those sites does not have utilities in place to service the site, an expense Beverly has not included in its projected costs. Two of the sites are not located in zip code 33414. Even if land is available in Beverly's selected zip codes, Beverly's estimate of $350,000 for the purchase of land is unreasonably low. Second, Beverly underestimated its land development costs. For example, Beverly included no monies for water, sewer, or utility hook-up. In comparison, Manor Care assumed $165,000 for such hook-ups. Third, Beverly's total equipment cost appears understated. Equipping a sub-acute room is substantially more expensive than a normal room. Beverly proposed ten more sub- acute beds than Manor Care, yet its total equipment cost is almost $200,000 less. Fourth, Beverly's building cost per square foot is significantly less than Manor Care's. In three applications for a CON filed six months later than the one involved in this proceeding, Beverly estimates its construction cost as being $400,000 greater than the instant project for the same nursing home design. In explanation of this disparity, Beverly presented evidence that the subsequent applications were for an improved facility which would have a steel frame instead of the wood frame to be utilized at Wellington Terrace, and the HVAC system would be enhanced. Constructing its intended facility at Wellington rather than using the improved construction materials Beverly will use elsewhere is not a reason to approve Beverly's CON application in this proceeding. Fifth, Beverly's start-up cost of $75,000 is unreasonably low. That figure does not represent a calculation of specific items; rather, it is simply an aggregate figure which Beverly used. Beverly did not adequately explain the disparity between its start-up cost and Manor Care's $300,000 start-up cost, which is a reasonable figure. Finally, Beverly's construction period interest has not been shown to be reasonable and its application is not consistent with regard to financing and equity contribution. Although the Agency can authorize a cost overrun of up to 10 percent of an applicant's project cost, it is uncertain that Beverly has underestimated its project cost by only 10 percent. It is not good health planning to approve a project which will, in turn, require further Agency approval to implement. Further, this proceeding is a comparative review of the applications filed and the representations made therein. It would be inappropriate to approve an application containing projections which are suspect. Since both Manor Care and Beverly are able to secure the financing necessary for project accomplishment, both of their proposals have immediate financial feasibility. Manor Care's proposal also has long-term financial feasibility. The financial projections for Years 1 and 2 are based on reasonable utilization, revenue, and expense assumptions. Manor Care reasonably projects that it will be profitable in Year 2 of operation. Beverly is a large corporation with substantial resources. Because of this, it can be expected that Beverly's project, which will likely cost substantially more than Beverly projected, will be financially feasible in the long term although perhaps not as early as Year 2. Either Manor Care's or Beverly's project would enhance the existing long-term care system in Palm Beach County by providing needed skilled nursing services, services for Alzheimer's and related dementia disorders, sub-acute services, respite care, and adult day care. Both applicants have a corporate quality assurance program which is utilized and implemented at all nursing homes operated by that applicant. Those programs are intended to promote quality of life and quality of care for the residents. Both facilities would enjoy high utilization, and both proposed charges which are reasonable. Both projects will utilize corporate resources in a cost-efficient and cost-effective manner. Both Manor Care and Beverly have committed as a condition to the award of a CON to provide more Medicaid patient days than the nursing home average for Palm Beach County. Thus, both proposals promote access to Medicaid residents for nursing home services. Although Beverly's county-wide and statewide Medicaid averages are higher than Manor Care's, each facility of either applicant has met its CON condition regarding its Medicaid commitment. As required, JFK's application has been reviewed against the state and local health plan allocation factors as set forth in this Recommended Order. Its application meets the majority of those allocation factors. Moreover, some of those factors require that preference be given to programs which are of the specific nature proposed by JFK. Patients with a documented need for sub-acute skilled nursing services of the type proposed by JFK have been denied access to licensed but unoccupied skilled community nursing home beds in Palm Beach County. Those patients' needs for sub-acute skilled nursing services are documented in physician orders and plans of care contained in the patients' medical records. Generally, patients requiring a high level of nursing and restorative care have been denied access. Further, there are several specific categories of patients who have been unable to obtain timely discharges to skilled nursing facilities in Palm Beach County. These categories include: patients with chronic illness; patients who are ventilator dependent; diabetic patients; terminally ill patients; patients who require chemotherapy; AIDS patients; and patients with chronic obstructive lung disease. The difficulty in discharging these patients is a "daily to weekly" issue at JFK. Ventilator-dependent patients requiring skilled nursing care are routinely denied access to licensed but unoccupied skilled nursing beds in Palm Beach County. There are no long-term care beds in Palm Beach County that provide ventilator services, although some purport to do so. Palm Beach County patients who require long-term ventilator care must seek admission to Vencor Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, which is approximately forty-five miles from JFK. During peak season, Vencor generally does not have beds readily available. Patients who require long-term ventilator care often remain in acute care beds at JFK longer than warranted by their medical condition because there are not available appropriate facilities in Palm Beach County for their post-acute care. Patients discharged from JFK to Vencor for long-term ventilator care lose contact with their attending physicians, which impairs the continuity of care rendered to those patients. Patients placed at Vencor are further compromised by their family and friends' inability to travel to Fort Lauderdale to visit them. The support of family and friends is important in helping ventilator-dependent patients to wean themselves from the ventilator. JFK has experienced and anticipates it will continue to experience a significant increase in the number of its patients whose care is reimbursed under managed care plans. JFK's 1995 budget projects that 33 percent of the hospital's patient days will be attributable to managed care patients. Managed care plans have exerted pressure on JFK physicians to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Accordingly, patients discharged from JFK are often in a more acute phase of illness or injury than were comparable patients in past years. Patients discharged from JFK who require a heavier level of care have not, as a rule, been adequately served by Palm Beach County skilled nursing facilities. Community nursing homes in Palm Beach County do not offer sub-acute care of the nature proposed by JFK. As a result of patients being discharged "quicker and sicker" from JFK to community nursing facilities, JFK has experienced an increase in the rate of readmissions from community nursing facilities to JFK. The number of readmissions has grown from 115 in JFK's fiscal year 1991 to greater than 200 during its fiscal year 1993. This evidence confirms that existing community nursing home facilities do not serve as adequate or appropriate discharge alternatives for many JFK patients who require sub-acute care. JFK has the ability to provide a high quality of care to patients requiring sub-acute services. The Agency has determined JFK's quality assurance, utilization review, and resident care plans to be acceptable. JFK proposes a substantially higher number of nursing hours than required by licensure rules. Moreover, JFK proposes to provide RNs on a 24-hour basis, and to make available on a 24-hour basis to sub-acute patients its full panoply of ancillary and support services. The development of JFK's sub-acute unit will enhance the post-acute care provided to patients discharged from JFK's acute care beds. JFK has available the financial resources necessary to implement its sub-acute program and will be able to recruit the nursing and technical staff necessary. There is sufficient demand for the JFK program to assure that the program will be highly utilized. JFK's project will be financially feasible in the immediate and in the long-term. JFK's program will result in several cost related benefits, both to JFK and to the community it serves. First, because JFK will be able to discharge certain patients more rapidly to the sub-acute unit, it will avoid substantial operational expenses associated with caring for those patients in acute care beds. Based solely on the sample of patients referenced in JFK Exhibit 5, JFK would have avoided approximately $600,000 in annual operational expenses had a sub-acute unit been available at the hospital during 1992 and 1993. A contractual adjustment is the difference between the amount a hospital charges for a service and the amount it actually receives in payment for the service. The contractual adjustment is exacerbated where a patient's acute care length of stay extends beyond the number of days necessary to care for the acute needs of the patient. During the period March 1992-March 1994, JFK experienced a contractual adjustment of approximately $3,000,000 relative to the sample of 287 patients reflected in JFK Exhibit 5. That contractual adjustment is significant from a health care reimbursement perspective. JFK's contractual adjustments relative to patients who require post-discharge sub- acute care would be reduced if JFK were to establish a sub-acute unit, which would ameliorate JFK's financial losses associated with that category of patients. The development of a sub-acute program at JFK will benefit the Palm Beach County health care delivery system. The marginal or operational cost per day of providing acute care services at JFK is $350-$400 higher than the projected marginal cost per day of providing sub-acute care services. For every day that a JFK patient receives services in JFK's sub-acute unit, rather than in an acute care unit, the health care delivery system will save money. As JFK will incur significantly less expense in providing services to patients in a sub-acute unit, JFK will not have to subsidize the care it currently provides to sub-acute patients in the acute care setting. Accordingly, the development of JFK's sub-acute unit will have a downward pressure on future JFK rate increases, promoting cost containment, and will lower the cost of providing the sub-acute care services proposed by JFK. The development of JFK's sub-acute unit will allow the hospital to allocate its resources more efficiently, which further promotes cost containment. Further, the development of JFK's sub-acute unit constitutes an innovation in the delivery of health care services, which innovation will have a positive effect on competition. JFK is a not-for-profit hospital. It is JFK's policy to care for all persons regardless of financial condition, and JFK has outreach programs for persons with limited financial resources. While JFK's general admissions policy will apply to the sub-acute unit, JFK does not propose to serve a large number of Medicaid and indigent patients in that unit. JFK anticipates that Medicare will be the primary payor for approximately 90 percent of the patients served in the unit, given the unit's emphasis on restorative and rehabilitative care. Beverly or Manor Care will provide a majority of its services to Medicaid patients, thereby complementing JFK's proposal. JFK provides a full array of inpatient and outpatient health care services, including a diagnostic breast institute, an ambulatory surgery center, an outpatient comprehensive cancer center, primary care physician services, and home health services. Each of those services constitutes part of JFK's continuum of care. Sub-acute care services are the only link missing. The approval of its application will allow JFK to achieve full "vertical integration" i.e., a multi-level health care system, in that JFK will be able to provide its patients with services appropriate to their needs from pre-admission to JFK through post-discharge. Achieving vertical integration will enhance JFK's ability to contract with managed care companies, who endeavor to contract with organizations that offer a full continuum of care. JFK's establishment of a sub-acute unit will allow it to meet managed care companies' demand for capitated relationships, wherein the insurer pays an organization a flat amount, per covered life, to provide complete health care to its insured. The establishment of a sub-acute unit at JFK will allow the organization to reduce the cost of providing health care services to patients throughout its multi-level health care system and allow it to respond to the growing capitation market. Placing patients in the sub-acute environment, where they will consume fewer resources, will enable JFK to decrease the cost of providing health care to managed care companies and their subscribers. Finally, approval of JFK's application will allow JFK's patients to be followed by the same physicians who attended to them during their acute care hospitalization. Those patients who are capable of being transported elsewhere and are transferred to a sub-acute unit at a nursing home will seldom receive follow-up care from the physicians who performed their surgeries and otherwise attended to them during their acute episode. The overwhelming support of JFK's proposed sub-acute unit by the primary care and other specialized physicians at JFK, as evidenced by their testimony during the final hearing or by deposition admitted in evidence, is based upon their concern for their inability to follow up on their patient's care if those patients are elsewhere than in JFK. Those doctors who run office practices and work at JFK cannot spend a great deal of their day traveling around Palm Beach County from nursing home to nursing home to assure that their patients' recovery is progressing in addition to the time they spend visiting patients in the hospital and performing surgery and otherwise treating patients. Those physicians do not favor retaining the patients in acute care beds longer than is necessary, and that concern is not a result of concern for their personal incomes as was suggested by the Agency. Physicians are reimbursed at a higher rate for hospital visits than for visits to patients in skilled nursing units. Both continuity of care and successful outcome for the patient relate to continued care by the same physician.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered Granting Manor Care's CON application # 7375; Denying Beverly's CON application # 7372; and Granting JFK's CON application # 7374. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 7th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Beverly's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 6, 8, 9, 13-19, 21, 23, 25-27, 31, 32, 34-43, 45-47, 51-54, 57, 60, 61, and 81 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Beverly's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3, 4, 63, and 67 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. Beverly's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 24, 28, and 80 have been rejected as being irrelevant. Beverly's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 22, 44, 48, 59, 64-66, 69-72, 75, 76, 82, and 84 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. Beverly's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 11, 20, 29, 30, 33, 49, 50, 55, 56, 58, 62, 68, 73, 74, 77, and 78 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues to be determined. Beverly's proposed findings of fact numbered 12, 79, and 83 have been rejected as being unnecessary. JFK's proposed findings of fact numbered 14-59 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. JFK's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-13 have been rejected as being unnecessary. Manor Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 13-42, 44-57, 59- 78, 82, 83, 89-114, 116, 118-120, 122-125, and 128-131 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Manor Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 8-12, 43, 115, and 117 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. Manor Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 79, 80, 87, and 88 have been rejected as being unnecessary. Manor Care's proposed finding of fact numbered 58 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. Manor Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 81, 84-86, 121, 126, and 127 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues to be determined. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 9-26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 53, 54, 57-61, and 65-69 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 41, 55, 62, and 63 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues to be determined. The Agency's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being unnecessary. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 27, 29-33, 35-37, 40, 42-46, 48-52, 56, and 70 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. The Agency's proposed finding of fact numbered 47 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. The Agency's proposed finding of fact numbered 64 has been rejected as being irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire Parker, Skelding, Labasky, Corry, Eastman & Hauser, P.A. 318 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire 118 North Gadsden Street, Suite 200 The Perkins House Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) of any one or more of five applicants for community nursing home beds in Lee County for the July 1989 planning horizon.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants Applications for certificates of need (CON) for nursing homes are accepted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) in batching cycles and are subject to competitive review. The Department comparatively reviewed and analyzed 13 individual applications for proposed nursing services for District VIII, Lee County, in the July, 1986 nursing home batching cycle. Five of those applications are at issue for purposes of this proceeding. Pertinent to this proceeding, petitioner, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America (HCR filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4746), petitioner Forum Group, Inc. (Forum), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4755), petitioner, Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4747), petitioner, Hillhaven, Inc., d/b/a Hillhaven Health Care Center Lee County (Hillhaven) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4756), and respondent, Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center (Careage) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4748). Each of these applications was timely filed. The Department's "preliminary" action The Department is the state agency charged with implementing and regulating the CON program for medical facilities and services in Florida. Within the Department, the Office of Community Medical Facilities is responsible for the review of CON applications and provides a recommendation for approval or disapproval after its analysis is concluded. The Department assigned the subject District VIII applications for the July, 1986 hatching cycle to Medical Facilities Consultant Robert May for review. Mr. May was supervised in his work by Elizabeth Dudek, an experienced Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, who has reviewed or supervised the review of approximately 1200 CON applications. Robert Nay and Elizabeth Dudek concurred in their evaluations of the applications and recommended that Hillhaven's application be approved for 60 beds in Lee County. This recommendation was forwarded to the Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, Robert E. Naryanski, who also occurred with the recommendation on or about December 20, 1986, and forwarded the recommendation to Marta Hardy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Planning and Development, for final approval. An unusual set of circumstances evolved from that approximate point in time with respect to the applications at issue. Sometime in late November 1986 Marta Hardy talked to Robert Sharpe, Administrator of the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, concerning the applications in this batching cycle and stated that she intended to involve him in the review procedure. In late December, she asked Mr. Sharpe to review the applications for four of the counties in the cycle, including Lee County. Mr. Sharpe is in a separate and distinct part of the Department, which reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary but does not, in the ordinary course of operations, review certificate of need applications. Mr. Sharpe's involvement with reviewing nursing home applications had never occurred before and has not occurred since. However, Mr. Sharpe has been involved on limited occasions with reviewing hospital CON applications in preparation for administrative hearings. Careage had a CON application in each of the four districts that Mr. Sharpe was asked to review. Mr. Sharpe was not asked to review any other districts other than the four districts in which Careage had applications pending. In Mr. Sharpe's conversation with Ms. Hardy, Ms. Hardy specifically mentioned Careage while expressing her concern about the Department's ability to discriminate the best applicants on the basis of quality of care. Ms. Hardy mentioned no other applicant by name. Mr. Sharpe, in all circumstances, recommended Careage for approval. Mr. Sharpe did not attempt to do a complete re-review the applications, and did not redo any part of the review that had been performed by the Office of Community Medical Facilities specifically the need calculations and comparing the applications to the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe did not apply statutory review criteria in his review of the applications because it had been determined that all the applicants were minimally qualified and met the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe felt that the responsibility of his office was simply to do a comparative review to determine the best applicant. Mr. Sharpe placed information in the applications into what has been termed a "matrix." The purpose of the matrix was to present the information in the applications in a format which would facilitate a comparative analysis based on a greater number of factors than had previously been considered. Traditionally, the predominant factors utilized by the Department in reviewing applications were construction costs, Medicaid participation percentages, proposed sites, and charges. The matrix developed by Mr. Sharpe included additional factors which he felt would better address the quality of care to be provided, such as the size of facility, the size of the patient rooms, the amenities available to the patients and their families, the type and level of staffing, availability of special programs, and operating costs. By including a greater number of factors in the matrix, more information was considered in selecting the best applicant. As a result, the factors that traditionally had been considered by the Department were given relatively less weight. There was no notice to the applicants of this change in practice. Further, although all the information considered by Mr. Sharpe was taken from the applications and generally required to be in the application, the applicants reported the information differently, making a direct "apples-to-apples" comparison difficult. Mr. Sharpe's review of the applications spanned approximately five to eight days. Mr. Sharpe's staff in the information on the matrix from the applications, and, although Mr. Sharpe had personally reviewed all the applications, Mr. Sharpe did not personally check the information placed on matrix for accuracy. The Office of Community Medical Facilities' initial review covered a period of approximately six months. There was no evidence that the duties and responsibilities of the Office of Community Medical Facilities were not carried out in a thorough and appropriate manner. Ms. Dudek has more experience in reviewing CON applications than Mr. Sharpe, and she took into account, among other review criteria requirements, the type programs offered by the applicant and the quality of care the applicant had demonstrated and was capable of providing. Mr. Sharpe never talked to Ms. Dudek to find out the basis for her recommendation because he felt his responsibility was to do an independent review. Robert Sharpe reported his findings with regard to Lee County to Marta Hardy who apparently accepted Mr. Sharpe's recommendation on or about January 7, 1987, approving Careage's application for 60 beds and denying all others. On or about January 23, 1987, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, it was published that Careage was approved fob a 120-bed facility in Lee County. Actually HRS approved Careage for a 60-bed facility; the 120-bed figure in the Florida Administrative Weekly was erroneous. As a result of a new administration and Bob Griffin succeeding Ms. Hardy as Deputy Secretary in the Office of Health Planning, and due to his concerns about the unique manner in which these applications were reviewed and a decision made, another review of the applications for Lee County was conducted. The Office of Community Medical Facilities, the office originally responsible for reviewing the applications, was asked to do this review. This third review was conducted during the summer of 1987 by Bob May while this case was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. In this third review, a matrix was also used, but not the identical matrix previously used by Mr. Sharpe. Indeed, the Office of Community Medical Facilities was instructed not to look at what Mr. Sharpe's office had done. The review resulted in a decision that HRS would maintain its position of supporting partial approval of the Careage application for 60 beds. By letter dated September 4, 1987, the parties were formally notified of the HRS decision and a Correction Notice was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly indicating that the notice published in January, 1987, stating that Careage had received a CON for 120 beds, should have shown a partial approval of 60 beds, and a denial of 60 beds. HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Hillhaven timely contested initial approval of the Careage application and their own respective denials. Careage and HRS are the respondents. Hillhaven, prior to final hearing, dismissed its case contesting the Careage approval for 60 beds, and in this proceeding contends that Hillhaven should be awarded a certificate of need because there is a bed need in excess of 60 beds in Lee County. Careage did not timely contest the denial of the 120 beds requested in its original application. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America HCR, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lee County, Florida. At the time its application was submitted, HCR had not selected a site on the proposed facility, but at hearing proposed to locate it in the Ft. Myers area. Currently, HCR owns and operates 92 nursing homes in 19 different states, including seven within the State of Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are Pasadena Manor Nursing Home (South Pasadena, Florida), Community Convalescent Center (Plant City Florida), Kensington Manor (Sarasota, Florida), Jacaranda Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida) Wakulla Manor (Crawfordville, Florida, Heartland of St. Petersburg (St. Petersburg, Florida, and Rosedale Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida). Each of these facilities received superior ratings on their latest licensure and certification survey with the exception of Heartland and Rosedale, which received a standard and conditional rating respectively. Significantly, the conditional rating assigned to the Rosedale facility occurred less than six months after that facility was acquired by HCR, and all deficiencies were corrected within 19 days of the survey. HCR's current proposal for a 120-bed facility will be a one-story structure containing 40,000 gross square feet, including 2,000 square feet for an ancillary adult day care center. It will have 58 semi-private rooms with half-bath (toilet and sink) and four private rooms with full bath (toilet, sink and shower) located within four patient wings, two nursing stations, two dining rooms, central bathing facilities, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, multi-purpose rooms, outdoor patio areas and the other standard functional elements required to meet licensure standards. In all, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. HCR proposes to dedicate one wing (14 semi-private and 1 private room) of its facility to the care of patients suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that results in gradual memory loss and, as such loss progresses, a need for increased personal care. Historically, Alzheimer's patients have been mixed with other patients in nursing homes, often disrupting other patients and presenting problems of control for staff separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the patient without restraint or sedation, and provides the patient with a smaller, safer and specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the needs of such patients. However, absent fill-up, HCR does not propose to limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. HCR's Alzheimer's unit is reasonably designed, equipped and minimally staffed for its intended purpose. HCR also proposes to provide, as needed, subacute care at its facility. Due to the impacts of the federal DRG (diagnostically related group) system which encourages hospitals to discharge patients earlier, there has been an increased demand for subacute services in nursing homes. Included within the subacute services HCR proposes to offer are ventilator care, IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation, and percentage and long term rehabilitation. HCR currently provides a wide variety of such subacute services at its existing facilities, and it may reasonably be expected to continue such practice at the proposed facility. As an adjunct to the proposed nursing home, HCR proposes to operate an adult day care unit for 12 Alzheimer's Disease patients. Additionally, HCR will offer respite care within the nursing home when beds available. Adult care and respite care provide alternatives to institutional long-term care in nursing homes, aid in preventing premature rising home admissions, and promote cost containment. As initially reviewed by the Department, HCR's activity would be a single story building containing 40,000 gross square feet, including the day care area, with an estimated total project cost of $3,894,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $32,450 per bed, and as designed provides 127 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 166 square feet for semi- private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $2,200,000; costs per square foot $55.00; construct cost per bed 17,417; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's estimate of project costs is reasonable. At hearing HCR updated its project costs to account for changes that arose during the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the total project cost was $4,375,500, or $36,462 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated were as follows: construction costs $2,400,000; cost per square foot $60.00; construction cost per bed $19,000, equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's updated estimate of cost is reasonable. Staffing at the proposed 120-bed facility is designed to accommodate the needs of the skilled and intermediate care patients, as well as the special needs of the Alzheimer's and subacute patients. HCR will provide 24-hour registered nurse coverage for subacute patients and a higher staffing level in the Alzheimer's unit. The nursing home will provide 3.59 hours per patient in the Alzheimer's unit and 2.73 nursing hours overall, based on the assumption that 50 percent of the Alzheimer's patients will wanderers and that 50 percent of all patients will require skilled care. Precise staffing for subacute patients will be determined by the nature of the subacute services needed. HCR's staffing levels, as originally proposed and as updated, meet or exceed state standards. The salary and benefit estimates provided by HCR in its original application reflect salary and benefit levels current at the time of application, and the salary and benefit projections provided by HCR at bearing reflect current (1987) salaries and benefits inflated to the date of opening. Both estimates are reasonable. HCR's projection of utilization by class of pay as initially proposed was as follows: Private pay 51 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Due to its experience over the intervening 17 months since submittal of its application, HCR updated its assessment of utilization as follows: Private pay 50 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 4 percent. The current Lee County Medicaid experience level is 46 percent, and HCR provides an average 71 percent Medicaid occupancy in its Florida facilities. HCR's projections for payor mix are reasonable. HCR's initial application contained estimates of expenses and revenues current as of the date of application (July 1986) but failed to include an inflation factor to accommodate anticipated increases in expenses and revenues. Initially, T. projected its per diem room charges to be $60 to $85. At hearing, HCR projected its per diem room charges in the year opening (1990) to be $90 for a private room, $75 for a semiprivate room, $76.00 for Medicare patients, and $72 for Medicaid patients. The private, semi-private and Medicare charges were determined by inflating current (1987) Lee County charges forward to the year of opening. The Medicaid charges were based on a calculation of the Medicaid reimbursement formula. These charges, when multiplied by patient days, are a reasonable estimate of the projected revenues of the facility. HCR's estimate of expenses in its initial application was based on its current experience. Intervening events have lent new insight to its evaluation of expenses, as have intervening inflationary factors. While HCR's estimate of expenses and revenues was reasonable in its initial application, its current estimates comport with the reality of a 1990 opening and are reasonable. HCR has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility. Since HCR does not propose to initially limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, its pro formas are premised on reasonable assumptions, and it has demonstrated the financial feasibility project in both the short term and long term. The proof demonstrates that HCR provides and Bill continue to provide quality care. HCR's corporate standards and guidelines regulate such areas as patient rights, staff development and orientation, physician and nurse services, pharmacy services and medication administration, social services, and infection control. HCR's manager of quality assurance, house professional services consultants, and quality assurance consultants regularly visit each HCR nursing home to implement the quality assurance standards and guidelines. Each HRC nursing home provides a staff development director who is responsible for the orientation of new employees, training new employees, and continuing training for all employees. Forum Group Inc. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Currently Forum operates 22 Lang facilities and an additional 11 retirement living centers with attached nursing facilities, including one nursing facility in Florida. Its Florida facility holds a standard rating. Other facilities owned by Forum in Texas, Kentucky and Illinois do, however, hold superior ratings. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Lee County that would consist of its proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, an adult congregate living facility, and apartments or Independent living. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen, laundry, administrative area and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum will be a single story building of wood frame and brick veneer construction containing 27,000 gross square feet. It will include 20 semi- private rooms with half bath, 16 private rooms with half bath, 3 private rooms with full bath, and one isolation room with full bath. Also included are a beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and exam-treatment room. But for the length of the corridors in the patient wings, discussed infra, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. Forum's proposal, as initially reviewed by the Department, would have a total project cost of $2,314,800. This equates to $38,580 per bed, and as designed provides 150 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 228 net square feet for semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,377,000; cost per square foot $51.00; construction cost per bed $22,950; equipment costs $200,000; and equipment costs per bed $3,333. Forum's estimate of project cost is reasonable. Forum provided a single-line drawing indicating the general arrangement of spaces for its proposed facility. As proposed, the facility would consist of two patient wings, and a central nurse's station. The corridor lengths in the patient wings exceed state standards by 40 feet. They could, however, be modified to conform to State standards without significantly affecting the cost of construction. The project would have energy conservation features such as heavy duty roof and side insulation, double-glazed windows, and high efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment. The forum facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, ventilator care, hyperalimentation, pulmonary aids, and short and long term rehabilitation. Forum would contract out for physical therapy, speech therapy, pharmacy consultation and a registered dietician. If needed, Forum would offer respite care when beds are available. The proposed staffing levels and salaries proposed by Forum in its application are reasonable and meet or exceed state standards. Forum has a staff training program, with pre-service and in-service training, and utilizes a prescreening procedure to assure it hires competent staff. Twenty-four hour coverage by registered nurses will be provided, and a staffing ratio of 2.9 will be maintained. The staffing level at the proposed facility is consistent with that experienced at Forum's existing Florida Facility. Forum provides, and will continue to provide, quality care. Forum's application projected its utilization by class of pay as follows: private pay 58.47 percent, Medicaid 37.16 percent, and Medicare 4.37 percent. Currently, Forum experiences a 48 percent Medicaid occupancy rate system-wide, although it only has 2 of 35 beds dedicated to Medicaid care in its present Florida facility. Forum estimated its revenues based on patient charges ranging from $50.64 per day for Medicaid/semi-private room to $75.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Based on such revenues, its pro forma, utilizing a conservative 86.25 percent occupancy rate at the end of the second year of operation, demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of the project as initially reviewed by the Department notwithstanding the fact that it had underestimated its Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. At hearing, Forum sought to demonstrate that its project was currently feasible by offering proof that intervening events had not significantly impacted the financial feasibility of its project. To this end, Forum offered proof that the contingencies and inflation factors it had built into the construction of its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction. Additionally, Forum sought to update its proposal at hearing by offering testimony that included an increase in the administrator's salary from $27,000 to $39,000, a decrease in interest in year one to $187,803, an increase in interest in year two to $250,790, and an increase in revenues based on patient charges ranging from $69.19 per day for Medicaid/semi private room to $90.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Some of the applicants objected to Forum's proof directed at the current financial feasibility of its project because it had not previously provided them with a written update of its application as ordered by the Hearing Officer. The applicants' objection was well founded. Further, the proof was not persuasive that any contingencies and inflation factors it had built into its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction, nor that salaries, benefits and other expenses that would be currently experienced were appropriately considered in addressing the present financial feasibility of Forum's project. While Forum has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for initial capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishments and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility, it has failed to demonstrate that its proposal, as updated, is financially feasible in the long term. Health Quest Corporation Health Quest is a privately held corporation which owns, develops and operates health care facilities and retirement centers on a national basis. Health Quest has been in business for approximately 20 years, and currently operates 11 long-term care facilities and three retirement centers in Indiana, Illinois, and Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are located in Jacksonville, Boca Raton, and Sarasota. It also has facilities under construction in Winter Park and Sunrise, Florida. Health Quest also held a number of other certificates of need to construct nursing facilities in Florida. Recently, however, it decided to transfer or sell 3-4 of those certificates because its initial decision to develop nine new projects simultaneously would have, in its opinion, strained its management staff and commitment to high quality standards. HCR is, however, currently proceeding with several projects in Florida, and anticipates that the proposed Lee County facility will be brought on line thereafter. Pertinent to this case, Health Quest proposes to develop a retirement center in Lee County that would consist of a 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, and 124 assisted living studio apartments (an ACLF). 4/ The two components which comprise Health Quest's retirement center are physically connected and share some operational functions such as a common kitchen, laundry, therapy areas, maintenance areas, and administrative areas. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. In addition to providing an economical distribution of costs, the two components of the retirement center are mutually supportive. The nursing care unit supports the ACLF by making sure that health care services are available to the assisted living people. The ACLF supports the nursing unit as a source of referral and as an alternative to nursing home placement. The nursing facility proposed by Health Quest will be a single story building of masonry and concrete construction. It will include 6 private rooms and 27 semi-private rooms with half-bath attached, central nurse's station, central bathing facilities, beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, central dining area, physical and occupational therapy room and outdoor patio The center, itself, will provide patios, walkways and other outdoor features to render the facility pleasant and attractive, and will provide multi-purpose areas to be used for religious services and other activities, an ice cream parlor and gift shop. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility contained 25,269 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $2,244,505. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $37,408 per bed, and as designed provides 240 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,470,333; cost per square foot $58.19; construction cost per bed $24,506; equipment costs $298,200; and equipment cost per bed $4,970. While the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable, its equipment costs are not. These costs are substantially the same as those projected in its original application for a 120-bed facility, which at an equipment cost of $300,000 derived an equipment cost per bed of $2,500. Why the same cost should prevail at this 60-bed facility was not explained by Health Quest, and its equipment cost per bed of $4,970 was not shown to be reasonable. As with most applicants, Health Quest updated its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the estimated project cost is $2,290.331, $38,172 per bed. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,507,043; cost per square foot $59.64; construction cost per bed $25,117; equipment costs $302,700; and equipment costs per bed $5,045. Again, while the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable its equipment costs are, for the reasons heretofore expressed, not shown to be reasonable. The Health Quest facility will offer skilled and intermediate nursing care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, chemotherapy, TPN therapy and tracheostomy care. Also to be offered are respite care as beds are available and, within the complex, adult day care. Health Quest will maintain a nursing staffing ratio of approximately 3.25 hours per patient day for skilled care and 2.5 for intermediate care. As originally reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Health Quest increased its staffing levels to account for an increased demand in labor intensive care, and increased its staffing expenses to account for the intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Health Quest's projection of utilization by class of pay in the application reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 51.6 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 3.4 percent. Health Quest's utilization projection, as updated at hearing, was as follows: private pay 50.9 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 4.1 percent. TAB Health Quest currently serves 30 percent Medicaid patients at its Jacksonville facility, 10 percent Medicaid patients at its Boca Raton facility, and no Medicaid patients at its Sarasota facility. It has, however, committed to serve 40 percent and 48 percent Medicaid patients at its Sunrise and Winter Park facilities, respectively. Health Quest's projections of payor are reasonable. Initially, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges to range from $52 for skilled and intermediate care Medicare patients to $57.25 for skilled care-private and Medicare patients. It did not, however, draw any distinction between private and semi-private rooms. At hearing, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges as follows: $90 for SNF/single/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/Medicare; $68 for SF/double Medicaid; $68 for ICF/single/private pay; $70.75 for ICF/double/private pay; and $68 for ICF/double/Medicaid. Health Quest's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenue and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and as updated. During the course of these proceedings, a serious question was raised as to whether Health Quest had demonstrated that it had the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, or that it was committed to the subject project. Within the past three years, Health Quest has sold three of its approved CONS and is considering the sale a fourth due to its inability to handle that number of projects, and the adverse impact it would have on its ability to deliver quality care. Notwithstanding its inability to proceed with approved projects, Health Quest proceeded to hearing in October 1987 and December 1987 for nursing home CONs in Hillsborough County and Lee County (the subject application), and also had nine such applications pending in the January 1987 batching cycle and eight such applications in the October 1987 batching cycle. Health Quest's actions are not logical, nor supportive of the conclusion that it is committed to this project or that it possesses available resources for project accomplishment. Under the circumstances, Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton currently hold superior ratings from the Department. A superior rating includes consideration of staffing ratios, staff training, the physical environment, physical and restorative therapies, social services, and other professional services. Those facilities are monitored, as would the subject facility, by Health Quest for quality care through a system of quarterly peer review, and provide extensive staff education programs that include orientation training for new staff and on-going education for regular staff. Health Quest has demonstrated that it has provided quality care. However, in light of the strain its current activities have placed on its resources, it is found that Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it could provide quality care at the proposed facility were its application approved. Hillhaven, Inc. Hillhaven is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hillhaven Corporation, which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises. The Hillhaven Corporation has been business for almost 30 years, and is currently responsible for the operation of approximately 437 nursing homes and retirement centers nationally, including 15 nursing homes which it owns or operates in the State of Florida. Hillhaven proposes to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care community nursing home in Fort Myers, Lee County, consisting of 38,323 square feet. It will include 14 private rooms and 53 semi-private rooms, a full bath attached to each room (shower, toilet and sink), central tub rooms, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and outdoor patio areas. In all, Hillhaven's proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility would be a single-story building containing 38,323 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $3,544,444. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $29,537 per bed, and as designed provides 217 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows; construction costs $2,146,000; cost per square foot $56.00; construction cost per bed $17,884; equipment costs $442,005; and equipment cost per bed $3,683.38. Hillhaven's project costs are reasonable. As with the other applicants, Hillhaven update its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing, certain oversights in its initial submission, and its decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction as originally proposed. As updated, the estimated project cost is $4,089,639, or $34,155.33 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated, were as follows: construction costs $2,446,088; cost per square foot $63.82; construction cost per bed $20,384; equipment costs $521,200; and equipment costs per bed $4,343.33. By far, the biggest factor in the increased construction costs was Hillhaven's decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction. Either type of construction would, however, meet or exceed state standards, and Hillhaven's estimates of construction and equipment costs are reasonable. The Hillhaven facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, recreational services, restorative nursing services, and social services. Hillhaven does not discriminate on admission, and would admit Alzheimer's and subacute patients as presented. Were sufficient demand experienced, Hillhaven has the ability to provide and would develop a full Alzheimer's unit, and provide day care and respite care. Currently, Hillhaven operates 36 Alzheimer's units at its facilities nation wide, but has experienced no demand for such a special unit or other special care at its existent Lee County facility. As originally reviewed by the Department, Hillhaven's staffing levels an expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Hillhaven increased its staffing levels to account for staff inadvertently omitted from its initial application, and increased its staffing expenses to account or intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Hillhaven's staffing level is 2.5, and its staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Hillhaven's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 30 percent, Medicaid 60 percent, and Medicare 10 percent. As updated at hearing, Hillhaven's utilization projection was as follows: private pay 44 percent, Medicaid 53 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Currently, Hillhaven provides, on average, 53 percent Medicaid care at its facilities in Florida. Hillhaven's estimate of payor mix was reasonable and, in light of intervening changes in circumstance, was reasonable as updated. Hillhaven's patient charges for its second year of operation as originally reviewed by the Department ranged from $58.60 to $62.00 per day. As updated, Hillhaven's patient charges ranged from $52.13 to $73.50 per day. Hillhaven's estimated charges were achievable when initially proposed and as updated, and are reasonable. Hillhaven's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and comport, as updated, with the current experience in Lee County. Hillhaven has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates are premised on reasonable assumptions, and Hillhaven has demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of its project. Currently, Hillhaven owns or operates 15 facilities in the State of Florida. Of these 15 facilities, two have opened within the past year and are not eligible for ratings. Nine of the 13 eligible facilities are operating with superior licenses. Of the remaining four facilities, two have a standard license and two have a conditional license. The two facilities with conditional ratings have both resolved their deficiencies. Hillhaven has provided and will continue to provide quality care. It ensures that quality care will be maintained within its facilities by drawing upon the professional resources four regional offices comprised of registered nurses, quality assurance monitors, regional dietitians, maintenance supervisors, employee relations specialists, and other administrative support personnel. Regional consultants visit company facilities monthly to plan, organize and monitor operations, and to conduct in-service training workshops. Overall, Hillhaven provides each facility with an in-depth quality assurance program. Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center Gene Lynn (Careage) is the president and 100 percent owner of Careage Corporation. Since 1962, Careage has developed approximately 150 nursing homes and retirement centers, as well as 100 medically related facilities, in 22 states and the Virgin Islands. Until December 1986 it did not, however, own or operate any facilities. Currently, Careage operates four nursing homes in the United States (one in the State of Washington, two in the State of California, and one in the State of Arizona) , but none in Florida. The home office of Careage is located in Bellevue, Washington. Careage proposed to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Lee County with specialty units for subacute and Alzheimer's care, consisting of 45,500 square feet. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 2 isolation rooms and 7 private rooms with full bath and 45 semiprivate rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semiprivate rooms with half bath, central dining area, beauty-barber shop, quiet lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, outdoor patio areas, and exam-treatment room. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Careage's proposed facility was a single-story building containing 45,500 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $4,150,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to 34,583 per bed, and as designed provides 184-227 net square feet of living space for isolation/private rooms, and 227-273 net square feet of living space or semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: construction costs $2,583,125; cost per square foot $56.77; construction cost per bed $21,526; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipment costs, are reasonable. The Careage facility would offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, physical therapy, recreational services and social services. Additionally, the proposal includes a special 21-bed unit dedicated solely to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients, and a dedicated 10-bed unit for subacute care which will accommodate technology dependent children care. Among the subacute services to be offered are hyperalimentation, IV therapy, ventilators, heparin flush, and infusion pumps for administration of fluids. Careage will offer respite care as beds are available, and will offer day care in a separate facility. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 49 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 3 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patients charges for its facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $63.86, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $59.23, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $108.15, and private (other) /subacute (room rate only) $128.75. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, for its 120-bed facility were not shown to be reasonable. First, in light of the fact that there was no quantifiable demand for a dedicated Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, as discussed infra at paragraphs 126-129, no reliable calculation of fill-up and occupancy rates or revenues and expenses could be derived that was, as the Careage application is, dependent on such revenue stream. Second, the Careage pro forma was predicated on average rates experienced in Lee County. Since Careage proposes heavier nursing care than that currently experienced in Lee County, its estimates of patient charges are not credible. At hearing, Careage updated its 120-bed application to account for inflationary factors that had affected the project since it was first reviewed, and to correct two staffing errors. These updates did not substantially change the project. Careage has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates were not, however, premised on reasonable assumptions, and Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 120-bed project. Following the Department's initial review of the applications in this batching cycle, it proposed to award a certificate of need to Careage for a 60- bed facility, premised on its conclusion that there was insufficient numeric need to justify an award of beds exceeding that number, notwithstanding the fact that the application of Careage was for 120 beds and did not request or propose a 60-bed facility. Notably, all financial, staffing, construction, equipment and other projections described in the Careage application were based on a 120- bed facility, and no information was provided regarding a 60- bed facility. Also notable is the fact that the other applicants were not accorded equal consideration. Not surprisingly, the proposed award of a CON for 60-beds to Careage was timely challenged, but Careage did not protest the Department's denial of its application for 120 beds but appeared as a respondent to defend the Department's decision to award it 60 beds. At hearing, Careage offered proof of the reasonableness of its 120- bed proposal over the objection of the other applicants. /5 Careage contends that its proposed 60-bed facility is a scaled down version of its 120-bed proposal Careage proposes to offer the same services in its 60-bed facility as it proposed in its 120-bed facility, including the 21-bed Alzheimer's unit and 10-bed subacute care unit. Its proposed 60- bed facility is not, however, an identifiable portion of its initial project. As proposed, the 60-bed facility would contain 26,900 gross square feet, and meet or exceed state standards. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 1 isolation room and 4 private rooms with full bath, 17 semi- private rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semi-private rooms with half-bath, together with the same amenities offered by the 120-bed facility, but on a reduced scale. As proposed, the total project cost for the 60-bed facility is $2,475,000, which equates to $41,250 per bed. As designed, the facility would provide the same net square footage of living space for private and semi-private rooms as the 120-bed facility. Construction equipment costs would be as follows: construction costs $1,431,750; cost per square foot $53.22; construction cost per bed $23,863; equipment costs $210,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipments costs, are reasonable. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay in its 60-bed facility was as follows: private pay 47 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 5 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patient charges for its 60-bed facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $66.00, Medicaid (all Inclusive rate) $63.50, Medicare (all inclusive rate) $120.00, private (other)/subacute (room rate only) $130.00. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections, its projections of revenue and expenses, and its pro forma estimates for its 60-bed facility suffer the same deficiencies as those for its proposed 120-bed facility. Under the circumstances, Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 60-bed facility. While Careage has only owned and operated nursing homes for a short time, the proof demonstrates that it has and will continue to provide quality care for its residents. The Alzheimer's unit and subacute care units are reasonably designed, equipped and staffed for their intended functions. Staffing ratios in the subacute unit will be 6.0, and in the other areas of the facility 3.0. Careage currently utilizes a quality assurance program at each facility which includes a utilization review committee, safety committee, infection control committee, and pharmaceutical committee. Each facility also has a resident advisory council, community advisory council, and employee advisory council. Presently, Careage is developing a company level quality assurance program, and has initiated announced and unannounced site visits by a quality assurance expert to evaluate resident care, operations, maintenance and physical environment. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The opinions expressed by the witnesses offered by the Department were premised on information available to them while these applications underwent "preliminary" review. The information available to them at that time, and represented by the State Agency Action Report (SAAR), was incomplete and inaccurate in many respects, including the services to be provided by some of the applicants and the approved bed inventory and occupancy rates utilized in the need methodology. These witnesses were not made privy to, and expressed no opinions, regarding the relative merits of the applications in light of the facts developed at hearing. Throughout the hearing, counsel for the Department objected to evidence from any applicant regarding "updates" (changes) to their applications as they were deemed complete by the Department prior to its initial review. It was the position of the Department's counsel, but otherwise unexplicated, that the only appropriate evidence of changed conditions after the date the application was deemed complete were those changes which relate to or result from extrinsic circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as inflation and other current circumstances external to the application. The majority of the "updated" material offered by the applicants at hearing did result from the effects of inflation, the passage of time between the application preparation and the dates of final hearing, changes in the market place regarding nursing salaries, changes in the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement system and typographical errors in the application. Some changes in design were offered as a result of the applicant's experience with other construction projects and in order to comply with licensing regulations. There were also some changes which resulted from better information having been secured through more current market surveys. None of the applicants attempted to change their planning horizon, the number of beds proposed, the proposed location of the facility or the services to be offered except Careage. The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2), Florida Administrative Code; formerly, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b) Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology... The Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i. The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict in the horizon year. In this case, the applicable district is District 8, and the applicable subdistrict is Lee County. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 65-74 in the district. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB), as well as the subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is calculated based on the number of community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986. The Department's Semi-Annual Nursing Home Census Report and Bed Need Allocation prepared for the July 1986 review cycle (July 1989 planning horizon) listed 4,193 licensed community nursing home beds in District 8 and 996 in Lee County. However, that count taken on May 1, 1986, did not include 120 new beds which were licensed in Charlotte County on May 8, 1986. The count also excluded 287 beds at four other facilities in the district, including 60 beds at Calusa Harbor in Lee County, because they were listed as sheltered beds according to Department records at that time. After passage of Section 651.118(8), Florida Statutes, the Department surveyed the facilities and found that the beds at these four facilities were operated as community beds rather than sheltered beds. Under the circumstances, the proof demonstrates that as of June 1, 1986, there were 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds in district 8 (LB) and 1,056 in Lee County (LBD). The formula mandated by the rule methodology or calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Some of the applicants contend that the current population" for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated or the July batching cycle, OR based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. Under this theory, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that period, is the appropriate date to calculate "current population" to derive PCPC and POPD. The Department contends that "current population" for POPC and POPD should be calculated as of July 1986, the filing deadline for applications in this review cycle. The Department's position is, however, contrary to its past and current practice. The need reports issued by the Department between December 1984 and December 1986, routinely used a three and one- half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population." In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one-half spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to deviate from its past and current practice. Under the circumstances, January 1, 1986, is the appropriate date on which the "current population" is to be calculated when deriving POPC and POPD. The parties are also in disagreement as to whether population estimates developed after the application deadline can used to establish the current population. Rule 10- 5.011(k)2h, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that population projections shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor, but does not limit such proof to any particular estimate. The Department advocates the use of population estimates existent at the application deadline. Accordingly, it would apply the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1986. Other parties would apply the more recent estimates adopted by the Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1987. In this case, the use of either estimate would have no significant effect on the result reached under the rule methodology; however, since all population estimates and projections are only approximations rather than actual counts, it would be more reasonable from a health planning perspective to use the latest estimates of the 1987 population than the estimates available at the time of application. In this case, this means using July 1, 1987, estimates of January 1986 populations. These estimates are still "current" as of January 1986, since It is still the January 1986 population that is to be measured, and more reliable from a health planning perspective than the prior projection. In the same manner, July 1, 1987, estimates of horizon year 1989 populations (PCPA and POP), infra, would also be used rather than July 1, 1986, estimates of that population. Accordingly, Forum's calculation POPC (128,871), POPD (77,194), POPA (149,645), and POPB (95,748) is appropriate. (Forum Exhibit 10, Appendix A) Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 26 to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA 4,600/(128,871 + (6 x 77,194) BA 4,600/(128,871 + 463,164) BA 4,600/592,035 BA .0077698 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over in the district. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB 6 x BA BB 6 x .0077698 BB .0466188 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A", the district's age adjusted number of community nursing homes beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant department district projected three years into the future. POPR is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: A (149,645 x .0077698) + (95,748 x .0466188) A 1,162.7117 + 4,422.4086 A 5,585.12 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA", the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds;" gross need in the case. 7/ This calculation is defined by subparagraphs 2d as follows: SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed, however, occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept contemplated by subparagraph 2d. Accordingly, the parties concur that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d of the current rule, but, rather, defined by former rule 1C--5. 11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In calculating the occupancy rate (OR) for the licensed community nursing homes in the subdistrict (Lee County) the Department derived a figure of 91.91. The Department arrived at this figure based on the first day of the month patient census of each facility considered to have community beds (LBD=1,056), which included the 60 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion; assumed that such census was maintained throughout the entire month; and then divided such patient days by the actual number of beds available. The Department's methodology is an accepted health planning technique, and comports with its previous practice. Some of the parties disagree with the technique utilized by the Department to calculate OR, and advocate the use of actual patient day occupancy to derive OR. This technique differs from the "first of the month" technique by utilizing the actual number of patient days experienced by the facility, as opposed to assuming a constant census based on first of the month data. This alternative methodology is, likewise, an accepted health planning technique, and if proper assumptions are utilized will yield a more meaningful result than the Department's methodology. In this case, the proponents of the "actual patient day occupancy" methodology, erroneously assumed that 160 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion were community nursing homes beds, as opposed to 60 beds; and, based on an erroneous LBD of 1,156, derived a subdistrict occupancy rate of 92.97. Under such circumstances, these proponents calculations are not reliable, and the subdistrict occupancy rate derived by the Department is accepted. Applying the facts of this case to the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2d produces the following gross need calculation for the subdistrict: 5A 5,585.12 x (1,056/4,600) x (.9191/.9) SA 5,585.12 x .2295652 x 1.0212222 SA 1309.36 The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant department subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. unless the subdistrict's average occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The number of approved and licensed nursing home beds for the second batching cycle in 1987 shall be based on the number of approved and licensed beds as of August 1, 1987, in subsequent nursing home batching cycles, the number of licensed and approved beds to be used in establishing net need for a particular batching cycle shall be determined as of the agency's initial decision for the immediately preceding nursing home batching cycle. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" In the subdistrict from the cross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated when, as here, the batching cycle at issue predates its enactment. In the face of this dilemma, the parties rely on the provisions of former rule 10-5.11(21)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, which was existent when their applications were filed to resolve their dispute. Under the circumstances, reference to former rule 10-5.11(21)(b), is appropriate. Former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 provides: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subaragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8).... (Emphasis added) While the former rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need calculated under subparagraphs (b)1-8, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule as the data base for calculating LB and LBD, and the number of approved beds as of December 18, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). The other parties would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no reasonable evidentiary basis for its interpretation of the date at which the total number of licensed and approved beds are to be calculated under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and the other parties for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. The Inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule, as well as subparagraph 2i of the current rule, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's interpretation of the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational, since it could result in some beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed on June 1, 1986, but licensed before the consultant supervisor signed the SAAR (state agency action report), they would not be counted in either inventory. On the other hand, the other parties' approach would ignore all beds licensed or approved from previous batching cycles after June 1, 1986 which beds were intended to serve at least a portion of the future population. The fundamental flaw in the parties' approach to establishing an inventory date under subparagraph (b)9, was the assumption that subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule defined licensed bed inventory for purposes of subparagraph (b)9. The Department's rule must be construed in its entirety, and all parts of the rule must be construed so as to work harmoniously with its other parts. So construed, the only logical conclusion to be drawn, as hereinafter demonstrated, is that subparagraph (b)7 defines LB and LBD ("current" licensed beds) for the cross need calculation under the methodology defined by subparagraphs (b)1-4, and does not presume to define licensed beds for the net need calculation under subparagraph (b)9. Subparagraphs (b)1-4 and 7 of the numeric need methodology prescribed by the former rule is designed to yield a gross bed need for the horizon year. The keys to this methodology are the calculation of a current bed rate (BA) and current occupancy rate (OR) for the current using population, and the projection of those rates on the population to be served in the horizon year. A meaningful calculation of the current bed rate cannot, however, be derived without a current inventory of licensed beds (LB and LBD). Accordingly, the relationship between subparagraph (b)7, which defines the data base (June 1, 1986 in this case) for defining LB and LBD (the "current" licensed bed inventory) to the gross bed need calculation is apparent. The parties' suggestion that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9 not only ignores the inextricable link between subparagraph (b)7 and the gross bed need methodology, but also the language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9. The purpose of that subparagraph is to derive a realistic estimate of actual (net) bed need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles were intended to serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it would be illogical to ignore any of those beds when calculating net need. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable in this case not to count any beds that were licensed or approved from previous batching cycles between June 1, 1986, and the date a decision is rendered on these applications. Indeed, subparagraph (b)9 speaks to "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not beds existent on June 1, 1986. In sum, subparagraph (b)7 cannot be read to define licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9, and the parties' suggestion that it can is rejected as contrary to the clear language of the rule methodology. See: Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 493 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Since the purpose of subparagraph (b)9 is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures to the greatest extent possible that the horizon population will not be over or undeserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing there were 1,056 licensed beds and 120 approved beds in the subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a net need of 145 community nursing home beds for the July 1989 planning horizon. Special Circumstances. The Department will not normally approve an application for new or additional nursing home beds in any service district in excess of the number calculated by the aforesaid methodology. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Succinctly, the need for nursing home services, whether they be general or special, is a product of the rule methodology, and not relevant to a calculation of need absent a demonstration of special circumstances. The Department has adopted by rule the methodology to be utilized in demonstrating special circumstances that would warrant a consideration of factors other than the numeric need methodology in deciding the need for nursing home services. That rule, 10-5.011(1)(k)2; Florida Administrative Code, provides: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained at Section 10-5.011. Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under the provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special 505 home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. In the instant case, some of the applicants have proposed special services, including an Alzheimer's unit, subacute care unit, and beds for technology dependent children. They offered, however, no proof that any person with a documented need for such services had been denied access to available beds that the number of persons with a documented need exceeded the number of available beds. Succinctly, there is no credible proof that the need for nursing home services in Lee County exceeds that calculated pursuant to the numeric need methodology. While there are no special circumstances existent in this case that would justify an award of beds in excess of that calculated by the rule methodology, that does not mean that consideration of the Alzheimer's, subacute and technology dependent children services offered by some of the applicants is not relevant to the comparative review of the subject applications. Rather, it means that the need for such services will presumptively be met within the need calculated by the rule methodology. How the applicants propose to address that need is, however, a matter for consideration in a comparative review of their applications. Each of the applicants propose to provide subacute care, with Careage proposing a special 10-bed subacute care unit which would accommodate technology dependent children. HCR and Careage propose special Alzheimer's care units; a 15-bed unit by HCR and a 21-bed unit by Careage. Hillhaven will admit Alzheimer's disease patients as presented, and will develop a dedicated Alzheimer's unit if demand should subsequently develop. The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and the increased demand for subacute services brought about by DRGs, demonstrates that there will be a demand for such services within existing and proposed facilities. There was, however, no persuasive proof of any demand for technology dependent services in Lee County. While there is a demand for Alzheimer's disease care, and the preferred mode of care is in a separate unit specifically designed, staffed, and equipped to deal with this degenerative disease, there was no persuasive proof that the demand is such as to warrant the creation of a separate unit such as proposed by HCR and Careage. 10/ Absent such quantifiable demand, the application of Hillhaven more realistically addresses the need for Alzheimer's disease patients than does that of the other applicants. With regard to subacute care services, the proof likewise fails to quantify the demand for such services. Under such circumstances, Careage's proposed 10-bed subacute care unit is not objectively warranted, and does not serve to better its proposal to provide such services over the proposals of the other applicants. Consistency with district plan and state plan The District 8 health plan contains the following pertinent standards and criteria: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county, 4 within District Eight. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: a. pharmacy h. occupational therapy b. laboratory i. physical therapy c. x-ray j. speech therapy c. dental care k. mental health counseling e. visual care l. social services f. hearing care m. medial services g. diet therapy New and existing community nursing bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds... Each nursing facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same county. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs. ... The State Health Plan contains the following pertinent goals: GOAL 1: TO DEVELOP AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LONG TERM CARE SERVICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA. GOAL 2: TO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE LONG TERM, CARE SERVICES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA. Each of the applicants demonstrated that their proposal would conform, at least minimally, with the foregoing provisions of the state and local health plans. Of particular significance to Lee County is, however, an applicant's commitment to Medicaid service. The District 8 Council has reported that hospitals in Lee County are having difficulty placing Medicaid patients in nursing homes due to the unavailability of Medicaid beds. The current Medicaid experience is 46 percent. Therefore, the local council has directed that new and existing community nursing home developments should dedicate at least 33-1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. While all applicants propose to meet this standard, Hillhaven's proposal to dedicate 53 percent of its beds to Medicaid care is substantially greater than the commitment of the other applicants, and is consistent with its current experience in meeting a community's need for nursing home care. Availability, appropriateness, and extent of utilization of existing health care services Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires Consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. When the subject applications were filed, there were 1,056 licensed beds in Lee County with an occupancy rate of 91.91 percent. The nursing home bed supply in Lee County is obviously strained, and there exist no reasonable alternatives to the addition of new beds to the subdistrict. To coordinate with existing health facilities, each applicant proposes to establish appropriate transfer agreements and affiliations with local physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers. While some of the applicants have proposed an Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, the proof failed to demonstrate any quantitative need for such units in the subdistrict. Some applicants also proposed to provide day care in conjunction with their nursing home. Currently, there exists adequate day care in Lee County at little or no expense to the patient, and there was no persuasive proof of a need for additional day care services. Economies derived from joint health care resources HCR and Hillhaven each proposed 120-bed facilities which would provide for a more efficient and economical operation than a 60-bed facility. The 60-bed facilities proposed by Forum and Health Quest are, however, part of a larger complex which likewise lends itself to an efficient and economical operation. HCR, Hillhaven, Forum and Health Quest are major operators of nursing home facilities, and are thereby able to negotiate and obtain bulk prices for food, medical and nursing supplies. These savings are ultimately passed on to the residents. Additionally, by drawing upon a broad spectrum of expertise existent within their corporate networks, these applicants are best able to maintain and improve the services they offer. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. As between the competing applicants, consideration of those criteria demonstrates that Hillhaven is the superior applicant whether it is evaluated on its application as initially reviewed by the Department or as updated at hearing. Among other things, the Hillhaven facility is spacious with large and well appointed patient rooms, its project costs are most reasonable (whether type 5 or type 4 construction), its programmatic proposal and staffing levels are most reasonable in light of existing demand, its provision for Medicaid services is the highest, and its patient charges are the lowest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Hillhaven's application for a certificate of need to construct a new 20-bed community nursing home in Lee County, and denying the applications of HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Careage. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of November, 1987.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of a 60-bed sheltered nursing home adjacent to a 75-unit life care residential facility in HRS Health District IX, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be granted (in whole or in part), or denied.
Findings Of Fact I. The Proposal Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation organized to provide retirement and nursing home services to aged Episcopalians in the three Episcopal Dioceses in Florida: Central, Southwest and Southeast. Since 1951, Petitioner has operated a life care facility or community, with adjacent nursing home, in Davenport, Florida. It has 71 residential (well-care) units and 60 nursing home beds, operates at nearly full capacity, and has a 3-to-5 year waiting list. There are 128 residents at the facility, 57 of whom live in the nursing home. Petitioner now seeks to replicate the (Davenport) Crane Gray Inn in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of older Episcopalians. The life care community, consisting of a 60-bed skilled nursing home and a 75- unit retirement facility, would be convenient to the residents of the Southeast Florida diocese, but is expected to draw residents throughout Florida. The 60-bed skilled nursing home, for which a CON is required, would be a one-story building measuring 19,100 square feet. Initially estimated to cost $1,705,515, or $68.06 per square foot to construct and equip, actual bids subsequently received have reduced the expected cost to $60.00 per square foot. The total cost of the entire project, including the well- care and nursing-care facilities, is estimated to be $3,600,000. Petitioner intends to obtain certification of the entire project as a continuing care facility in accordance with Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. In March, 1985, the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer issued Petitioner a provisional license to operate the proposed facility as a continuing care facility.2 Petitioner intends to comply with the reporting and escrow requirements which Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, imposes on life-care facilities. The admission requirements for the proposed life care facility are the same as those which have applied to the Davenport Crane Gray Inn ("Inn"). Before admission, a resident must execute a continuing care or "Resident's Agreement" with the Inn. Under that agreement, in exchange for the future maintenance and support of the resident at the Inn for the remainder of the applicant's life, the applicant transfers all of his or her real and personal property to the Inn. The resident also agrees to execute a will to the Inn to effectuate the transfer of property then owned or later acquired. No entrance fee is charged. The Inn promises to provide the resident with a personal living unit (including all utilities); three meals a day; health care (including medicine, physician fees, dental care, and hospitalization); recreational, educational, social and religious programs; funeral and burial costs; a monthly allowance for personal expenses; weekly maid service and laundry facilities; and transportation for shopping trips and other activities. Either party may terminate the agreement under specified conditions. On termination, the Inn will transfer back to the resident the property previously conveyed, or a sum equal to the value thereof, without interest and deducting therefrom an amount sufficient to compensate the Inn for the resident's care and support while at the Inn. If the resident becomes eligible for social security or government assistance, such assistance is paid to the Inn for the support of the resident. If the resident dies while at the Inn, all property transferred to the Inn on admission is considered to have been earned and becomes the property of the Inn. (Joint Exhibit I) There is no requirement that a prospective resident have any assets and applicants are ostensibly admitted without regard to their financial condition. (However, in the past ten years, only two Medicaid patients or indigent residents have been admitted to the Davenport Inn.) An account for each resident is maintained, to which earnings are transferred and costs of care deducted. Residents without assets are treated the same as those with assets and the account information is treated confidentially. Over time, the accounts of residents are depleted. Currently, 68% of the patients at the Davenport nursing home are Medicaid patients. The per diem rate reimbursed by Medicaid is $51.25. No resident has ever been transferred for lack of funds. However, the average resident, when admitted, transfers assets worth approximately $24,000 to the Inn. Prospective residents of the proposed nursing home will ordinarily come from the adjacent well-care retirement units. The purpose of the nursing home is to serve the individuals residing in the life care community who, as their needs intensify, require skilled nursing care. Only on rare occasions will an individual be admitted directly to the nursing home without first residing in the well-care portion of the life care community. At the Davenport Inn, this has happened only once. Petitioner acknowledges that prospective nursing home patients may come from eligible Episcopalians who reside in nursing homes in the local community. Actual residence in the well-care units will not be a prerequisite to admission to the nursing home. However, no person has been, or will be, admitted to the nursing home without first executing a continuing care agreement. Direct admission of nursing home patients from outside the life care center is permissible under "sheltered nursing home" rules, as construed by HRS officials. Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator of HRS' Community Medical Facilities Office of Health Planning and Development (which implements the CON licensing process) advised Petitioner's counsel on September 20, 1985, that under HRS rules, patients may--if necessary--be admitted directly to the proposed nursing home without first residing in the well-care units. Individuals who have paid for membership with the particular life care center, finding themselves in immediate need of nursing home care, may be directly admitted into the nursing home. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 11) If HRS rules were interpreted otherwise, perfunctory stops in well-care units "on the way to the nursing home" would be encouraged, a practice which would burden patients and serve no useful purpose. Although Petitioner's CON application does not specify a minimum age for admission to the life care community, Petitioner's life care centers are oriented toward members of the Episcopal Protestant Churches who are at an advanced age and "need a place to go for their last days... [In] a lot of cases they have outlived their own children." (TR-34) The average age of the patients in the Davenport nursing home is 89; in the well-care retirement units, 82. The average overall age of members of the Davenport life care community is 84 or 85. Approximately one-half of the residents eventually need nursing care. At Davenport, the minimal age for admission is 71. (TR- 12) According to a member of the Board of Directors of Petitioner, only patients 70 or over will be admitted to the life care community proposed for Palm Beach County. (TR-35) There is already a waiting list of ninety (90) qualified persons for the proposed life care community in Palm Beach County. Out of that figure, only five people currently require nursing home services. After executing the standard continuing care agreement, these five people would be admitted directly to the nursing home facility, without first residing in a well-care unit. Waiting lists are compiled six times a year, with the most recent completed only a week prior to hearing. Petitioner does not intend to utilize all the nursing home beds, since it must keep some beds open to meet the needs of well-care residents. Nursing home beds at the Palm Beach facility would be filled gradually, approximately two per week, so it would take six months to reach optimum capacity. The parties stipulate that all criteria for evaluating CON applications under Section 381.494(6)(c) and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have been met or are inapplicable except for the following: The long-term financial feasibility of the project, the availability of operating capital, and the economic impact on other providers (Section 381.494(6) (c)8, 9, Fla. Stat.); The cost of construction (Section 381.494(6) (c)13, Fla. Stat.); The ratio of beds to residential units (Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Fla. Admin. Code). II. Financial Feasibility The historical track record of the Davenport facility over the last 13 years and projections for the proposed facility demonstrate that the proposed nursing home is financially feasible and that Petitioner has, or can obtain sufficient funds to meet its operating costs. Moreover, as a licensed Chapter 651 life care facility, the financial viability of the entire operation will be monitored by the Department of Insurance. Assets available to support the costs of operating the life care community include income and assets derived from incoming residents; estates and bequests; and a fund of 1,300,000.00, functioning as an endowment, to be placed in escrow. The cost for a resident in the well-care units is approximately $27 per day; the cost in the nursing home is approximately $54 per day. Although there is a deficit of approximately $300 per month in the well-care section of the Davenport facility, there is no deficiency in the nursing home. Medicaid payments are sufficient to cover the costs of providing nursing care. Philanthropy should not be required to sustain the operation of the proposed nursing home. Petitioner has never had difficulty in obtaining financial support for its Davenport well-care units. More than one-half of the operating deficit for the well-care units was met by funds at work and did not depend on philanthropy. There are over 200 Episcopal Churches in the three Florida dioceses with 90-100,000 parishioners, who have been responsive to fund- raising efforts in the past. Last year, Petitioner raised $693,000 from fund raising drives. It is reasonably expected that this source of financial support will also be available to support the proposed life care facility, including the nursing home. An endowment fund of $1,300,000 is also available. These funds will be made available to support the proposed life care community. In addition, each new resident contributes an average of $24,000, which is used to defray operating costs. Barnett Bank will finance construction of the project at one-half percent over prime. Petitioner intends to pay off the capital debt in two or three years. The land has already been acquired and some land preparation costs have been paid. Petitioner has expended over $800,000, to date, on the proposed life care community. Petitioner has $120, 000 on hand for the project, in addition to escrowed reserves. An HRS health care planner has misgivings about the financial viability of the project since Petitioner has relied on philanthropy to support its Davenport facility, and would rely on it to some extent to support the proposed facility. However, Petitioner projects that 77% of the nursing home patients at the proposed facility will be Medicaid eligible. Due to efficiencies in operation, Medicaid payments should be sufficient to cover the costs of nursing home patients at the proposed facility, just as they have been at the Davenport nursing home. The various sources of funds available to Petitioner--proven wholly adequate in the past--should be sufficient to cover the other costs of operation and ensure the continued financial viability of the nursing home, as well as the associated well-care units. III. Cost of Construction HRS contends that the initial estimate of construction costs for the proposed nursing home ($68.00 per square foot) is excessive when compared to other 60-bed nursing facilities, where the cost is approximately $10.00 less per square foot. But, through various cost-cutting measures, the cost of the project has now been reduced to approximately $60.00 per square foot, which is reasonable and in line with the other nursing home projects. IV. Ratio of Nursing Rome Beds to Residential Units Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that HRS "will not normally approve an application for new or additional sheltered nursing home beds if approved would result in the number of sheltered nursing home beds that exceed one for every four residential units in the life care facility." The parties stipulate that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, this rule would preclude approval of more than 19 of Petitioner's 60 proposed nursing home beds. The proposed nursing home, like the Davenport facility it duplicates, will be unique, unusual or extraordinary, when compared with other nursing homes in Florida, due to the advanced age of its patients. No one under 70 will be admitted. The average age of its patients is expected to approach 89 with the average age of well-care residents approaching 82. Approximately one-half of the well-care residents will eventually require transfer into the nursing home. People of advanced age are more likely to require nursing home care. Based on Petitioner's historical experience at its Davenport facility, it is likely that 60 nursing home beds will be required to meet the needs of residents of the proposed well- care units. It has been shown that the proposed 60 nursing beds will be needed to serve the needs of well-care residents as they age and their health care needs intensify. That has been the case at the Davenport facility, where rarely has a patient been admitted to the nursing home who did not first reside in the well-care units. The proposed nursing home and life care center will draw patients and residents similar to those drawn by the Davenport facility--the state-wide applicant "pool" of both is expected to be the same. For this reason, the proposed nursing home should have no significant impact on the census of, or need for, community nursing homes in Palm Beach County. It appears that the rationale behind the four-to-one (residential units to nursing home beds) ratio of the HRS rule is that, under normal or ordinary conditions, only one nursing home bed will be required to serve the residents of four well- care units. In the instant case, actual experience has shown this assumption to be patently erroneous. If only 19 nursing home beds were allowed Petitioner--because of the ratio cast in HRS rules--it is likely that many well-care residents at the proposed life care center would be forced to find nursing care outside of the center. Displaced, placed in nursing homes distant from the life care community, such patients would lose close contact with spouses and friends. The HRS rule, embracing a numerical ratio for the norm, allows flexibility in particular situations which are shown to be abnormal. The circumstances of the instant case show it to be an abnormal situation, fully justifying approval of 60-beds sought, rather than the 19 otherwise permitted by the HRS rule.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of a 60-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County be GRANTED; and that the CON, on its face, state that issuance is predicated on Petitioner's statement of intent (during Section 120.57(1) licensing proceedings) that (i.) no one under 70 years of age will be admitted to the life care community (including both well-care and nursing-care sections) and (ii.) that, only in relatively rare and unusual cases, will patients be directly admitted to the nursing home without first residing in the well- care residential units of the life care communities.3 See, Section 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1985). DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.
