The Issue Whether the Department should issue certificate of need number 4502 to construct and operate a fifty-bed long-term psychiatric hospital in Leon County, Florida, to HCAC?
Findings Of Fact HCAC is a corporation formed by Anthony Estevez for the purpose of developing and operating a long-term psychiatric facility in Leon County, Florida. The facility was to be known as HCAC psychiatric Hospital of Leon County. Mr. Estevez owns 100 percent of the stock of HCAC. The Department is the state agency in Florida authorized to issue certificates of need for long-term psychiatric facilities. TMRMC is a general acute care hospital located in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. TMRMC operates a free- standing short-term psychiatric facility in a two-story, approximately 45,000 square foot, structure located within a block and a half from the main hospital. TMRMC's psychiatric facility is licensed for sixty beds. At present, forty-five of its beds are actually open, with fifteen beds in each of three units. One unit is available for adult patients (including geriatric patients), one is available for adolescent patients and one is available for an open adult unit. The other fifteen beds are available but are not staffed because of a lack of patients. Apalachee is a private, non-profit corporation. Apalachee provides comprehensive community mental health services to Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor and Wakulla Counties. Apalachee was established consistent with State and federal guidelines to provide a variety of mental health Services. On March 17, 1986, a Letter of Intent was filed with the Department notifying the Department of Mr. Estevez's intent to apply for a certificate of need in the March 16, 1986, batching cycle. This Letter of Intent was filed within the time requirements of Florida law. On April 15, 1986 Estevez filed an application for a certificate of need for a comprehensive, free-standing, ninety-bed long-term psychiatric facility to be located in Leon County, Florida. Leon County is located in the Department's District 2. District 2 is made up of Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Holmes, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor, Wakulla and Washington Counties. Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor and Wakulla Counties make up Subdistrict 2B. The other Counties make up Subdistrict 2A. HCAC's application was filed with the Department and the District 2 local health council. In a letter dated May 15, 1987, the Department requested additional information from HCAC. The information requested by the Department was provided by HCAC on or about June 19, 1986 and June 23, 1986. On September 23, 1986, the Department issued a State Agency Action Report partially approving HCAC's certificate of need application. HCAC was notified of the Department's decision and was issued certificate of need #4502 by letter dated September 30, 1986. HCAC had sought approval to construct a ninety-bed facility providing specialty long-term psychiatric services for the chronically mentally disturbed; patients with a ninety-day average length of stay. The facility was to provide care to adolescents, adults and geriatrics. Certificate of need #4502 authorized HCAC to construct a fifty-bed long-term adult, geriatric and adolescent psychiatric hospital in Leon County. The Department approved the facility because of its perception that there is no long-term psychiatric facility serving the geographic area proposed by HCAC to be served. By letter dated November 13, 1987, the Department issued an amended certificate of need #4502 to HCAC restricting the services to be provided to adult and geriatric long-term psychiatric services. HCAC intends on using thirty-six beds for adults and fourteen beds for geriatric patients. HCAC did not contest the Department's reduction in the size of the approved facility or the limitation of the scope of services to adult and geriatric patients. At the formal hearing HCAC presented evidence to Support the approved fifty-bed facility Serving only adults and geriatrics. HCAC has not contested the Department's decision to only partially approve HCAC's application. Supporting documentation took into account the smaller size of the approved facility. No substantial change in the scope or emphasis of the facility was made by HCAC other than the elimination of adolescent Services. HCAC has projected an average occupancy rate of 80 percent for the third year of operation. Because of the failure to prove that there is a need for an additional fifty long-term psychiatric beds for District 2, HCAC has failed to prove that this projection is reasonable. As of the date of the Department's initial decision and at the time of the formal hearing of these cases Rivendell Family Care Center (hereinafter referred to as "Rivendell") an eighty-bed long-term-psychiatric free-standing hospital located in Panama City, Bay County, Florida, had been open for approximately six weeks. Rivendell's occupancy rate at the time of the formal hearing was approximately twenty-four percent. Long-term psychiatric services mean hospital based inpatient services averaging a length of stay of ninety days. Long-term psychiatric services may be provided pursuant to the Department's rules in hospitals holding a general license or in a free-standing facility holding a specialty hospital license. Generally, the chronically mentally ill constitute an under-served group. In order to provide a complete continuum of care for the mentally ill, in-patient hospital treatment, including twenty-four hour medical care and nursing services and intensive resocialization or teaching of resocialization skills, should be provided. The Department has not established a standard method of quantifying need for long-term psychiatric beds in Florida. The Department's approval of the additional long- term psychiatric beds and facility at issue in this proceeding and the Department's and HCAC's position during the formal hearing that there is a need for HCAC's facility was based generally upon their conclusion that there is a "lack of such a facility to serve the geographic area." During the formal hearing, the Department further justified the need for the facility as follows: Basically it was felt that given the geographic distance or distances between this area, the eastern portion of District II, and the closest facilities, meaning licensed hospitals or facilities authorized by a Certificate of Need to offer long-term adult psychiatric services in a Chapter 395 licensed hospital, that there probably should be one here of a minimal size because we were not firm in, or in surety of the number of patients who might need the service in this area. But we thought that there should be at least a minimally sized long-term psychiatric hospital in this area to serve this area. HCAC and the Department failed to prove that there is a need for an additional fifty long-term psychiatric beds in District 2. At best, HCAC and the Department have relied upon speculation and assumptions to support approval of the proposed facility. In order to prove need, the characteristics of the population to be served by a proposed health service should be considered. A determination that there is a need for a health service should be based upon demographic data, including the population in the service area, referral sources and existing services. HCAC and the Department did not present such evidence sufficient enough to Support the additional fifty beds at issue in this proceeding. HCAC did not use any need methodology to quantify the gross need for long-term psychiatric beds in District 2. Nor did HCAC or the Department present sufficient proof concerning existing services, the population to be served, the income or insurance coverage of the Service area population or actual service area referral patterns. In its application. HCAC premised its proposal, in part, on the assumption that "the Leon County area is an undeserved area with residents being referred to facilities long distances away." HCAC exhibit 2. The evidence does not support this assumption. HCAC also premised its proposal upon its conclusion that it would receive patient referrals from existing institutions. The evidence failed to support this conclusion. HCAC also premised its proposal upon the fact that long-term psychiatric services have been designated as a licensure category by the Department. This does not, however, create a presumption that there is a need for such services in a particular area. Based upon the evidence presented at the formal hearing concerning one methodology for quantifying the need for long-term psychiatric beds, there may already be a surplus of long-term psychiatric beds in District 2. Such a surplus of beds may exist whether State hospital beds and ARTS and GRTS program beds are considered. The methodology is based upon national length of stay data for 1980 which was obtained from the National Institute of Mental Health. The methodology did not take into account more current data or Florida specific data. Therefore, use of the methodology did not prove the exact number of long- term psychiatric beds needed for District 2. Although the weight of the evidence concerning the use of the methodology failed to support a finding as to the exact number of long-term psychiatric beds needed in District 2, its use was sufficient to support a finding that there may be a surplus of beds already in existence. The methodology further supports the conclusion that HCAC and the Department have failed to meet their burden of proving that there is a need for the proposed facility. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether long-term inpatient psychiatric services, other than those provided at State hospitals, are "within a maximum travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the service area's [District 2] population." The closest long-term inpatient psychiatric facility [other than a State hospital], Rivendell, is located in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. This facility is located in Subdistrict 2A. There is no facility located in Subdistrict 2B. Rivendell is located on the western edge of Subdistrict 2B, however. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this facility is not within a maximum travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of District 2's population. On page seven of the State Agency Action Report approving Rivendell, the Department indicated that "[t]he proposed location insures that 90 percent of the District I and District II population will have access within two hours travel time." This determination was made prior to the initial approval by the Department of HCAC's proposed facility. If the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"), which is located in District 2, is taken into account, long-term psychiatric services are available within a maximum travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for a least 90 percent of District 2's population. Chattahoochee provides long-term inpatient psychiatric hospital care to indigent and private pay patients. The quality of cafe at Chattahoochee is good and a full range of therapeutic modalities typically available at other psychiatric hospitals are available. HCAC and the Department have suggested that there is need for the additional fifty beds at is sue in these cases because of their conclusion that 90 percent of the population of District 2 is not within two hours under average travel conditions of long-term psychiatric services. The failure to prove this conclusion further detracts from their position as to the need for the proposed facility. HCAC exhibit 8 is a copy of the goals, objectives and recommended actions contained in the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan relating to mental health facilities. The evidence in this proceeding failed to support a finding that HCAC's proposed facility will enhance these goals, objectives and recommended actions. Goal 1 of the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan is to "[e]nsure the availability of mental health and substance abuse services to all Florida residents in a least restrictive setting." Objectives 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4, and the actions recommended to achieve these objectives are not applicable to HCAC's proposed facility. Objective 1.3 provides that additional long-term inpatient psychiatric beds should not be approved in any district which has "an average annual occupancy of at least 80 percent for all existing and approved long-term inpatient psychiatric beds." Goal 2 of the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan is to "[p]romote the development of a continuum of high quality, cost effective private sector mental health and substance abuse treatment and preventive services." The objectives and recommended actions to achieve this goal are not applicable to HCAC's proposed facility. Goal 3 of the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan is to "[d]evelope a complete range of essential public mental health services in each HRS district." The objectives and recommended actions to achieve this goal are not applicable to HCAC's proposed facility. The Florida State Plan for Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services does not specifically deal with private long-term psychiatric services. Instead, it relates specifically to treatment in the state mental health treatment facilities. The applicable district mental health plan does not specifically address long-term psychiatric services. The plan does, however, recommend that new facilities should indicate a commitment to serving the medically indigent. HCAC has agreed to provide 5.6 percent of its patient days for indigent care. HCAC's commitment to provide 5.6 percent of its patient days for indigent care is consistent with this objective. Mental Health District Boards have been abolished. The District 2 Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Planning Council, however, has published the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health 1986-89 Provisional District Plan. It is acknowledged in this Plan that deinstitutionalization and the provision of the least restrictive means of treatment should be promoted. The use of long- term psychiatric inpatient beds does not promote this philosophy. If a patient is not admitted as part of the 5.6 percent indigent commitment of HCAC and cannot pay the $10,500.00 per month admission charges, HCAC will not admit the patient. Additionally, if a patient is admitted and runs out of funds to pay the daily charges and is not part of the 5.6 percent indigent commitment, the patient will be transferred to another facility. HCAC's facility will be accessible to all residents who can pay for their services or who are part of the 5.6 percent indigent commitment of HCAC. The provision of 5.6 percent indigent care is adequate. HCAC will provide non- discriminatory health care services, to those indigent patients who are covered by HCAC's 5.6 percent commitment. The Counties which make up Subdistrict 2B, other than Leon County, are below the average national and State poverty levels. In most of the Counties, twenty percent of the population have incomes below the poverty level. HCAC has not managed any type of psychiatric hospital and currently has no employees. The proposed facility is to be managed by Flowers Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Flowers"). Flowers is a psychiatric management company that has been in operation since 1984. Mr. Estevez owns fifty-one percent of the stock of Flowers and is the Chairman of the Board. Flowers is operating five Psychiatric/substance abuse facilities: three hospital based and two free-standing pychiatric/chemical dependency facilities. The staff and faculty of Flowers has a strong background in the management of psychiatric facilities. Flowers has no experience in the management of a long-term psychiatric facility. Mr. Nelson Elliot Rodney, Flowers' Regional Vice President, will be ultimately responsible for the management of the proposed facility. The administrator of the facility will report to Mr. Rodney. Mr. Rodney will seek to implement the goals outlined in HCAC's certificate of need application for the proposed facility. Mr. Rodney has not designed a psychiatric hospital. Nor has Mr. Rodney worked at or administered a long- term psychiatric hospital. The overall treatment plan as presented in HCAC's certificate of need application and as presented at the formal hearing lends itself to the development of a good program for long-term psychiatric care. HCAC has associated itself with experts in long-term psychiatric care in order to develop a detailed plan specifically addressing the treatment needs of long-term psychiatric patients. HCAC has the ability to, and will, provide good quality patient care. Apalachee provides certain programs in Subdistrict 2B which provide alternatives to long-term psychiatric hospitalization: the Geriatric Residential Treatment System (hereinafter referred to as "GRTS") and the Adult Residential Treatment System (hereinafter referred to as "ARTS"). Apalachee's GRTS program, which serves Individuals fifty-five years of age and older, contains a residential component with a total capacity of Seventy geriatric beds. A wide variety of services are provided as part of the GRTS program, including day treatment and case management components. When Apalachee's ARTS program is fully implemented there will be a total of one hundred sixty-three beds available for the care on long-term mentally ill adults and geriatrics within Subdistrict 2B. The ARTS program serves adults who are eighteen to fifty-four years of age. Apalachee's GRTS and ARTS programs do not provide the identical services provided in a free-standing long-term psychiatric hospital. The programs do provide some identical or similar services, and, to that extent, the programs complement the continuum of psychiatric care available. To the extent that they provide the same type of services, Apalachee's GRTS and ARTS programs serve as alternatives to HCAC's proposed facility. There is a national shortage of registered nurses. This shortage is particularly acute with regard to psychiatric nurses. TMRMC has a current shortage of three registered psychiatric nurses, three part-time psychiatric registered nurses, seven flex positions for psychiatric nurses, one full- time nurse technician position and one mental health worker. TMRMC has had difficulty, despite adequate efforts to recruit, recruiting for its psychiatric facility since it opened. It has never been fully staffed with psychiatric nurses. There is also a shortage of occupational therapists. TMRMC has had an occupational therapist vacancy for seven months. Mr. Rodney will be responsible for the recruitment of the necessary personnel for the proposed facility. Mr. Rodney indicated that he would utilize recruitment methods similar to those used by TMRMC. Mr. Rodney will also use his experience and contacts in the Dade County, Florida area. HCAC's salary package is reasonable and HCAC will provide adequate in- service training programs. Although HCAC will have difficulty in attracting qualified staff, just as TMRMC has had, it will be able to obtain adequate staff for the proposed facility. HCAC may do so, however, at the expense of existing health care providers. Apalachee provides the following programs in District 2: Wateroak--A sixteen-bed long-term psychiatric hospital for the treatment of children and adolescents. It is a licensed Specialty hospital; In November of 1987, Apalachee began construction of an acute care facility, which will provide inpatient short- term psychiatric services; Case Management Services--Case management services, which include supportive counseling, medication therapy, assistance with transportation and home visitation, are provided to the chronically mentally ill on an outpatient basis. The Services are to be provided where the patients reside; Hilltop--A sixteen-bed residential treatment center. Hilltop is a group home living facility for adults eighteen to fifty-four years of age; Chemical Dependency Program--Individual, group and family counseling and educational services on an outpatient basis for Individuals with suspected substance abuse problems; Emergency Services--Year-round, twenty-four hour a day telephone or face-to-face evaluations to persons with an acute disturbance or who are in need of evaluation for determination of the proper level of care; PATH--Positive Alternative to Hospitalization Program, a crises stabilization unit developed as an alternative to short-term psychiatric care; PPC--Primary Care Center, a nonhospital medical detoxification unit providing short-term detoxification care to alcohol abusers; Gerontological Programs--Made up of the GRTS program and an outpatient component. Through the outpatient component, Apalachee uses its outpatient clinics in each County in its service area to provide linkage for therapy and medication and supportive counseling to geriatrics; ARTS Program; and Designated Public Receiving Facility--Apalachee is the designated public receiving facility for Subdistrict 2B. It screens and evaluates every person admitted to Chattahoochee. Apalachee's adult mental health programs which are available to indigent patients, directly impact both long and short-term hospital utilization, lowering such utilization. For example, before establishing the services provided to suspected substance abusers, many patients were placed in long-term psychiatric hospitals. Referrals to TMRMC of patients under the Baker Act have been reduced from an average of fifteen to eighteen patients per day to an average of one-half to one person per day. There has also been a decrease in admissions to Chattahoochee since Apalachee established the GRTS and ARTS programs. At the time of the formal hearing of these cases TMRMC had a census of only twenty-eight adult patients in its short-term psychiatric facility. TMRMC's census has been low for the past two years. TMRMC's short-term psychiatric facility is operating at a loss. Any further loss of patients would have a serious impact on the facility. From October 1, 1986 to July 31, 1987, TMRMC lost $127,337.00 on its short-term psychiatric facility. For the twelve-month period from October 1, 1986 to October 1, 1987, it is reasonably estimated that TMRMC will lose $139,722.00. TMRMC would like to open the fifteen-bed unit (which is presently closed) of its short-term psychiatric facility. It must increase its census before it can do so. It has been attempting to increase its census by sending out mail-outs and newsletters, sponsoring educational programs advertising, inviting health care professionals to the facility and initiating clinical affiliations with university programs. Rivendell is an eighty-bed long-term psychiatric facility. Forty of its eighty beds are licensed for adults and geriatric patients. The other forty beds are licensed for children and adolescent patients. Rivendell's census at the time of the formal hearing of these cases was six to eight patients. Chattahoochee has a total of 823 long-term psychiatric beds for adults and geriatrics. There are no like and existing long-term psychiatric beds for adults and geriatrics located in Subdistrict 2B. The only like and existing long-term psychiatric beds for adults and geriatrics available to residents of District 2 are located in Subdistrict 2A at Rivendell. The proposed HCAC facility will result in increased competition in District 2. This increase in competition will have an adverse impact on suppliers of inpatient psychiatric services. Admissions to the proposed facility will likely include patients who would be more appropriately hospitalized in a short-term facility. Although HCAC has no plans to admit short-term patients and will attempt to prevent such admissions, mental health professionals cannot accurately predict the length of a patient's stay upon admission. The determination will often require an in- hospital evaluation of the patient. Therefore, patients more appropriately treated in a short-term facility such as TMRMC will end up spending some tide in HCAC's proposed facility. TMRMC will lose patient days if the HCAC facility is constructed. This will adversely affects TMRMC's occupancy rate, which is already low, and cause further losses in revenue. Given the surplus of long-term psychiatric beds in District 2 and the low occupancy of short-term beds in Subdistrict 2B, it will difficult for HCAC to continue in existence without admitting short-term psychiatric patients. The operation of the proposed HCAC facility will also adversely affect the availability of nurses to staff Apalachee's acute care facility and other Apalachee operations and TMRMC's ability to staff its short-term psychiatric facility. Even the loss of one more full-time registered nurse at TMRMC could cause critical staffing problems. Because of the lack of need for fifty additional long-term psychiatric beds in District 2, HCAC's proposed facility would also have an adverse affect on Rivendell. The proposed facility will provide internships, field placements and semester rotations for psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses and counselors. The facility will work closely with community agencies and community personnel in developing, operating and providing resources for training for community groups, patient groups and personnel. In- service training will be open to selected professionals in the community. HCAC's proposed facility will have a positive effect on the clinical needs of health professional training programs and schools for health professions in District 2. The-total estimated cost of the proposed project approved by the Department is $4,108,000.00. HCAC plans on financing 100 percent of the cost of the project with a mortgage loan at 13 percent interest. Mr. Estevez has had experience in obtaining financing for health care and other commercial projects. In 1987 alone, Mr. Estevez was personally involved in over $20,000,000.00 of financing. Short-term financial feasibility means the ability to successfully fund a project to ensure that the project will succeed in the short-term. To achieve short-term financial feasibility, there must be sufficient funds to cover any losses incurred during the initial operating period and to cover any short fall in working capital necessary to fund the project. NCNB, a financial institution with which Mr. Estevez has had, and continues to have, a long and profitable association, has indicated interest in financing the proposed project. A financing letter to this effect has been provided. Although the letter does not specifically refer to the proposed project, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that NCNB would be willing to finance the project. In light of Mr. Estevez's experience in obtaining commercial financing and his relationship with NCNB, it is reasonable to conclude that 100 percent financing of the project can be obtained at 13 percent interest. The proposed project will have a negative cash balance at the end of its first and second year of operation. Given Mr. Estevez's commitment to the project, sufficient funds for capital and operating expenses will be available to cover these negative cash balances. Although Mr. Estevez did not provide a separate audited financial statement, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Estevez has the ability to provide the necessary capital. In the short-term, HCAC's proposal is financially feasible. HCAC has projected that it will operate at an average length of stay of ninety days. It will charge an all-inclusive $350.00 per day for its long- term psychiatric services, including all ancillary services. Initially, HCAC projected the following payor mix: Medicaid of 30 percent; Medicare of 20 percent; and insurance and private pay of 50 percent. HCAC was informed by the Department that Medicaid reimbursement was not available for psychiatric services in private free-standing psychiatric hospitals. Consequently, HCAC modified its payor mix by eliminating Medicaid from its payor mix. At the formal hearing of this case, HCAC projected the following payor mix: Medicare of 3.3 percent; indigent of 5.6 percent; and insurance and private pay of 91.1 percent. Medicare reimburses for psychiatric care in a limited fashion. That is why HCAC reduced its projected Medicare reimbursement to 3.3 percent of its total revenue. Medicare patients generally use the majority of their lifetime reserve Medicare reimbursable days for other types of care, including short-term psychiatric care and acute care. Persons in need of long-term psychiatric care generally have a poor work history because of their illness interferes with their ability to obtain and maintain employment. Patients have few economic resources of their own. A patients family structure is often disorganized as a result of the patient's episodes of illness. These episodes strain the family relationship. Persons in need of long-term psychiatric care are often unable to pay for needed services and their family members are either unable or unwilling to support the person. There is no facility in Florida with a payor mix of 91 percent insurance and private pay. HCAC's projection of 91.1 percent insurance and private pay is not a reasonable projection. This finding of fact is based upon the high poverty levels within Subdistrict 2B, the lack of need for additional long-term psychiatric beds and the failure to prove that insurance benefits for long-term care are available in District 2. The State of Florida, Employees Group Health Self-Insurance Plan does not provide coverage for specialty hospitals, such as HCAC's proposed facility. The State of Florida provides 42 percent of the employment in Leon County. Insurance provided by other employers in the area limits coverage for inpatient psychiatric care to thirty to thirty-one days. These benefits are often exhausted before long- term care becomes necessary. In order to achieve a 91.1 percent insurance and private pay payor mix, 80 percent to 100 percent will have to be private pay patients. Such a high percentage of private pay patients is not reasonable. The effective buying income in Leon County in 1986 was approximately $22,600.00. In District 2 it was $18,700.00. Madison County and Jefferson County are among the counties heading Florida's poverty rate. Taylor County is the ninth poorest county in the State. HCAC has projected a 95 percent occupancy rate for its proposed facility within six months of its opening. HCAC has failed to prove that this occupancy rate can be achieved. In light of the high poverty rate in the area, the lack of need for long-term psychiatric services and the inability of patients to pay for such services, this projected occupancy rate is not reasonable. In light of HCAC's failure to prove that there is a need for the proposed facility or that its payor mix is reasonable, HCAC has failed to demonstrate that its occupancy projection is achievable. HCAC has projected that 7.3 percent of its gross revenue will be deducted as revenue deductions. Included in this amount are contractual allowances, charity care and bad debts. Medicare reimburses hospitals for total costs rather than revenue or charges. HCAC, therefore, gas projected approximately $6,000.00 for the first year and $24,000.00 for second year as contractual allowances. HCAC's projection of deductions from revenue are not reasonable. Bad debt of 1.6 percent is unreasonable compared to the experience at other long- term psychiatric facilities in Florida. The $350.00 all-inclusive charge is not reasonable. This charge will not be sufficient to cover the proposed facility's costs. HCAC's projected costs for "Supplies and other" and for taxes are reasonable. HCAC has failed to prove that its proposed facility is financially feasible in the long-term. The projected and approved cost of construction is $3,965,456.00. HCAC has indicated that the facility will consist of two, one-story buildings connected by a hallway. The facility will have approximately 40,563 gross square footage. The actual site for the project has not been selected or purchased. The floor plan calls for twenty-five, semi-private rooms for patients. The patient-care building will contain four independent and secure living/program areas connecting to a central core which will contain an atrium open to the outdoors. There will be approximately 811 gross square feet per bed, which is adequate. The proposed design is reasonable. The projected completion forecast of HCAC is reasonable. The projected costs of completing the building are reasonable. The building will be built by Project Advisers Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "PAC"). PAC is a health care, commercial and residential construction company. Mr. Estevez owns 100 percent of PAC. Since 1978, PAC has been involved in the construction of St. John's Rehab Center and Nursing Home, South Dade Nursing Home, Hialeah Convalescent Center, South Dade Rehab Hospital and two psychiatric/chemical dependency hospitals for Glenbeigh Hospital. Generally, there are no differences in the construction requirements between short-term and long-term psychiatric facilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department enter a Final Order denying the application of HCAC for a certificate of need to construct and operated a fifty-bed long-term psychiatric facility in Leon County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 3rd day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4373 and 864374 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact it has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommend Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. HCAC's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 5-6. The third through fourth sentence are hereby accepted. 1 and 6. 3 1 and 39. 4 6 and 9 5 7. 6 8-10, 34 and 97. 7 11. 8 11, 14 and 76. The last Sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence 6. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 10 10 and 69. 11 Hereby accepted. 12 39-40. 13 These proposed findings of fact are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. They deal with the weight to be given to other evidence. 14 42. 15-19 Although these proposed findings of fact- are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the-evidence. The rest of the proposed findings of fact are hereby accepted. Although the proposed finding of fact contained in the first sentence is generally true, it is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. The rest of the proposed findings of fact deal with the weight to be given to other evidence. These proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 23-26 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 27 Although this proposed finding of fact is generally true, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that HCAC will be able to achieve its plans. 28-33 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 34 43. 35 51. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 36 52. 37 53. 38 69-70. 39 72. 40 73. 41 74. 42 67. 43 68. 44 34 and 37. 45 104. 46. The first sentence is law. The last sentence is accepted in 105. 47 97 and 99-100. 48 101. 49 103. 50 102. 51 Hereby accepted. 52-53 These proposed findings of fact deal with the weight to be given other evidence. 54 78. 55 79-80. 56 79. 57-58 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 76. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally correct, these proposed findings of fact do not support HCAC's projected utilization. Irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 65 92. 66 93. 67 94. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 68 95. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. HCAC's proposed facility and TMRMC are not comparable. 71-75 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 54 and 59. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 79-83 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 84-85 Statement of law. Hereby accepted. 6 and 25. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 88-90 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 91-92 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 93 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. The last two sentences are conclusions of law. 94-95 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. The first sentence is a conclusion of law. The second sentence is hereby accepted. The last sentence is irrelevant. 13. The last two sentences are conclusions of law. Irrelevant. 100-102 Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. 44. The last sentence is irrelevant. 47. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 16. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 108 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. See 23. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Conclusions of law. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 114 34. 115 29. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115a 30. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115b-e 30. The next to the last sentence of e is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115f Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 116-117 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 118 Hereby accepted. 119-120 35. 121 Irrelevant. 122 33. 123-124 Irrelevant. 125-129 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 130 3. 131 Hereby accepted. 132 64. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 133 See 49 and 65. 134 54. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Hereby accepted. 2-3 8-9. 4 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5 13 and 25. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Conclusion of law. 8 31. 9 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 10-12 Irrelevant. 13 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 14-16 Conclusions of law. TMRMC's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1, 6 and 9-11. 2 See 6 and 9. 3 6-10. 4 76. 5 77-78. 6 79. 7 79-80. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 81. 10 82-83. 11 34 and 36. 12 36. 13 6. 14-15 39. 16 41-42. 17 2. 18 3. 19 4 and 6. 20-21 54. 22 Not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 23 54. 24 46 and 54. 25-26 54-55. 27-29 54. 30 54-55. 31 44-45, 47 and 54. 32 Hereby accepted. 33 54-55. 34 55. 35 Irrelevant. 36 56. 37 58. 38 49. 39 48. 40 50. 41-44 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 45-46 65. 47-48 57. 49 58. 50 63-64. 51 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52 63-64. 53 63-64. 55 Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 56 65. 57 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 58 25 and 59. 59 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 60-62 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 63 25 and 59. 64-68 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 69 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 70-71 27. Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 74 18 and 96. Irrelevant. Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 77-81 Although generally true, these proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 82 Hereby accepted. 83 84. 84 Hereby accepted. 85-86 Irrelevant. 87 See 69 and 72. 88 94. 89 Hereby accepted. 90 74. 91 94. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 92-93 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 94-96 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 97 19. 98-99 18. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant. Hereby accepted. 103 19. 104 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 105 20. 106 21. 107 Hereby accepted. 108-110 See 23. 111 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 112 85. 113 86. 114 88. 115 89. 116-118 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 119 91. 120 90. 121 96. 122-126 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 127 Hereby accepted. 128-129 Irrelevant. 130 22. 131 97-98. 132 99. 133-139 Not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 140 95. 141 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 142 97. 143-146 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Apalachee's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 6 and 8-9 2 4. 3(a)-(i)(1) 54. 3(i)(2) 44-45. 3(j) 44 and 54. 3(k) 54. 4 3. 5 1. 6 104. 7 39 and 41. 8 27 and 60. 9 25 and 59. 10(a) Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 10(b) 27. 10(c) 26. 10(d) Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11 13. 12(a) 81. 12(b) 82-83. 13 6 76 and 87. The second, third, fifth- eighth sentences, the Second Paragraph and the last Paragraph are not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 71 and 74. Other than the first two Sentences of the first Paragraph and the first two sentences of the third Paragraph, these Proposed findings of fact are not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 16(a) 90. The Second Paragraph is not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 16(b) 88. 16(c) 94. 16(d) 76 and 95. Other than the first three sentences of the first Paragraph and the last Paragraph, these Proposed findings of fact are not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 17 48-49 and 65. The Sixth and eighth Sentences and the last Paragraph are not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 44-47 and 54. The last Sentence of the first Paragraph and the last four Sentences of the last Paragraph are irrelevant. 19 62. 19(a) 3, 23, 56-57 and 64. The Second and third Paragraph are Cumulative and unnecessary. 19(b) 63. The Second Paragraph is Cumulative and unnecessary. 19(c) Cumulative and unnecessary, 19(d) 25, 59, 62 and 66. 19(e) 65. 20 Not Supported by the Weight of the evidence or Cumulative and unnecessary, 21 39 and 41. The last Paragraph is not Supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald W. Brooks, Esquire 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Darrell White, Esquire Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact HRS is a state agency responsible for the administration of the Florida Medicaid Program provided for in Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The medicaid program was implemented through Section 409.902, Florida Statutes. The peer review aspect of the Florida Medicaid Program involves the responsibility of insuring that hospitals comply with state and federal utilization review requirements. The Petitioner, at all times material hereto, was the treating facility for the four patients involved in the issues in this case. It is assigned Medicaid Provider No. 011976800. The medicaid/medical benefits program for the State of Florida administered by HRS under Title XIX of the Social Security Act reimburses hospitals for "medically necessary" in-patient hospital care provided to medicaid beneficiaries. See Rule 10C-7.039, et. seq. The determination of "medical necessity" is to be made by the hospitals' utilization review committee and by the utilization and quality control PRO which is under contract to provide that service with HRS. Utilization review is defined as "regular prescribed program for the review of each recipient's need for services to insure efficient provision of care". HRS has established procedures for determining the medical necessity and appropriateness of care for use by hospitals and by the PRO's. The procedures include a review of medical record documentation against a list of criteria published by HRS. These criteria are popularly called ISD criteria. "ISD" is an acronym signifying severity of illness, intensity of service, and "discharge screens." Each medicaid recipient must meet ISD criteria for severity of illness before being admitted to a hospital. They must also meet the intensity of service ISD criteria for continued hospitalization. Once a patient meets one of the ISD discharge screens (standards), there is the indication that the patient is ready to be discharged. The ISD criteria are to be used as a "basis for professional determinations of the medical necessity of acute care hospitalizations" by the hospital utilization review (UR) committee and the PRO. These criteria are not an absolute measure of medical necessity. They may be balanced or overridden by a physician during the review process. The severity of illness (SI) criteria are acknowledged by HRS to be set at a high level. The SI criteria need not be met to justify an admission, however. "If treatment has been rendered and the intensity of service criteria are met, or if evidence relevant to more than one severity of illness indicator is available, lower levels than those specified in the criteria may justify certifying the admission. A case presenting marginal findings for certifying an admission will be referred to the physician advisor." See Respondent's Exhibit 4, page 6. According to the policy expressed in the HRS manual for hospitals providing services to medicaid beneficiaries, the hospital UR committee may consider "other supporting data as the committee deems appropriate" and contact the attending physician when determining medical necessity. Similarly, when medical necessity is an issue at the PRO level of review, the attending physician is to be contacted by the PRO and given an opportunity to speak to the physician advisor of the PRO so as to provide additional information going to the question of medical necessity. If the PRO denies coverage, HRS then accepts the PRO determination and does not conduct any independent review. HRS, having charged the hospital UR committee and the PRO with the evaluation of medical necessity, does not conduct its own review of the medical record or undertake any independent evaluation of medical necessity before notifying the relevant physician and hospital if reimbursement is denied. The Petitioner is in compliance with the medicaid program concerning utilization review. The hospital has established a UR plan which has been approved by the PRO and by HRS. The UR plan utilizes the same ISD criteria as the PRO. The UR committee was monitored to make sure that it was complying with the utilization review requirements. The five cases at issue were reviewed by five different physicians on the Center's UR committee and were felt to meet the criteria and to be medically necessary as appropriate admissions and appropriate lengths of stay. The PRO, however, disagreed with the UR committee. The attending physician was contacted by the PRO and asked to call a physician advisor to discuss these cases and to provide additional information to the advisor. The attending physician followed those instructions and attempted numerous times to contact the physician advisor with additional information concerning the cases but was never given the opportunity to do so. These PRO denials included one admission denial following a suicide attempt, despite the fact that "suicide attempt" is included in the ISD criteria as justification for admission. This denial of admission itself is clearly in error. Although this proceeding is a de novo one and not a proceeding designed to simply review the appropriateness and legal efficacy of the HRS initial decision, it is noteworthy, to the extent that HRS' position relies heavily on the PRO review of the patient admissions and lengths of stay in question, that the PRO's work product is of marginal credibility. This is because the PRO which was responsible for the UR and reviewed these cases lost its designation as an approved PRO and became involved in criminal litigation concerning a failure to carry out medical reviews properly. The PRO was unable to meet payroll obligations for its nursing and physician reviewers. The records of the PRO reviews of the five cases at issue in this proceeding were not available to HRS. Consequently, HRS had no information concerning the underlying data or facts relied upon by the PRO nor whether the PRO actually consulted the attending physician or whether its physician advisor did. Thus, the testimony of the attending physician, to the effect that he attempted to contact the physician advisor but was not permitted to as to any of these cases, is uncontraverted. The approved UR committee, in conducting its procedure at the Center, determined that the admission and lengths of stay of the five patients involved was medically necessary and compensable as determined by five physicians taking part in that process. The PRO, although it informed the physicians that they had the right to speak to a physician advisor, did not actually afford them that opportunity. The PRO determination was accepted by HRS without any HRS personnel speaking to the attending physician. Although HRS later allowed one day of an admission immediately following a suicide attempt, it upheld the other PRO determinations without actually knowing or reviewing any underlying information which might have been relied upon by the PRO and without HRS personnel conferring with the attending physician or affording him the opportunity to provide them with additional information. If the PRO, its physician advisor and HRS had given the attending physician the opportunity to explain and provide additional information concerning medical necessity, perhaps this dispute could have been resolved without the necessity and expense of formal proceedings. This is a de novo proceeding and, therefore, the information from the attending physician which was not utilized by the PRO or HRS in the review of these cases can be brought forward at this time providing the attending physician's testimony and evidence is deemed relevant, material, competent and credible. The attending physician named above, in fact, testified in this proceeding. His testimony is deemed competent and credible on the material issues and is not refuted by the Respondent. Based upon the attending physician's testimony, which is accepted, especially since no other physician with knowledge of the facts concerning these patients testified, the following findings of fact are made: Patient M.D.: This patient was treated at the emergency room following a suicide attempt on August 19th and transferred by the police to the Center where she was then admitted. She had previously sought out-patient treatment unsuccessfully. The initial examination showed her to be moderately depressed, avoiding eye contact, showing psycho-motor retardation, and crying easily. She made the statement that her two children would be better off if she were dead. She was placed on the medication prozac but after several days remained depressed and crying and complaining of insomnia. She was then given "Pamelor" which caused some adverse side effects, but she appeared to respond to the medication as to her depression. During her stay, she received an intensive rehabilitation program of at least three encounter therapies per day. On the basis of the medical record alone, patient M.D. met the following criteria: AK11-A (suicide attempt); AK57-B (treatments). These criteria do not require that the patient remain suicidal or admit to being suicidal during the in- patient stay in order to justify further treatment. The HRS representative testified that nursing notes indicated that the patient could perform some self- care functions during her hospitalization ("activities of daily living" or "ADL's"). Because of this and because the physician noted that the patient was denying suicidal ideations, she interpreted that circumstance to mean that the discharge "screen" or standard of "able to function in a non-hospital environment" was met after August 20th, the day of admission. However, HRS also admitted that whether the patient could function in a non-hospital environment was a medical decision to be made on the hospital level and the PRO level. The attending physician testified that records of self-care in a restricted hospital environment do not mean that the patient could function in a non-hospital setting. He further testified that the patient in this instance required treatment and did not meet the discharge standard or "screen" of being "able to function in a non-hospital environment" before August 30th. He testified that the services could not be effectively provided on an out-patient basis prior to August 30th. That testimony is accepted and the fact established. The ISD criteria and explanatory bulletins promulgated by HRS do not contain requirements that a patient remain suicidal during a stay nor a discharge criteria that equates self-care in the hospital environment with the ability to care for oneself safely and adequately in a non-hospital environment. On the basis of the evidence presented, the in-patient admission of M.D. from August 20th to August 30th met the criteria for admission and continued stay. The services provided were shown by unrefuted testimony to be medically necessary and the discharge screens or criteria were not satisfied until August 30, 1991. Patient M.D. (Admission of September 21, 1990 through September 29, 1990): Nineteen (19) days after her first discharge, patient M.D. again attempted suicide. She had been referred for out-patient care after her previous hospitalization but did not follow up and obtain that care and did not continue to take her medication. She wrote a suicide note on the second attempt and was treated in an intensive care unit for three days before being re- admitted to the Center. Throughout her hospitalization, she received intensive rehabilitation therapy as before and remained in a highly-restricted, locked unit, where suicide precautions were in effect. She was assigned to a counselor for "one-on-one" therapy in addition to her group therapy. Her attending physician did not consider her able to function in a non-hospital environment prior to September 29th, and his testimony so establishes. The HRS witness, when asked whether she had an opinion when the patient should have been released, stated a date prior to the actual discharge based upon her opinion that the patient was able to function in a non-hospital environment. That decision, however, is a medical decision which the witness was not qualified to make. In any event, the fact that a patient might be able to perform some "ADL" functions in a highly-supervised, protective hospital setting does not mean that the patient is well enough and responsible enough to perform those functions adequately and safely on her own outside a supervised hospital setting. In summary, based upon the unrefuted evidence presented, particularly the testimony of the attending physician, the in-patient admission of M.D. on September 21, 1990 met the ISD criteria for admission and continued stay. The services were medically necessary and the patient was not appropriately ready for discharge until September 29, 1991. Patient W.P. (Admission of April 11, 1990 to April 16, 1990): This patient suffered a severe psychotic episode a month before her admission and then presented to an emergency room stating that she was "about to lose it" and that it was only her religious beliefs which prevented her from committing suicide. This alarmed the attending physician concerning her suicidal ideation and possibility. The patient had been married five times and was then seeing a married man and also allegedly contemplating a lesbian relationship with that man's wife. She had been blamed by her family for the death of her grandchild. Upon her admission, it took her approximately three days to become aware that she was in a locked psychiatric unit. This indicated to the physician that she did not fully comprehend where she was or what she was doing in terms of her orientation as to reality of time and place. She was severely depressed, out of touch with reality, and not able to perform the affairs of daily living (ADL's). She exhibited anorexia and insomnia at the time of admission. She indicated merely that she was not eating as much as she had previously. She was placed on prozac, to which she responded in approximately five days. The services provided to her after her admission met the intensity of service criteria for a continued stay. The physician testified that she did not meet discharge standards prior to the actual discharge date whereupon she was referred to out-patient care for follow-up treatment. The physician's testimony establishes that necessary medical services could not have been effectively or safely provided on an out-patient basis prior to the discharge date. The physician's testimony establishes that in the artificial environment of a hospital, the notations in medical records that a patient is eating and sleeping does not mean that she is able to perform those functions outside of the hospital safely and adequately or will consistently do so if left to her own devices. The HRS witness admitted that not eating and not sleeping is relevant to the question of whether a patient can perform normal ADL's. The later contention by HRS that inability to perform ADL's requires a patient to be in a "nearly vegetative" state is simply unsupported by medical testimony nor by any definition in evidence. The unrefuted testimony of the attending physician establishes that the in-patient admission of patient W.P. on April 11, 1990 met the ISD criteria for admission and continued stay and that the services were medically necessary. The patient was not recovered sufficiently for appropriate discharge until April 16, 1990. Patient D.G. (Admission of May 4, 1990 to May 11, 1990): This patient had a recent history of heavy drug usage and criminal convictions near the time of her admission. HRS had removed her children from her custody, which created an additional crisis in her life, as did the fact that her husband was then in prison. The attending physician stated that the patient was exhibiting acute withdrawal symptoms from drug usage and delirium tremors from the drugs upon her admission. She was at a high risk of resuming her heroin use and threatened suicide if she did not get help for her addiction. A urine screen performed was positive upon her admission for drug usage and withdrawal symptoms. Impending delirium tremors were exhibited at that time. She was depressed and required acute medication, being placed on a high dose of both librium and anti- depressants. D.G. could not be treated in a de-toxification unit because of her suicidal ideation and attendant depression. She received intensive therapy consisting of three sessions per day while she was hospitalized. Her depression responded to the medication and discharge planning began on her third day of admission, with a view toward placing her in a de-toxification unit. She was discharged to complete her de-toxification as soon as a placement was available. The HRS witness opined that because D.G. was not "comatose" or "impending comatose", she did not meet the admission standards for substance abuse and because she was able to sleep, eat, and dress herself in the hospital, she did not meet the admission criteria concerning performance of ADL's. The attending physician testified, however, that she was in withdrawal from heroin use, needed de-toxification, and could not be admitted to a de-toxification program until her other psychiatric problems had been stabilized. The attending physician, by his training, his experience, and by his personal contact with and treatment of the patient, is best able to evaluate the patient's medical circumstance, need for admission and treatment and the length of treatment required. Consequently, his testimony as to this patient and all the others is accepted over that of the non-physician HRS witness. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the in-patient admission and stay of D.G. was medically necessary and could not have been provided effectively in a less-restrictive or out-patient setting. Patient S.R. (Admission of June 20, 1990 to June 29, 1990): Upon this patient's admission, she related not having slept for two months and not having eaten for five days. She had then undergone approximately three years of out- patient treatment unsuccessfully and had no family or community-support system in the area where she lived. She related that her ex-husband had been abusive and had recently abducted her daughter and vandalized her home. She related that her ex-husband had threatened her daughter's life and had had S.R. arrested and supposedly transported to the Palm Beach County Women's Stockade. She testified that she was unable to sleep or eat and was taking 10 to 12 baths per day. She complained of being unable to remember simple tasks, to take care of simple matters such as paying her rent, and was in the habit of wearing the same clothes from three to five days in a row without changing or washing, or being unable to remember whether she had washed or not. The patient was also taking a high dosage of a chronic asthma medication, which includes steroids. This can cause serious problems with depression. The patient was severely depressed and had recently started smoking. The patient met the ADL admissions criteria and while she was in the hospital, she received services which met the intensity of services criteria. The HRS witness admitted that the medical record note which stated "past two months she had not slept at all" constitutes insomnia and the record note "is not eating, has gone five days without food" constitutes anorexia. Based upon the evidence submitted at hearing, the in-patient treatment of S.R. from June 20, 1990 to June 29, 1990 met the criteria for admissions and continued stay and was shown by the treating physician's testimony to be medically necessary. The services could not have been safely and adequately provided on an out-patient basis, and the discharge standards were not satisfied as to this patient until June 29, 1990, when she was discharged.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore
Conclusions Having reviewed the administrative complaint dated July 16, 2008, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The. att ached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Filed June 30, 2009 1:59 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00). The administrative fine is due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date of rendition of this Order. Checks should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care Administration." The check, along with a reference to these case numbers, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. Respondent's petition for formal administrative proceedings is hereby dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this du, day of- =---' 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Holly Ben on, Secretary Agency fo Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: David C. Ashburn Attorney for the Respondent Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (U. S. Mail) Mary Daley Jacobs Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Admin. Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Daniel Manry Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (U.S. Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the <?s = method designated, on this the Z f C J , 2009. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 STATE OF FLORIDA
The Issue Whether Respondent should recoup Medicaid payments made to Petitioner for health care services provided to eight patients.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., (Hospital), has contracted with Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), to provide services to Medicaid patients. The parties have agreed that there is a dispute for Medicaid reimbursement for goods and services provided to eight patients: S.G., J.D., R.J., C.A., G.M., S.S., M.P., and C.T. The Agency has paid the Hospital for the services rendered to these eight patients and seeks to recoup the payment based on a retrospective review by a peer review organization, Keystone Peer Review Organization (KePro). The Agency claims that either the admission or a portion of the length-of-stay for the eight patients was medically unnecessary. Services were provided to C.T. in 1994 and to the remainder of the patients at issue in 1995. Payment for Medicaid services is on a per diem basis. The rate for 1994 is $473.22 per day, and the rate for 1995 is $752.14. The Agency contracted with KePro to do a review of the Medicaid payments to the Hospital. KePro employs nurses to review the patient files based on criteria on discharge screens. If the services meet the criteria, there is no further review and the payment is approved. If the nurse determines that the services do not meet the criteria on the discharge screens, the patient's files are reviewed by a board certified physician, who in this case would be a psychiatrist. If the physician determines that the services are not medically necessary, a letter is sent to the Medicaid provider, giving the provider an opportunity to submit additional information. Additional information submitted by the provider is reviewed by a board certified physician. If the doctor concludes that the services are still medically unnecessary, the provider is notified that that services do not qualify for reimbursement and the provider may ask for a reconsideration of the denial. If the provider seeks reconsideration, the file is reviewed by a physician, and the provider has an opportunity to be present during the review. If the physician determines that the services are medically unnecessary, KePro sends a letter to the Agency stating the reasons for denial. The denial letters that KePro sends to the Agency are reviewed by the Medical Director of KePro, who is not a psychiatrist. Dr. John Sullenberger, the Agency's Medicaid physician, reviews the KePro denial letters sent to the Agency, and 99.9 percent of the time he agrees with the findings of KePro regarding whether the services were medically necessary. Dr. Sullenberger does not review the patient's charts when he does this review. The Agency sends a recoupment letter to the Medicaid provider requesting repayment for services provided. Patient S.G., a 12 year-old boy, was being treated pursuant to the Baker Act. He was admitted to the Hospital on March 8, 1995, and discharged on March 25, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for the admission and the entire length-of-stay for S.G. based on KePro's determination that it was not medically necessary for the services to S.G. to be rendered in an acute care setting because the patient was neither suicidal nor homicidal. Three to five days prior to his admission to the Hospital, S.G. had attempted to stab his father. He also had further violent episodes, including jumping his father from behind and choking him and pulling knives on his parents. S.G. had a history of attention deficit and hyperactive disorder. He had been using multiple substances, such as alcohol, LSD, cocaine, and marijuana, prior to his admission. His behavior was a clear reference that he was suffering from a psychosis. A psychosis is a significant inability to understand what is reality, including delusions of false beliefs, hallucinations, hearing and seeing things which do not exist, and ways of thinking that are bizarre. Psychosis is a reason to admit a patient, particularly combined with substance abuse. S.G.'s treating psychiatrist noted that S.G. had tangentiality, which means that his thoughts did not stay together. He did not have a connection between thoughts, which is a sign of a psychosis. The chart demonstrated that S.G. had disorder thinking, which includes the possibility of a psychosis. There was also a reference in the charts to organic mental disturbance which could infer brain damage as the cause for the mental disturbance. Two days after admission, there was an issue of possible drug withdrawal because S.G. was agitated and anxious and showed other symptoms. Drug withdrawal, psychosis, and a demonstration of overt violence require a stay in an acute care facility. There was some indication that S.G. was suicidal. While in the Hospital he was placed under close observation, which is a schedule of 15-minute checks to determine if the patient was physically out of harm's way. S.G. was started on an antidepressant, Wellbutrin, because the treating physician thought S.G. was becoming increasingly depressed and was having trouble organizing his thoughts. Antidepressants, as contrasted to a medication such as an antibiotic, may take a minimum of two to three weeks before the patient will benefit from the full effect of the drug. It is difficult to stabilize the dosage for an antidepressant on an outpatient basis. S.G. was taking Ritalin, which is commonly used for children with attention deficit, hyperactivity disorders. During his stay at the Hospital, S.G. was engaging in strange behavior, including absence seizures. On March 16, 1995, he was still lunging and threatening harm. On March 20, 1995, he was still unstable and at risk. The dosage of Wellbutrin was increased. On March 21 and 22, 1995, S.G. was still threatening and confused. S.G. was discharged on March 25, 1995. The admission and length-of-stay for S.G. were medically necessary. Patient J.D. was a 16 year-old boy who was admitted to the Hospital on March 7, 1995, and discharged on March 14, 1995. The Agency denied the admission and entire length-of-stay based on KePro's determination that the patient was not actively suicidal or psychotic and services could have been rendered in a less acute setting. J.D. was admitted from a partial hospitalization program pursuant to the Baker Act because he was observed by a health care professional banging his head against the wall and throwing himself on the floor. He had a history of depression and out-of-control behavior, including being a danger to himself and running away. At the time of his admission, he was taking Prozac. Banging his head against the wall can mean that the patient is psychotic, can cause brain damage, and can be dangerous if the cause of the behavior is unknown. Admission to the Hospital was justified because the patient was extremely agitated and self abusive, requiring restraints and medication to decrease his agitation and self abusiveness. One of the tests administered during his hospital stay indicated that J.D. was a moderate risk for suicidal behavior. During his hospital stay, it was discovered that J.D. had threatened to kill himself while at school. He had been in a partial treatment program during the day, but that environment was not working. There was violence in the home, and J.D. was becoming overtly depressed. During his stay at the Hospital, J.D. was placed on close observation with 15-minute checks. His dosage of Prozac was increased. The admission and length-of-stay for J.D. were medically necessary. R.J., a 10 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on January 1, 1995, and discharged on February 9, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement based on a determination by KePro that the treatment in an acute care facility was not medically necessary because R.J. was not psychotic, not suicidal, and not a threat to others; thus treatment could have been provided in an alternate setting. R.J. had been referred by a health care professional at Horizon Center, an outpatient center, because of progressive deterioration over the previous fourteen months despite outpatient treatment. His deterioration included anger with temper outbursts, uncontrollable behavior at school, failing grades, sadness, depressed mood, extreme anxiety, extensive worrying and a fear of his grandmother. R.J. also suffered from encopresis, a bowel incontinence. He was agitated, lacked energy, neglected his hygiene, experienced crying spells, and had difficulty concentrating. R.J. needed to be admitted for an evaluation to rule out a paranoid psychosis. It was necessary to do a 24-hour EEG as opposed to a 45-minute EEG. In order to do a 24-hour EEG, the patient is typically placed in an acute care facility. The EEG showed abnormal discharge in the brain, which could be contributing to a psychiatric illness. At school R.J. had smeared feces on the walls, behavior that could be seen in psychotic persons. There was evidence that he had been hitting and throwing his stepbrother and 3 year-old brother. He was fearful of his grandmother and, based on his family history, there was reason to fear her. R.J. was placed on Buspar, a medication which generally takes two weeks to take effect. Contrary to the Agency's determination, R.J. was disorganized. He was also violent in terms of threatening danger and extreme anger. The admission and length-of-stay for R.J. at the Hospital were medically necessary. Patient C.A., a 9 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on June 1, 1995, and discharged on June 12, 1995. The Agency disallowed one day of the length-of-stay based on a determination by KePro that the services provided on June 11, 1995, could have been provided in a less restrictive setting. C.A. was admitted for violent and disruptive behavior. He also had an attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder and was taking Lithium and Depakote. These medications are used for patients who experience serious mood swings and abrupt changes in mood, going from depression to anger to euphoria. To be effective, medicating with Lithium and Depakote requires that the blood levels of the patient be monitored and the dosage titrated according to blood level. C.A. also was given Wellbutrin during his hospital stay. On June 11, 1995, C.A. was given an eight-hour pass to leave the hospital in the care of his mother. The physician's orders indicated that the pass was to determine how well C.A. did in a less restrictive setting. He returned to the Hospital without incident. He was discharged the next day to his mother. The treatment on June 11, 1995, could have been provided in an environment other than an acute facility; thus the stay on June 11, 1995, was not medically necessary for Medicaid reimbursement purposes. Patient G.M., an 11 year-old male with a history of being physically and sexually abused by his parents, was admitted to the Hospital on March 21, 1995, and was discharged on April 3, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for inpatient hospital treatment from March 28 to April 3, 1995, based on KePro's determination that the length of hospital stay exceeded health care needs at an inpatient level and could have been provided in a less acute setting. At the time of admission, G.M. had suicidal ideation. His school had reported that G.M. had mutilated himself with a pencil, banged himself on the knuckles, and told the school nurse that he wanted to die. Prior to admission, G.M. had been taking Ritalin. His treating physician took G.M. off the Ritalin so that she could assess his condition and start another medication after a base-line period. The doctor prescribed Clonidine for G.M. Clonidine is a drug used in children to control reckless, agressive and angry behavior. Clonidine must be titrated in order to establish the correct dosage for the patient. During his hospital stay, G.M. was yelling and threatening staff. He was placed in locked seclusion, where he began hitting the wall. G.M. was put in a papoose, which is similar to a straitjacket. The papoose is used when there is no other way to control the patient. The patient cannot use his arms or legs while in a papoose. This type of behavior and confinement was occurring as late as March 31, 1995. G.M. was given a pass to go to his grandparents on April 2, 1995. He did well during his pass, and was discharged on April 3, 1995. Treatment in an acute facility was medically necessary through April 1, 1995. Treatment on April 2, 1995, could have been provided in a less acute setting. Patient S.S., a 5 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on March 9, 1995, and was discharged on April 3, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for the admission and entire length of his hospital stay based on a determination by KePro that S.S. was not psychotic or an immediate danger to himself or others and the evaluation and treatment could have been rendered in a less acute setting. Prior to admission to the Hospital, S.S. was threatening suicide, ran into a chalk board at school, scratched his arms until they bled, and showed aggressive intent toward his sister, saying that he would kill her with a saw. S.S.'s condition had been deteriorating for approximately three months before his admission. At the time of admission, he had been suicidal, hyperactive, restless, and experiencing hallucinations. The hallucinations imply a psychosis. S.S. was put on Trofanil, an antidepressant which needs to be titrated. The patient's blood level had to be monitored while taking this drug. During his hospital stay, S.S. was on close observation. All objects which he could use to harm himself were removed from his possession. After he ate his meals, the hospital staff would immediately remove all eating utensils. On March 28, 1995, S.S. threatened to kill himself and became self-abusive. His blood level on March 31, 1995, was sub-therapeutic, and his medication dosage was increased. On April 1, 1995, S.S. had a temper tantrum. The admission and length-of-stay for the treatment of S.S. were medically necessary. Patient M.P., a 10 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on April 27, 1995, and was discharged on May 6, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for the admission and entire length-of-stay based on a determination by KePro that the patient functions on an eighteen to twenty-four month level but is not psychotic and the treatment could have been provided in a less acute setting. M.P.'s IQ is between 44 and 51. He was diagnosed with a pervasive development disorder, which is a serious lack of development attributed to significant brain damage. His condition had deteriorated in the six months prior to his admission. He had episodes of inappropriate laughter, fits of anger, hit his head, hit windows, and put his arm in contact with the broken glass through the window. At the time of his admission, he had a seizure disorder. An EEG and an MRI needed to be performed on M.P. in order to evaluate his condition. M.P. had to have a regular EEG, a 24-hour EEG, and a neurological examination. The patient was aggressive, restless, and uncooperative. In order for the MRI to be performed, M.P. had to be anesthetized. The admission and length-of-stay for M.P. were medically necessary. Patient C.T., a 34 year-old female, was admitted to the Hospital on November 11, 1994, and was discharged on November 26, 1994. The Agency denied the treatment from November 17, 1994, to November 26, 1994, based on a determination by a peer review organization that the patient was stable by November 17, 1994, and psychiatric follow-up could have been performed in an outpatient setting. C.T. was admitted for kidney stones. She did pass the kidney stones but continued to have severe pain. Her doctor asked for a psychiatric consult. The psychiatrist diagnosed C.T. as having a personality disorder, chronic psychogenic pain disorder, and an eating disorder. Her depressive disorder exacerbated pain. C.T. had been given narcotics for the pain associated with the kidney stones. In order to assess her mental status, the physicians needed to taper the dosage of Demerol which she had been receiving. She was started on Sinequan, which is an anti-depressant given to alleviate the psychological condition and to help with the physical complaints. C.T. was later put on Vicodin, an oral narcotic, which seemed to bring the pain under control. The drugs used could cause a drop in blood pressure; therefore, they had to be titrated slowly. Her treating physician was trying to find an appropriate anti-depressant, while weaning the patient from intramuscular narcotics. On November 17, 1994, C.T. left her room and went to the hospital lobby, where she was found by nursing staff. C.T. was crying and saying that she was in pain and wanted to die. During her hospital stay, C.T. was in much distress; she would scream out that she was in pain. On November 18, 1994, she was found crying on the floor of the hospital chapel and had to be returned to her room. It was the opinion of Dr. Bernard Frankel, an expert retained by the Hospital, that C.T. probably could have been discharged a day earlier. The hospital stay for C.T. from November 17, 1994, to November 25, 1994, was medically necessary. The last day of her stay was not medically necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., to pay to the Agency $752.14 for one day of service provided to G.M., $752.14 for one day of service provided to C.A., and $473.22 for one day of service provided to C.T. and finding that the Hospital is not liable for payment for any of the other services at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Falkinburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Williams, P.A. 117 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the SSDB's proposal to construct a freestanding ambulatory surgery center in Volusia County, Florida, should be approved or denied. SSDB and the Department contend that the proposal meets statutory criteria and comports with the Department's rules. SSDB and the Department contend that there is a need for the facility and that SSDB is fully competent to construct and operate the facility. OBMH and HHMC contend that there is no need for the proposed facility, that the facility is not likely to be an economically viable venture, that the facility would injure existing businesses, and that the application should be denied because SSDB did not file a letter of intent with the local health council in a timely manner.
Findings Of Fact SSDB is a corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Surgical Inc. Eighty percent of the stock of Surgical Services, Inc., is owned by American Medical International, Inc., a large, multinational health care corporation which owns and operates hospitals and other health care services. American Medical International is the third largest health care provider in the United States. The remaining 20 percent of Surgical Services, Inc., stock is owned by Randall L. Phillips, the company's president. SSDB is proposing to construct and operate a freestanding ambulatory surgery center in Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. The service area for the proposed facility would be Volusia County. This facility would house four operating rooms and would be designed to handle all types of surgical procedures that can be performed on an outpatient basis. SSDB has entered into a contract to purchase land that provides a suitable site for the facility. It is located at the intersection of Clyde Morris Boulevard and Mason Avenue in Daytona Beach. The contract price for the property is $270,000. In addition to the cost of land acquisition, the preopening costs of the project would total $2,080,000. That amount would cover legal and accounting fees, architectural and engineering fees, a site survey, consulting fees, construction costs, movable equipment costs, and other engineering expenses. The preopening cost estimates are less than the $2,500,000 estimated in the original Certificate of Need application. The reduction is attributable to cost efficiencies primarily in selection and purchase of equipment. The costs estimated by SSDB are adequate to cover all preopening expenses and to provide an adequate facility. Financial support for the facility will be provided by American Medical International. This will include an equity contribution, a loan, and all necessary working capital. American Medical International has committed to provide financing adequate to construct and operate the facility. American Medical International has the financial resources to fulfill this commitment. The facility proposed by SSDB would be 15,500 square feet in size. The design is adequate for the proposed use and satisfies applicable health care facility standards and state and federal laws. The equipment proposed for the facility is sufficient to allow the handling of anticipated types of procedures. The facility will be open to all physicians qualified to perform the types of surgery that can be tone within an ambulatory setting. The facility will accept Medicare patients. The facility will admit any patient scheduled by surgeons, and ability to pay will not be a criterion for admission. SSDB has developed a marketing program to attract physicians and patients to the facility. SSDB has proposed adequate staffing for its facility and will be able to fulfill its staff requirements. SSDB is fully competent, given its backing by American Medical International, to construct and operate the proposed facility. OBMH is a Florida nonprofit corporation. It operates a 205-bed hospital in Volusia County, Florida, and renders medical services to residents of Volusia County and surrounding areas. OBMH presently renders ambulatory surgical services on an outpatient basis in connection with its surgery department. MEMO is a special taxing district. It operates a 345-bed hospital in Volusia County, Florida, and services residents of Volusia County and surrounding areas. HEM has a same-day surgery program and renders ambulatory surgical services through this procam on an outpatient basis. Ambulatory surgical services can be performed either in a hospital- based setting such as operated by OBMH and HHMC, or in a freestanding facility such as proposed by SSDB. HHMC presently has 12 general-purpose operating rooms. The HHMC same-day surgery program utilizes these rooms, but has a separate admitting area and waiting room that is utilized for inpatient surgery cases. OBMH has four general-purpose operating rooms. Outpatient or ambulatory surgeries are regularly performed in these rooms. There are presently 41 general-purpose operating rooms in Volusia County's eight hospitals. Outpatient or ambulatory surgical procedures are performed in these rooms. The Florida Health Care Plan is a health maintenance organization located in Volusia County. It has three operating rooms here inpatient or ambulatory surgery procedures are performed for members of the organization. The Neuman Dye Institute is a freestanding ambulatory surgical center licensed by the Department. It is located in DeLand, Volusia County, Florida. It has two operating rooms which are used for treatment of eye disorders. Approximately 15 percent of the surgeries performed in hospitals in Volusia County during the year August 1, 1982, through July 31, 1983, were done on an outpatient basis. The total number of surgical procedures performed in Volusia County has increased only slightly during the past three years. The number of impatient procedures has decreased, while the number of outpatient procedures has increased rather dramatically. This increase reflects a national trend which increasingly favors ambulatory or outpatient surgeries. It is likely that the number of outpatient cases as a percentage of total surgeries will continue to increase in Volusia County. The 15 percent figure for outpatient surgeries relates only to those procedures conducted in a hospital setting. It does not include procedures performed at the health maintenance organization, the Neuman Eye Institute, or in physicians offices. One major source of patients for ambulatory surgery programs is elective plastic surgery procedures. Two of the plastic surgeons who practice in Volusia County have their own operating rooms where ambulatory surgical procedures can be conducted. These physicians are not likely to use a separate, freestanding facility. The remaining plastic surgeons in Volusia County have utilized the same-day surgery facility at HHMC and have expressed satisfaction with that program. Existing facilities in Volusia County are adequate to accommodate the anticipated growth and the number of outpatient or ambulatory surgeries that will be performed during the next three years in Volusia County. Hospital surgical facilities in Volusia County are significantly underutilized at present. Existing facilities have the capacity to accommodate a more dramatic increase in total surgical procedures and in outpatient surgical procedures than is anticipated over the next three years. Given the existence of the hospital facilities, the Neuman Eye Institute, the health maintenance organization, and operating rooms located in physicians' offices, adequate facilities exist to accommodate the increased demand for outpatient surgeries that is anticipated in Volusia County. SSDB is proposing to offer its services to the public during the first year of operation for an average charge of $490 per procedure. The cost would increase to $540 for the second year. The average per-case cost for outpatient surgeries at HHMC is $393. The average per-case cost at OBMH is $439. Given the fact that one case can Involve multiple procedures, it is evident that existing facilities in Volusia County are charging less for ambulatory surgical services than SSDB proposes to charge. While some increases in present charges are likely, given general trends, it is not likely that HHMC or OBMH will charge as much for outpatient surgical procedures as SSDB proposes to charge. It has been asserted that HHMC's charges for outpatient surgeries are inadequate to cover HHMC's costs and that the charges are being kept low artificially. The evidence is to the contrary. HHMC's charges for outpatient surgeries are adequate to meet the facility's expenses. The facility proposed by SSDB does not present any cost savings to patients. Services at the proposed facility would be more expensive than the same services at existing facilities in Volusia County. Freestanding surgical centers have generally presented some advantages to physicians no consumers. In many places, outpatient surgeries are difficult to schedule in a hospital setting because they are susceptible of being bumped by surgeries that are considered more urgent. Furthermore, in many locations, physicians have had difficulty scheduling their outpatient surgeries in blocks of cases so that they can perform them more efficiently. Those problems have not occurred in Volusia County. Physicians who regularly perform outpatient surgeries in hospitals in Volusia County have been able to schedule their cases in blocks and have experienced no difficulties with bumping. SSDB has projected that its proposed facility would experience an acceptable loss during its first year of operation, but that it would show a net profit during its second and third years of operation. These estimates are based upon projections that 2,160 procedures would be performed at the facility at an average rate per procedure of $490 during the first year and 2,640 procedures at an average rate of $540 during the second year. These projections are unrealistic. The projections contemplate that approximately one-third of all outpatient surgeries in Volusia County would be performed at the proposed facility. The projections also contemplate a very dramatic increase in the number of outpatient surgeries and that more than 60 percent of the increased outpatient procedures would be done at the proposed facility. While it is likely that the number of outpatient surgeries performed in Volusia County and elsewhere will continue to increase as a percentage of total surgeries and that eventually as much as 30 percent of all surgeries performed in Volusia County will be done on an outpatient basis, the increase is not-likely to occur in a single year. Even if It did, it is unlikely that local physicians and consumers cold so dramatically reject present facilities as SSDB projects. Indeed, there is no evidence from which it could be concluded that there is any dissatisfaction on the part of physicians or consumers in Volusia County with present facilities. The evidence is to the contrary. A second reason why the projections are inaccurate is that in making the projections SSDB ignored the existence of the Neuman Eye Institute, the health maintenance organization, and operating rooms that have been established in physicians' offices. A third reason is that SSDB proposes to provide services at a higher cost than at existing facilities. A fourth reason is that SSDB has underestimated the proportion of Medicaid and Medicare cases that are likely to be performed at the facility at a cost that is less than the average cost per procedure proposed by SSDB. It is unlikely that SSDB could operate at a profit during its first three years of operation. At the time that SSDB filed its letter of intent and application with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, there was no local health council in existence Volusia County, Florida. SSDB did not file a copy of its letter of intent or application with the local health council and would have had no place to file it if it attempted to do so.
Recommendation That a final order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services denying the Application for Certificate of Need filed by Surgical Services of Daytona Beach, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Baggett, Esq. Michael J. Cherniga, Esq. Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jay Adams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Orfinger, Esq. 619 North Grandview Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Harold C Hubka, Esq. Post Office Box 5488 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Mr. David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Proposed Rule 10- 5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, as promulgated by DHRS constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Based upon the following findings of fact, conclusions and analysis, proposed Rule 10-5.005(2)(a) and (b) is invalid.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. DHRS' Office of Health Planning and Development is divided into two separate divisions: The Office of Community Medical Facilities, which administers the State Certificate of Need Program and has responsibility for making recommendations regarding CON applications, and (2) the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, which has primary responsibility for development of rules pertaining to Certificate of Need policy. Mr. Robert Maryanski, Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, believes his office made no formal comments (perhaps informal comments,) concerning the proposed rule. Mr. Maryanski considered that the proposed rule was objectionable based on his understanding of the statutes. (TR 33, 54). Elfie Stamm is employed by the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and has primary responsibility for development of Proposed Rule 10-5.005. The text of the proposed rule is as follows: 10-5.005 Exemptions. * * * (2)(a) Physician offices or physician group practices which do not exist for the primary purpose of providing elective surgical care are exempt from certificate of need requirements for ambulatory surgical centers as specified in 10-5.011(30). This certificate of need exemption applies to offices and associated surgical suites maintained by one or more private physicians or a physician group which is used only by the physician or the physicians of the group practice, and in which 50 percent or more of the patients treated annually are non-surgical patients. (b) Physician offices, or physician group practices applying for designation as an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and who meet the requirements for exemption from certificate of need review under the provisions delineated under paragraph (2), shall submit a request for exemption from certificate of need to the Department. The physician office or physician group practice shall provide the Department with at least 30 day's written notice of the proposed exemption from the certificate of need requirements for ambulatory surgical centers. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the Department shall determine if the physician office or physician group practice is exempt and advise the applicant of its determination in writing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). The proposed rule exempts physician offices and physician group practices from CON requirements for ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) when at least 50 percent of the patients treated annually in these facilities are non- surgical patients. The proposed rule purportedly implements the Federal Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA) policy allowing physician offices which are exempt from State CON and licensure requirements to apply directly (to HCFA) to receive ASC designation for medical facility reimbursement purposes without first obtaining a CON. Currently, "Ambulatory Surgical Center" means a facility, the primary purpose of which is to provide elective surgical care and in which the patient is admitted to and discharged from such facility within the same working day and which is not part of a hospital. However, a facility existing for the primary purpose of performing therapeutic abortions, an office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine, or an office maintained for the practice of dentistry shall not be construed to be an ASC. Section 395.002(2), Florida Statutes (1985). DHRS is trying to implement what it believes to be a statutory CON exemption for doctor's offices through the proposed rule. In so doing, HRS considers physicians' offices to be indistinguishable from physician group practices. In this regard, the relevant statutes do not reference physician group practices. Historically, HRS would not certify physician offices as medicare providers (in its role as surveyor for HCFA) because such certification entails the requirement that a physician's office comply with the State ASC Law. In short, a physician's office wishing to become an ASC had to satisfy both CON and State licensure requirements in order to be certified as a medicare providing ASC. Prior to promulgation of the proposed rule, DHRS never had a policy that group practices or physicians with operating suites are excluded from the statutory definition of an ASC. DHRS has no exemptions or exclusions for physicians' groups with surgical suites so that they could become ASCs for medicare certification. (Testimony of Tom Porter, previous supervisor for DHRS' Certificate of Need Program). DHRS took the position that it was without authority to grant an exemption to physician group practices and the related offices as an associated surgical suite without such facility having first obtained a CON as an ASC prior to offering such services. DHRS also took the position that a physician wishing to do minor surgical procedures as a sub-part of his office practice would not be required to obtain a CON as an ASC. These services could be done as an ancillary part of the physician's office. (Testimony of Gene Nelson, former Administrator, Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities prior to Mr. Maryanski's tenure with DHRS). Section 381.495, Florida Statutes, provides for several defined exemptions from CON review. As stated above, the proposed rule purports to grant an exemption to physician offices or to physician group practices from State CON requirements. Section 381.493 (3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), states, in relevant part, that an office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine is excluded from the definition of an ASC. The referenced statute does not grant an exemption from the ASC regulation nor has DHRS previously exempted a person or entity from CON review under such circumstances. DHRS has historically distinguished between a physician performing minor surgical procedures as an ancillary part of his office versus a full service ASC. HCFA clarified in Memorandum FQA-731, Ambulatory Surgical Center regulations relating to compliance with state licensure requirements and the application of state CON provisions as a prerequisite for medicare certification. (Pet. Exh. 8) In states where ASC licensure laws are in effect, facilities seeking to participate in medicare must meet such licensure requirements. Thus, 42 CFR Section 416.40 states, in pertinent part, that the ASC must comply with state licensure requirements. CON provisions must be met as a prerequisite for medicare licensure certification for an entity to operate legally within a state and CON approval is required before the decision to award a license is made. In instances where licensure is not required either by virtue of the absence of an ASC Licensure Law or the exemption of certain entities from the licensure law, compliance with CON provisions is not necessary for medicare eligibility as an ASC. It is through a series of correspondence between Mr. Robert Streimer of HCFA and Mr. Marshall Kelley, DHRS' Assistant Secretary for Program Planning that affords the proffered "basis" for the proposed rule. (TR 87). The Streimer letter provides that ASC services performed in a physician's office which is not required by state law to be licensed as an ASC and which meets all medicare ASC requirements would be covered and reimbursed by medicare at the ASC rate. As noted, DHRS historically took a different position. Nowhere in Mr. Kelley's letter to Mr. Streimer did HRS identify the specific criteria that would relate to an exemption request in Florida as currently stated in the proposed rule. DHRS, based on the proposed rule, now takes the position that any physician having a operating room and furnishing surgical procedures for less than 50 percent of his or her patients would be entitled to an exemption from CON requirements and in turn be entitled to apply for certification from HCFA as an ASC for ASC reimbursement (facility fee). The proposed rule allows for surgery currently performed in a physician's office to qualify for higher reimbursement from medicare (i.e., a facility fee). DHRS uses as authority for the proposed rule, Section 381.493(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Prior to receipt of Streimer's letter, DHRS considered HCFA's policy to be that if a facility did not have a CON and was not licensed as an ASC, there would be no medicare certification forthcoming from HCFA. The Streimer letter purportedly clarifies HCFA's policy although it does not represent a change in that policy. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). The proposed rule defines "primary as 50 percent or more of the patients treated annually as being non-surgical patients. However, according to the 1982 federal regulations, an entity seeking application and certification as a medicare ASC must be dedicated exclusively to the provision of Ambulatory Surgical Services (42 CFR Section 416.2). Federal Rules provide that the requirement for ASC's to be certified in order to receive medicare payments was expected to exclude physicians offices. There appears to be no federal regulation dealing with reimbursement for the surgical procedures which are to be done in physicians' offices. To satisfy HCFA's certification requirements, an applicant must satisfy the relevant state licensure requirements if any, and meet federal certification requirements. As presently codified, it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy the proposed rule and the federal ASC definition contained in 42 CFR Section 416.02. Thus, an entity could not "exclusively" provide ASC services and at the same time not exist for the "primary" purpose of providing elective surgical care on an outpatient basis. They are mutually exclusive since the two definitions are inconsistent. The Streimer letter initiated HRS's evaluation of current statutes and the proposed rule is, according to HRS, designed to implement current statutes. HCFA's policy is that if a facility legally provides or is allowed to provide elective surgical procedures in Florida, without having to be licensed as an ASC or having gone through the CON process, it is inappropriate to require the facility to obtain a CON and be licensed as an ASC as a condition of that facility being approved for medicare reimbursement at the ASC rate. Prior to HCFA's correspondence, HCFA required an applicant for medicare ASC certification to meet State Law and also meet its certification requirements. This is still the case and the HCFA's correspondence to DHRS did not change that requirement. The purpose of the Health Facility and Health Services Planning Act, more commonly known as the CON law, (sometimes called the Act) is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of Floridians. These protections are further defined as a necessary increase in health care, minimizing duplication in health services, and minimizing situations where there is an underutilization of existing health care resources. The proposed rule does not relate to or otherwise address any "need" issue or capacity issue and contrary thereto, allows for uncontrolled growth of surgery suites as long as the physician group practice has 50 percent or more of total patients treated as non-surgical patients. It can be expected that there will be a proliferation of physicians, solo or group practices, with physician surgical practices developing in addition to hospital out-patient surgery. Additionally, there is no physical constraint on the location of the physician and a physician's group practice. Adoption of the proposed rule will also increase the cost of the total health care system in Florida as follows: The average cost per procedure increases when procedures are spread out over a greater number of fixed facilities and because of incentives that would be inherent in this additional capacity for additional unnecessary utilization. Physicians would receive a facility fee in addition to a professional fee. Physicians would thereby receive more money for doing the same procedures they are currently doing in their offices without the facility fee. The effect of the introduction of surgery centers where there is already excess capacity in hospitals and in freestanding surgery centers is to increase the cost of health care to the community. With the addition of new facilities, there are added fixed costs placed into the system that would remain until the facility becomes outmoded. With the addition of fewer procedures spread over more fixed costs, the average cost per procedure likewise increases even though the cost to an individual patient might appear to be lower in an alternative setting. Excess capacity leads to underutilization with the resultant increase in the rates for surgery. Without a capacity constraint, there will be more elective surgery performed. With the approval of the proposed rule, a doctor's office will be eligible for medicare reimbursement for a facility fee. Medicare reimbursement for a facility fee is unique to ASCs and does not apply to surgical procedures performed in a doctor's office. The purpose behind reimbursing for facility fees is that there is considerable overhead associated with performing relatively complex surgical procedures which require an operating room. If procedures are so simple as to be safely performed in a doctor's office, the intent of the rule is to distinguish between these two settings. It is desirable for procedures to be done in a doctor's office that are simple because it is the lower cost setting. Procedures performed in a physician's office will not qualify for the facility fee reimbursement and overhead payment because of the simplistic nature of the procedures and the lack of need for sophisticated equipment which is currently being used in ASCs. The federal regulations were intended to remove hospital surgery to ASCs, if appropriate, and to remove minor surgery to doctors' offices in order to avoid reimbursement for procedures which can be done in a less sophisticated setting. If more procedures are shifted to medicare certified ASCs, there would be an additional facility fee and physicians would be eligible for this reimbursement. An example of the operational effect of the proposed rule is the scenario surrounding Doctor Stephen S. Spector and the Presidential Eye Surgery Center in Palm Beach County. Doctor Spector was denied a CON for an ASC based on a lack of need for additional operating suites in Palm Beach County. After DHRS made its initial decision denying Dr. Spector's CON, he petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. A Recommended Order was entered denying Dr. Spector a CON and HRS then issued a Final Order denying a CON to Dr. Spector. Dr. Spector has since simply requested an exemption for a freestanding ASC pursuant to the proposed rule. DHRS will entertain this request and if granted, Dr. Spector will be entitled to medicare certification and a facility fee for surgical procedures performed in his office. The proposed rule will encourage the massive proliferation of outpatient surgery facilities and outpatient surgery suites. 3/ Evidence adduced at final hearing indicates that CON approved and licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers are currently underutilized and not operating at optimal capacity. The result will be increased hospital and ASC costs per unit because fixed costs must then be spread over a smaller patient base. It is likely that there will be underutilization of existing facilities. The proposed rule does not foster the purposes of Florida's CON law and it will not restrain increases in health care costs. The proposed rule will enhance or maximize unnecessary duplication and promote underutilization of existing resources. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the Department is required to prepare an economic impact statement of the proposed rule. For the proposed rule, HRS states, in part, in its economic impact statement as follows: The proposed amendment is expected to have an economic impact on hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgical centers licensed by the State. It is expected that some Medicare patients who previously have been referred to hospital outpatient departments or a freestanding ambulatory surgical center licensed by the State may have their elective surgeries performed in the physician's group practice. In addition, the proposed rule may encourage the development of physician group practices with surgical suites since they are exempted from the certificate of need process and State licensure requirements. The fiscal impact on hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers cannot be estimated since the Department has no data regarding the number of potential applicants under this Rule, the location of those applicants, the volume of surgeries which may be performed by these entities, or the number of surgeries which would have been performed in hospital outpatient departments or State licensed ambulatory surgical centers in the absence of these new entities. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). The economic impact statement for the proposed rule does not provide any data or method used in making the required economic impact estimates. The statement does not include any data to analyze whether the rule will impact ASCs having less than one million dollars net worth and less than 25 employees or whether the proposed rule will have an economic impact on hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers. Although HRS has indicated that the exact amount of the fiscal impact is impossible to estimate due to the unknowns respecting the number of physician offices or group practices that will qualify for the exemptions and therefore no analysis was undertaken or developed, studies could have been made to determine the effect any level of participation would have on hospital costs and utilization of existing facilities. Although the task of compiling such data would, no doubt, be arduous, evidence adduced at final hearing indicates that DHRS could have, with effort, compiled a data base with a stratified sample which would have been reliable and could forecast the likely effect of the proposed rule within an acceptable margin of error. DHRS did not compile data which would provide an estimate as to the number of patients who would choose the physician's office over other facilities that perform Ambulatory Surgery. DHRS never requested input from hospitals or outpatient surgery centers with respect to pay or patient mix. DHRS conducted no surveys with respect to the number of potential applicants under the proposed rule. DHRS considered it not relevant to examine the capacity of existing freestanding surgery centers or hospitals having outpatient surgery facilities. DHRS conducted no studies to determine the accessibility of existing ASCs and hospital ASCs. No studies were done to examine the impact, as to the cost to patients, that the proposed rule is likely to have on existing providers. No studies were done to assess the impact the proposed rule will have on the medicare trust fund. No studies were done to determine the impact, if any, on Florida small and minority businesses. It is true that a great deal of the needed data was not readily available to HRS whereas, on the other hand, it made no attempt to gather such data. DHRS has the ability to assess the number of surgeries that could be performed in hospital outpatient departments and ASC's since DHRS does such compilations on a day to day basis when it projects the need for new ASCs. DHRS could have commissioned studies to determine the effect any level of participation would have on hospital costs and utilization. Development of an adequate data base and a meaningful economic impact of the proposed rule is paramount in view of the legislative mandate (to DHRS) to contain health care costs. Rules are promulgated to further the purpose and objective of the statutes they implement. To accomplish this, they must be consistent with the statute. Here, the purpose of the statute is cost containment. Evidence adduced at final hearing reveals, without contradiction, that the proposed rule will increase health care costs, contrary to the major purpose for its existence. Finally, DHRS compiled no data as to the impact on the ability of hospitals to provide indigent care under the proposed rule. As example, Florida Hospital projects that it will provide $48,000,000 in uncompensated care for fiscal year 1986. If the hospital were to lose revenue as result of this proposed rule, the level of indigent care will also correspondingly be reduced in order to offset the loss of revenue. Other parties herein provide services to indigent persons. The proposed rule does not require these exempt facilities to provide indigent care. In addition to the above economic impact which will be brought about by the proposed rule on the Health Care system as a whole, the proposed rule will have an economic impact on the existing hospitals and ASC's. (TR 276-277; 438-440). As example, one Petitioner herein advises that if one surgery suite were added by an existing physician group or formed near the hospital, the hospital will lose approximately $481,000 per annum. By letter dated August 29, 1986, DHRS forwarded a copy of the purposed rule to the statewide and local health councils requesting comments by September 12, 1986. The public hearing on the proposed rule was scheduled for October 20, 1986. Neither health council (state or local) participated in the public hearing for the proposed rule nor has either council submitted comments respecting the proposed rule. The notice provided to the local and statewide health councils for comments on the proposed rule was adequate and afforded the various councils an opportunity to voice any concerns or provide input about the proposed rule. Dr. Montgomery, an Intervenor herein, will receive additional medicare reimbursements of $500.00 per patient for a facility fee under the proposed rule. Dr. Montgomery approximated that he performed 320 cataract surgeries per year of which approximately 300 patients are paying patients. Approximately 85 percent of those patients are over 65. Therefore, Dr. Montgomery will receive medicare reimbursement for 255 patients or approximately $127,500.00 in additional fees if his office is certified as exempt under the proposed rule.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Mario Aviles, Jr., was licensed by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners and held license No. ME 0020482. Clara Julio Yanes was a prenatal patient of Respondent in 1980. In 1979 Respondent had delivered Yanes' first child at Mount Sinai Hospital and Mrs. Yanes expected this second child to be delivered in a hospital. Respondent did not tell the Yaneses that he did not have hospital privileges and until the last minute they expected Respondent to deliver the baby. On 4 October 1980 Yanes called Respondent to advise him that Mrs. Yanes was in labor. Respondent's answering service said Respondent was on vacation and Dr. Pina was taking care of Respondent's patients. Pina called Yanes shortly thereafter and said he would meet them at the hospital. Shortly after the baby was born at Hialeah Hospital, Pina arrived and apologized for being late. Grisel Carbajol was a prenatal patient of Respondent in 1980. Aviles said he would take care of hospital admission at either North Shore, Hialeah, Baptist, or Mercy hospitals and that he was trying to get privileges at all of these hospitals. On October 31, 1980, Mrs. Carbajol visited Respondent's office because she was bleeding and thought she was in labor. He examined her and told her it would be a week before the baby would come. The next day, Sunday, she called his office and Respondent answered the telephone. When she described her symptoms, Respondent told her to take medication and to call him in four hours. When she called back she reached his answering service who told her they had passed her message to him, but she received no call from Respondent. Later that day when her labor pains became more frequent, Mrs. Carbajol went to the emergency room at Hialeah Hospital and her baby was delivered at Hialeah Hospital. She had been given Dr. Pina's telephone number two days before the delivery but did not call Pina. Mrs. Mario Mancebo was a prenatal patient of Respondent between January and August 1981. During her seventh month she started bleeding and attempted to contact Respondent, without success. Respondent had told her the baby could be delivered at Baptist Hospital so the Mancebos vent to Baptist Hospital where they learned Respondent did not have hospital privileges and could not have her admitted. Isabel Sierra was a prenatal patient of Respondent in March 1980. Respondent never told Mrs. Sierra which hospital to go to, nor did he tell her he did not have hospital privileges. When she started labor, the last of October 1980, she called Respondent's office but he never returned her call. After trying several times to contact him, she went to the emergency room at Jackson Memorial Hospital where her baby was born. During the period January 1980 to December 1981, Respondent did not have hospital privileges at any hospital in Miami yet he had numerous pregnant patients to whom he provided prenatal care. The practice of these patients turning up at the emergency rooms of several hospitals in the Miami area in a terminal labor state became so prevalent that Baptist Hospital wrote Respondent at least three letters (Exhibit 2) asking him to stop directing his patients to the emergency room at Baptist Hospital near the termination of their pregnancies, reminding him that he did not have privileges at Baptist Hospital, and requesting that he inform his patients that he could not deliver them at Baptist Hospital. Mercy Hospital wrote Respondent that his application for hospital privileges had been denied (Exhibit 3) and sent a complaint to the Dade County Medical Association about Respondent sending his patients in active labor to the emergency room at Mercy Hospital despite the written and oral requests that he desist from this practice The Chief, Emergency Room Service, at Mercy Hospital lodged an ethical complaint with Petitioner as a result of Respondent sending patients to the emergency room at Mercy Hospital near the termination of their pregnancies (Exhibit 4). Prenatal obstetric patients generally expect their obstetrician to deliver their babies. It is both fraudulent and unethical to take a patient for prenatal care when the obstetrician does not have privileges at a hospital and cannot provide hospital delivery for the baby. Furthermore, it is unethical to provide prenatal care up to termination of pregnancy and then send the patient to the emergency room of the nearest hospital for a strange doctor to deliver the baby. This is especially so when no record accompanies the patient, and any history obtained must come from the woman in labor or her accompanying relative. Most of these prenatal patients of Respondent had paid Respondent in full for his services, including delivery. At the termination of their pregnancies when Respondent could not be reached, their babies were delivered by a doctor strange to them when they went to a hospital emergency room. Several of these witnesses testified they could get no refund from Respondent after this happened, but one witness testified her husband had recovered those payments from Respondent after her baby had been delivered by another doctor.
