The Issue BAMI and VENICE filed competing applications for a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood, Florida. The sole issue is which application should be granted, and which should be denied.
Findings Of Fact DHRS is the state agency empowered to review, issue, deny, and revoke certificates of need for health care projects. 381.494(8), Fla. Stat. (1981). In January, 1982, VENICE and BAMI separately applied to DHRS for a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood, Florida. When the applications were filed, Florida law required the appropriate health systems agency to initially review applications for certificates of need. On March 10, 1982, the Project Review Committee of the South Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc.--the appropriate health systems agency--considered the competing applications, then voted to approve the proposal submitted by VENICE, and deny the proposals submitted by BAMI and a third applicant (not involved in this proceeding). On March 27, 1982, the Board of Directors of the South Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc. disagreed with the Project Review Committee's recommendation and voted to recommend (to DHRS) approval of the BAMI proposal and disapproval of the VENICE proposal. DHRS then independently reviewed the two competing applications. On April 30, 1982, it issued a (free-form) certificate of need to BAMI to construct a 75,000 square foot, 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood. Conversely, it denied VENICE's application, asserting: (1) that the interest and depreciation expense per projected patient day for the first two years of operation of the BAMI proposal was less than that projected for the VENICE proposal; (2) that the estimated labor and materials cost per square foot for the BAMI proposal was lower than the amount estimated for the VENICE proposal; (3) and that the provision for 30 semiprivate rooms in the BAMI proposal offered patients an alternative unavailable in the all-private room hospital proposed by VENICE. VENICE thereafter requested a formal hearing to contest DHRS's action, which request resulted in this proceeding. Bami BAMI seeks a certificate of need to construct a new 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood, Florida, to be known as Englewood Community Hospital. BAMI proposes to relocate and merge its existing Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center into the proposed Englewood Community Hospital. The service area for the BAMI proposal includes the following communities in Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee counties: Englewood, North Port, Warm Mineral Springs, El Jobean, Grove City, Rotunda West, Placida, Cape Haze, and Boca Grande. The proposed hospital contains 92 medical/surgical beds and 8 intensive care unit (ICU) beds. The 92 medical/surgical beds contain a mix of 32 private be and 60 semiprivate beds. The hospital will provide ambulatory surgical services, diagnostic and special procedures, radiology services, nuclear medicine, ultrasonography, cardio-pulmonary, emergency room, and clinical laboratory services. The following services would be shared with its affiliate, Fawcett memorial Hospital in Port St. Charlotte, Florida: business office, medical records, data processing, materials management, personnel, education, public relations, administration, dietary, bio-medical engineering, laboratory, sterile processing, vascular laboratory, and occupational therapy. The proposed hospital will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAMI, and will have its own board of directors, board of trustees, and medical staff. BAMI is an experienced health care provider. Its principals have been in the health care business since 1964, and have built and operated 25 health care facilities in the mid-western United States. BAMI owns and operates several health care facilities in Florida: the 400-bed Fort Myers Community Hospital in Fort Myers, Florida; the 254-bed Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, Florida; the 120-bed Kissimmee Memorial Hospital in Kissimmee, Florida; the Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center in Englewood, Florida; the Ambulatory Surgical Center in Tampa, Florida; and the Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center in Bonita Springs, Florida. BAMI also owns two smaller hospitals, one in Georgia and the other in Alabama. It is experienced in building and opening new hospitals, having built both the Fort Myers Community Hospital and the Kissimmee Memorial Hospital. It also expanded Fawcett Memorial Hospital from 96 beds to 254 beds. BAMI has financial assets of approximately $63,842,400 and a net worth exceeding $13.5 million. Venice VENICE seeks a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed satellite acute care hospital in Englewood, to be known as the Englewood-North Port Hospital. The service area for this proposed hospital consists of Englewood, North Port, Rotunda West, Placida, Warm Mineral Springs, Boca Grande, and Cape Haze. VENICE's proposed hospital contains 96 medical/surgical beds and four ICU beds. No semiprivate rooms will be available. All of the 96 medical/surgical beds will be placed in private rooms. The proposed satellite hospital will share the following services with VENICE's existing 300-bed "mother" hospital in Venice, Florida: specialized laboratory services, physical therapy, nuclear medicine, pulmonary functions, and specialized radiology services. For specialized and more sophisticated services, patients will be transported from the Englewood hospital to the larger hospital in Venice. The following support services will also be shared with the "mother" hospital: purchasing, bulk storage, laundry, dietary management, data processing, financial management, personnel recruitment, and educational services. In order to share these services, the existing Venice Hospital will be required to operate a transportation system. For many years, VENICE has owned and operated Venice Hospital, a fully licensed and accredited 300-bed general acute care hospital at 540 The Rialto, Venice, Florida. Venice neither owns nor operates any other hospital, although it has applied for a certificate of need to construct a 50-bed psychiatric hospital. The present management of Venice Hospital is inexperienced in the construction and opening of new hospitals. II. COSTS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION Construction costs for the competing BAMI and VENICE proposals are broken down into categories and depicted in the following table: COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS CATEGORY BAMI VENICE Total Project Cost $13,355,000 $18,170,000 Total Project Per Bed Cost 135,500 181,700 Total Direct Construction Equipment Cost for and Fixed 11,670,190 13,874,516 Gross Square Feet 75,327 75,000 Construction Costs 155 173 Per Square Foot Number of Stories One Two Expansion Potential 100 additional 200 additional EQUIPMENT Movable 3,500,000 2,272,444 Bami Construction of the BAMI hospital can begin by September 1, 1983, and be completed by December 31, 1984. The new hospital can be opened by January 1, 1985. The BAMI hospital will be a one-story building, a design which is efficient for a hospital of this size. It will consist of a steel structure with curtain walls. The building is functional and economical, and can be expanded horizontally to 200 beds with minimum disruption to existing services and staff. The design of this hospital is similar to the 120-bed Kissimmee Memorial Hospital built by BAMI in 1979. BAMI's cost estimates are based on the actual costs of constructing the Kissimmee Memorial Hospital. BAMI proposes to construct the hospital by using an affiliate, F & E Community Developers of Florida, Inc. The use of an in-house contractor will allow BAMI to build the hospital in a short time period, at less cost and with higher quality. BAMI's proposal contains both active and passive energy conservation elements. The passive elements include overhangs, shaded glass, and movable windows. Active elements include the selection of quality equipment and a computerized control system for the electric reheat heating/ventilation/air conditioning ("HVAC") system. The architectural and construction plans for BAMI's proposed hospital are virtually complete. Schematic drawings were submitted and approved by DHRS in August, 1981. Preliminary plans have also been approved by DHRS. DHRS approval entailed a review of architectural, electrical, and mechanical preliminary drawings. Venice If the VENICE proposal is approved, construction could begin between April and July, 1984. The hospital could open for occupancy on January 1, 1986, a year later than BAMI's proposal. VENICE's architectural and construction plans are at an early stage, consisting only of a program summary and block design. Architectural, electrical, and mechanical preliminary drawings have not yet been submitted to DHRS and approved. The construction cost estimates submitted by VENICE are less reliable than those submitted by BAMI, since they were derived from less developed plans and were based on assumptions presented by persons who did not testify at hearing. VENICE's proposed hospital consists of a reinforced concrete structure with a modular precast concrete exterior. Although it will consist of two stories, the building will be stressed for the subsequent addition of two stories. When and if it is expanded to four stories, it would be a 300-bed hospital. The planned vertical expansion increases the initial cost of the building by approximately ten percent. Because of the extensive sharing of medical and support services between the proposed satellite hospital and the "mother" hospital in Venice, the ancillary medical and support facilities of the satellite have been down-sized. The VENICE proposal will also require horizontal expansion in the future. Areas such as radiology, laboratory, and emergency rooms will require immediate expansion as beds are added to the facility. It has not been shown at what point, in the planned expansion, VENICE's proposed hospital would become a free-standing hospital--when it would no longer be required to rely on its "mother" hospital in Venice. VENICE proposes an energy efficient facility. The multiple-story design minimizes site use and roof coverage. The relatively narrow wings provide for optimum use of daylight. VENICE contends that its HVAC system is more cost effective than the system proposed by BAMI. This contention is not substantiated by convincing evidence. The VENICE witness who testified on this question was an architect, not a mechanical engineer. He was unfamiliar with the computerized energy control system proposed by BAMI and used assumptions made by others who did not testify at the hearing. Bami III. HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT BAMI's proposed movable hospital equipment will cost approximately $3,500,000. Included are three radiology rooms: one general radiographic room, one standard R and F room, and one R and F room with angiographic capability. Also included are 8 ICU beds, four operating "rooms--two major and two minor-- nuclear medicine, and ultrasound capability. Venice The equipment cost for the VENICE proposal is $2,272,444. Included are 3 operating rooms, one with cystographic capability; four ICU beds and two radiology rooms--one R and F, and one general radiographic. More sophisticated diagnostic procedures, such as nuclear medicine and specialized radiology, will be provided at the "mother" hospital in Venice, not at the proposed Englewood satellite. To utilize these procedures, patients will be transported from Englewood to Venice. VENICE acknowledges that its proposed hospital will utilize less sophisticated diagnostic equipment than BAMI's. VENICE's equipment cost would have to be increased approximately $700,000 if it were to provide eight ICU beds and specialized radiology and nuclear-medicine to match BAMI's proposal. The equipment cost differential indicates the different levels of care proposed by the two hospitals. The VENICE proposal requires the development of a transportation "shuttle" system between the "mother" hospital in Venice and the satellite in Englewood. The system would consist of two trucks in addition to vans or ambulances. The plans for this essential transportation system are, however, not fully developed. The need for van or ambulance transportation between the two facilities has not been fully considered. Further, the transportation plan estimates a 25-minute one-way driving time between Englewood and Venice year- round. During the busy winter months, it is likely that the driving time will increase. Although VENICE proposes to lease the necessary trucks, neither the leasing costs nor associated costs have been fully taken into account. IV. FUNDS FOR OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Bami BAMI will finance the $13,555,000 required to open its proposed hospital with bond proceeds, an equipment lease, and an equity contribution. It will obtain $7,905,000 from taxable bonds with a maturity of 25 years, and an interest rate of 12.5 percent. There will be a 2-year holiday on principal payments. BAMI will finance the $3,500,000 equipment cost pursuant to a lease agreement with Financial and Insurance Services, Inc., with an eight-year term and an interest rate of 15 percent. BAMI will make an equity contribution of $2,150,000. This will be in the nature of a contribution of capital from a parent corporation to a subsidiary corporation. As of September 30, 1982, BAMI had a net worth exceeding $13,500,000. BAMI will provide up to $1,000,000 in operating capital to cover initial start-up costs of the proposed hospital. In addition, BAMI has obtained a $5,000,000 line of credit which will be available to cover any potential cash shortages occurring during the start-up phase of the hospital. Venice VENICE will obtain the $18,170,000 required for its proposal from tax- free bond financing and an equity contribution. The bonds, which will have a maturity of 30 years and an interest rate of 10.52 percent, will be an obligation of the Venice Hospital. A debt service reserve fund of $1,900,750 will be required in order for the bonds to obtain an "A" rating. In unrelated applications, VENICE has proposed a major renovation of its existing hospital and the construction of a new free-standing 50-bed psychiatric hospital. These projects, if undertaken, will require additional equity contributions of $1,221,000 and additional bond financing in the amount of $10,370,000. To obtain the bond financing, VENICE will be required to maintain a one-to-one historical debt coverage ratio. VENICE has not convincingly established that it will be able to carry out all three projects and still maintain the required one-to-one debt coverage ratio. VENICE proposes to locate its proposed hospital on 15 acres of land costing $135,000. But the land sales contract provides only for the sale of 250 acres at a cost of $2,250,000. (The present owners wish to sell the entire 250- acre parcel and not lesser amounts.) The source of the $2,250,000 needed to acquire the property has not been identified. The bond proceeds could not be used. To purchase the 250 acres and fund the equity for its three proposed health care projects, VENICE will require $4,311,000. The source of these funds has not been identified. VENICE contends that one possible source would be Board Designated Funds. However, VENICE's audited financial statements for the period ending September 30, 1982, suggest otherwise. PROPOSED SITES Bami BAMI, through a subsidiary, has contracted to purchase approximately 12 acres as a site for its proposed Englewood hospital. The 12-acre site is part of a 60-acre parcel of land that is zoned OPI, a zoning classification which will permit the construction of a hospital. The 12-acre site is located on Morningside Drive, an access road to Pine Street. Although Morningside Drive is a dirt road, it will be paved. Under the contract, the current owner will pay all paving costs in excess of $65,000. The initial $65,000 in paving costs will be borne by BAMI and has been included in BAMI's estimated construction costs. Pine Street, a major north- south transportation artery in the Englewood area, is currently being resurfaced in both Sarasota and Charlotte counties. A second access to Pine Street has been acquired by the current owner. A watermain is available at the BAMI site. The current owner of the property will construct a sewage treatment plant and provide sewer service to the proposed hospital at prevailing rates. The sewage treatment plant will be located on a 7.5-acre portion of the 48 contiguous acres retained by the current owner. The BAMI site is located in an A-11 flood zone with an elevation of ten feet. Fill dirt will be used to raise it to an acceptable elevation of twelve feet. A current owner of the BAMI site envisions the entire 60 acres as an Englewood medical center. If necessary he will allow BAMI to purchase an additional 12 acres contiguous to the site. BAMI has not yet, however, obtained a legally enforceable right to purchase additional property adjoining its 12- acre site. Although the 12-ace site will permit the planned 100-bed future expansion, the site would be crowded with little space remaining for future improvements. Venice The VENICE site is an undesignated 15-acre portion of a 250-acre parcel of land located off State Road 777, also known as South River Road. It is uncertain whether the hospital will have one or two access roads to State Road 777. A watermain is available at the VENICE site. Sewage treatment will be provided by a nearby privately owned sewage treatment plant until the hospital, eventually, constructs its own. The zoning classification of the VENICE site will not permit construction of a hospital. Before the hospital could be built, Sarasota County would be required to rezone the property to OPI. Use of the property for a hospital is also inconsistent with Sarasota County's comprehensive land use plan, adopted October 31, 1981. Such a rezoning process would take a minimum of three or four months, and perhaps longer. Approximately 100 individual steps are involved. Hearings would be held by the Sarasota Planning Commission and the Sarasota County Commission. VENICE has not yet filed an application to rezone either the 15 acres or the entire 250-acre parcel. Neither has it shown that it is likely to succeed in having the property rezoned to a classification permitting hospital use. Bami VI. EFFICIENT AND ALTERNATIVE USES OF HEALTH CARE RESOURCES As part of its application, BAMI proposes to merge its existing Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center into its proposed Englewood hospital. If the BAMI application is denied and VENICE's granted, BAMI will continue to operate the Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center. As a result, the Emergency Clinic and VENICE's Englewood hospital would be providing duplicative emergency services. The costs resulting from this duplication would be approximately $894,800 in 1985; $975,300 in 1986; and $1,063,100 in 1987. For cost effectiveness, BAMI's proposed hospital will share some ancillary and support services with Fawcett Memorial Hospital in nearby Port Charlotte. Fawcett Memorial will also provide tertiary level services, such as renal dialysis and CAT scans to patients of the proposed Englewood hospital. BAMI operates a multi-hospital system, with subsidiaries which provide ancillary and specialized support services. These services include physical therapy, inhalation therapy, cardiopulmonary function, speech therapy, data processing, and collection services. Corporate level expertise in accounting, property management, pharmacy management, personnel, and marketing, is also available. The multi-hospital system allows BAMI to obtain favorable purchasing contracts and capital for future expansion. Venice Venice Hospital, the only hospital in south Sarasota County, has a high rate of occupancy. Although presently a 300-bed facility, it has an ultimate capacity of 400 beds. It recently applied for a certificate of need to add 24 ICU/PCU beds and additional beds, beyond that, are needed. It has a shelled-in fourth floor that will accommodate an additional 45-bed nursing unit. Completing the fourth floor at Venice Hospital would be a more cost-effective alternative way to add beds than constructing a new hospital in Englewood. As already mentioned, the "mother" hospital in Venice will share numerous ancillary and support services with the proposed satellite hospital in Englewood. VENICE proposes to share, among other things, its present laboratory with the proposed Englewood satellite. As a result, the laboratory in the satellite hospital has been reduced to a minimal size. It has not been convincingly established that the Venice Hospital laboratory, even if expanded as proposed, can process the additional laboratory work-load arising from an Englewood satellite. The laboratory at the existing Venice Hospital presently operates 24-hours per day, seven days a week. Even if its application to expand its laboratory is granted, the total area of the laboratory would be less than the accepted space guidelines required for a 324-bed hospital. VII. AVAILABILITY, APPROPRIATENESS, AND ACCESSIBILITY OF PROPOSED HEALTH CARE SERVICES Scope of Services Although both proposed hospitals would share services with affiliated hospitals, BAMI proposes more of an autonomous, full-service and free-standing hospital than that proposed by VENICE. BAMI will equip its hospital with a more complete and sophisticated range of diagnostic services and, unlike VENICE, has not down-sized its ancillary and support services. For the VENICE proposal to become a free-standing facility comparable to BAMI's, the space devoted to ancillary medical services and support services would have to be expanded by 30 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The costs of such an expansion have not been determined. Economic Access Both parties will enter Medicaid contracts covering their proposed hospitals. BAMI projects that .1 percent of its patients will be Medicaid; VENICE projects .2 percent. BAMI hospitals treat all emergency patients, regardless of ability to pay. Third party payment is accepted. On elective admissions, self-pay patients are requested to make reasonable deposits and sign promissory notes. In specific instances, patients can be admitted without making financial arrangements in advance. Patients are not referred to other hospitals because of inability to pay. If an indigent is defined as "one who cannot pay," Fawcett Memorial Hospital provided between $600,000 and $700,000 in indigent care during 1982. This figure represents approximately 3.9 percent of gross revenue. Similarly, Venice Hospital treats emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Promissory notes are obtained from self-pay patients if necessary. The credit policies of Venice Hospital are similar to BAMI's. Venice Hospital had a bad debt or charity to gross receipts ratio of between 2.5 percent and 3.0 percent in 1982. Venice Hospital also has a Hill-Burton requirement to provide indigent care in the amount of approximately $125,000 per year. This requirement stems from a federal grant awarded in 1970. Access to Osteopathic Physicians BAMI's proposed hospital will have an open medical staff, including licensed medical doctors and osteopathic physicians. BAMI has a practice of allowing osteopathic physicians on its medical staff. For several years, osteopathic physicians have been included on the staff of all BAMI hospitals. Fort Myers Community Hospital, a BAMI hospital, is one of two hospitals in the Fort Myers area with osteopathic physicians on its staff. Kissimmee Memorial Hospital, also owned by BAMI, has the only two osteopathic physicians in Kissimmee on its staff. Fawcett Memorial Hospital has the only osteopathic physician in Port Charlotte on its staff. In contrast, VENICE has not added osteopathic physicians to its staff with similar enthusiasm. It granted staff privileges to its first osteopathic physician six to nine months prior to hearing. Two months before the hearing, staff privileges were granted to a second. Venice Hospital has, however, changed its bylaws to comply with the law prohibiting discrimination against osteopathic physicians. Geographic Access The geographic locations of the sites for the two proposed hospitals, as described above, provide equal access to the service area. The BAMI site is closest to the existing population concentrations of the Englewood area, while the VENICE site is closer to Interstate 75. Both sites will require the paving of an access road to major traffic arteries. No significant advantage in access is afforded to either. VIII. COMPETITION The existing Venice Hospital currently serves the hospital needs of approximately 64 percent of the people in the greater Englewood area. These patients comprise approximately 26.8 percent of Venice Hospital's total patient days. BAMI's existing Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte currently serves between ten and twelve percent of the hospital needs of the people in the greater Englewood area. These patients account for approximately 11.3 percent of Fawcett Memorial's total patient load. In addition, BAMI's Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center has treated over 20,000 patients since it opened in February, 1980. The existing Venice Hospital holds a dominant market share in the greater Englewood area. It is only twelve miles north of Englewood and is the only hospital in south Sarasota County. The closest competitor in Sarasota County is Sarasota Memorial Hospital, approximately 20 miles north of the Venice Hospital. Venice Hospital has been in operation for approximately 30 years. In contrast, Fawcett Memorial Hospital is approximately 21 miles east of Englewood. In the mid-1970s, it was converted from a nursing home to a 96-bed hospital, and in 1976, it was expanded to 254 beds. Approval of BAMI's proposal will enhance competition among hospitals serving the greater Englewood area. The competition will not, however, adversely affect Venice Hospital's long-term viability. The construction of either hospital in the Englewood area will change existing hospital utilization and physician referral patterns. New referral patterns will form and an increasingly autonomous group of physicians will develop. Local physicians will utilize the Englewood hospital, whether it is owned by BAMI or VENICE. Bami IX. PROJECTED COSTS OF PROVIDING HEALTH CARE SERVICES BAMI forecasts an occupancy rate of 60 percent at its proposed Englewood hospital in 1985; 75 percent in 1986; and 80 percent in 1987, with an average length of stay of 8.5 days. These figures are credible in view of the population growth in the Englewood area, the undisputed need for a new hospital, and the elderly population. To project total cost and gross revenue per patient day, various calculations are made. BAMI's employee salary expenses are based on its experience at nearby Fawcett Memorial Hospital, adjusted by an inflation factor. Non-salary expenses are derived from its experience at Kissimmee Memorial Hospital, a hospital of similar size with a utilization rate similar to that projected for the Englewood hospital. Depreciation of plant and equipment is calculated using the straight-line method. Revenue projections are derived using the American Hospital Association's Monitrend median inpatient revenue, inflated at 9 percent per year. An indigent/bad debt deduction of four percent of total patient revenue is used. These assumptions provide a credible basis from which total cost and gross revenue per patient day can be calculated. Using these assumptions, total costs per patient day is forecast to be $482.00 in 1975; $479.60 in 1986, and $510.32 in 1987. Gross revenue per patient day is forecast to be $552.00 in 1985; $601.68 in 1986; and $655.83 in 1987. These forecasts are credible and accepted as reasonably reliable. Venice VENICE's primary contention is that its proposed hospital, although costing more to build, will--in the long run--result in lower costs to patients and increased savings to the community. This contention was not substantiated by convincing evidence. In forecasting its costs and revenues, VENICE projected an occupancy rate of 65 percent in 1986; 80 percent in 1987; and 80 percent in 1988. The 1986 projection is unreasonably high; it envisions a 70.4 percent utilization rate during the opening month. VENICE's projected salary expenses are derived from its current experience at Venice Hospital, adjusted for inflation. Although this figure is reliable, the projected non-salary expense per patient day is not. The nonsalary expense is not based on Venice Hospital's most recent 1982 expenses, and is not adjusted by the requisite inflation factor. The depreciation schedule and assumptions used by VENICE in forecasting its revenues and costs are also questionable. Discrepancies went unexplained. The testimony of Deborah Kolb, Ph.D., an expert in health care financial and need analysis, is considered more credible. She concluded that VENICE understated 1986 depreciation expense for its proposed hospital by approximately $300,000, an error which would have increased its projected patient costs per day by $13.70. VENICE also projects room charges at its proposed hospital which are significantly lower than those projected for its "mother" hospital in Venice. This difference in room charges was not adequately explained or justified. Although VENICE's controller attributed the difference to cost savings resulting from the satellite hospital concept, these savings were not meaningfully itemized or identified in VENICE's revenue and cost projections. VENICE also failed to identify, and reflect in its projections, increased costs resulting from use of its satellite concept. For example, in 1986, 532 Englewood patient are projected as requiring sophisticated nuclear medicine tests at the "mother" hospital in Venice; 141 Englewood patient are projected as requiring special radiology tests at Venice Hospital. When asked who would absorb the costs of transporting patients between the satellite hospital in Englewood and the "mother" hospital in Venice, VENICE's controller responded that Venice Hospital would. However, those costs have not been quantified. Moreover Venice Hospital does not currently pay for ambulance transportation of its patients and does not have vans which transport patients on 24-mile round trips. This amounts to a significant and additional cost of operation, which has not been fully considered in the financial forecasts. Moreover, VENICE utilized cost per patient day based on Venice Hospital's 1981 costs rather than the higher 1982 costs. (Revenue per patient day increased 23.8 percent, in 1982.) In addition, projected revenues at VENICE's proposed Englewood satellite were not adjusted downward to take into account the less-sophisticated medical services which would be provided. As a result, VENICE's projected revenues per patient day are questionable and lack credibility. Venice Hospital received funds from three philanthropic organizations: Venice Hospital Blood Bank, Venice Hospital Auxiliary Volunteers, and Venice Health Facilities Foundation. Without the infusion of these funds, charges to Venice Hospital's patients would be higher. Venice Hospital's own fund raising literature states that patient charges, alone, do not cover the full costs of providing medical services. These community-raised funds, then, pay part of the costs of providing medical care. But in calculating cost savings to the community from its proposed Englewood hospital, VENICE has not identified or taken into account these additional funds raised from the community. VENICE's comparison of its projected patient charges with those of BAMI's is, accorded little weight. The two proposed hospitals are significantly different, one providing more extensive and sophisticated medical care than the other. This difference was not adequately taken into account in the financial comparison. Additional costs to Venice Hospital resulting from the Englewood satellite hospital were not fully considered. Comparisons based on historical charges by Venice Hospital and Fawcett Memorial Hospital are also misleading since these hospitals are different in size and occupancy rate--and the proposed Englewood hospital will duplicate neither. Moreover, Venice Hospital historical room rates used for the comparison were selectively chosen. VENICE also relies on projected HVAC life cycle savings, which, as already mentioned, were not convincingly established. Finally, the costs of acquiring VENICE's site-- necessitating a 250-acre purchase--were not fully reflected in the comparison. X QUALITY OF CARE The parties stipulated that both proposals will provide high quality medical care. The only question is whether bed-configuration will affect the quality of care provided. BAMI proposes a mix of 32 private and 60 semiprivate medical/surgical beds, with an additional 8 ICU beds. In contrast, VENICE proposes 96 private medical/surgical beds and 4 ICU beds. BAMI's mix of private and semiprivate rooms will allow consumers a choice and is preferable to VENICE's all private-room proposal. Private and semiprivate rooms confer various benefits. BAMI's proposed 32 private rooms will be adequate to serve those patients requiring private rooms while, at the same time, affording patients a choice between private and semiprivate. The VENICE proposal will not allow such a choice. It has not been shown, however, that bed configuration will affect the quality of medical care rendered patients. XI. COMPARISON: BAMI'S PROPOSED HOSPITAL IS PREFERABLE TO VENICE'S Both proposed hospitals would provide necessary and quality medical care to people in the Englewood area. On balance, however, BAMI's proposal is preferable. BAMI's free-standing hospital will provide more complete and sophisticated medical care, with less need to transport patients between "mother" and satellite hospitals. VENICE's satellite hospital will require extensive transporting of patients, food, linens, equipment, lab samples, and medications between the "mother" hospital in Venice and the satellite hospital in Englewood. BAMI, a multi-hospital system, is more experienced in constructing and operating new hospitals. The BAMI proposal will cost approximately $2,000,000 less to build, yet be of comparable quality and equipped with more sophisticated diagnostic equipment. While VENICE's construction plans are preliminary, BAMI's are detailed and virtually complete. VENICE's site requires rezoning, BAMI's does not. If BAMI's application is approved, its hospital could be opened by January 1, 1985,a year earlier than VENICE's. BAMI is financially able to begin construction immediately while VENICE--because of other projects simultaneously undertaken--may not be. Apart from zoning, both hospital sites are equally acceptable, although BAMI's 12-acre site is minimally sufficient for the anticipated future expansion to 200 beds. BAMI's financial ability to purchase is assured, while VENICE's is not. BAMI's proposal would avoid a duplication of emergency medical services in Englewood, while VENICE's would cause it. For patients preferring osteopathic physicians, BAMI's hospital would, most likely, be preferable. For patients preferring semiprivate rooms, BAMI's proposal would be preferable. Competition between hospitals serving the Englewood area would be enhanced with the BAMI proposal and decreased with VENICE's. Although VENICE argued that the costs to its patients would, over the long run, be less than BAMI's, this proposition was not convincingly proved.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Wellington Regional Medical Center, Inc., meets the criteria for approval of CON application number 9253 to convert 16 substance abuse beds to a seven-bed or ten-bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) administers the certificate of need (CON) program for health care facilities and services in the state of Florida. Wellington Regional Medical Center, Inc. (Wellington or WRMC) is a 120-bed community-based hospital, with 104 acute care and 16 substance beds. In September 1999, Wellington applied for CON Number 9253 to convert the 16 substance abuse beds into a ten-bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Currently, Wellington transfers newborns requiring Level II care to St. Mary's Hospital, in West Palm Beach, approximately 45 minutes away. The St. Mary's transport team can arrive as quickly as 20 to 30 minutes, but has taken up to four hours to pick up the babies. AHCA reviewed and denied Wellington's application, based on an absence of need in District 9 under criteria applicable to both normal and not normal circumstances, and the absence of any demonstrated problems for patients in getting access to Level II NICU care. For the January 2002 planning horizon used for applications which were, like Wellington's, filed in September 1999, AHCA published a numerical need for zero additional Level II NICU beds in AHCA District 9. The methodology used by AHCA to calculate numeric need, factoring in the existing inventory of 70 licensed and 20 approved beds, and applying the objective for 80 percent district-wide occupancy, resulted in a numeric need for a negative 32 beds. In other words, in District 9, there is a surplus of 32 Level II NICU beds, based on the formula established in AHCA's rules. The NICU II occupancy rate for 1998 was approximately 66 percent in District 9. In the absence of numerical need, Wellington applied for CON approval based on not normal circumstances, and contends it met, on balance, the requirements of the applicable criteria. 59C-1.042(6) - birth volume In Rule 59C-1.042(6), Florida Administrative Code, a not normal circumstance based on minimum birth volume is set forth, in pertinent part, as follows: Hospitals applying for Level II neonatal intensive care services shall not normally be approved unless the hospital had a minimum service volume of 1,000 live births for the most recent 12-month period ending 6 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. For this application cycle, the fixed need pool was published in July 1999; therefore, calendar year 1998 is the time period for determining birth volume. In 1998, there were 909 live births at Wellington. In 1999, live births at Wellington increased to 1,101, and, in the 12 months prior to the hearing, to 1,152. AHCA permits applicants to use the most recent data in cases involving not normal circumstances. Currently, approximately 100 live births a month occur at Wellington, which justifies the projection of 1,238 total live births for the year 2000. The current level of live births achieved at Wellington, over 1,000, is equaled or exceeded at fewer than 70 of over 200 hospitals in Florida. For the period ending June 30, 1999, 53 of the 70 hospitals also exceeded 1,200 live births. Of the 53 hospitals with over 1,200 live births annually, 48 had Level II NICUs. Six hospitals in Florida range between 1,200 and 1,499 live births a year; five have Level II NICU. 59C-1.042(5) - minimum ten-bed unit size AHCA's CON reviewer testified that she believed that AHCA had only deviated from the ten-bed minimum unit once, for CON Number 9243 to North Collier Hospital, a Medicaid disproportionate share hospital with over 2,000 live births. She also testified that, even though the applicant showed the required occupancy level in fewer than ten beds, CON approval for a ten-bed unit was awarded to Boca Raton Community Hospital (Boca Raton), in part, based on its large number of live births. By contrast, according to the chart on page 19 in AHCA's Exhibit 2, four of the seven Level II NICU providers in District 9 operated fewer than 10 beds at the time Wellington's application was approved. Apparently, unlike in the case of the Boca Raton application, AHCA held Wellington to the requirement of showing that it could reach 80 percent occupancy in the beds, although AHCA's expert health planner testified that the standard was a "benchmark," not an absolute bar to approval. In general, 1.1 Level II NICU patient days result from each live birth. The ratio of 1.1 to 1, when applied to 80 percent occupancy in a ten-bed unit, results in a mathematical necessity for 2,920 patient days a year, or a project volume of at least 2,654 live births a year. The use of the 80 percent district-wide occupancy standard for normal circumstances as a facility-specific standard for not normal circumstances is unreasonable and conflicts with the minimum volume requirement of 1,000 live births in Rule 59C-1.042(6). AHCA's application of the 80 percent occupancy requirement to Wellington is inappropriate and inconsistent with the agency's prior action. For example, in this case, arguably the failure to meet the normal standard for district occupancy might justify requiring a higher than normal facility standard, but AHCA has not done so with any apparent consistency. Only four out of 57 Level II providers in Florida exceed 2,654, the number of live births necessary to achieve the equivalent of 80 percent occupancy in a ten-bed NICU, three of those exceed 3,000 live births a year, and the fourth is in the range between 2,500 to 2,999 live births a year. Applying the 80 percent test with a 1.1 to 1 ratio to project Level II patient days, the six most recently approved Level II NICU applicants fall short, with projected occupancies ranging from 30 to 40 percent. 59C-1.042(8) - quality of care staffing standards Wellington provides obstetrical services in its Department of Maternal Health, also called the Center for Family Beginnings. Seven dedicated beds are used for labor, delivery, recovery, and postpartum care in that Department, with the frequent need to use overflow beds. Despite the screening of mothers prior to delivery to eliminate those whose babies are likely to need Level II or higher care, at least 25 percent of all expected normal deliveries develop into high risk problems. Wellington is already equipped to handle these unexpected, high risk babies, as it must do prior to transferring them. Wellington also provides follow-up care to high risk babies as a result of their agreement with St. Mary's to allow "back transferring" of stabilized babies. Wellington has a neonatologist-perinatologist on call 24 hours a day. It has neonatal intensive care nurses with Level II and Level III experience on staff 24 hours a day. AHCA questioned the adequacy of the staffing proposed in the CON application because a medical director and respiratory therapists are not explicitly listed on Schedule 6. The medical director will be the same neonatologist- perinatologist who is currently on staff and who will continue to receive professional fees for services, but will not be a hospital employee. That arrangement is explained in the notes to Schedule 6. Similarly, the category "Other Ancillary," Wellington explained in the assumptions to Schedule 6, includes two full-time equivalent staff positions for respiratory therapists. Wellington has on staff two perinatologists, who are doctors specializing in high risk maternal-fetal medical care. One of them moved to Wellington when another NICU program in the County was closed. See Findings of Fact 26. 59C-1.030(2) - health care access criteria Rule 59C-1.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires consideration of criteria related to the need for the services proposed and the expected accessibility of the services for residents of the district. The criteria largely overlap with those in Subsections 408.035(1)(b), (d), and (f), and (2), Florida Statutes, which are also related to need and access. See Findings of Fact 20-25 below. In addition to more general need and access issues, the rule requires considerations of access for low income, minorities, and other medically underserved patients, including those receiving Federal financial assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, and indigent persons. The parties stipulated that related criteria in Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - evaluating the applicant's past and proposed Medicaid service - is met or not at issue, based on Wellington's commitment to provide 30 percent Medicaid in the NICU, and historical provision of 32.4 percent Medicaid in the obstetrics unit. By stipulating that the criteria are not at issue or are met in Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need related to district health plan - the parties necessarily agreed that the local health plan requirement for a commitment to provide at least 30 percent Medicaid/Indigent patient days was met, and so, therefore, is the income accessibility concern of the Rule. Wellington addressed the Rule criterion for minority access to NICU services. The only Haitian doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) in Palm Beach County, who speaks fluent Spanish as well as Creole, delivers 99 percent of his patients' babies at Wellington. From 60 to 80 percent of his patients come from Lake Worth, most of whom are Haitians and Hispanics, including Gualemalans and Mexicans. Another OB/GYN group of four doctors, with privileges at four different hospitals, delivers 30 to 40 babies a month at Wellington, based on their preference for the care provided at Wellington. The only OB/GYN group in Palm Beach County, which has two affiliated perinatologists, both of whom are on staff at Wellington, serves large numbers of patients from Clewiston, Belle Glade, Pahokee, and Okeechobee. These areas are low income, farming communities located, in driving time, from 45 minutes to 1 1/2 hours west of Wellington. Even when predicted to have high risk births, mothers from the low income areas who are told to go to St. Mary's Hospital because it has a Level II NICU are approximately 70 percent non-compliant. St. Mary's is an additional 45-minute drive east of Wellington. 408.035(1)(b) - availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing facilities and services; (d) - availability and adequacy of alternatives, such as outpatient or home care; (e) - economics of joint, cooperative, or shared resources; (f) - need for services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas; and 408.035(2)(a), (b) and (c) - less costly, more efficient or more appropriate alternatives, such as existing inpatient facilities, sharing arrangements; and (d) - serious problems for patients to obtain care without proposed service. In addition to the absence of numeric need under normal circumstances, and the absence of the requisite birth volume which results from the imposition of the district occupancy standard to the hospital, AHCA also determined that Wellington failed to show any problems with patient access to like and existing facilities. Currently, there are 70 licensed and 20 approved Level II NICU beds in District 9. Overall, the occupancy rate for the District is approximately 66 percent. In addition, existing Level II NICU providers are located within two hours driving time for all residents of the district, as required for NICU which is classified as a tertiary service. Seven hospitals in District 9 provided Level II NICU care in 1998 to 1999. These included Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (Lawnwood) in St. Lucie County, Martin Memorial Medical Center (Martin Memorial) in Martin County, and Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center (Palm Beach Gardens) in Palm Beach County, West Boca Raton Hospital (West Boca), St. Mary's Hospital (St. Mary's), Good Samaritan Hospital (Good Samaritan), and Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda). In addition to the licensed beds, 20 approved beds had been allocated as follows: four for Good Samaritan, ten for Boca Raton Community Hospital, and six for West Boca. All of the existing Level II providers are located in eastern Palm Beach County along the Interstate 95 corridor. The population of Palm Beach County is migrating west. The Wellington community is experiencing significant growth. One indication is approval for the opening of five new schools in Wellington, three elementary, one middle, and a high school approximately 3 miles from the hospital. The number of new residential housing starts in Wellington has increased from 4,332 in 1990 to 6,012 in 1999. The housing starts in Wellington's primary service area represent over 48 percent of the total for Palm Beach County. Approximately 35,000 of the 80,000 women in Palm Beach County aged 35 to 44, who are more likely to have high risk pregnancies, live in the Wellington service area. Births at the three obstetrics providers in western Palm Beach County have increased from 1,441 in 1995 to 2,580 in 1999, including an approximately 200 percent increase at Wellington, from 345 in 1995 to 1,057 in 1999 (for the 12 months ending in August). Prior to October 1, 1999, the two closest hospitals to Wellington with Level II NICU services were Good Samaritan, with seven existing and four approved beds, and St. Mary's, with 22 beds. After Good Samaritan closed its obstetrics and NICU services, the two closest Level II NICU providers to Wellington are St. Mary's and West Boca, with nine licensed and six approved beds. For the 12-month period from July 1998 to June 1999, there were 3,832 NICU II patient days, or 149.98 percent occupancy in the seven operational beds at Good Samaritan; 5,743 patient days, or 71.52 percent in 22 beds at St. Mary's; and 3,210 patient days or 97.72 percent in the nine licensed beds at West Boca. With the closing of Good Samaritan, patients who were using its seven beds were assumed mostly likely to go to St. Mary's, which is owned by the same parent company. AHCA calculated a blended occupancy rate of 84.05 percent for St. Mary's with the addition of nine Good Samaritan beds (seven operational and two of four approved) to its existing 22 beds. Despite the high occupancy in the nearest facilities, the others in the District were relatively low for the same period of time: 39.15 percent in ten Level II NICU beds at Lawnwood, 8.38 percent in five beds at Martin Memorial, 19.23 percent in five beds at Palm Beach Gardens, and 50.46 percent in 12 beds at Bethesda. - immediate or long-term financial feasibility, as related to utilization AHCA rejected Wellington's projection of the volume of babies it would receive as Level II transfers from Glades General Hospital and Palms West Hospital. For the year ending August 1999, there were 737 live births at Glades General and 786 at Palms West. From that, Wellington projected 797 births at Glades General and 850 at Palms West in 2002. From that, Wellington expects to receive 231 transfers from Glades General and 197 from Palms West. The projections are based on historical birth to patient day ratios for the County, reasonable projections of volume, and reasonable market share assumptions. AHCA accepted Wellington's projections of its internal birth volume, which was 1,714 live births by January 31, 2000, resulting in a range between 1,192 and 1,834 Level II days. Based on the reasonableness of the expected transfers and the undisputed reasonableness of internal birth projections, Wellington demonstrated that it will achieve 73.5 percent occupancy in a ten-bed unit, or 75.2 percent in a seven-bed unit, by January 2003. As a result of reasonable utilization projections, as otherwise stipulated by the parties, the project is financially feasible. Factual Summary In general, Wellington demonstrated that the number of live births at Wellington, the closing of the nearest Level II provider, occupancy levels at nearby providers, the distances to other existing providers, particularly from various western areas of its service area, and the demographic and growth patterns within the County are not normal circumstances for the approval of its proposal. On balance, Wellington meets the criteria for approval for approval of CON Number 9253, to convert 16 substance abuse beds to a ten-bed Level II NICU.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order issuing Certificate of Need Number 9253 to Wellington Regional Medical Center, Inc., to convert 16 substance abuse beds to 10 Level II neonatal intensive care beds. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Mark S. Thomas, Esquire Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell, Terry & Rigsby, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313
Findings Of Fact General Discussion Petitioner is a licensed physician who practices pediatric medicine in Florida. Her practice has been located in St. Augustine, Florida, for 23 years. She has been board-certified in pediatrics since 1972. On November 2, 1982, Petitioner executed a Medicaid Provider Agreement with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent's predecessor agency. At all times relevant to the inquiry the state agency conducting the Medicaid function in Florida was referred to as the Florida Medicaid Program. The executed Provider Agreement was accepted by the Florida Medicaid Program on December 10, 1982, enrolling Petitioner in the program. In pertinent part, the Provider Agreement states: * * * The provider agrees to keep such records as are necessary to fully disclose the extent of services provided to individuals receiving assistance under the State Plan and agrees to furnish the State Agency upon request such information regarding any payments claimed for providing these services. Access to these pertinent records and facilities by authorized Medicaid Program representatives will be permitted upon a reasonable request. The provider agrees that claims submitted must be for services rendered to eligible recipients of the Florida Medicaid Program and that payment by the program for services rendered will be based on the payment methodo- logy in the applicable Administrative Rule. The Provider also agrees to submit requests for payment in accordance with program policies. * * * 7. The provider and the Department agree to abide by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Rules, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. * * * After being accepted as a Medicaid provider, Petitioner was assigned provider number 052775100. As successor agency to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent is responsible for the administration of the Florida Medicaid Program. Among Respondent's responsibilities is the operation of a program to oversee the activities of Medicaid providers, to include recovery of overpayments for services given by Medicaid providers to Medicaid recipients. In accordance with its authority, Respondent reviewed information concerning Petitioner's service activities as a Medicaid provider for the period of January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1991. To arrive at the amount claimed as overpayment, Respondent used a representative sampling of randomly-selected recipients for whom Petitioner had requested reimbursement for services provided during the relevant period. The number of recipients utilized in the sample was From its review, and by imposition of a formula and methodology which inferred the overall experience for all recipients who received Medicaid services during the relevant period, Respondent calculated the alleged overpayment. By extending the information found in the audit concerning the 30 recipients for the period of January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1991, Respondent determined that $27,384.82 was owed for overpayment. The results of this preliminary determination (provisional audit report) were made known to the Petitioner through correspondence dated November 4, 1994. Further review of the sample medical records was conducted between persons representing Respondent, counsel for Petitioner, and Petitioner. This meeting took place on February 9, 1995. As a consequence, the overall amount of claimed overpayment was reduced from $27,384.82 to $19,404.89 for the subject time period. From that experience, a final agency audit report was completed. On March 24, 1995, this report was sent to Petitioner. Petitioner contested the proposed final disposition, leading to the hearing conducted to resolve the dispute between the parties over the amount claimed as overpayment. At issue in the present proceeding is the question of whether the records maintained by Respondent are adequate to justify the reimbursement claims made in the instances where the sample group was provided medical services by Respondent. A related question is also raised concerning Petitioner's records, as they pertain to the level of service for which Petitioner claims reimbursement. There is no contention by Respondent that Petitioner has committed fraud or acted dishonestly in submitting the requests for reimbursement for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. In all instances under discussion, where Petitioner sought reimbursement for services rendered, recipients were seen in an office visit. To assist Petitioner in maintaining necessary records to identify the nature of services provided to Medicaid recipients, to identify levels of services provided, and to invoice Respondent for those services, Petitioner had been made aware of the pertinent Florida Statutes and rules, together with Medicaid Provider Handbooks and claims forms. That information was available to Petitioner when submitting claims for reimbursement for services provided for the 30 recipients in the sample for the period of January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1991. Two categories of services by Petitioner are at issue. The first category concerns recipients who present with complaints which are addressed by the provider. The second category concerns EPSDT recipients. This category is a preventive health screening examination for Medicaid-eligible children and young people under the age of 21. Examples of both categories were found within the recipient sample audited by Respondent for the questioned period. The Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook describes Petitioner's record-keeping responsibilities and the opportunity to review the records, wherein it states: Record Keeping You must retain physician records on services provided to each Medicaid recipient. . . . Examples of the type of Medicaid records that must be retained are: Medicaid claim forms and any documents that are attached, treatment plans, prior authorization information, any third party claim information, x-rays, fiscal records, and * * * Medical records must contain the extent of services provided. The following is a list of minimum requirements: history, physical examination, chief complaint on each visit, diagnostic tests and results, diagnosis, a dated, signed physician order for each service rendered, treatment plan, including prescriptions for medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services, signature of physician on each visit, date of service, anesthesia records, surgery records, copies of hospital and/or emergency records that fully disclose services, and referrals to other services. * * * Authorized state and federal staff or their authorized representatives may audit your Medicaid records. . . . The Medicaid EPSDT Provider Handbook describes the components for the health screening examination. Those components are health and developmental history, unclothed physical assessment or examination, nutritional assessment, updating of routine immunizations, laboratory tests, developmental assessment, vision screening, and hearing screening. EPSDT services also include possible referrals for medical treatment, visual, dental and hearing services. As to immunizations, there is a requirement for accountability for each vaccine administered. This means that the provider must maintain a record when vaccines are administered. In this case Petitioner met this requirement. When a child appears for EPSDT screening the provider must always perform a health and developmental history, physical examination, vision screening, including a check of the eyes, hearing screening, including a check of the ears, developmental assessment and nutritional assessment. This process contemplates the necessity for noting the results obtained in the screenings, normal or abnormal, as a means to track the child's health and development. According to the Medicaid EPSDT Provider Handbook, the record keeping associated with the EPSDT screening process includes the need to be mindful of: The purpose of a health and developmental history is to gather information about those diseases and health problems for which no standard screening test has been developed and to compile historical information about the child and the child's family. The health and developmental history should also provide information on the child's brothers and sisters; growth history; conditions suffered by blood relatives; previous medications; immunizations or allergies; and developmental history of the child and other family members. Unclothed physical examination The physical examination includes specific screening elements as appropriate for the child's age and health history, including: General appearance. Body measurements. Skin examination. Blood pressure. Heart sounds. Ausculation of lungs. Pulse. Palpation of abdomen of musculature, organs, masses. Inspection of genitalia. Vocalization and speech appropriate for age. Facial features. Chest configurations and respiratory movements. Muscle tone. Gross/fine motor coordination. Inspection for scoliosis. Ears, nose, and throat inspection. The Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration, defines a developmental assessment as the range of activities surrounding the exami- nation of the child, adolescent, and young adult in order to determine whether they fall within the normal range of achievement for the child's age group and cultural background. The developmental assessment is performed at the time of screening for all ages. Infor- mation from the parent or other person who has knowledge of the individual, observation, and talking with the individual are utilized in assessing the individual's behavior. The following elements are recommended to be included in the developmental assessment of children of all ages: Gross motor development, focusing on strength, balance, locomotion. Fine motor development, focusing on eye-hand coordination. Communication skills or language development, focusing on expression, comprehension, and speech articulation. Self-help and self-care skills. Social-emotional development, focusing on the ability to engage in social inter- action with other children/adolescents, parents, and other adults. Cognitive skills, focusing on problem solving or reasoning. The assessment of the child's nutritional status, eating habits, including the use of alcohol and tobacco, is taken at the time of the physical examination. The guidelines for visual screening are listed below: Birth through one year. General external examination and evaluation of ocular motility. Gross visual acuity examination with fixation test. Testing light sense with pupillary light reflex test. Intraocular examinations with ophthalmo- scope. Two to five years. Visual acuity for distance should be tested separately for each eye. The illiterate E test, the STYCAR (Screening Test for Young Children and Retardates) or the Lippman Matching Symbol Chart - HOTV may be utilized. Children from two to five years of age should be tested at 10 to 15 feet. To determine muscle balance, a cover test and the Hirschberg test (corneal light reflex) should be given. Parents should be asked whether they notice the child's eyes ever turning in or out. All individuals ages 5 through 20 years should be evaluated for distance visual acuity utilizing the illiterate E or the Snellen letters for a linear fashion. The testing should be at 20 feet. Individuals who wear glasses should be tested while wearing their glasses. Children should be tested using an appropri- ate test such as the Hear Kit, Weber, Rinne, or puretone along with history from the parent or guardian. Beyond the instructions set forth in the Medicaid EPSDT Provider Handbook, which have been referenced, Petitioner has not received additional instructions from Respondent concerning the manner in which records should be maintained related to EPSDT screens performed. In this case, Respondent does not question Petitioner's EPSDT screenings performed, as to the frequency and interval between screening examinations. Respondent has challenged the request for reimbursement for the EPSDT screens in the sample based upon the assertion that inadequate documentation exists to justify reimbursement for the screenings. Having in mind the need to maintain adequate records to justify the treatment and claim for reimbursement for services, the Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook describes the basis for reimbursement for services provided to recipients. That reimbursement scheme is associated with six levels of service. Those levels of service are identified by procedure codes established in the underlying Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition. The levels of service in contest are limited, intermediate, extended, and comprehensive. The levels of service are defined as follows: Limited is a level of service used to evaluate a circumscribed acute illness or to periodically reevaluate a problem in- cluding a history and examination, review of effectiveness of past medical management, the ordering and evaluation of appropriate diagnostic tests, the adjustments of therapeutic management as indicated and discussion of findings. Intermediate level of service pertains to the evaluation of a new or existing cond- ition complicated with a new diagnostic or management problem, not necessarily related to the primary diagnosis, that necessitates the obtaining of pertinent history and physical or mental status findings, diagnostic tests and procedures, and ordering appropriate therapeutic management; or a formal patient, family or a hospital staff conference regarding the patient's medical management and progress. Extended level of service requires an unusual amount of effort or judgement including a detailed history, review of medical records, examination, and a formal conference with the patient, family, or staff; or a compar- able medical diagnostic and/or therapeutic service. Comprehensive level of service provides for an in-depth evaluation of a patient with a new or existing problem requiring the development or complete reevaluation of medical data. This service includes the recording of a chief complaint, present illness, family history, past medical history, personal history, system review, complete physical examination, and ordering appropriate tests and procedures. The billing number codes set out in the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition, are related to new patients and established patients and the coding for the level of service is equated as: New patient: 90010 limited service 90015 intermediate service 90017 extended service 90020 comprehensive service Established patient: 90050 limited service 90060 intermediate service 90070 extended service 90080 comprehensive service To be reimbursed for services provided, consistent with the Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook, Petitioner utilized the Illustration 4-1.VHCFA-1500 Claim Form. To be reimbursed for Medicaid EPSDT screening performed, Petitioner utilized the Illustration 4-1.EPSDT Claim Form. Respondent has not challenged the manner in which Petitioner prepared and submitted the claim forms in its sample audit. For the period of January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1991, in the sample group for 30 recipients, Respondent did not disallow claims for reimbursement for services performed for recipients 6, 8, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28. In addition, at hearing, Respondent agreed that the payment for services performed for Recipient No. 3, on August 17, 1991, should remain as claimed. Similarly, the payment for services performed for Recipient No. 15, on December 14, 1990, should remain as claimed. The payment for services performed for Recipient No. 21, on December 12, 1990, should remain as claimed. Finally, the payment for services performed for Recipient No. 19, on May 25, 1990, should remain as claimed. At hearing, Petitioner agreed with Respondent that the services provided to Recipient No. 2, on August 17, 1991, should have been billed as a limited level of service. Petitioner conceded that the claim for reimbursement for services to Recipient No. 21 rendered on February 10, 1990 should be as a limited level of service as Respondent contended. Other contested payments must be resolved. In the instance where Respondent has agreed to allow the claims for reimbursement to be honored, this would cause the ultimate claim for overpayment pursuant to the formula and methodology to be adjusted. That adjustment is not made on this occasion based upon the agreement by the parties to bifurcate consideration of the propriety of using the formula and methodology and the need to recalculate the overpayment claim by employing the formula and methodology. Dr. John Sullenberger testified concerning the medical services provided to recipients. He identified the nature of the services. He is an expert in medicine. His practice had been as a board-certified thoracic- cardiovascular surgeon. He has not practiced as a general practitioner or pediatrician. Dr. Sullenberger had reviewed the records in the sample group and assisted Respondent in its determination concerning the appropriate level of service for payment and the adequacy of Petitioner's records. Dr. Sullenberger offered his opinion concerning the care rendered and the records kept, as that would influence assigning the proper level of care for reimbursement purposes and payment for EPSDT screening. Petitioner testified concerning her records and the care provided to the recipients, as a means to address record keeping, assignment of levels of care and payment. She placed emphasis on the fact that in some instances a greater effort was made to attend the recipients due to their age and inability to cooperate in their care. As described in the Medicaid Physicians' Provider Handbook, the levels of care ". . . require varying skills, effort, responsibility and medical knowledge to complete the examination, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and conference with the recipient about his illness or promotion of optimal health". In deciding the facts, the physician's insights have been relied upon in determining the extent to which Petitioner exercised these criteria. However, the ultimate determination concerning the proper assignment of level of care has been made by the fact finder, as a means to resolve the factual dispute between the parties and offer recommendations concerning the appropriate legal outcome in this case. Contested Claims Recipient No. 1 (K.H.): K.H. was born August 1, 1981. Petitioner provided services to K.H. on August 28, 1990. The services were billed at an extended level. Respondent asserts that the services should be compensated at an intermediate level. Petitioner's medical records reflect that recipient's height, weight, and temperature, together with blood pressure were observed. The presenting complaint was a stomachache and fever. The temperature was 103 degrees Fahrenheit. According to the medical records, the recipient's ears, throat, neck glands, chest, and cardiovascular system were examined, and a complete blood count was done, with a SMA6 test to check kidney function. A mono spot was done. The recipient was checked for strep. The throat was inflamed. The strep culture revealed a positive result. Consequently, Petitioner prescribed an antibiotic to treat the condition. The child was observed to be somewhat obese. As would be expected, Petitioner explained the child's condition to the parent and the procedures to be followed in dealing with the problems. A urine culture was conducted to rule out possible urinary tract infection, which might be responsible for abdominal pain. The proper billing for this visit was an intermediate level of service. Petitioner rendered services to Recipient No. 1 on October 23, 1991. Her height and weight were recorded. Her blood pressure was taken. The visit was for a checkup based upon trouble which the child was having in school related to her behavior. The clinical examination results in the medical records reflect negative results. However, the records reflect that the child was obese and difficult to evaluate in her abdomen. The medical note refers to difficulty in feeling the liver and spleen and identifying any possible masses. A SMA24 was ordered as a means to address the behavioral problem. A thyroid profile was ordered to exclude the possibility of hyperthyroid condition, which can make the child hyper. The child's urine was checked to see if a urinary tract infection had cleared up from a prior occasion. The SMA24 was a complete examination of the liver function to check lipids and cholesterol, among other things. This test was principally designed to check the child's liver. The clinical examination and tests that were ordered were designed to address possible physical causes for the child's behavior. The medical record reflects that dietary instructions were also given. This was a counseling session with the parent to explain what would be advantageous in the diet and what would not be. At the same time, discussion was given concerning the advantage of exercise in dealing with the obesity. As was customary, the parent or guardian was made aware of the purposes of the tests that were ordered. For these services, the visit was billed as a comprehensive level. Respondent asserts that the level should have been a limited visit. The proper billing for this visit is a limited level of service. Recipient No. 2 (T.S.): This recipient was born on July 7, 1977. On January 17, 1990, Petitioner rendered services to the recipient. Petitioner mistakenly filed a claim for reimbursement for venipuncture, based upon confusion concerning the appropriate code number to be assigned. In fact, a throat culture had been performed, not a blood test. Eventually, this problem was rectified. On January 17, 1990, Petitioner billed under a code related to venipuncture, which was a $2.00 charge. In fact, venipuncture was not performed on the recipient. In addition, the charge for a quick strep test performed on the recipient was miscoded. Instead of a quick strep test, it was coded for a bacterial culture. The bacterial culture code only paid $8.00. The quick strep test code, had it been utilized in requesting reimbursement, paid $11.00. Having used the wrong codes, Petitioner was paid $2.00, to which she was not entitled, for venipuncture. Petitioner was paid $8.00 for the quick strep test, less than the normal $11.00. On the same date, the child was seen by Petitioner complaining of right neck pain, spreading to his right ear. His blood pressure was taken. The reading was 140/85. By history, the recipient was known to have high blood pressure. The child's ears, nose, throat, glands, chest, and heart were checked. A throat culture was performed based upon inflammation which was observed in his throat. He had enlarged lymph nodes in his neck on one side. A strep culture was performed. Antibiotics were prescribed pending the results of the strep test. The blood pressure was considered elevated. Petitioner billed this visit as an intermediate level. Respondent asserts that the level of service is a limited visit. The proper billing for this visit is a limited level of service. Recipient No. 3 (P.J.): The recipient was born on March 15, 1981. Petitioner rendered services to P.J. on April 13, 1991. When the child was seen, she presented a complaint that bumps were on her tongue for a week. This was the first time that the recipient had been seen by Petitioner. Her weight, height, and blood pressure were taken and recorded. The recipient was given a thorough clinical examination. The clinical examination had no findings other than a small one-eighth-inch lesion on the tip of the recipient's tongue. At that time, it was assumed that the child may have bitten her tongue. The child was not believed to have infection, but her gums, tongue, and throat were examined. As part of the physical examination, the chest, heart, and cardiovascular system were also examined. The child's abdomen and genitalia were examined. Petitioner billed the visit as a comprehensive visit based upon the fact that this was the initial visit for the recipient, not based upon the observations concerning the lesion on the tongue, which were not found to be a significant medical problem. Patient history to include a list of illnesses, immunizations, and allergies for the recipient is set forth in a history and immunization record kept by Petitioner. Respondent asserts that the level of service performed on April 13, 1991 was a limited level. The proper billing for this visit was a limited level. Recipient No. 4 (V.K.): V.K. was born on September 25, 1983. Petitioner rendered services to V.K. on March 8, 1990. The child's weight and height were taken. She presented with a low-grade fever and a headache. Her bodily systems were examined. In the examination, Petitioner noted that her tonsils were covered with exudate. Otherwise, her condition was normal based upon a physical examination. A strep screen was performed, which revealed negative results. Petitioner prescribed an antibiotic based upon the appearance of the recipient's tonsils. Petitioner considered recipient's presenting complaints to be vague. The problem with fever could have been based upon problems anywhere in the system. The child did not have a cold and the headache necessitated a good examination. The only findings by Petitioner related to the inflamed tonsils. As was customary, the recipient's condition was discussed with the parent. The services were billed as a comprehensive visit. Respondent asserts that the services should have been billed as a limited visit. The proper billing for this visit was a limited level of service. V.K. was seen on February 6, 1991. Her height and weight were taken. It was noted in the patient records that the presenting complaint was a cold with a lot of coughing. The recipient was also due to have surgery on February 20, 1991. Upon examination, the recipient had inflamed tonsils and nasal congestion. No other significant physical findings were observed. Petitioner prescribed medication for the congestion and an antibiotic for the child's throat condition. The February 6, 1991 visit was billed as an extended service. Respondent asserts that the visit should be billed as a limited service. The proper billing for this visit is a limited level of service. V.K. was seen again on April 13, 1991. As noted in the medical records, the child presented with a cold, low-grade fever, and severe coughing all of the time. A physical examination was made of all systems, and the recipient was found to have an inflamed throat. Otherwise, the physical examination revealed no significant findings. Petitioner prescribed an antibiotic for six days and a cough decongestant to attend the symptoms. Petitioner billed this service as an intermediate visit. Respondent asserts that the proper billing is a limited service. The proper billing for this service is a limited level of service. Recipient No. 5 (L.D.): L.D. was born on May 25, 1983. Petitioner saw the recipient for the first time on September 8, 1990. The recipient's height, weight, and blood pressure were recorded. The child had been sent home from school with inflammation in his eyes. The child's mother also reported that the child was hyperactive. A clinical examination was performed. No significant findings were made concerning the child's eyes. They were not observed to be inflamed. While attending the child, Petitioner did not observe any signs of hyperactivity. Nonetheless, an appointment was made for the child to be seen at the behavior clinic at Nemour's Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida. To perform the examination and observe the child's activities would take approximately 30 minutes. Petitioner billed the visit as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that the visit should be billed as an intermediate service. The proper billing for the visit is an intermediate level of service. Recipient No. 7 (T.R.): T.R. was born on September 9, 1984. On March 24, 1990, petitioner rendered services to T.R. The services were billed as an EPSDT screen. In particular, the child was brought to Petitioner to perform a school physical. The child's weight and height and blood pressure were taken and recorded. The child was examined physically and found to be normal. It was also noted that the child was a "healthy boy". On this visit a student health examination form was filled out but not maintained. A copy of that form was retrieved noting the date of examination and information about the physical examination, to include the results of an eye examination. The results of that eye examination are also shown in the Petitioner's medical records for T.R. No information is recorded in the health history portion to the student health examination form. The form notes that T.R. was a "healthy boy". Petitioner contends that the student health examination form, which was executed for T.R., sufficiently responds to the need to address all mandatory screens. The student health examination form is insufficient to meet the requirements for mandatory screens. Information was found in the records maintained by Petitioner related to circumstances at birth, family history, birth and development, feeding history, immunization and skin testing. Growth charts were also in evidence. Rather than completely deny Petitioner reimbursement, Respondent converted the visit to a limited service visit. Sufficient services were provided to justify payment as a limited service visit. On October 18, 1990, Petitioner provided medical services to T.R. At that time, the child's weight and height were taken. As reflected in the records, the child presented with an earache for the past two nights and a fever. A physical examination was performed on the child on this date. The ears were not found to be inflamed. The ears did have wax in them. The throat was inflamed. The child had a postnasal drip causing pressure in the ears, leading to an earache. The child was treated with antibiotics. Petitioner billed for the visit as an extended service. Respondent asserts that the billing should be as a limited level of service. The proper billing for this visit is a limited service. Petitioner saw T.R. on October 22, 1991. At that time, the child's weight and height were taken. He was being seen for a checkup. He was also having a problem holding his urine and had wet his bed the night before. A physical examination was made, with normal findings. The child was subject to a routine urinalysis to rule out bladder or kidney infection. There might be other explanations for the bed-wetting, to include nervousness. Upon examination, there were no obvious explanations for the problem. Petitioner billed for this visit as an extended level of service. Respondent asserts that the level of service was a limited visit. The proper billing for this visit was a limited level of service. Recipient No. 9 (A.N.): A.N. was born on April 27, 1987. Petitioner saw the recipient on February 23, 1990. A.N. was measured and weighed. The presenting complaint was congestion and a cough for a week. A physical examination was performed. His throat showed a little irritation but no inflammation. The nostrils appeared congested. No other significant findings were made concerning the child's condition. Petitioner prescribed medications for the cough and congestion. The child was also given vitamins. As in all cases discussed, the parent was informed of the findings and future treatment. Petitioner billed the visit as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that the service was a limited service. The proper billing for this visit was a limited level of service. On November 12, 1990, the child was provided medical services by Petitioner. The child was weighed and his height recorded. The presenting complaint was vomiting and diarrhea for six to seven days. A physical examination was performed. Some tinea infection was found on the skin. Medications were prescribed and the parent instructed concerning those medications as a means to address the vomiting and diarrhea. In addition, a prescription was given for a fungus infection on the face. The parent was instructed concerning the contagious nature of the fungus and its consequences. Petitioner billed this visit as an extended level. Respondent asserts that the service is an intermediate level. The proper billing for this visit is an intermediate level of service. On May 24, 1991, the child was seen by Petitioner for a school physical. The child was also seen for complaints that he had problems with bed- wetting and that his legs hurt. A school physical examination was performed. The child appeared to be healthy. Because the child complained of his legs hurting, Petitioner sent the child for laboratory work to rule out problems with anemia and to also examine his kidney function. A urine culture was also ordered for the child to rule out urinary tract infection. Petitioner filled out the student health examination form but did not maintain it for her records and has not retrieved it for hearing purposes. No other notations were made concerning the examinations for the school physical. Growth charts were maintained. Petitioner billed for an EPSDT screening. Petitioner did not bill for treatments associated with the physical complaints by the child. Respondent asserts that the billing should be for a limited service. For reasons described in discussing the screening for Recipient Number 7, as well as the unavailability of the student health examination form for audit purposes, the billing for an EPSDT screening should not be allowed. In this connection results from vision screening were not available. For reasons that Respondent had allowed a claim for a limited service in substitution for the EPSDT screening reimbursement; and based upon the services provided in addressing the physical complaints, the proper billing is for a limited service. Recipient No. 10 (K.L.): K.L. was born on November 13, 1986. Petitioner provided medical services to K.L. on March 18, 1991. The child was weighed and the height was recorded. In the visit it was indicated the child had been sent home last week from school with a fever. A physical examination was performed. The child was not especially cooperative and was difficult to examine. Significant findings in the examination were inflammation in the ears and throat. Petitioner prescribed antibiotics for the throat condition. Petitioner billed the visit as a comprehensive service. Respondents asserts that the service is an intermediate level. The proper billing is an intermediate level of service. Recipient No. 11 (R.H.): R.H. was born September 21, 1989. Petitioner saw R.H. on January 19, 1990. At that time, the child was weighed, her height and head circumference were also noted. The checkup that was being performed on R.H. was in the series envisioned by the EPSDT screening program. The physical examination conducted on the child indicated that this was a "healthy baby". The information that was recorded concerning the child's height and weight and head circumference was for purpose of charting her growth compared to the expected growth. A document was found with the child's records which related to information concerning her birth date, family history, early birth and development, and feeding history. Growth charts were maintained. The child was seen again on March 19, 1990 for a checkup and shots associated with the EPSDT program. The weight, height and head circumference were recorded. It was noted that the child was not sitting up yet. The physical examination was normal, notwithstanding the observation that the child was not yet sitting. Petitioner billed the January 19, 1990 and March 13, 1990 visits through the EPSDT screening program. Respondent asserts that the billings should not be allowed. The billings were deficient in that necessary information was not provided for the health and developmental history, vision screening, hearing screening, developmental assessments and nutritional assessment. For the January 19, 1990 and March 13, 1990 Respondent asserts that the proper reimbursement is as a limited level of service visit. That position is accepted. Petitioner provided medical services to R. H. on June 6, 1990. At that time there was a complaint concerning the child having diarrhea lasting a week. The diarrhea cleared up and then reoccurred on the date the visit was made. The child was also congested. The physical examination revealed an offensive odor and loose stool in the child's diaper. The chest revealed bilateral rales, meaning there was mucus present. The child had thoracobronchi. Her throat was inflamed. The mother was instructed to take a stool specimen to the laboratory. Medication was prescribed for diarrhea and instructions given concerning its use. The child was provided a bronchodialator. The child was given a cough congestion medication. There was a suspicion the child had bowel infection as well as upper respiratory infection. The visit was billed as an extended service. Respondent asserts that the proper classification is an intermediate service. The proper classification is an intermediate level of service. Recipient No. 12 (F.W.): F.W. was born on February 26, 1990. She was seen by Petitioner on April 17, 1990. At that time the child's weight, height and head circumference were noted. It was noted that the child was receiving a soy formula. The child seemed to have elephant ears. A mild diaper rash was observed, otherwise, the child's physical examination revealed normal results. It was noted that the child was born at University Hospital in Jacksonville and was overdue at birth; however, the child was "ok" at birth. The elephant ears would need treatment at a later date. Medication was prescribed for the diaper rash. The parent was told about the problems with the child's ears and the treatment for diaper rash. Petitioner billed this visit as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that the appropriate level of service was limited. The proper billing for the visit was a limited level of service. On May 11, 1990 the child was seen for an EPSDT checkup. The child's weight, height and head circumference were recorded. At that time the child was two months old. A physical examination was performed. It only revealed two lesions on the lower left abdomen which looked like infected bumps or possible scabies. An antibiotic cream was prescribed for this condition and its use was explained to the parent. A document in the records maintained by the Petitioner entitled, Patient History Chart, contains information about the child's date of birth, birth history, family history, nutritional history and illness history. The document describes developmental history at age 16 weeks. A growth chart was also maintained. On June 29, 1990, Petitioner saw the child again and weight, height and head circumference were noted. This was a routine check under the EPSDT program. It was noted that the child was doing well and that there was "no more spitting up". The physical examination revealed "an alert happy baby". There was some reference to the need to repeat a CBC study for blood count. The reason for repeating laboratory tests was based upon laboratory results received by Petitioner for laboratory work done on June 19, 1990. The parent was instructed to bring the child back for follow-up on July 30, 1990. That appointment was not kept. On August 20, 1990, the child was seen for a checkup and to fill out information for referral to the WIC program to qualify for participation in that program. There is a form which is utilized to apply for participation in the WIC program. It concerns an assessment of nutritional risk factors as a means to gain participation in the WIC program. Petitioner indicates that the form was filled out, but it was not maintained by Petitioner in her records. Thus it was not available for examination as part of the audit process involved in this case. On this date the physical examination revealed raised lateral lesions on the upper arm, abdomen and chest. These were reported to be mosquito bites. As noted the parent was advised to keep "an eye" on the condition for a week. It was noted that the physical examination did not reveal any other findings. Petitioner submitted bills under the EPSDT program for the visits on May 11, 1990, June 29, 1990 and August 20, 1990. Inadequate documentation was maintained to qualify for reimbursement for those charges for screens other than the physical examination. It is appropriate for Respondent to have paid for those visits as a limited level of service. On November 21, 1990, Petitioner provided medical services to F.W. The weight of the child was noted. The child presented as having a cold for 2 days. A physical examination was conducted. The throat was found to be inflamed, the nostrils evidence nasal congestion. A yeast diaper rash was found. Antibiotics were prescribed for her throat together with decongestion drops. This visit was billed as an intermediate level visit. Respondent asserted that the proper billing is as a limited level of service. The proper billing is as a limited service. The child was seen again on February 16, 1991. She came for the visit because she had a cold for 2 - 3 days. She was throwing up the formula which she was receiving. Upon physical examination the child was found to have "pus" on her throat surface. A strep screen was conducted and the results were positive. Antibiotics were prescribed together with a decongestant for cough and congestion. Petitioner billed this as an intermediate level service. Respondent asserts that the level of service is a limited level of service. The proper billing is as a limited level of service. On July 24, 1991, a further EPSDT visit was made, together with an examination for WIC qualification. The WIC referral form was not maintained for review. Upon the physical examination, the weight and height were recorded. The physical examination performed showed a mild diaper rash. Otherwise the child was found to be in acceptable health. The child was sent for a hemoglobin hematocrit for the purposes of the WIC qualification. The Petitioner billed this as a EPSDT screening. Petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement for that screening in that the records maintained were insufficient to document the assessment process other than the physical examination. It was appropriate for Respondent to reimburse this visit as a limited level of service. Recipient No. 13 (S.S.): S.S. was born on July 2, 1991. On July 5, 1991 Petitioner provided medical services to the child. The child's weight, length and head circumference were taken. The visit was the first checkup performed by Petitioner. The baby had been delivered at term through a normal delivery. The infant was found to have mild to moderate jaundice. Otherwise the physical examination did not reveal any significant findings. The cord clamp was removed. A test was ordered to determine the level of jaundice in the blood. The results of that test were recorded and discussed with the mother. It was noted that the mother was breast feeding the infant and using formula as well. This visit was billed as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that the service was an extended service. The proper billing for the visit was an extended level of service. On July 16, 1991 the baby was brought in for a checkup. The checkup was in accordance with the EPSDT screening program. The child's weight, length and head circumference were taken. A physical examination was made. At that time the child was on formula. It was noted that the weight gain for the child was good. Medication was prescribed for thrush. Thrush is a fungus growth inside the mouth of babies. Within the records maintained by Petitioner is a history and immunization document which reflects the date of birth and limited family history. Information related to the child's condition at birth is noted. In addition, there are growth charts. Given the child's age relating to birth, information contained in the records satisfies the requirement to document information gained in the screens that were conducted on July 16, 1991. Therefore, the EPSDT reimbursement claim should be allowed. Respondent has authorized payment for this visit as a limited service. That is an inappropriate payment for the visit. On August 2, 1991, a further visit was made. This visit was billed as an EPSDT screen. Petitioner believes that the visit was related to problems with the infant not tolerating her formula. This is born out by an office note which describes a change in the formula. That note also reflects the child's weight. The physical examination revealed normal circumstances with good weight gain. Petitioner conceded that the process engaged in addressing the child's needs on this visit might not have been done in the manner in which the July 16, 1991 examination was performed as to comprehensiveness. The August 2, 1991 visit which was billed as an EPSDT screen should not be paid for under that billing code. The emphasis placed in the care rendered by Petitioner does not correspond to the EPSDT screening process. The decision by Respondent to pay for this visit as a limited service is acceptable. On September 3, 1991 the child was brought in for a checkup and shots. The weight, height and head circumference were recorded. The physical examination was noted as normal and the child was described as "a healthy baby". This visit was billed under the EPSDT screening program. There is insufficient documentation to justify reimbursement as an EPSDT screening concerning all screens other than the physical examination. The decision by the Respondent to pay for this visit as a limited service visit is acceptable. On November 4, 1991, the child was seen for a checkup and shots. This visit was billed as an EPSDT screen. At the visit, the weight, height and head circumference were noted. The physical examination was noted as normal. As noted the child was cutting her lower incisors. It was noted that the baby was big for her age. There is insufficient documentation to justify reimbursing Petitioner under the EPSDT program for the visit on November 4, 1991. The decision by Respondent to pay for the visit as a limited service is acceptable. On December 11, 1991 the infant was seen again because she was experiencing a cough and runny nose. She was weighed and a physical exam was performed. It was noted that nostrils were irritated and the throat was irritated. It was noted that the child was drooling and teething. A decongestant was prescribed, together with nose drops and ear drops. This visit was billed as an intermediate service. Respondents asserts that the visit should be billed as a limited service. The proper billing for this visit is as a limited level of service. Recipient No. 14 (B.L.): B.L. was born on August 25, 1987. Petitioner provided medical services to the child on June 18, 1990. At the visit, the child's weight and height were taken. The presenting complaint was fever for 3 or 4 days and sand sores. The physical examination revealed that the child's tonsils were inflamed. Impetigo lesions were also found on the child's legs which corresponded to the description "sand sores". The child was provided an antibiotic by mouth and an antibiotic for the skin lesions. She was also provided vitamin drops. The oral antibiotic was given for inflamed tonsils. The infection on the skin and in the throat was possibly caused by the same process of infection. Explanation was provided to the parent concerning treatment of the impetigo. This visit was billed as an extended service. Respondent asserts that these visits should be reimbursed as an intermediate service. The proper billing for this service is as an intermediate level of service. The child was seen again on August 13, 1990. Her weight and height were recorded. On this visit the mother was worried about the child possibly being deaf. In addition, there was concern about the child being hyperactive based upon the child's discharge from day care for reason that the daycare staff could not control her. The physical examination revealed normal results. However the child was observed to be very hyperactive. The child was referred for a hearing examination and a short course of Ritalin was prescribed to address the hyperactivity. This visit was billed as an extended service. Respondent asserts that the visit should be billed as an intermediate service. The proper billing is as an intermediate level of service. On December 6, 1991, the child was seen again. Her weight and height were recorded. The presenting complaint was a fever since yesterday and a bad cough. Upon physical examination the throat and tonsils were found to be inflamed. A strep screen was performed and the results were negative. Antibiotics were prescribed for the inflammation of the throat and tonsils. A decongestant cough medicine was prescribed. Medication was prescribed for the fever. Petitioner billed this visit as an intermediate service. Respondent asserts that it should be reimbursed as a limited service. The proper billing is as a limited level of service. Recipient No. 15 (D.T.): D.T. was born on November 27, 1990. On December 1, 1990, Petitioner provided services to D.T. This was the first visit for the infant. The weight, height and head circumference were taken. As reported, things went well at birth. The mother was breast feeding the child. Upon physical examination the child was found to be mildly jaundiced Inquiry was made concerning the blood group for the mother and infant. The results did not to prove to be significant. The clamp was removed from the cord. Information was maintained concerning the family history, birth and development and feeding history. This information was recorded on a sheet which related the date of birth that had been mentioned and had space provided for information concerning immunizations. This visit was billed as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that it should have been billed as an intermediate service. The proper billing is as an intermediate level of service. On December 11, 1990, the infant was seen again for a checkup. This visit was billed through the EPSDT screening program. The weight, height and head circumference were recorded. It was noted that the mother was still breast feeding the child. It was noted that the child had good weight gain. It was noted that the infant was a "healthy baby". Vitamins were given to the mother in view of her breast feeding. Given the child's age in proximity to birth the documentation provided justifies reimbursement as an EPSDT screening. The decision by the Respondent to reimburse as a limited service was unacceptable. On February 11, 1991, the infant was seen again for a checkup. The basis for the checkup was related to the EPSDT screening program. The weight, height and head circumference were recorded. The mother was still breast feeding the infant. The physical examination revealed that the eyes were matting. Otherwise, the examination revealed no significant findings. Eye drops were prescribed for the problem with the eyes. A growth chart was maintained. The visit was billed as a EPSDT service. That billing is not justified in the documentation was not maintained related to developmental assessment, vision screening, and hearing screening. The decision by Respondent to pay for the services as a limited service is acceptable. Recipient No. 16 (J.M.): J.M. was born on February 13, 1990. On May 26, 1990, Petitioner provided medical services to J.M. At that time the weight, height and head circumference were recorded. The child was experiencing bleeding from his circumcision. The child also had a cold. The circumcision was checked by Petitioner. It appeared well healed with no bleeding. Petitioner prescribed antibiotic cream for the condition. The left eye was found to be crusty upon physical examination. Neosporin was administered for the eye. Nasal congestion drops were provided. This visit was billed as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that the service was an intermediate service. The proper billing for this for the visit is an intermediate level of service. Recipient No. 17 (T.V.): T.V. was born on June 23, 1979. Petitioner provided medical services to T.V. on December 18, 1990. This was a visit following hospitalization for acute asthma. It was reported that the child was still having an occasional cough. A physical examination was performed. The mother was instructed concerning the need to continue Ventalin tablets as a bronchial dilator for asthma. Medication was prescribed for the cough. This visit was billed as an extended service. Respondent asserts that the visit was a limited service. The proper billing is as a limited level of service. On October 14, 1991 the child was seen for a school physical. This was billed as an EPSDT screening. At the time the child was seen the blood pressure was recorded. A student health form was filled out, but not maintained in Petitioner's records. At this visit it was reported that the child was having an acute asthma attack for the last 2 or 3 days with symptoms being worse at night. Following the physical examination, Petitioner determined to prescribe Ventalin and cough medicine to address the asthma. Petitioner billed this service as an EPSDT screen. Inadequate documentation was maintained to justify reimbursement as an EPSDT screen other than the physical examination. Respondent's decision to reimburse the visit as a limited level of service is acceptable. Recipient No. 18 (B.K.): B.K. was born on March 23, 1989. On November 22, 1991, Petitioner provided medical services to B.K. The presenting complaints were a cold and ear ache, off and on for a period of 2 months. The child was weighed and measured. The physical examination revealed that the throat was inflamed and the nasal mucus membrane was inflamed. A prescription was given to addresses the child's condition. The visit was billed as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that the visit was an intermediate service. The proper billing is as an intermediate level of service. Recipient No. 19 (T.S.): T.S. was born on July 16, 1989. On January 19, 1990, the child was seen for a checkup. This visit was treated as an EPSDT screening. The infant was still on formula. The physical examination revealed no significant findings. The child was described as "healthy baby". It was noted that the child was not sitting up yet. The records contain a document with information related to the date of birth, family history, birth and development information when the child was born and feeding history. Petitioner's records also contain growth charts. The bill for EPSDT screening should not be paid based upon the failure to maintain the records justifying the request, other than the physical examination. The Respondent's choice to reimburse the visit as a limited service is acceptable. On April 23, 1990 the child was seen for a further checkup. This visit was billed under the EPSDT screening. The growth charts that have been described revealed that the child was "under the curve". The chart had been plotted more frequently because the baby had been born premature. On this visit the child was weighed, his height and head circumference were noted. The formula he was receiving was noted. The physical examination was normal. It was noted that the child was a "healthy baby". It was noted that the child would take weight on his feet and was playful. The request to reimburse for this visit as an EPSDT screening is not appropriate in that inadequate records were maintained to justify that billing for the mandated screens, other than the physical examination. The decision by Respondent to pay for this visit as a limited service is acceptable. On May 7, 1990 the child was seen. The presenting complaint was a cold, and his nose would bleed when wiped. During the physical examination the nostrils were checked and found to be irritated but no bleeding was noted. The child's throat was inflamed. Antibiotics was prescribed for the inflamed throat and a decongestant was prescribed for cough. This visit was billed as an intermediate service. Respondent asserts that it was a limited service. The proper billing is a limited level of service. On June 25, 1990, the child was seen for a checkup. The visit was billed as an EPSDT screen. When the child was seen the height, weight and head circumference were recorded. The physical examination revealed normal findings with the exception that it was noted that the child had "not gained adequate weight". A blood test was made. A TB test was administered. These tests were noted in the office notes. The TB test was also noted in the immunization record. The billing as an EPSDT screen is unacceptable based upon inadequate documentation maintained to justify the billing, other than the physical examination. Respondent's decision to reimburse Petitioner for a limited service is acceptable. On October 15, 1990, the child was seen for a checkup. The weight, height and head circumference were recorded. The physical examination showed that the left ear was inflamed. Otherwise no findings were made. The child was described as a "healthy baby". An antibiotic was prescribed for the ear infection as noted. The visit was billed as a EPSDT screen. Inadequate documentation was maintained to justify the billing as an EPSDT screens, other than the physical examination. Respondent's decision to reimburse the visit as a limited service is acceptable. On January 15, 1991, the child was seen for a checkup and shots. The weight, height and head circumference were recorded. Upon physical examination, the left ear was noted to be inflamed, "mild to moderate". Otherwise the examination was normal. This visit was billed as an EPSDT screen. Inadequate records were maintained to justify reimbursement for the mandated EPSDT screens, other than the physical examination. Respondent's decision to reimburse the visit as a limited service is acceptable. Recipient No. 21 (M.C.): M.C. was born on January 17, 1985. On February 2, 1990, Petitioner provided medical services to M.C. The child was weighed and measured. The child was seen because she had been coughing a lot off and on. When the physical examination was made her ears were found inflamed. She had rales in her right chest with poor air expansion of the lung. The left chest showed bronchial breathing which indicated that there was not full expansion when breathing. The child was sent for an x-ray to rule out the presence of pneumonia. The child was prescribed an antibiotic and cough medication and a ventalin elixir to assist in breathing and to open the airways. The antibiotic was for the problem with the ear. Petitioner explained the child's condition to the mother. This visit was billed as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that the service was an intermediate service. The proper billing is as an intermediate level of service. On February 6, 1990, the child was seen again as a follow-up. The ears were improved. The throat had improved. The chest still showed bronchial breathing and bilateral wheezing. Therefore, the condition had not completely cleared up. Consequently, the antibiotic was changed. This visit was billed as an extended service. Respondent asserts that it was an intermediate service. The proper billing was as an intermediate level of service. The child had been seen in the emergency room on March 11, 1990 for problems with strep throat. On March 16, 1990 Petitioner provided medical services to the child as a follow-up to the condition observed in the emergency room. At the office visit the mother reported that she had difficulty giving the antibiotic to the child orally. Petitioner observed that the throat appeared improved, but some blisters still were present. Because the child would not take the oral medication Petitioner gave the child an inter-muscular injection of penicillin. This visit was billed as an intermediate level service. Respondent asserts that the service is a limited service. That proper billing for the service is as a limited level of service. The child was seen on July 13, 1990. At that time her height and weight were taken. Her presenting complaint was a cough. The child's throat appeared inflamed. Otherwise the physical findings were unremarkable. The child was given an antibiotic to treat the throat condition as well as a decongestant for the cough. This visit was billed as an intermediate service. Respondent asserts that the service was a limited service. The proper billing was as a limited level of service. The child was seen on November 12, 1990. Her height and weight were recorded. The basis for the visit was a reported cough. The physical examination revealed mild inflammation in her throat. Otherwise the findings were unremarkable. The child was given a decongestant and cough medicine. Petitioner billed this visit as an intermediate service. Respondent asserts that it was a limited service. The proper billing is as a limited level of service. Recipient No. 25 (L.N.): L.N. was born on November 19, 1985. On October 15, 1991, Petitioner provided medical services to the child. The weight, height and blood pressure were recorded. The child presented with a complaint of a sore throat for 2 - 3 days with a fever. When the physical examination was made the throat was found to be inflamed, the tonsils were inflamed and enlarged. The nostrils were congested. A strep screen was performed and found to be negative. Because the throat was quite inflamed and lymph nodes were swollen, indicating severe infection unrelated to strep, a prescription for penicillin was prescribed. This visit was billed as an extended service. Respondent asserts that the service was a limited service. The proper billing was as a limited level of service. The child was seen on December 9, 1991, the presenting complaint was a fever the day before. There was no report of sore throat or cough. Upon the physical examination the tonsils were found to be inflamed, the lymph nodes were markedly enlarged. A strep screen was performed. On this occasion it proved positive. The patient was prescribed an antibiotic. Petitioner billed this visit as an extended service. Respondent asserts that the visit was a limited service. The proper billing was as a limited level service. On December 23, 1991, the child was seen by Petitioner. At this time a complaint was a fever of 24 hours duration with a cough. The tonsils were inflamed. Petitioner prescribed an antibiotic and cough medicine. Petitioner billed for the visit as an intermediate service. Respondent asserts that it was a limited service. The proper billing was as a limited level of service. Recipient No. 26 (Baby Boy T): Baby Boy T was born July 31, 1991. On December 23, 1991 the child was seen for a check up and shots. This visit was an EPSDT screen. The weight, height and head circumference were recorded. A physical examination was conducted. This child had been born premature, at thirty-five weeks gestation. A document concerning the birth, family history and feeding history was maintained. It spoke of the child's condition within the first week. The child had weighed 5 pounds 11 ounces when born. Separate from the document recording birth information, family history, early birth and development, and early feeding history, Petitioner recorded that on December 23, 1991 that the examination was normal with the exception that the child had gained weight, but still not sufficient weight since birth. Another abnormality was a hernia. The child was referred for surgery to address the hernia. A growth chart was maintained in the Petitioner's records. Petitioner billed this visit as an EPSDT screen. Petitioner did not maintain sufficient records to justify payment for the mandated screens, other than the physical examination. Respondent's decision to pay for this visit as a limited service is acceptable. Recipient No. 29 (M.M.): M.M. was born on September 17, 1986. On December 2, 1991, Petitioner provided medical services to M.M. On that date the child's temperature, weight and height were recorded. The presenting complaint was a fever, an earache. A physical examination revealed wax in the ears. The throat and tonsils were inflamed. A strep screen was performed and found to be negative. The child was prescribed an antibiotic for the inflammation and a medication for possible fever. Petitioner billed for this visit as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that it is an intermediate service. The proper billing as an intermediate level of service. Recipient No. 30 (R.C.): R.C. was born on March 26, 1970. On August 8, 1990, Petitioner provided medical services to R.C. The reason for seeing R.C. was to perform a college physical. The recipient was blind. She was weighed, her height recorded and blood pressure taken. The physical examination was normal, except for her blindness. During the visit R.C. reported that she had been having headaches behind her eyes. MMR immunization was given to assist in meeting college entry requirements. R.C. was sent to a laboratory for CBC and Differential SMA-25. Petitioner billed this visit as a comprehensive service. Respondent asserts that it was an intermediate service. The proper billing was as an intermediate level of service.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered confirming the alleged overpayments described, subject to the adjustments. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1996.
The Issue Whether Winter Haven Hospital should be authorized for a Level II, neonatal intensive care service with 11 beds via the final inventory of NICU beds for District VI, to be published by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Whether Lakeland Regional Medical Center should be authorized for more than 14 Level II beds in the same final inventory. Whether University Community Hospital established its right to challenge the number of Level II NICU beds to be authorized for either hospital.
Findings Of Fact Description of the Parties Winter Haven is a 579-bed general hospital in Winter Haven, Florida. Since 1987, it has been authorized to operate 475 acute care, 80 short term psychiatric and 24 comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds. Lakeland is an 897-bed general hospital in Lakeland, Florida. Its licensed bed complement includes the following: 805 acute care, 54 psychiatric short term and 38 substance abuse short term beds. University is a 404-bed acute care hospital in Tampa, Florida. University is seeking a certificate of need for a 10-bed Level II NICU at its facility. In order to obtain the license, University proposes to convert 10 of its existing medical-surgical beds to a 10-bed NICU. HRS is the state agency charged with the duty of regulating tertiary services, including neonatal intensive care. The provision of Level II NICU services in HRS District VI is the subject of this proceeding. All three hospitals are located in the district. University's Standing to Intervene University does not have a program to provide neonatal intensive care services at the present time. However, as part of the hospital's long-range planning goals, it intends to develop a Women's Center, which will include a 10- bed Level II NICU. University applied for the Level II NICU service in the batching cycle of 1990, prior to the effective date of the NICU rule. At the close of evidence on April 15, 1991, the outcome of the application was still pending. Additionally, University filed a Letter of Intent and an application for a 10- bed Level II NICU in the first batching cycle of 1991. That application was also still pending during the evidentiary portion of these proceedings. University's attempt to secure a certificate of need for NICU beds are directly impacted by the number of NICU beds reacknowledged and validated in the District VI inventory of "grandfathered" NICU beds. The number of beds ultimately established by the inventory will directly affect the fixed need pool to be applied to all subsequent certificate of need batching cycles. The NICU Rule The NICU Rule promulgated by HRS went into effect on August 6, 1990. The preliminary inventory of authorized Level II and Level III providers in District VI was published August 24, 1990. According to this inventory, Lakeland was authorized to have 11 Level II NICU beds and Winter Haven was not allocated any Level II beds on the initial preliminary inventory. Winter Haven's Inclusion in a Revised Preliminary Inventory Published September 12, 1990 When the preliminary inventory of Level II NICU beds was published, Winter Haven advised HRS that it had been excluded. Documentation was transmitted to the agency to support Winter Haven's contention that it has continuously developed and now has a operating Level II neonatal intensive care unit based upon past authorization from the agency. The documentation supplied by Winter Haven included past authorizations from the agency, which were relied upon by the hospital before expenditures were made on construction of the NICU and the unit created, and before a personal service contract was entered into for a hospital-based neonatologist in April 1988. Reliance on the agency's approval of the expansion project began on July 9, 1985, and was continuously relied upon throughout the development and establishment of these services at Winter Haven. When the documentation was reviewed by HRS, the decision was made to amend the preliminary inventory to include 11 NICU beds at this hospital. The revised preliminary inventory that included these beds was published on September 12, 1990. HRS decided 11 was the appropriate number of Level II beds to place on the inventory for Winter Haven as the approved construction plans show an isolation room of four beds and a continuing care room with seven beds. The beds in these rooms were described on the plan as "neonatal intensive care centers" and "intensive care bassinets." During the approval period, the square footage for each bed satisfied the draft rules that proposed fifty square feet per each Level II NICU bed. The decision to include Winter Haven on the revised preliminary inventory does not comport with the grandfathering provisions of the NICU Rule. Winter Haven does not meet the threshold requirements specified in sub- subparagraphs 14.a, 14.b or 14.f of the rule deems necessary for grandfathering to occur. During the years in which the NICU Rule was created, HRS did not consider the possibility that some hospitals might have progressed in the development stage of Level II NICU beds to such a level that the promulgated rule would contradict prior agency approvals reasonably relied upon by these hospitals. Before Winter Haven's beds were placed on the revised preliminary inventory, HRS permitted Alachua General Hospital's Level II NICU beds to be placed on the inventory based upon a CON exemption letter and construction plans approved prior to October 1, 1987. There have been no challenges to this decision, therefore, Alachua General can continue these services without a certificate of need as a grandfathered facility. Like Winter Haven, Alachua General did not comport with the grandfathering provisions of the NICU Rule. The decision to place Level II beds on the inventory was based on the approval of construction plans obtained through the licensure process at HRS in effect prior to October 1, 1987. HRS created the construction plans exception to the rule to acknowledge pre-existing bed authorizations not covered by the NICU Rule. Lakeland's Increase to 16 Level II Beds in the Revised Preliminary Inventory Published October 12, 1990 Lakeland was issued a CON exemption by HRS for 16 "Level II neonatal intensive care beds" in a letter dated March 12, 1985. This letter allowed Lakeland to re-designate 16 medical/surgical beds as Level II neonatal intensive care beds. On May 20, 1986, HRS approved Lakeland's construction plans for a 14- bed, Level II NICU. Lakeland did not rely on its opportunity to re-designate all 16 beds as Level II NICU beds when it established its NICU pursuant to the CON exemption. Lakeland was providing Level II NICU services prior to October 1, 1987, and continuously since then under the direction of a neonatologist or group of neonatologists, who were providing 24-hour coverage and who were either board-certified or board-eligible in neonatal-perinatal medicine as the various terms are defined in the NICU Rule. In its 1989 Neonatal Intensive Care Survey response to HRS, Lakeland erroneously underreported its Level II patient days from October 1, 1987 through September 20, 1988. The number reported was different than the 4,412 Level II neonatal intensive care services patient days reported separately to the Hospital Cost Containment Board for the same period, based upon audited data. A third review of the data revealed Lakeland provided, 4,414 Level II patient days in 1987-1988 reporting period for the 1989 survey. Pursuant to the formula set forth in sub-subparagraph 14.c of the NICU Rule, Lakeland should be authorized for 15 Level II beds on the final inventory which lists the established NICU beds that meet the grandfathering provisions of the rule. The inclusion of 16 Level II NICU beds on the revised preliminary inventory published October 12, 1990, went beyond the bed numbers allowed by rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended: A Final Order be entered which excludes Winter Haven from the inventory which lists authorized neonatal intensive care services based on the provisions of sub-subparagraphs 14.a. through 14.g. of the NICU Rule. A Final Order be entered reducing Lakeland's inventory to 15 Level II NICU beds. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 90-7682 and 90-7683 Lakeland Regional Medical Center's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #8, #11, #17 and #22. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. First two sentences accepted. The rest of the paragraph is rejected. Argumentative. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to law. See Conclusions of Law. Accept the first two sentences. Reject the next sentence. Speculative. The next two sentences accepted. The last sentence is rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accept first three sentences. See HO #10. Reject fourth sentence. Incompetent legal conclusion. 21. Rejected. Irrelevant. 22. Rejected. Speculative. 23. Accepted. 24. Accepted. 25. Accepted. 26. Accepted. 27. Accepted. 28. Rejected. Cumulative. 29. Rejected. Irrelevant. 30. Rejected. Irrelevant. 31. Rejected. Irrelevant. 32. Accepted. 33. Rejected. Cumulative. 34. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. 35. Accepted. See HO #12. 36. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 37. Rejected. Irrelevant. 38. Rejected. Improper summary of testimony. Irrelevant. 39. Accepted. 40. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 41. Rejected. Irrelevant. 42. Accept all but last sentence which is a distinction without substance. See HO #12, #15 and #16. 43. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 44. Accepted. 45A. Accepted. 45B. Accepted. 45C. Accepted. 45D. Accepted. 45E. Accepted. 45F. Rejected. Irrelevant. 46A. Accepted. 46B. Rejected. Irrelevant. 47. Rejected. Not evidence. Rejected. Irrelevant to resolution of material fact dispute. Accepted. See HO #17 and #19. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. See HO #21. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #12 and Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #12 and #22. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accept all but last sentence. See HO #16. The last sentence is improper Conclusion of Law. Winter Haven Hospital's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected under current definition. Accepted to the extent the room provided many aspects of Level II care. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15 and #16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #18. Accepted. See HO #21. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. See HO #23 - #26. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7. Accepted. Rejected. Incorrect legal conclusion. Accepted. Rejected. Insufficient foundation provided for the opinion to assist Hearing Officer as to weight and sufficiency. Accepted. Accepted. University Community Hospital's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #12 and #22. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6 and #7. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. This opinion was rejected by the Hearing Officer as an improper legal conclusion. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Rejected. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire PARKER HUDSON RAINES & DOBBS 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 John M. Knight, Esquire PARKER HUDSON RAINES & DOBBS 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire CARLTON FIELDS WARD EMMANUEL SMITH & CUTLER, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street - Suite 410 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
