The Issue The ultimate issue in these cases is whether the Petitioners are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Health Care Cost Containment Board pursuant to Chapter 407, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact La Amistad. Standing. By letter dated April 27, 1990, to the Executive Director of the Board, the managing director of La Amistad requested "exemption from HCCCB reporting requirements due to its considerable likeness to Daniel Memorial Hospital, which was exempted in October, 1989." La Amistad's request for exemption was premised on the Board's Final Order in Daniel Memorial Hospital v. Health Care Cost Containment Board, DOAH Case No. 89-1839H, in which Daniel Memorial Hospital was determined by the Board to not be subject to the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. By letter dated July 25, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed La Amistad that La Amistad's "request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied." The Board informed La Amistad that it could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if La Amistad wished to contest the Board's denial of its request. La Amistad filed a Petition for Formal Hearing dated August 15, 1990, challenging the Board's notice that La Amistad was subject to the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. La Amistad's Petition for Formal Hearing alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact in this matter. Therefore, the Board filed La Amistad's Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 1990, for a formal administrative hearing. There is no provision in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, which allows persons to request an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, or authorizes the Board to declare any person to be "exempt" from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board had taken or planned to take any immediate action against La Amistad prior to its request for exemption. La Amistad has failed to prove that it has standing to institute the instant proceeding. Certificate of Need. La Amistad Foundation, Inc., the predecessor of La Amistad, was issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), certificate of need number 3064 to operate a 27-bed intensive residential treatment facility for children and adolescents in Maitland, Florida. In agreeing to issue certificate of need number 3064, the Department required La Amistad Foundation, Inc., to apply for licensure of its facility pursuant to the requirements of Rule 10D-28.100, et seq., Florida Administrative Code. A certificate of need is a prerequisite to licensure as a health care facility in Florida. The certificate of need issued to La Amistad and the stipulation upon which it was based do not expressly provide that the facility is a "specialty hospital" or otherwise state that it is a "hospital" under Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes. Licensure. On August 17, 1988, La Amistad Foundation, Inc., d/b/a La Amistad Psychiatric Treatment Center, was issued a license by the Department to "operate a SPECIAL PSYCHIATRIC hospital with 27 beds." On September 30, 1988, the license issued on August 17, 1988, was replaced by a license to La Amistad to "operate a INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT hospital with 27 beds." On August 17, 1990, the license issued on September 30, 1988, was replaced by a license to La Amistad to "operate a INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT-SPECIALTY hospital with 27 INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY beds." La Amistad operates and is surveyed by the Department, the agency responsible for licensing health care facilities in Florida, pursuant to Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. La Amistad's Location and Facilities. La Amistad's facility is located in a residential neighborhood at 201 Alpine Drive, Maitland, Florida. The facility provides a noninstitutional, residential setting and environment. Residents at La Amistad live in one of three small single-story buildings in a family-style atmosphere. The grounds of the facility include a play area and a multipurpose building which is used for recreational activities and therapy. Residents live in individual rooms which do not contain standard hospital equipment. La Amistad's facility does not include any seclusion rooms, restraints, treatment or procedure rooms that are required of general acute care or specialty psychiatric hospitals. There are no locked doors at La Amistad but residents are prohibited from leaving the facility without permission. La Amistad's facility does not have designated areas for diagnostic x- ray, clinical laboratory, surgery or obstetrical services. La Amistad's Residents. Residents at La Amistad are six to eighteen years of age. Residents suffer from a full range of psychiatric illnesses and disorders. The average length of stay at La Amistad is 221 days to one year. Ninety-five percent of the residents of La Amistad are referred from acute care specialty psychiatric or general hospitals. The payer mix at La Amistad is approximately 55% CHAMPUS (a government payer program), 25% from the Department and 25% nongovernment or private insurance. CHAMPUS payments to La Amistad include payments for all services whether provided by La Amistad or by referral. La Amistad's Staff. The full-time staff of La Amistad consists of mental health workers or psychiatric assistants, mental health counselors, registered nurses, marriage and family therapists, occupational therapists and recreational therapists. There is no physician "directly" employed on La Amistad's payroll. La Amistad has four psychiatrists, including a medical director, on its staff. They are independent contractors. Services Provided Directly to Residents. La Amistad provides diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illnesses and disorders to children and adolescents. Treatment of La Amistad residents is definitive psychiatric medical treatment. Psychiatry is a medical specialty and psychiatric treatment is a form of medical treatment. La Amistad is an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents. All residents at La Amistad are admitted only with a psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis of a psychiatric illness or disorder by a psychiatrist. Admitting diagnoses, which are determined by the admitting psychiatrists, run the full range of psychiatric illnesses and disorders. La Amistad does not treat "acutely or extremely suicidal" persons. Although direct psychiatric therapy is not regularly provided by a physician, psychiatric therapy is in fact provided by physicians and through a multi-disciplinary treatment team, which includes the psychiatrist. A psychiatrist is available to provide services twenty-four hours a day. A psychiatrist is ultimately responsible for each resident's care and treatment. Only a psychiatrist may admit or diagnose a resident, prescribe medication, monitor medication and determine when to discharge a resident. The only psychiatrists who can admit to La Amistad are the four independent contractor psychiatrists on La Amistad's staff. Psychiatrists regularly review medical and clinical records of residents at La Amistad to insure proper treatment. Treatment of residents may include the prescription of psychotropic medications, group therapy, recreational therapy and/or occupational therapy. Medications prescribed for residents are dispensed by a nurse, normally at the nurses' station. La Amistad complies with the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. La Amistad residents attend public schools. The Orange County public school system provides a fully-accredited educational program on-site. La Amistad provides the services referenced in Section 395.002(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Other Services. La Amistad does not provide clinical laboratory services on its premises. Although clinical laboratory services are not actually needed on a frequent basis, such services are ordered when necessary by an attending physician and are available through an agreement with an outside provider which provides such services pursuant to an agreement bid on a national basis by La Amistad's parent organization. Samples for clinical laboratory analysis, including blood samples, are collected on the premises. La Amistad does not provide x-ray services on its premises. Although x-ray services are not actually needed on a frequent basis, diagnostic x-ray services are available through a letter of agreement with Florida Hospital, an acute care hospital. La Amistad does not provide treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care. No person in need of obstetric services or in need of acute care services normally provided at a general or special acute care hospital, or having a primary diagnosis of drug or chemical dependency or suffering from an acute psychiatric disorder is eligible for residency at La Amistad. La Amistad does not have a pharmacy on its premises or a license to fill prescriptions. La Amistad provides pharmacy services through a "working relationship" with a local pharmacy in Winter Park, Florida, to fill residents' prescriptions. La Amistad provides dental treatment and routine and emergency medical treatment to residents through agreements with outside providers. Emergency medical services for residents are available pursuant to a letter agreement with Florida Hospital. Ultimate responsibility for deciding where a resident of La Amistad receives clinical laboratory services, x-ray services or pharmacy services remains with the parents of residents. If a parent does not exercise his or her right and the services are necessary, La Amistad will insure that the services are provided. Payment for such services are made directly from parents or insurance companies for some residents. The referral agreements between La Amistad and providers do not require that La Amistad make referrals exclusively to that provider. Pediatric diagnostic and treatment services are not regularly made available by La Amistad. Referrals for such services are made by the residents' attending physicians or parents. Accreditation. La Amistad is accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (hereinafter referred to as "JCAHO"). La Amistad is accredited and surveyed under JCAHO's consolidated standards. JCAHO's consolidated standards are "designed for use by organizations that provide mental health services, alcohol and drug abuse services, and services to mentally retarded/developmentally disabled persons, and in a variety of settings, including forensic facilities and community mental health centers. " Among the eligibility criteria for survey under the consolidation standards is the following: [t]he organization is not eligible for survey as a hospital under the Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, what constitutes a "hospital" for JCAHO purposes. Additionally, the eligibility criteria under the consolidated standards indicate that an entity which qualifies under the consolidation standards may still constitute a hospital even for JCAHO purposes. The standards provide, in pertinent part, that "the accreditation process is intended primarily for the following types of organizations . . . : . . . Hospitals not eligible for survey under the Accreditation Manual for Hospitals . . . ." [Emphasis added]. Manatee Palms. Standing. By letter dated March 29, 1990, to the Executive Director of the Board, counsel for Manatee Palms requested that a determination be made by the Board that Manatee Palms was "not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the HCCCB except for those reporting requirements found in Sections 407.07(1)(b) and 407.13, Florida Statutes, and therefore need not file any budget or actual reports from this point forwards." Manatee Palms' request for exemption was premised on the Board's Final Order in Daniel Memorial. By letter dated July 25, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed Manatee Palms that its "request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied." The Board informed Manatee Palms that it could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if Manatee Palms wished to contest the Board's denial of its request. Manatee Palms filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing dated August 15, 1990, challenging the Board's notice that Manatee Palms was subject to the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. Manatee Palms' Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact in this matter. Therefore, the Board filed Manatee Palms' Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 1990, for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. There is no provision in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, which allows persons to request an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, or authorizes the Board to declare any person to be "exempt" from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board had taken or planned to take any immediate action against Manatee Palms prior to its request for exemption. Manatee Palms has failed to prove that it has standing to institute the instant proceeding. Certificate of Need. Manatee Palms was built in 1986. It opened on or about January 12, 1987, as a 60-bed residential treatment facility for children and adolescents. Manatee Palms was built and opened without obtaining a certificate of need from the Department. Subsequent to its opening, Manatee Palms filed an application for a certificate of need which was issued by the Department on November 29, 1988, for "licensure as a specialty hospital under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, for a 60-bed intensive residential treatment center for children and adolescents, currently operating as Manatee Palms Residential Treatment Center " Licensure. Manatee Palms was initially licensed by the Department as a "residential child caring" facility and by the Department's Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program office to provide services. In January 1989, Manatee Palms filed an application for licensure with the Department. There was not a category for intensive residential treatment program under the column titled "hospital bed utilization" on the application. Therefore, the initials "IRTF" were hand written on the application with a notation that all 60 beds are used in an intensive residential treatment program. On October 25, 1989, a license was issued by the Department to Manatee Palms "to operate a Intensive Residential Treatment Facility - Specialty hospital with 60 IRTF beds." Manatee Palms is currently operating under this license. Manatee Palms operates and is surveyed by the Department pursuant to Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. Manatee Palms' Location and Facilities. Manatee Palms is located at 1324 37th Avenue, East, Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida. The Manatee Palms facility consists of a single building. Patients at Manatee Palms reside in semiprivate rooms. Manatee Palms' facility is a locked facility. Patients at Manatee Palms cannot leave the facility without permission because of the locked doors. Manatee Palms has seclusion and restraint capabilities because of the type of patients cared for at the facility: "some very, very severely emotionally disturbed children, some of which have come even from the state hospitals." Transcript page 181, lines 20-21. Detoxification facilities for the treatment of substance abuse patients are available at the facility. Manatee Palms' Patients. Patients are six to eighteen years of age. Patients suffer from chemical dependencies and a wide range of psychiatric disorders. Some patients have failed at other facilities and are very aggressive. The average length of stay at Manatee Palms is 97 days. Most of Manatee Palms' patients are referred from other facilities: "[w]e get some kids from other hospitals, acute care hospitals. We get some from therapists in the communities . . . ." Transcript page 180, lines 5-6. Manatee Palms' patients are physically healthy. Manatee Palms' Staff. Manatee Palms' staff consists of psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. There are six psychiatrists who provide treatment planning and care at Manatee Palms. Services Provided Directly to Patients. Manatee Palms provides diagnosis and twenty-four hour a day treatment of psychiatric illnesses and disorders to children and adolescents. Manatee Palms is an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents. A psychiatrist must approve every admission to Manatee Palms. Patients are admitted only upon an order of a medical doctor and upon a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. Although the facility administrator must ultimately decide whether a patient is admitted, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the facility administrator may veto or modify the medical decision of a psychiatrist to admit a patient. Within twenty-four hours of admission, a psychiatrist completes a psychiatric evaluation of each patient. Psychiatric care is provided to patients through an interdisciplinary team composed of a psychiatrist, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. The team identifies each patient's problems and develops a treatment plan for each patient. A psychiatrist meets with each patient for approximately one-half to one hour a week; more if required by a patient. The psychiatrist also meets with the treatment team once a week to evaluate a patient's progress and adjust treatment as needed. The multi-disciplinary team provides care and nurturing in a group setting designed to enhance the patient's experiences in the areas in which he or she is not successful. Treatment includes counseling, psychotropic medications, adjunctive therapies and schooling. Most patients attend school at the facility. School is conducted by teachers from the Manatee County School Board. Patients at Manatee Palms are considered to be in treatment from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed at night. A psychiatrist prescribes and monitors the use of psychotropic medications. Such medications are administered at the facility by a nurse. Registered nurses are at the facility twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A psychiatrist is always on call to deal with emergencies. Manatee Palms is able to provide detoxification treatment for patients. Manatee Palms complies with the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. Manatee Palms provides the services referenced in Section 395.002(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Other Services. Manatee Palms does not provide clinical laboratory services on its premises. Blood and urine samples are, however, taken by Manatee Palms personnel upon admission and from time to time after admission upon a physician's orders. Clinical laboratory services are available through an agreement with a non- affiliated laboratory. Manatee Palms provides diagnostic x-ray services through an agreement with Quality X-Ray of Sarasota, Inc., a non-affiliated provider. X-ray services are typically provided off-site but are also provided at Manatee Palms' facility through portable equipment. Manatee Palms does not provide treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care at its facility. Manatee Palms has a contract with a pharmacist. The pharmacist fills prescriptions at the facility. Emergency medical services are provided off-site to patients through Manatee Memorial Hospital, a non-affiliated hospital. Manatee Palms has a referral agreement with the hospital. Manatee Palms has an agreement with a group of family practice physicians. These physicians conduct physicals upon admission of a patient and when medically indicated. Manatee Palms projected in a 1990 budget filed with the Board that it would have the following approximate revenues: a. $108,000.00 from laboratory services; b. $350,000.00 from drug sales; and c. $17,000.00 from diagnostic radiology services. Manatee Palms also projected in the 1990 budget the following approximate expenditures: a. $50,000.00 for laboratory services; b. $61,000.00 for drug sales; and c. $16,000.00 from diagnostic radiology services. I. Accreditation. Manatee Palms is accredited by JCAHO. Manatee Palms is accredited and surveyed under JCAHO's consolidated standards. RTCPB. Standing. By letter dated March 29, 1990, to the Executive Director of the Board, counsel for RTCPB requested that a determination be made by the Board that RTCPB was "not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the HCCCB except for those reporting requirements found in Sections 407.07(1)(b) and 407.13, Florida Statutes, and therefore need not file any budget or actual reports from this point forwards." RTCPB's request for exemption was premised on the Board's Final Order in Daniel Memorial. By letter dated July 25, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed RTCPB that its "request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied." The Board informed RTCPB that it could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if RTCPB wished to contest the Board's denial of its request. RTCPB filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing dated August 15, 1990, challenging the Board's notice that RTCPB was subject to the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. RTCPB's Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing alleged that there were disputed issues of material facts in this matter. Therefore, the Board filed RTCPB's Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 1990, for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. There is no provision in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, which allows persons to request an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, or authorizes the Board to declare any person to be "exempt" from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board had taken or planned to take any immediate action against RTCPB prior to its request for exemption. RTCPB has failed to prove that it has standing to institute the instant proceeding. Certificate of Need. RTCPB was built in 1986-1987. It opened on or about June 1, 1987, as a 40-bed residential treatment facility for adolescents. RTCPB was built and opened without obtaining a certificate of need from the Department. Subsequent to its opening, RTCPB filed an application for a certificate of need which was issued by the Department on November 29, 1988, for "establishment of a licensed 40-bed intensive residential treatment facility in Palm Beach County . . . . Licensure. RTCPB was initially licensed by the Department as a "residential child care agency" and by the Department's Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program office to provide services. In May 1989, RTCPB filed an application for licensure with the Department. There was not a category for intensive residential treatment program under the column titled "hospital bed utilization" on the application. Therefore, the initials "IRTF" were hand written on the application with a notation that all 40 beds are used in an intensive residential treatment program. On May 29, 1990, a license was issued by the Department to RTCPB "to operate a Specialty Intensive Residential Treatment Facility hospital with 40 Intensive Residential Treatment Facility beds." RTCPB is currently operating under this license. RTCPB operates and is surveyed by the Department pursuant to Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. RTCPB's Location and Facilities. RTCPB is located at 1720 Fourth Avenue, North, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. The RTCPB facility consists of a single building. The facility is divided into two 20-bed wings. Boys reside on one wing and girls reside on the other wing. Patients at RTCPB reside in semiprivate rooms. There are no private rooms. RTCPB is a locked facility. Patients are not allowed to leave the facility without permission. RTCPB has seclusion and restraint capabilities because of the type of patients cared for at the facility. Detoxification facilities for the treatment of substance abuse patients are available at the facility. RTCPB's Patients. Patients are six to eighteen years of age. RTCPB patients suffer from chemical dependencies and a wide range or psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, conduct disorders and attention deficit disorders. For the fiscal year ending May 31, 1990, the average length of stay at RTCPB was 218 days. RTCPB routinely treats patients referred by the Department. For the fiscal year ending May 31, 1990, 24% of total patient days were provided to patients referred by the Department. Ninety-five percent of all patients admitted to RTCPB are patients who were previously treated in an acute psychiatric care setting. RTCPB patients are physically healthy. RTCPB's Staff. RTCPB's staff consists of psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. Services Provided Directly to Patients. RTCPB provides diagnosis and twenty-four hour a day treatment of psychiatric illnesses and disorders to children and adolescents. RTCPB is an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents. Patients are admitted to the facility by a director of admissions and an admissions committee. A psychiatrist provides a diagnosis justifying admission. Psychiatric care is provided to patients through an interdisciplinary team composed of a psychiatrist, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. The team reviews the background, psychiatric and psychological assessment, and social history of each patient and develops a treatment plan for each patient. A psychiatrist meets with each patient for a few minutes each day, five days a week. The psychiatrist also meets with the treatment team for approximately one and one-half hours a day, four days a week. The multi-disciplinary treatment team provides care and nurturing in a variety of therapies provided in a highly structured setting. Treatment includes counseling, psychotropic medications, adjunctive therapies and schooling. School is conducted at the facility by teachers from the Palm Beach County School Board. A psychiatrist prescribes and monitors the use of psychotropic medications. Such medications are administered at the facility by a nurse. Registered nurses are at the facility twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A psychiatrist is always on call to deal with emergencies. Detoxification treatment is available at the facility. RTCPB complies with the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D- 28.111, Florida Administrative Code. RTCPB provides the services referenced in Section 395.002(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Other Services. RTCPB does not provide clinical laboratory services on its premises. Blood and urine samples are, however, taken by RTCPB personnel upon admission and from time to time after admission upon a physician's orders. Clinical laboratory services are available through an agreement with a non- affiliated laboratory. RTCPB provides diagnostic x-ray services and dental services by referring the patient to an off-site provider. RTCPB does not provide treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care at its facility. Emergency medical services are provided off-site to patients through non-affiliated hospitals. RTCPB has a referral agreement with Bethesda Memorial Hospital. RTCPB has an agreement with a group of family practice physicians. These physicians conduct physicals upon admission of a patient and when medically indicated. RTCPB projected in a 1990 budget filed with the Board that it would have the following approximate revenues: a. $131,000.00 from laboratory services; b. $176,000.00 from drug sales; c. $6,000.00 from diagnostic radiology services; d. $11,000.00 for CT scanner services; and e. $3,600.00 for electrocardiography services. RTCPB also projected in the 1990 budget the following approximate expenditures: a. $46,000.00 for laboratory services; b. $22,000.00 for drug sales; c. $2,500.00 for diagnostic radiology services; d. $400.00 for CT scanner services; and e. $1,600.00 for electrocardiography services. I. Accreditation. RTCPB is accredited by JCAHO. RTCPB is accredited and surveyed under JCAHO's consolidated standards. Daniel Memorial. On October 26, 1989, a Recommended Order was issued in Daniel Memorial. In the Conclusions of Law in Daniel Memorial, the Hearing Officer concluded that a medical facility is subject to most of the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, only if it is a "hospital" as defined in Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes, which in turn incorporates the definition of "hospital" contained in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer also concluded that Daniel Memorial Hospital was not a "hospital" as defined in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes, and, therefore, was not subject to most of the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer in Daniel Memorial made the following conclusion of law: To meet the provisions of Subsection 396.002(6) [sic], supra, Daniel Memorial would have to provide the services set forth in both Subparagraphs (a) and (b), above. Because Daniel Memorial does not regularly provide the services defined in Subparagraph (b), above, it is not a hospital with[in] the scope of Subsection 396.002(6) [sic], supra. However, Subsection 395.002(8), supra, defines Intensive Residential Treatment Programs (IRTP's) as specialty hospitals without reference to the provisions of Subsection 395.002(6), supra. It is under Subsection 395.002(8), supra, that Daniel Memorial specifically is licensed. Its beds are excluded specifically from consideration under Subsections (6) and (14) of Section 395.002, supra. It is concluded that IRTP's are not specialty hospitals defined by Subsection 395.002(14), supra. The staff of the Board filed exceptions to the Recommended Order in Daniel Memorial. The exceptions filed by the staff of the Board were rejected by the Board in a Final Order issued on March 1, 1990. In the Final Order issued in Daniel Memorial, the Board adopted the Recommended Order issued by the Hearing Officer in its entirety. The Final Order issued in Daniel Memorial has not been appealed or overturned. All of the Petitioners in these cases requested that the Board declare them exempt from most of the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, because of their similarity to Daniel Memorial Hospital. Counsel for Manatee Palms and RTCPB also suggested that those facilities were exempt under the holding in Daniel Memorial simply because they are "intensive residential treatment programs." In a memorandum to the Board dated July 11, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed the Board of his action with regard to requests from entities like the Petitioners which had suggested that they were similarly situated to Daniel Memorial Hospital. In pertinent part, the Executive Director stated that "we are responding negatively to requests for exemption from these facilities for the reasons outlined." The reasons referred to by the Executive Director were set out in a memorandum dated June 25, 1990, from the Senior Attorney of the Board to the Executive Director. In essence, the Senior Attorney concluded that the "operation and licensure" of each entity seeking treatment similar to the treatment afforded Daniel Memorial Hospital should be reviewed to determine whether that entity constituted a "hospital" under Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The Senior Attorney recommended the following: Accordingly, I recommend that this agency deny any specialty hospital IRTP's request to be relieved of Chapter 407 requirements and recommend that administrative complaints be filed against those which fail to comply with Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The Board has not, however, taken any action against the Petitioners. In denying the Petitioners' request for exemption, the Executive Director of the Board indicated the following: The information you have provided is insufficient to establish that your facility falls within the narrow exception from reporting requirements afforded Daniel Memorial Hospital. Accordingly, your facility's request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied. The Board has failed to enunciate how, if at all, the Petitioners differ in their operation from Daniel Memorial Hospital. The Board did not take any action against the Petitioners inconsistently applying its Final Order in Daniel Memorial. The Board took the position during these proceedings that any medical facility which is licensed by the Department pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, is a "hospital" under Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes. The Board's Position. The Department's Interpretation of Relevant Sections of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The Department is charged with the responsibility of licensing "hospitals" pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The term "hospital" is defined by Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The terms "specialty hospital" are defined by Section 395.002(14), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). This definition incorporates by reference the definition of "hospital" contained in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The terms "intensive residential treatment program" are defined by Section 395.002(8), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The Department interprets the terms "specialty hospital" as used in Section 395.002(8), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), to mean "specialty hospital" as used in Section 395.002(14), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The Department interprets Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, to allow an intensive residential treatment program to be licensed as a "specialty hospital" if it meets the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. It is the Department's position that Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D- 28.111, Florida Administrative Code, require as a condition of licensure that intensive residential treatment programs provide services consistent with the services required to be provided by a "hospital" pursuant to Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). It is the Department's position that all intensive residential treatment programs licensed pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, are "hospital's" as defined in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). It is the Department's position that the Petitioners must continue to meet the definition of a "hospital" pursuant to Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), to be entitled to continued licensure by the Department. The Board's Reliance on the Department's Licensure of a Facility. It has been the position of the Board that the fact that a facility is licensed by the Department pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, constitutes the best evidence of whether the facility constitutes a "hospital" as defined in Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes. The Board did not adequately explicate its policy of relying upon the Department's licensure action under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Petitions in these cases because of the failure of the Petitioners to prove that they have been substantially affected by any action of the Board; or That the Board, if it rejects recommendation number 1, issue a Final Order dismissing the Petitions in these cases because the Petitioners have failed to prove they are not "hospitals" under the definition of Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 10th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. La Amistad's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 I.B.1. 2 I.B.2. 3 I.B.1. 4 I.B.3. 5 I.B.4. I.C.1. The Department's action was consistent with the stipulation between the Department and La Amistad. Not relevant. 8 I.C.2. 9 I.A.1. 10 I.A.1-2. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. IV.7. and hereby accepted. The Executive Director's memorandum was sent in July instead of June. 14 I.A.3. 15 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. 16 I.A.3. 17-18 Hereby accepted. 19 See V.B.1. 20-22 Hereby accepted. 23 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. 24 I.G.1. 25 I.D.1. 26 I.D.2. 27 I.E.3. 28 I.D.4. 29 I.E.4. See I.D.5. See I.F.1. See I.G.2. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 33 I.E.5. 34 Not relevant. 35 I.G.9. 36 I.H.10. 37 I.H.6. 38 I.H.4. 39 I.H.3. Not relevant. See I.H.1. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that La Amistad "does not regularly make available clinical laboratory services to its residents." Hereby accepted. 43 I.H.8. 44 I.H.9. The last sentence is not relevant. 45 I.H.8. 46-47 I.H.5. 48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49 I.I.2. 50-51 See I.I.3. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See I.H.1-10. Hereby accepted. Conclusion of law. Not relevant. Conclusion of law. La Amistad failed to prove exactly what the agreement with Florida Hospital was. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. The failure of the Board to provide such evidence does not preclude a proper application of unambiguous statutory law. Manatee Palms' and RTCPB's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2 III.B.1. 3 III.C.1. 4 III.B.2. 5-6 III.B.3. 7 III.C.2. 8 III.C.3. and D.1. 9 III.G.1. 10 III.I.1. and I.I.2-3. 11 III.G.3. 12 III.E.5. 13 III.E.6. 14 III.G.5. 15-16 III.G.6. III.G.8. III.H.6. III.G.2. and 9. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The suggestion that "individual psychiatric treatment is not routinely provided" is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20 III.H.1-2. III.H.3. and 5. III.H.3. III.H.4. The suggestion that "other definitive medical treatment of similar extent" is not provided is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant. 25-27 III.E.4. 28-30 Hereby accepted. The last sentence of 30 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. III.A.1. III.A.3. Not supported by the weight of the evidence; too speculative. II.B.1. and II.D.1. 35 II.B.1. 36 II.C.1. 37 II.B.2. 38-39 II.B.3. 40 II.C.2. 41 II.C.3. 42 II.G.1. 43 II.I.1. and I.I.2-3. 44 II.G.4. 45 II.E.4. 46 II.E.5. 47 II.G.6. 48-49 II.G.7. 50 II.G.10. II.H.7. The last sentence is not relevant. II.G.2. and 11. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The suggestion that "individual psychiatric treatment is not routinely provided" is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 53 II.H.1-2. II.H.6. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See II.H.3. II.H.4. The suggestion that "other definitive medical treatment of similar extent" is not provided is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. 59 II.E.3. 60-62 Hereby accepted. 63 Not relevant. 64 II.A.1. 65 II.A.3. Not supported by the weight of the evidence; too speculative. IV.1. See IV.2. The Hearing Officers' comment concerning whether all intensive residential treatment programs are not hospitals is dicta. IV.3. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 69 IV.4. 70 IV.5. 71-72 Hereby accepted. Not relevant. Cumulative. 75-81 Hereby accepted. 82-83 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. 84 V.A.3. 85 Not relevant. 86-87 Hereby accepted. 88 Not relevant. The Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 I.C.1. 2 I.G.1. 3 I.G.2. 4-5 I.G.3. 6 I.E.3. 7 I.E.4. 8 I.G.1. 9 I.H.1-9. 10 I.G.7. 11 I.G.8. 12 I.I.1. III.C.3. III.G.1. III.G.2. III.E.2. See III.D.5. III.G.3. III.G.4. and 7. III.D.6-7. and III.G.6. III.E.3. III.E.5. See III.H.1-5. III.H.7. 25 III.H.11. 26 III.I.1. 27 II.C.3. 28 II.G.1. 29 II.G.2. 30 II.D.5. and II.E.2. 31 II.D.4-5. 32 II.D.6. 33 II.F.1. and II.G.2. and 4. 34 II.G.2. and 4-5. 35 II.G.9. 36 II.E.3. 37 See II.H.1-6. 38 II.H.8. 39 II.G.13. 40 II.I.1. 41 V.A.1. and 6. 42 V.A.5. 43 V.A.7. 44 V.B.1. The Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Not supported by the weight of the evidence or a correct conclusion of law. Not relevant. 3 I.C.1., II.C.3. and III.C.3. 4 V.A.5. 5-6 Law. 7 I.A.1., II.A.1. and III.A.1. 8 IV.7-8. 9, 11, 16, 18, 30, 32-33, 41, 43, 46-47, 51 and 64 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They are only relevant, however, as they relate to one or more of the Petitioners. 10-11 I.G.1. 13 I.G.3. I.G.3, II.G.2. and III.G.3. I.G.6, II.G.7. and III.G.6. 17 Hereby accepted. 19 I.D.2., II.D.2-3. and III.D.2-3. Hereby accepted. II.D.4. and III.D.5. III.D.4. III.D.3. Hereby accepted. 25 I.D.4. II.D.5. and III.D.6. Hereby accepted. II.D.6. and III.D.7. 29 I.C.2. 31 II.D.4. and III.D.5. 34 I.G.3. 35 II.G.8. 36 I.G.7. 37 I.G.7. and I.H.6. 38-39 I.F.3. 40 I.G.2., II.G.2. and III.G.2. 42 Law. 44 I.G.2-5. 45 I.G.1. 48-50 Law. 52 I.G.2-5. 53 Law. 54 I.E.5. 55 I.G.5. 56-61 Hereby accepted. 62-63 V.A.5. 65 Not relevant. 66 V.A.8. 67 V.A.1. 68 V.A.9. See V.A.9. Hereby accepted. See V.A.9. 72 I.C.1., II.C.3. and III.C.3. 73 Not relevant. 74 I.A.4., II.A.4. and III.A.4. 75 Not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Julia P. Forrester General Counsel Health Care Cost Containment Board 301 The Atrium 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Stephen M. Presnell Associate Public Counsel Peter Schwarz Associate Public Counsel c/o The Florida Legislature 111 West Madison Street Room 812 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400
The Issue Whether Petitioner has standing to initiate the instant challenge to the preliminary determination to issue CON 6254 to Respondent Palms West Hospital, Inc.? If so, whether CON 6254 should be granted?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Palms West Hospital and Wellington Regional Medical Center are general acute care hospitals located five miles apart in western Palm Beach County, Florida (HRS District 9). Due to their proximity to one another, the two hospitals draw from essentially the same patient pool and, as a result, are close competitors. Early on, Wellington was well ahead of Palms West in terms of the number of patient days generated by the facility. Palms West, however, has since surpassed Wellington and now enjoys a slight edge over its competitor in this performance category. Wellington is licensed to operate a total of 120 beds. One-hundred and four of these licensed beds are acute care beds. The remainder are substance abuse beds. Of Wellington's 104 licensed acute care beds, approximately 45 or 46 are staffed. Wellington currently operates at 53% of its licensed total bed capacity and 49% of its licensed acute care bed capacity. During this past calendar year, Wellington has consistently operated at between 50 to 55% of its licensed total bed capacity. Palms West is now, and has been at all times material hereto, licensed to operate 117 acute care beds at its facility in District 9. At no time has Palms West been subject to a license revocation proceeding, nor has it filed any documents with HRS requesting a reduction in its licensed bed capacity. 1/ Palms West's initial license (License No. 1869) was issued on February 17, 1986. The license was effective February 14, 1986, and expired February 13, 1988. Prior to the issuance of License No. 1869, Palms West received a certificate of need (CON 1845) for 117 acute care beds in District 9. Palms West is currently operating under License No. 2701. License No. 2701 was issued on September 1, 1989, with an effective date of September 17, 1989, and an expiration date of September 16, 1991. The license provides, in pertinent part, that Palms West "is authorized to operate a Class I General hospital with 117 Acute beds." License No. 2701 was issued pursuant to a licensure renewal application submitted by Palms West. The application, which had been prepared in May, 1989, made reference to a "renovation" "[b]uilding program . . . in progress" at Palms West with an "[a]nticipated completion date [of] 8/89," but did not provide any additional information regarding the project. The "renovation" project referenced in the application involved the third and fourth floors of the hospital. Space on these floors was being converted to house an eight-bed Labor Delivery Recovery Program. By letter dated February 1, 1989, Palms West, through its Administrator, Paul Pugh, had requested a certificate of need exemption from HRS to initiate this obstetric program at an estimated cost of $1.2 million. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, the then administrator of HRS's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, sent Pugh a letter, dated February 9, 1989, granting the requested exemption. Girvin explained in the letter that the exemption was being granted pursuant to Section 381.706(3)(f), Florida Statutes, which, she noted, "eliminates Certificate of Need review for initiation or expansion of obstetric services, provided that the licensed bed capacity 2/ does not increase." She also stated in the letter, among other things, that Palms West's "architectural plans [had to] be approved by the Office of Licensure and Certification, Plans and Construction, before construction is undertaken [to] assure conformance with licensure standards." In her letter, Girvin did not purport to authorize a decrease in Palms West's licensed bed capacity. Palms West's architectural plans were approved by Plans and Construction and work on the renovation project commenced. The project's progress was monitored by Plans and Construction. In or around August, 1989, the project was completed. The completed eight-bed obstetric unit occupied space that previously had been used to house 30 general acute care beds. As a result of the project, Palms West no longer had the space necessary to accommodate its licensed complement of 117 acute care beds. It had the physical capacity (hereinafter referred to as "constructed bed capacity") to house only 95 of its 117 licensed beds. Palms West, in undertaking this project, never intended to reduce the number of licensed beds at the facility. While it did not specifically so state in its exemption request, it had every intention of seeking authorization, "sometime soon after the [obstetric] unit was up and going," to expand its facility to accommodate the 22 licensed beds taken out of service as a result of the project. On August 18, 1989, Plans and Construction conducted an inspection of the completed project. The inspection revealed that the project had "permanently reduced" the constructed bed capacity of the facility from 117 to 95 beds. Nonetheless, Plans and Construction found the facility "to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of the licensure regulations." Accordingly, the project was approved for patient care. The first obstetric patient was admitted to the hospital on August 21, 1989. On November 14, 1989, Ira Wagner, an Architect Supervisor in Plans and Construction, sent the following letter to Palms West: 3/ On August 18, 1989 the Plans and Construction Section of the Office of Regulation and Health Facilities ran a final construction survey in your new obstetrical services project. Based on the survey results, we are able to release the area for occupancy. One requirement for the close-out documenta- tion for this type survey is a bed count iden- tifying the previous and new bed capacity. In order for this office to further clarify the information available during the referenced survey, this office would appreciate an in-depth bed count prepared by the facility and forwarded to us. The bed count format should include both the constructed bed count and the licensed capacity (not always the same) both prior and subsequent to this project. Further, the format should be on a floor and bed by bed designation basis. In response to this request, Pugh, on behalf of Palms West, sent Wagner a letter dated December 18, 1989. In his letter, Pugh provided a floor by floor "bed count" showing a total of "117 beds" "[p]rior to 8/18/89" and a total of "95 beds" "[s]ubsequent to 8/18/89" and "as of December, 1989." At Wagner's behest, Pugh sent Wagner a second letter to clarify and confirm the "bed count" figures given in the December 18, 1989, letter. This second letter, which was dated January 1, 1990, contained "bed count" information identical to that which had been reported in Pugh's first letter to Wagner. In neither letter did Pugh indicate whether the pre-8/18/89 and post-8/18/89 "bed counts" reflected licensed bed capacity or constructed bed capacity, or both. It was Pugh's unstated intention, however, to convey in these letters information regarding only the facility's constructed bed capacity. Wagner and Pugh communicated not only in writing, but by telephone as well. During one such telephone conversation, Wagner suggested that Pugh contact Girvin to seek guidance regarding what, if anything, the hospital should do now that its constructed bed capacity had been reduced to 95. Thereafter, Pugh followed Wagner's suggestion and telephoned Girvin. During their telephone conversation, Pugh and Girvin discussed the various alternative courses of action that were available to Palms West given the discrepancy between its licensed bed capacity (117) and its constructed bed capacity (95). Following their conversation, Girvin sent Pugh the following letter, dated January 18, 1990: I enjoyed talking with you by phone on Tuesday, January 9. Our conversation involved various options you have for complying with the licensure requirement that you have the capability for bringing all licensed beds into service within a 24 hour period. At the present time, the obstetrical program utilized existing space within the hospital for expan- sion. The effect was that 22 medical or surgical beds cannot be put into service within the time prescribed by law. Any change in licensed bed capacity is sub- ject to a certificate of need. (Reference Section 381.706(1)(e), F.S.) Therefore, Palms West has no authority to change its licensed bed capacity. Should a licensure inspection occur, the hospital may be found in violation if the 22 beds cannot be put into service. You have four options from which to choose: File a certificate of need application in the next hospital batch (letter of intent due no later than 5:00 p.m. local time on February 26, 1990) to reduce your licensed capacity by 22 beds; File a certificate of need application for a capital expenditure (expedited review) to seek authorization to construct capacity to house the 22 beds (due on or before May 15, 1990); File a letter seeking determination of reviewability if the proposed capital expend- iture to construct the capacity to house the 22 beds is below $1 million; or Do nothing to increase capability which would make the department file an administra- tive complaint to revoke the 22 beds. Based upon our discussion at the time, you found either option 2 or 3 to be the most appropriate one for you. It is similar to the situation at Doctor's Hospital in Coral Gables. I'm enclosing a copy of the corre- spondence between Doctor's Hospital and me. Option 3 would only be applicable if the esti- mated cost of constructing the 22 beds could be accomplished below the $1 million threshold. In my experience, 22 beds including the atten- dant and ancillary space and the equipment exceeds $1 million (especially if any land acquisition is involved.) The situation requires expeditious attention to the matter because the hospital may be found to be in violation. Therefore, I would like to work with you to avoid an adversarial relationship. To that end, the same agreement I reached with Doctor's Hospital is appropriate for Palms West. Please respond in writing by January 31 as to which of the options you will pursue. With any or all of them, I will be glad to discuss them with you or your representative. You may reach me at (904) 488-8673. In declining to take immediate action to institute disciplinary proceedings and instead providing Palms West the opportunity to bring its licensed bed capacity 4/ and constructed bed capacity into balance, HRS was following established non-rule policy and practice. 5/ Because the imbalance was the product of a renovation project that had been undertaken and completed with HRS approval and under its supervision, HRS believed that such a "wait and see" approach was particularly appropriate in the instant case. By letter dated February 2, 1990, Pugh informed Girvin that Palms West intended to pursue the second of the four options presented by Girvin in her January 18, 1990, letter. Pugh's letter read as follows: Thank you for your letter of January 18, 1989 [sic], regarding licensure requirements for Palms West Hospital. I appreciated the infor- mation relative to regulations compliance and the options my facility has at this time to maintain our current licensed capacity at 117 acute care beds. As you know, our recent obstetrical construc- tion project utilized existing space within the hospital for expansion. The effect was that 22 acute care . . . beds cannot presently be placed into service within the time [24 hours] prescribed by law. Accordingly, Palms West Hospital agrees to file a Certifi- cate of Need application for a capital expend- iture (expedited review) to seek authorization to construct capacity to house 22 beds. We agree to file the CON application on or before May 15, 1990. Please call or write my office for clarifica- tion, if necessary. I look forward to confir- mation of our request. Again, my apologies for the delay in our response. Thank you for your input and advice. A very short time after making its decision to exercise this option, Palms West hired a health planning consultant to assist it in preparing the certificate of need application. As promised, on May 11, 1990, Palms West filed the certificate of need application. The application was accompanied by a transmittal letter addressed to Girvin. The letter, which was signed by Palms West's health planning consultant, read as follows: Enclosed is the original copy of an applica- tion for Certificate of Need for the construc- tion of a 23-bed wing of acute care beds to replace a like number of licensed beds which are out of service at Palms West Hospital, Loxahatchee. This application is filed pursuant to an agreement between your office and Mr. Mike Pugh, administrator of the hospital. The filing fee of $10,000 is being submitted under separate cover on May 15, 1990 for attachment to this document, under agreement between Mr. Pugh and your staff. We look forward to working with you on the review of this document. Please contact me at this office for additional information you may need. Contrary to the statement made in the letter, only 22, not 23, of Palms West's licensed acute care beds were "out of service." One of the 23 licensed beds to be housed in the proposed new wing was to be relocated from an area of the existing facility that Palms West intended to convert into a telemetry unit. That bed was at the time of the filing of the application, and still is, operational. In Section I of the application, the project Palms West sought permission to undertake was described as follows: Replacement of existing licensed beds by construction of new bed wing on existing third floor of hospital. Section II of the application contained the following, more detailed description of the proposed project and its purpose: In 1989, in response to rapid service area growth and to local requests for high quality obstetrical service, the hospital opened an eight (8) bed LDRP obstetrical unit on its third floor. This unit and its support areas required conversion or remodeling of twenty-six (26) acute care bed spaces on the third floor. It also required use of another four (4) acute care bed spaces on the second floor for mechan- ical support systems for the C-section room in the third floor obstetrical unit. This reduced available bed space by twenty-two (22) beds. In early 1990, the hospital committed to con- vert one (1) bed space on the second floor to house telemetry equipment for the adjacent nursing unit. When this equipment is placed in service, it will reduce available bed space by an additional bed. As a result, Palms West Hospital will have temporarily lost the use of twenty-three (23) net bed spaces, or some 20% of its licensed bed capacity, in the development of expanded and improved services for patients of its service area. This application proposes to restore the hospital's available bed capacity to its current licensed bed level of one hundred seventeen (117) acute care beds. No addi- tional licensed beds or new services are proposed. The restoration of capacity will be accomplished through construction of a twenty-three (23) bed wing on the second floor of the hospital, containing seven private and eight semiprivate patient rooms. Construction should commence by May of 1991 and be completed by the end of September 1991. The estimated cost of the project is $1,560,888. All required funds will be provided by a cash grant from the applicant's parent company, so that the project itself will not adversely impact the hospital's rates and charges. The project is required if the hospital is to maintain the licensed capacity for which it received CON approval in 1984. Currently only ninety-four bed spaces can be made available for patient occupancy within 24 hours notice. In a high growth service area such as West Palm Beach County, it is not desirable for existing bed resources to be diminished. It is also not appropriate for the hospital to be penalized by reduction in licensure for the development of exempt and appropriate services which improve the quality of care and access to care in its service area. For these and other reasons, the administra- tion of Palms West Hospital and Sharon M. Gordon-Girvin of the Office of Community Health Services and Facilities agreed in early 1990 that the hospital should file this expedited CON proposal to restore its functional bed capacity to the original licensed level. Palms West's application was assigned CON Application No. 6254. In accordance with long-standing HRS non-rule policy and practice, the project proposed in the application was deemed to be a capital expenditure project reviewable only pursuant to subsection (1)(c) of Section 381.706, Florida Statutes, and, as such, it was subjected, not to a full batched comparative review, but to an expedited review that was applicant specific in nature. 6/ Full batched comparative review was considered inappropriate because Palms West was proposing to merely add space to its existing facility in order to accommodate licensed beds for which it had already successfully competed. Inasmuch as they were approved and licensed, these beds, under the bed need methodology established by HRS rule, were already included in the existing acute care bed inventory utilized to determine the number of additional beds, if any, needed in District 9 to meet projected demand (fixed need pool). 7/ Had Palms West's application been subjected to full batched comparative review, it would have been evaluated against this fixed need pool. In declining to subject the application to full batched comparative review, HRS also took into consideration that the bed space Palms West sought to restore had been lost as a result of the hospital's initiation of obstetric services. In the view of the agency, to subject such restoration projects to full batched comparative review would tend to discourage the development and expansion of obstetric programs in the state and therefore run counter to, what it perceived to be, the Legislature's intent in exempting obstetric services projects from certificate-of-need review. On August 17, 1990, following this expedited review of Palms West's application, HRS published a State Agency Action Report in which it announced its preliminary determination to issue the certificate of need requested in CON Application No. 6254.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order (1) dismissing, for lack of standing, the petition filed by Petitioner in the instant case, and (2) issuing CON 6254 to Palms West. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of July, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 3rd day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue in these proceedings is whether HRS should grant petitioners' application for a certificate of need to build a 100-bed general acute care hospital in Deltona, Florida. The parties have stipulated to the applicants' ability to staff the proposed facility and that no issue remains as to the criteria set forth in Section 381.494(6)(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (10), (11), and , Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Petitioners propose to "transfer" 100 beds from Daytona Beach General Hospital (DBGH) in Subdistrict 4 of District 4 to Deltona, which lies in Subdistrict 5 of District 4; and have agreed to "delicensure" of an additional 50 beds at DBGH (for a total of 150) if their application for a certificate of need (CON) to build in Deltona is granted. Saxon General Hospital, Inc. (Saxon) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Daytona Beach General Hospital, Inc., which operates DBGH. HCA's Central Florida Regional Hospital (CFRH), is located outside of District 4 altogether in Sanford, which is in Seminole County. Baker, Clay, Duval, Flagler, Nassau, St. Johns and Volusia Counties make up HRS District 4, the domain of the Health Planning Council of Northeast Florida, Inc. District 4 as a whole has more hospital beds than it needs. The present controversy concerns medical/surgical hospital beds in the two southern subdistricts of District 4, Subdistricts 4 and 5. Flagler County and Volusia County east of Little Haw Creek and Deep Creek comprise Subdistrict 4 of District 4. Deland, Deltona, Orange City and DeBary are in Subdistrict 5 of District 4, which is congruent with Volusia County west of Little Haw Creek and Deep Creek. See Appendix. THE DISTRICT PLAN The Health Planning Council of Northeast, Florida, Inc. has adopted a district health plan, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, but the plan has not been promulgated as a rule. HRS, but not CFRH, has admitted that petitioners' proposal is consistent with the district health plan. Among the policies stated in the plan is the following: If the district as a whole has a surplus of acute care hospital beds but the subdistrict has a substantial shortage, or if beds are not available or accessible within 30 minutes travel time in an urban county or 45 minutes travel time in a rural county to at least 90 percent of the county's residents, the state should consider the need for more beds on a subdistrict basis. (Reference: Chapter 10-5.11(23)(i) of the Florida Administrative Code.) Given the provisions as outlined above and so long as there is an overall surplus of hospital beds in the district, it is the policy of the Health Planning Council not to support approval of additional beds within a subdistrict until it can be clearly demonstrated by the circumstances that the number of beds needed in the subdistrict is substantial. With respect to subdistrict five, the plan makes the following recommendation: Within the framework of the most appropriate planning for the entire West Volusia-East Seminole County area, the State Office of Community Medical Facilities could give consideration to the transfer of acute care beds from within the district to the Deltona area--so long as the total number of licensed beds in the district does not increase. Any applicant to open hospital beds and other hospital services in Deltona should take into consideration the general needs of the Deltona area population. The Health Planning Council of Northeast Florida, Inc. adopted this recommendation with the specific purpose of declaring itself neutral as between then competing applications to build a hospital in Deltona. BED NEED BY RULE HRS has by rule specified a need for 195 medical/surgical, 18 intensive and cardiac care, ten obstetric and eight pediatric beds in Subdistrict 4 for the year 1988. Rule 10-16.005(1)(b) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 37, codified as Rule 10-17.005(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This represents 23 fewer medical/surgical beds than are presently licensed or authorized, but three more medical/surgical beds than are presently available in fact; the same number of intensive and coronary care beds as are presently available; two fewer obstetric and three fewer pediatric beds than are presently available in Subdistrict 5. Excess capacity in Subdistrict 4 is even more pronounced, according to Rule 10-17.005(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This HRS rule specifies a need for 911 medical/surgical, 122 intensive and coronary care, 26 obstetric and 33 pediatric beds in Subdistrict 4 for the year 1988. These figures represent a projected excess of 254 medical/surgical, 14 intensive and cardiac care, four obstetric and 35 pediatric, licensed or approved beds for Subdistrict 4 in 1988, assuming no more beds are licensed, approved, delicensed or disapproved, in the interim. BEDS IN PLACE In District 4's Subdistrict 4, there are seven general acute care hospitals. Bunnell Community Hospital, with 81 licensed or approved beds, is the only hospital in Flagler County. The other six are clustered along the coast between Ormond Beach and New Smyrna Beach. Licensed and approved beds aggregate 1,165 medical/surgical, 136 intensive and cardiac care, 30 obstetric and 68 pediatric for Subdistrict4. Not all of these beds are actually available for occupancy, however. DBGH, for example, is licensed at 297 beds but had only 115 beds available for use on average between October 1, 1980, and September 30, 1981. (At the time of hearing, its average daily census was 50 patients.) There are only two existing hospitals in District 4's Subdistrict 5, Fish Memorial Hospital (Fish) and West Volusia Memorial Hospital (West Volusia), both of which are located in or near Deland, an older population center in western Volusia County to the north of Deltona. West Volusia, which is further than Fish from the emerging Deltona-DeBary-Orange City population center in the southwestern part of the county, has 162 beds, of which 128 are medical/surgical; eleven are intensive or cardiac care; twelve are obstetric and eleven are pediatric. West Volusia had a 1983 average occupancy rate, based on 139 medical/surgical and intensive and coronary care beds, of 67 percent. During fiscal year 1981, most of West Volusia's admissions were of persons from Deland, but 22.34 percent of the total came from DeBary, Deltona and Orange City. Fish has 97 licensed beds, but only 71 are available for use. Of these, 64 are medical/surgical, and the remaining seven beds are devoted to cardiac and intensive care. Fish's physical plant is older and in need of replacement or rehabilitation. The Fish Memorial Hospital physical plant is a composite structure which is the result of three decades of renovation and add-on construction. * * * As a result, much of the facility does not comply with current building codes, the recommendations of the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) or current patient care management practices. An internal survey was begun to identify and quantify the extent of work necessary to bring the entire physical plant into compliance with all applicable codes or standards. The survey included all major components of the physical plant or hospital-wide systems that will have to be replaced or repaired within the next three year period just to maintain the current facility operations as a comparison to the replacement cost. The survey identified over thirty projects, ranging between $4,000 and $1,500,000 each. Furthermore, these direct costs do not account for interruption of medical services to the community residents, nonproductive staff time due to phasing of renovation, and patient inconveniences during construction. Intervenor's Exhibit No. 1., p.1. Rehabilitation would involve direct costs of some $4,500,000.00. In July, August and September of 1980, Fish had 105 admissions of persons residing in the Deltona and DeBary-Orange City census division, or 22.9 percent of its total admissions. In the same months the year before 87 admissions or 23 percent of the total was attributable to the Deltona and DeBary-Orange City census divisions. The great majority of Fish's patients came from the Deland census division during both periods. Fish's 1983 average occupancy rate was 46.7 percent, but, at time of hearing, occupancy was at 80 percent. Licensed at 226 beds, CFRH had about 200 beds staffed at the time of the hearing, including ten pediatric and nine obstetrical beds. (T. 592) CFRH's average occupancy was 72 percent for January and February of 1984, down from 76.9 percent for the same period last year. During the two months preceding the hearing, CFRH was on "red flag" status. No admissions were allowed, unless approved by the chief of staff; but no true emergencies were turned away. Some 34.8 percent of CFRH's admissions are of people who reside in the Deltona- DeBary-Orange City area or elsewhere in Volusia County. CFRH meets most of the need for medical/surgical beds attributable to the population in southwestern Volusia County. (Testimony of Scott) Most people living in the Deltona-DeBary- Orange City area who need hospitalization leave the county, in order to be admitted at intervenor CFRH. ACCESSIBILITY The evidence did not establish what proportion of the population of Subdistrict 5, if any, is further than 30 minutes' driving time from the nearest hospital at present, or what proportion would be in the future. Petitioners' expert measured travel times from central points in DeBary, Orange City, Sanford and Deland to area hospitals and to the site proposed for a new hospital, with the following results: West Volusia Fish Memorial Central Florida Proposed Memorial Hospital Regional Daytona Beach TO: Hospital (Central (West Sanford) General (North Deland) (Saxon Blvd. Deland) at 1-4) (A) (B) (C) (D) DeBary 32.2 26.4 18.2 14.9 Orange 28.6 22.8 26.3 17.7 City Deltona 36.8 31.0 24.6 11.5 Sanford 51.6 44.9 17.1 33.7 Deland 20.7 14.9 41.7 32.6 In computing these averages, peak travel times were weighted equally with other travel times measured in December of 1983, and January and February of 1984. One route to Sanford and CFRH from Deltona entails crossing a drawbridge. It takes Beverly Spitz "20 minutes just to get out of Deltona," with its winding roads and abundance of elderly drivers. Mary Lou Foster takes 29 to 45 minutes to drive from her Deltona home to CFRH. John Schmeltz can do it in "about 25 minutes." In February of 1982, When Mrs. Schmeltz passed out, the ambulance he summoned took 22 minutes to arrive. John Mosley made the drive from his Deltona home to CFRH in 25 minutes, but that was the night he thought his wife had had a heart attack and he "averaged over 100 miles an hour." (T. 204) "[A]t night . . . you realize just how far it is." (T. 211) Clyde Mann's testimony to the effect that the remoteness of existing hospitals had cost lives went unchallenged. Mary Meade, a registered nurse, reported that the Deltona area "ha[s] lost several patients, several people" (T. 216) in the time it takes to get to a hospital. Bernie Levine, a public witness, testified that there were "constant people dying. They didn't make it to the hospital." (T. 210) A hospital in Deltona would significantly improve access for the people of Deltona, and would also improve access for residents of Orange City and DeBary, albeit less dramatically. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The parties stipulated that land is available for the project, and that projected construction costs are reasonable. Daytona Beach General Hospital, Inc. (DBGH, Inc.) plans to lend its subsidiary Saxon General Hospital, Inc. $4,159,700; and petitioners plan to borrow the remaining $12,569,000 necessary to build the hospital, at 13 percent, repayable over a 25 year period, with the new hospital serving as collateral. DBGH, Inc. had "[a]pproximately one-million-three, one-million-four" (T. 245) on hand which could be devoted to construction of a new hospital in Deltona, at the time of hearing. The remaining "equity," $2,900,000 or so, is to be raised by sales of DBGH, Inc.'s common stock. Of the 2,000,000 shares of common stock authorized, Daytona Beach General Hospital, Inc. has issued 600,000. The hope is that additional shares can be issued and sold at $15 a share, which is about five times as much as the stock is currently trading for over the counter. John E. Kaye and Jackson B. Bragg, the osteopaths who between them own 405,000 shares of DBGH, Inc. common, each plan to guarantee purchase of another $1,400,000 worth of DBGH, Inc. common stock, when it is issued. The net worth statements of each man came in as exhibits at hearing, for the purpose of showing their supposed ability to honor such a guarantee. Aside from the DBGH, Inc. stock, however, neither man had sufficient net assets, and this assumes the accuracy of their financial statements, which listed as assets $253,000 in unsecured receivables of unstated age. Cars and boats were valued at cost, as was a pick-up truck ($3,000) while real estate was apparently valued at somebody's idea of market. Between them, the two doctors purport to have $150,000 worth of household furniture. For obvious reasons, no accountant's name appeared on these documents. The doctors have an agreement between them to the effect that neither sells DBGH, Inc. stock unless the other also sells. Their unaudited statements put the value of DBGH, Inc. stock at $20 a share. A few days after the Daytona Beach News Journal reported that "HCA had lost the right to purchase Fish," (T. 264) Robert E. Hardison, Jr. of HCA spoke to Drs. Kaye and Bragg and told them "he realized it was futile to try to continue seeking a CON for Deltona adding new beds unless he could get some existing beds from [DBGH] and move them to Deltona." (T. 266) Mr. Hardison asked Drs. Bragg and Kaye what they would be willing to sell their stock for but did not offer to buy it. Shortly before the hearing they were offered $25 a share for all their holdings on condition the prospective buyer could arrange financing, and on condition that Saxon receive a certificate of need. This price is almost certainly higher than could be gotten in the market for shares which would not give the buyer a controlling interest in DBGH, Inc. One Milton W. Pepper appeared at hearing and testified without contradiction that, in the event a certificate of need issued, he was willing and able to invest approximately $1,500,000 "in the beginning. . . and make arrangements for the additional $5,000,000 if necessary." Drs. Kaye and Bragg may lose control of the corporate petitioners in the process, but there is every reason to believe that money to build a hospital would be available. After raising a quarter of the project cost, DBGH, Inc. proposes to lend that sum to Saxon, at one percent above prime. Although this arrangement would mean that the money was "debt" as between the subsidiary and its parent, outside financers would apparently treat the money as equity. Loy D. Deloney, an underwriter for Stephens, Inc., "the ninth-ranking investment banking firm in the country in terms of equity," knows "of at least 10 major financial institutions that would be interested in" providing long-term financing, if the CON issues. The future holds many uncertainties for hospitals, but whether this money could be repaid and whether a new hospital would be otherwise feasible financially depends finally on how many patients it would serve. POPULATION GROWTH FORECAST The population of census tracts 908, 909, 910.02, 910.03 and 910.04, in which Deltona, Orange City and DeBary are located, is projected to increase by some 11,000 persons between 1984 and 1989, when the population in this part of southwestern Volusia County is expected to be 48,789. Of the projected 1989 population of census tracts 908, 909, 910.02, 910.03, 910.04, eleven thousand one hundred twenty-four persons are expected to be over 65 and eleven thousand one hundred twenty-four persons are expected to be less than 65 but older than Some three fifths of Deltona's present population (about 26,000) is over 55 years old. EFFICIENT UTILIZATION LIKELY IN SUBDISTRICT Even without the lure of a hospital, physicians have opened offices in southwest Volusia County. Seven specialists on the medical staff at CFRH have part-time practices in the Deltona-DeBary-Orange City area. A half dozen family practice physicians practice in the area full-time. They admit to hospital an average of 50 patients daily, 80 percent of them to CFRH. Before HCA abandoned its application for a certificate of need to "transfer Fish's beds" and build a new 97-bed hospital in Deltona, it caused a health service study to be done by John Short & Associates. CFRH offered the study as evidence at hearing. Intervenor's Exhibit No. 1. The CFRH study looked at the western area of Volusia County, as a whole, including Deland, and concluded that 1987 would see 12,686 medical/surgical discharges of residents of western Volusia County. The CFRH study calculated the average length of a patient's stay in hospital at 7.03 days. CFRH's own evidence shows, therefore, that 89,183 medical/surgical patient days attributable to the population of the DeBary-Orange City, Deland and Deltona census districts can be expected in 1987. CFRH's administrator, James D. Tesar, predicted that CFRH "could lose 80 percent of its admissions from the area including Deltona, Geneva, DeBary, Osteen, and Orange City," if Saxon built a new hospital in Deltona. In 1983, CFRH admissions from these Volusia County communities totalled 3,150. If a new hospital in Deltona did indeed change patient flow to the extent Mr. Tesar warns is possible, there would still be 630 admissions annually to CFRH of residents leaving southwest Volusia County for hospitalization. If west Volusia Countians' admissions drop to 630 at CFRH, CFRH will be supplying only 4,429 patient days (630 X 7.03) to residents of West Volusia County. In that case, some 84,754 medical/surgical patient days will have to be accommodated in 1987 by hospitals within Subdistrict Five (or outside the subdistrict at hospitals other than CFRH). In 1987, to the extent patient days attributable to southwest Volusia County residents admitted to pediatric or obstetric beds at CFRH exceed patient days at CFRH attributable to Subdistrict Five residents living outside Deltona, Geneva, DeBary, Osteen and Orange City, 84,754 would be an understatement. Dividing patient days by the number of days in a year (84,754/365) yields an average daily medical/surgical census of 232. Medical/surgical beds are put to good use when they are full 80 percent of the time, almost all health planners agree. In order to accommodate an average daily census of 232 at an 80 percent average occupancy rate, 290 medical/surgical beds will be needed as early as 1987. Only 192 medical/surgical beds are now open in Subdistrict Five. Chances are good that 292 hospital beds in Subdistrict Five could be used efficiently long before the spring of 1989. IMPACT OUTSIDE SUBDISTRICT A new 100-bed hospital in Deltona could operate consistently with efficient utilization of the medical/surgical beds already open in Subdistrict Five, even if the new hospital achieved 80 percent average occupancy as early as 1987 but only by diverting patients from CFRH. The effect on CFRH would be significant, but temporary, since population growth would ensure its efficient utilization once again within two to four years of the 1986 opening of a 100-bed hospital in Deltona. All along, CFRH's loss of patients to a new Deltona hospital would be offset to some extent by ongoing population growth in Seminole County where CFRH is located. CFRH's own application for a certificate of need was granted on the theory that a new hospital of CFRH's size was needed just to serve the population of Seminole County. Petitioners' expert concluded that CFRH, Fish and West Volusia had had only 1,139 more medical/surgical patient days to split among themselves in 1983 than they could be expected to have in 1988, with a 100-bed hospital in its second year of operation in Deltona. DBGH's surrender of the right to open 150 additional beds would have no immediate economic impact; the effect would be to reduce excess capacity in Subdistrict Four, but on paper only. No beds would be closed, no staff dismissed, no expenses pared. But, if petitioners' efforts to obtain a CON for a new hospital in Deltona fail, they intend to expend $10,000,000 for renovation of DBGH, a project for which they already have a CON. This would inevitably mean recovering additional costs from payers for hospital care in Subdistrict Four. Like the Deltona proposal, the renovation proposal contemplates some reduction in beds in Subdistrict Four, although fewer: "50-some-odd." (T. 293) The 150 bed reduction in approved beds in Subdistrict Four contemplated by the pending application would mean that, if and when new hospital beds are needed in Subdistrict Four, they could be added wherever they are needed rather than being added at DBGH whenever management decrees.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That HRS grant petitioners' application for a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed acute care general hospital in Deltona. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1984. APPENDIX * * NOTE: APPENDIX to this Recommended Order is a map which is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office. COPIES FURNISHED: F. Philip Blank, Esquire 241 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald L. Book, Esquire Sparber, Shevin, Shapo & Heilbroner 30th Floor AmeriFirst Building One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 James M. Barclay, Esquire 1317 Winewood Blvd. Building 2, Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Sheehan, III, Esquire Jon C. Moyle, Esquire Donna Stinson, Esquire, and Thomas M. Beason, Esquire, of Moyle, Jones & Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 David Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Change of Ownership In March 1993, Galen filed an application for a CON to add a ten-bed Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at its hospital known as Westside Regional Medical Center, located in Broward County in District X. This application, CON No. 7248, was initially denied by the Agency. Galen filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on August 12, 1993, challenging that denial and seeking approval of its application. In the same batching cycle, Memorial filed an application for a ten bed Level II NICU, Con No. 7249, which the Agency also preliminarily denied. On August 13, 1993, Memorial filed its petition for formal administrative hearing. The cases were consolidated for hearing by Order entered September 3, 1993. Two existing providers of Level II NICU services in the District sought and were granted leave to intervene: NBHD and Plantation. On January 7, 1994, NBHD filed a Motion for Summary Recommended Order. The basis for summary relief was that subsequent to the filing of its application for the Westside facility, Galen had sold or transferred that facility to Columbia and that Columbia had become the new license holder for the facility. Galen responded in opposition that no material facts set forth in the application for the CON to establish the Level II NICU at Westside had changed as a result of the transfer to Columbia. Furthermore, Galen contends that its application must be permitted to undergo the de novo comparative review process. The Galen application was deemed complete, preliminarily reviewed and initially denied. The basis of the initial denial was unrelated to any change in ownership. Galen timely sought de novo comparative review by invoking the administrative hearing process on August 12, 1993. The application has not been withdrawn. On November 5, 1993, Galen entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Columbia. Under the terms of that agreement, Columbia undertook legal responsibility for all liabilities and contractual obligations related to the Westside facility. As required by law, Columbia filed a change of ownership application (CHOW) with the Agency which ultimately issued a new license to Columbia for the operation of the Westside facility. The Agency's CHOW file establishes that the Agency received and reviewed the following documents, among others, related to Columbia: A list of the officers and directors of Columbia; Columbia's articles of incorporation; the certificate of incorporation of Columbia issued by the State of Florida; Columbia's audited financial statements; affidavits asserting that Columbia would accept all outstanding liabilities due and payable to the State of Florida, including but not limited to any outstanding liabilities to the Medicaid Program; assertions that Columbia would correct deficiencies, if any, on the facilities most recent license survey; and assertions that Columbia would comply in all respects with applicable provisions under Chapter 766, Florida Statutes (regarding the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund). The deposition of Mr. James A. Cruickshank, chief Operating Officer for Westside Regional Medical Center, was admitted into evidence by NBHD. Mr. Cruickshank testified that he had been employed at Westside since 1987. He is directly responsible for the operations of the facility, and held that position and those duties both before and after the transfer of assets to Columbia. He participated in the preparation of the CON application and is familiar with its contents. Mr. Cruickshank testified that, as Chief Operating Officer, he was familiar with the following matters, none of which had changed, or were expected to vary from the representations made in the CON application, as a result of the transfer of assets to Columbia: Administration - no change; Admission and discharge policies - no change; Operational Management - no change; Personnel - no change; Staffing - no change; Medical staff - no change; Medical committees - no change; Financial personnel - no change; Charges of fees - no change; Financial policies or procedures - no change; Budgeting process - no change; Financial commitments - no change; Projected costs - no change; Financial feasibility - no change; Data or underlying assumptions - no change; Admissions or discharge data - no change; Average length of stay data - no change; Scope of services - no change; Level of proposed services for NICU unit, including: Nursing, Specialty Nursing, Surgical, Emergency, Respiratory therapy, X-Ray; Obstetrics; Ultrasound; Clinical laboratory; Nutritional; Anesthesia; or social services - no change from those represented in the CON application. Quality of care - no change; Standards and qualifications for medical staff - no change; Ratios for medical specialists - no change; Nursing staff qualifications, specialists or ratios - no change; Patient stations, equipment or physical plant and layout - no change; Licensed bed capacity - no change; Accessibility of services - no change; AA. Extent to which proposed NICU unit will address patient need in district - no change; BB. Extent to which the medically under served individuals in the district use or will use the Westside facility - no change; CC. Ability of the facility to meet any federal regulations requiring uncompensated care, community service or access by minority and handicapped service to federally assisted programs - no change; DD. Utilization data - no change; EE. Recruitment - no change; Mr. Cruickshank's testimony in this regard is accepted. Mr. Cruickshank testified that the financial feasibility and stability of this proposal is strengthened by the Columbia acquisition: Westside is the only facility owned by Columbia; the only capital projects or expenditures for which Columbia would be responsible would thus be significantly less than the $27,755,000 listed on Schedule 2 of the CON application; and the source of funds for the proposed NICU is from operating expenses. Mr. Cruickshank's testimony in this regard is also accepted. Mr. Cruickshank, testified that Galen's board no longer has operational responsibility for or exercises any control over Westside Regional Medical Center. /2 Galen is no longer financially committed to the proposed project. Galen's letter of intent was accompanied by a resolution of its board. Galen's CON Application No. 7248 included a listing of Galen of Florida, Inc.'s board. Columbia and Galen do not share any of the same board members. Mr. Cruickshank testified that Galen's CON application only provided Galen's audited financial statements, and did not contain Columbia's audited financial statements. No audited financial statements for Columbia have been provided to AHCA in relation to CON application 7248. Statutory and Regulatory Criteria Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code (the Rule), provides an outline for what is required of a CON applicant to have an application accepted and reviewed by AHCA. The Rule implements the statutory criteria in Section 408.037, Florida Statutes, which specifies the CON "Application Content" requirements. Section 408.037, Florida Statutes, provides, in part, that an application for a CON shall contain: A statement of the financial resources needed by and available to the applicant to accomplish the proposed project. This statement shall include: A complete listing of all capital projects . . . pending, approved, or underway in any state at the time of the application . . .[and] shall include the applicant's actual or proposed financial commitment to those projects and an assessment of their impact on the applicant's ability to provide the proposed project . . . (c) A detailed financial projection . . . [which] shall include a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services provided by the applicant . . . An audited financial statement of the applicant . . . includ[ing] . . . a balance sheet and a profit-and-loss statement of the two previous fiscal year's operation . . . A certified copy of a resolution by the board of directors of the applicant , or other governing authority if not a corporation, authorizing the filing of the application; authorizing the applicant to incur the expenditures necessary to accomplish the proposed project; certifying that if issued a certificate, the applicant shall accomplish the proposed project within the time allowed by law and at or below the costs contained in the application; and certifying that the applicant shall license and operate the facility. [Emphasis added.] Section 408.037, Florida Statutes. Elizabeth Dudek, Chief of CON and Budget Review for Respondent AHCA, testified that an applicant's failure to comply with the statutory requirements concerning submission of the letter of intent and board resolution would result in the rejection of the application. Pursuant to the above statutory criteria, if an applicant fails to submit audited financial statements, AHCA would deem the application incomplete, and the application would be withdrawn from consideration. The Rule also incorporates the letter of intent and board resolution provisions found in Section 408.039(2), Florida Statutes. This statute provides: . . . a letter of intent shall be filed by the applicant . . . [which] describe[s] the proposal with specificity, including proposed capital expenditures, number of beds sought . . . [and the] identy of the applicant, including the names of those with controlling interest in the applicant. The letter of intent shall contain a certified copy of a resolution by the board of directors of the applicant . . . authorizing the filing of the application described in the letter of intent; authorizing the applicant to incur the expenditures necessary to accomplish the proposed project; certifying that if issued a certificate, the applicant shall accomplish the proposed project within the time allowed by law and at or below the costs contained in the application; and certifying that the applicant shall license and operate the facility. [Emphasis added.] Section 408.039(2)(a-c), Florida Statutes. Ms. Dudek testified that, pursuant to this statute, the licenseholder for Westside Regional Medical Center is required to be the applicant for a CON. At the time Galen submitted the letter of intent, Galen was the licenseholder for Westside Regional Medical Center. Columbia has not filed a letter of intent or board resolution for CON Application No. 7248. In the case of an existing licensed facility, the "applicant" referred to in the statute and the Rule must attest that they will license and operate the facility, and thus is required to be the facility's licenseholder. If AHCA issued a CON to the applicant, Galen, for the proposed project, Galen would not be able to meet the requirement that it license and operate the project because Galen no longer holds the license for Westside Regional Medical Center. Rule 59C-1.008(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The applicant for a project shall not change from the time a letter of intent is filed, or from the time an application if filed in the case of an expedited review project, through the time of the actual issuance of a Certificate of Need. Properly executed corporate mergers or changes in the corporate name are not a change in the applicant. /3 Nothing in the statute specifically mandates that the licenseholder cannot change or that such change compels involuntary withdrawal of the application from comparative review. Ms. Dudek testified that when she received notice that AHCA had issued a new license which changed the ownership of Westside Regional Medical Center of Columbia, she determined that, pursuant to Rule 59C-1.008, the CON application filed by Galen was no longer an application that could be reviewed because the entity submitting the application was no longer the licenseholder. Ms. Dudek explained that in circumstances where the licenseholder sells the facility to another corporation who then becomes the new licenseholder, as is the case here, the rule requires that AHCA reject the CON application because it would not contain a letter of intent, board resolution, audited financial statements, capital project listing and proforma's for the acquiring entity. Galen did not offer testimony to show that the change in the applicant had occurred as a corporate name change or as a corporate merger. Ms. Dudek testified that subsequent to the omissions period, applicants are not permitted to amend the application, and AHCA is prohibited by rule from considering subsequent events in the application review process. Rule 59C-1.010(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: Subsequent to an application being deemed complete by the agency, no further application information or amendment will be accepted by the agency. Ms. Dudek testified that the purpose for this prohibition is to set forth parameters in terms of what information will be reviewed for a particular period of time, so that each applicant knows what the agency considers, and that it is considering the same information for all applicants as of the date each is deemed complete. Without amending or supplementing the application, there is no outlet for Columbia to produce, or for the agency to consider, information concerning the new licenseholder. Amending and supplementing the application is prohibited by Rule 59C-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, as discussed in finding of fact #31. Ms. Dudek testified that when an existing facility submits a CON application, the "applicant" is required by Agency rule to be the current licenseholder. Rule 59C-1.008(1)(m), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: An applicant for a project subject to Certificate of Need review which affects an existing licensed health care facility . . . must be the license holder. . . . If agency records indicate information different from that presented in the letter of intent with respect to the identification of the holder of the license and the licensure status, then the agency records create a rebuttable presumption as to the correctness of those records and therefore the application will be rejected. Ms. Dudek testified that agency records show that Columbia currently holds the license for Westside Regional Medical Center. Mr. Cruickshank confirmed that Columbia, and not Galen, is the current licenseholder for Westside Regional Medical Center.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a summary final order be entered dismissing the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Galen of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Westside Regional Medical Centers in this case. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of May 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, 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 11th day of May 1994.
The Issue The basic issue is whether the applicant meets the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria for award of a CON. In its prehearing statement and in its proposed recommended order, HRS stipulates that the following criteria are met: Section 381.705(1)(a), F.S., regarding compliance with the district health plan; Section 381.705(1)(c), F.S., regarding the applicant's capability and record of providing quality of care; Section 381.705(1)(h), F.S., regarding the sufficiency of applicant's resources; Section 381.705(1)(m), F.S., regarding the reasonableness of proposed costs and methods of construction; and Section 381.705(2)(c), F.S., regarding the consideration of alternatives to new construction. The following statutory criteria are deemed by HRS to be inapplicable to the proposed project: Section 381.705(1)(f), F.S., regarding the need for special equipment or services not available in an adjacent district; Section 381.705(1)(g) and (h), F.S., relating to the need for research, educational and training facilities; Section 381.705(1)(j), F.S., regarding the needs of health maintenance organizations. Section 381.705(1)(k), F.S., regarding entity providing most of its services to individuals residing beyond the service district; and Section 381.705(2)(e), F.S., regarding nursing homes. HRS also concedes the numeric need formulae found in the rules do not apply, and that no HRS rule is applicable to the need in this case. (HRS proposed Recommended Order, p. 2; transcript, pp 13-14.) The remaining criteria which HRS contends are not fully met relate to accessibility, efficiency, financial feasibility and cost effectiveness. HRS states in the SAAR and argued at the hearing that Holmes' application lacked information, and that attempts to supply the information were improper amendments to the application.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant Holmes Regional Health Care Systems, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation having among its subsidiaries a 528-bed acute-care, tertiary care non-profit hospital: Holmes Regional Medical Center (HRMC) located in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. HRMC is the largest hospital in the Brevard subdistrict of HRS planning district 7. It employs approximately 1900 full and part-time staff; approximately 210 physicians serve on the medical staff. It offers a wide range of services, including comprehensive cardiovascular programs, pediatrics, psychiatry, all specialties in internal medicine and surgery, and a high-risk neonatal intensive care unit. HRMC is the oldest hospital in Brevard County. It opened in 1937 with 27 beds. Although the figure fluctuates frequently, at the time of hearing approximately 480 of its licensed beds were in service. Holmes is governed by a 13-member board comprised of local business professionals who serve without compensation. The Project Holmes proposes to reduce the licensed capacity of HRMC by 60 beds and to transfer those beds to a satellite facility to be constructed south of Melbourne in Palm Bay, still within Brevard County. Total project costs for the new facility, including land (already purchased), construction and equipment is $11,656,812. The 60 beds will be acute care, "medical/surgical", in 36 private rooms and 12 semi-private rooms. Pediatric, obstetric, intensive care, and other speciality services will remain at HRMC. Access Melbourne, the site of HRMC, is in the southern end of Brevard, an elongated county on Florida's central east coast. The satellite hospital is proposed for a site approximately seven miles south and slightly west of HRMC. Palm Bay is a city which grew from five square miles to sixty-five square miles in the 1960's, when General Development Corporation (GDC) platted and began developing vast subdivisions west of the once-sleepy village lying along the Indian River. Wuesthoff, the next nearest hospital in the planning district is located north of HRMC, in Rockledge, in central Brevard County. The GDC development currently includes 74,000 or 75,000 platted lots throughout the city, although only approximately 15,000 have been built. The estimated population at full build-out in the year 2050 is projected at 257,000. In the meantime, the City of Palm Bay is the second largest city in Brevard County, population-wise, and is projected to be the largest city in the county by 1992. In 1980 the city had 18,560 persons; in 1988, the population is over 53,000. A water and sewer service agreement between Brevard County and General Development Utilities is contributing to the sprawl, as the agreement limits buildout to thirty percent of the lots on a block with wells and septic tanks. This has pushed growth from the northern and eastern boundaries of the subdivisions into the southern and western reaches of the city limits, and farther away from HRMC in Melbourne. The Palm Bay area suffers with congested traffic, as does most of South Brevard. The labyrinthine system of roads throughout the new section (the GDC development) is characterized by circles and dead end lanes calculated to promote residential integrity. An elaborate system of canals further limits access to a few through streets. The only planned major improvement to road capacity in Palm Bay is the four-laning of an approximate mile and a half strip of Babcock Street, a major north-south artery. Dr. Stanley K. Smith, an Associate Professor of Economics and Population Program Director at the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, was qualified, without objection, as an expert in demographics, including population studies and projections. Dr. Smith and William Tipton, Holmes' traffic and transportation engineering expert, compiled data establishing that by the horizon year 1992, 14.4 percent of Palm Bay's population would live beyond a thirty minute drive to HRMC. Utilizing trips from HRMC in peak afternoon traffic, Mr. Tipton's traffic study found four 30 minute drive time points in the Palm Bay, South Brevard area, fanning out southward from HRMC along the primary roadways. Using census data and population projections developed by Brevard County planning staff, Dr. Smith calculated the population in Palm Bay that will be living beyond the 30 minute drive times in 1992. Although the drive times were established at peak hours, those hours in Palm Bay are unusually long because of the staggered work hours for Harris Corporation, which with 9,000 employees, is the largest industrial employer in Palm Bay. The Tipton study is also considered a reasonably conservative predictor of accessibility in 1992. By that horizon year the population will have expanded, and the 30-minute drive points will be closer to HRMC as a result of increased congestion and deterioration of traffic conditions. HRS' position that access to HRMC was not a problem for Palm Bay residents was based on a personal visit to the area by its staff CON reviewer, Dennis Halfhill. Mr. Halfhill drove from his motel, north along US1 to HRMC, around midmorning, and determined that his drive time was only twenty-five minutes. U.S. 1 runs north-south along the Indian River on the eastern edge of Palm Bay and South Brevard County. Unlike most of the main roads in South Brevard, US 1 is four-laned. It also is in the old established section of Palm Bay, rather than in the newer population center in the south and west. Mr. Halfhill did not travel in the southwest area and erroneously believed he was in the center of Palm Bay along its eastern edge. He estimated the circumference of the main part of the city to be approximately five miles and believed the western city limits were east of Interstate 95, when, in fact, a vast portion, approximately 80 percent of the city's 65 square mile area, lies west of Interstate 95. Geographical access by Palm Bay residents is decidedly enhanced by the creation of a satellite hospital in that community. Efficiency Holmes can provide acute-care services in its proposed 60 bed satellite more efficiently than another free-standing facility could, and more efficiently than Holmes is currently providing those same services in its large facility. The proposed facility will share with HRMC various support and ancillary services as purchasing, patient accounts, dietary, plant engineering, data processing, pharmacy, laboratory and radiology. All of Holmes' management systems will be shared with its satellite. Some equipment and staff will be transferred to the new facility. Because some wings of HRMC are old and outdated, the relocation to a newer, better-designed facility will result in improved utilization of nursing staff and a slightly lower staffing level overall. Holmes is considering converting the transferred beds into an observation unit for outpatient surgery and increasing its number of private rooms. In addition, if the beds are transferred, Holmes anticipates the ability to move back into the hospital certain activities for which it is paying over $100,000 per year in outside rent and utilities. Financial Feasibility/Cost Effectiveness Based on its long range planning conducted in 1981, Holmes determined there would be a future need for an acute care facility in Palm Bay. It purchased land for $315,800, and is currently operating an ambulatory care center and diagnostic center at the site. The total funds required for completion of the satellite facility will come from reserves established from the operation of Holmes, the corporate holding company. No borrowing will be necessary. Initially, in the first two years of operation of the satellite, there will be a slight negative impact on HRMC, but not on Holmes, the parent company, as the negative impact will be offset by the revenues at the satellite and by the cost savings shared by the two facilities. Holmes anticipates net revenue at the satellite will be $404,891 the first year of operation and $2,052,911 for the second year. Rick Knapp, a health care consultant, was qualified without objection as an expert in hospital and health care finance. In his opinion, the pro- forma/operating statement is realistic and achievable and the financial management of the existing facility is good. This latter opinion is based on his experience that relatively low-charge hospitals which generate an attractive bottom line, such as HRMC, are well managed hospitals. HRS has acknowledged that HRAC has done well in serving medicaid patients and indigents, typically considered chronically underserved. Holmes has committed that it will continue that service with the satellite facility. John Stephen Eavenson, Vice-President of Finance at HRMC and chief operating officer for Holmes, was qualified without objection as an expert in hospital and health care finance, hospital financial administration and hospital business venture analysis. In his opinion, the Palm Bay satellite hospital proposed by Holmes represents a sound financial decision. Holmes considers South Brevard, including Melbourne and Palm Bay, as its service area. Approximately 92 percent of the population of the service area in need of hospitalization currently utilize HRMC. This figure is likely slightly lower for Palm Bay, alone, as some patients in that area use a hospital in Sebastian, in Indian River County, south of Palm Bay, and beyond the HRS planning district VII. Other patients go to Orlando. Aside from the economies already discussed relating to the new streamlined facility, Holmes' willingness to expend $11 million to transfer beds is motivated by a desire to preserve its market share by enhancing access to an expanding community. Application Content The principal reason for HRS' denial, perhaps 75 percent, according to HRS Supervisor Reid Jaffe, was the lack of documentation in Holmes' application to support the proposed transfer. This reason is reflected in the cover latter to the SAAR and in comments throughout the SAAR. HRS objected throughout the formal hearing to the introduction of evidence relating to access, arguing that transportation studies were not part of the original application and would be an inappropriate amendment to the application. Holmes provided all information requested on the CON application form; in addition it responded in full to the three brief questions in HRS' May 15, 1987, omissions letter. Holmes' application was deemed "complete" by HRS, effective June 29, 1987. With regard to availability and access, the SAAR states: ...the applicant did not present any information about the future traffic and growth management plans to determine if accessibility to services would be impaired.... Yet, the SAAR found enough information to determine compliance with the following priority of the District 7 Health Plan: Priority 4 Priority for needed acute care services should be given to those applicants who transfer unutilized beds/or establish hospital facili- ties in regions of the District where access to service can be substantially improved by at least 25 minutes for 10 percent of the popula- tion of the subdistrict or a minimum of 35,000 residents. Joint Exhibit #1, p. 3 The SAAR comments provides: Priority 4-Applicant complies, Holmes Regional proposes to transfer underutilized beds. Although the area might now be within 25 minutes of Holmes and Humana Sebastian, increased congestion is expected as Palm Bay and the area along US1 are developed. Joint Exhibit #1, p. 4 The foregoing comment possibly reflects Mr, Halfhill's personal tour of Palm Bay, a tour which the record amply reveals missed the truly congested and developed areas of this deceptively vast community. An HRS reviewer with personal knowledge of a geographical area will bring his or her experience to the application review process and will not question the lack of such information in the packet, according to Reid Jaffe. In other instances the reviewer uses the omissions process to question presumptions or to flesh out the necessary information. For example, in March 1988, HRS approved a CON for the transfer of 100 beds from Martin Memorial Hospital in Martin County to create a satellite facility in Port Salerno. Prior to that approval Martin Memorial submitted a revised application, responding to at least 17 omission questions, including such questions as: Omission #10 What accessibility problems were experienced by residents of the proposed satellite area in obtaining acute inpatient services? How far is it to Okeechobee and Stuart? Northern Palm Beach County? and Omission #11 What is the breakdown of the 100 med/surg beds to be transferred from Martin Memorial and the breakdown established at the satellite facility; i.e. ICCU, pediatrics, OB, etc.? How will the transfer affect health services at Martin Memorial? How will vacated space be utilized? Petitioner's Exhibit #15 In another similar case involving a transfer of beds by Lee Memorial Hospital, which CON application was in the same batching cycle as Holmes, HRS permitted the applicant to submit an extensive packet of information in March 1988, addressing the questions and issues raised by the SAAR. The packet included a travel time study completed well after the SAAR was issued. The Lee Memorial project was approved. Holmes also attempted to present additional information, including its travel time study prepared in December 1987. It was told that additional information would be considered an inappropriate amendment to the application. Although the travel time study was not included in Holmes' application, access was discussed throughout the application with references to the high growth portions of the service area, the inadequate roads and traffic congestion, and Dr. Smith's projections of population increases. The application was complete, as its narrative, tables and attachments sufficiently addressed the relevant criteria of the statute and rules. Weighing the Criteria The parties agree that numerical need is not an issue when no net increase in beds is proposed. HRS has no rule specifically governing the transfer of beds and, according to Sharon Gordon-Girvin, the HRS Administrator of Community Health Services and Facilities, the agency policy was still under consideration at the time that Holmes' current application was being reviewed. A policy framework had been discussed, but HRS conceded that the policy required patient origin data that was not available to the applicant or the department. In the absence of a specific rule or policy, HRS' review and comments on the Holmes application reflect a general concern that, if no additional services are being offered, and no additional beds are needed or proposed, there must be some direct, positive health care benefit to be derived from the expenditure of $11 million to transfer beds. Concomitantly, there should also be no negative effect on the existing services. These general concerns must still be translated into the statutory criteria found in section 381.705, F.S. The SAAR found that Holmes' proposal at least partially met every relevant criteria. In its evidence explaining and supporting its application, Holmes proved that its satellite project will significantly improve access to the population of a phenomenally fast-growing community. The reduction in beds at HRMC will increase the utilization rate at that facility, which, although underutilized at less than 80 percent, is experiencing a constant increase and a better rate than the other area hospitals. The loss of revenue will not negatively impact HRMC in the long-term and will positively impact the parent company, Holmes. HRMC and Holmes have a reputation for quality care, reasonable costs and a commitment to serve the indigent and underserved patients in South Brevard. The same management will assure these attributes are maintained at the satellite facility. Holmes' forecasts for patient mix and utilization rates are based on a long experience in providing wide range health care services in South Brevard. Its management decision to utilize $11 million of on hand resources to create the satellite is a sound business decision based on a projected need for the horizon year 1992, the growth patterns in the south west county, and a calculated desire to maintain its market share. The shared services and resources make the satellite facility economically preferable to a new separate free-standing facility of 60 beds. The removal of beds from HRMC will result in more efficient use of space in that hospital. In summary, there is a need for the facility proposed by Holmes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That HRS award a Certificate of Need to Holmes Regional Healthcare Systems Inc., for a 60-bed satellite hospital in Palm Bay, Florida, by virtue of a transfer of 60 licensed beds from Holmes Regional Medical Center in Melbourne, Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0394 The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 5. Adopted in paragraph 22. 3-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8. Adopted in the background statement and in summary in paragraph 21. 9-10. Rejected as unnecessary. 11-13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 26, although the fact that the Lee application was originally denied was not clearly established. 14-15. Addressed in the background statement. 16. Addressed in the statement of issues. 17-18. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22-24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 25. Adopted in substance in paragraph 23. 26-28. Adopted in paragraph 10 and paragraph 24. Rejected as argument. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in the statement of issues. Adopted in paragraph 31. Addressed in the statement of issues. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 15 and 18. 36-37. Rejected as unnecessary. 38. Adopted in paragraph 16. 39-40. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 12 and 13. Adopted in paragraph 21. 46-47. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 25. 51-52. Rejected as argument. 53-55. Rejected as unnecessary. 56. Adopted in part in paragraph 26, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 57-59. Rejected as argument. Respondents Proposed Findings 1. Adopted in Paragraphs 1 and 3. 2-3. Addressed in background statement. 4-5. Addressed in statement of issues. Rejected as unnecessary, although the access issue is addressed in paragraphs 6-11 and paragraph 23. Rejected as unsubstantiated by the evidence. Rejected in part as unnecessary. No criteria requires proof that the population is not predominately located within an average 30-minute drive time. Also rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. The study involved two-way drives (see transcript pp 309-310). The cited portion of the transcript does not support the finding suggested, that the study was manipulated. 9-10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. This was not an issue in the proceeding. Adopted in part in paragraph 5. 13-19. Rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. 19-21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 22-23. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. The application was not amended at hearing. Addressed in conclusions of law, paragraph 4. Rejected as immaterial. Occupancy rates are not at issue. 27-28. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as immaterial. The witness was credible. 32-34. Rejected as unnecessary. 35. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 36-39. Rejected as immaterial. 40. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Elzie, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 E. G. Boone, Esquire Jeffrey A. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Klingbeil & Boone, P. A. Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Application West Florida Regional Medical Center is a 400-bed acute care hospital in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The hospital is located in a subdistrict which has the greatest population aged 65 and over who are living in poverty. That group constitutes the population qualified for Medicare. Some 17 percent of Escambia County's population falls into the medicare category. Prior to October, 1987, HRS had determined that there was a fixed pool need in the Escambia County area for 120 nursing home or extended care beds. Several hospitals in the Escambia County area applied for the 120 nursing home beds. Those beds were granted to Advocare (60 beds) and Baptist Manor (60 beds). The award of the 120 beds to Baptist Manor and Advocare is not being challenged in this action. West Florida, likewise, filed an application for an award of nursing home beds in the same batch as Advocare and Baptist Manor. However, Petitioner's application sought to convert 8 acute care beds to nursing home or extended care beds. West Florida's claim to these beds was not based on the 120 bed need established under the fixed need pool formula. West Florida's application was based on the unavailability of appropriately designated bed space for patients who no longer required acute care, but who continued to require a high skill level of care and/or medicare patients. The whole purpose behind West Florida's CON application stems from the fact that the federal Medicare system will not reimburse a hospital beyond the amount established for acute care needs as long as that bed space is designated as acute care. However, if the patient no longer requires acute care the patient may be re-designated to a skilled care category which includes nursing home or extended care beds. If the patient is appropriately reclassified to a skilled care category, the hospital can receive additional reimbursement from Medicare above its acute care reimbursement as long as a designated ECF bed is available for the patient. Designation or re-designation of beds in a facility requires a Certificate of Need. Petitioner's application for the 8 beds was denied. When the application at issue in this proceeding was filed Petitioner's 13-bed ECF unit had been approved but not yet opened. At the time the State Agency Action Report was written, the unit had just opened. Therefore, historical data on the 13 bed unit was not available at the time the application was filed. Reasons given for denying West Florida's application was that there was low occupancy at Baptist Hospital's ECF unit, that Sacred Heart Hospital had 10 approved ECF beds and that there was no historical utilization of West Florida 13 beds. At the hearing the HRS witness, Elizabeth Dudek stated that it was assumed that Baptist Hospital and Sacred Heart Hospital beds were available for West Florida patients. In 1985 West Florida applied for a CON to establish a 21-bed ECF unit. HRS granted West Florida 13 of those 21 beds. The 8 beds being sought by West Florida in CON 5319 are the remaining beds which were not granted to West Florida in its 1985 CON application. In order to support its 1985 CON application the hospital conducted a survey of its patient records to determine an estimate of the number of patients and patient days which were non acute but still occupied acute care beds. The hospital utilized its regularly kept records of Medicare patients whose length of stay or charges exceeded the Medicare averages by at least two standard deviations for reimbursement and records of Medicare patients whose charges exceed Medicare reimbursement by at least $5,000. These excess days or charges are known as cost outliers and, if the charge exceeds the Medicare reimbursement by $5000 or more, the excess charge is additionally known as a contractual adjustment. The survey conducted by the hospital consisted of the above records for the calendar year 1986. The hospital assumed that if the charges or length of stay for patients were excessive, then there was a probability that the patient was difficult to place. The above inference is reasonable since, under the Medicare system, a hospital's records are regularly reviewed by the Professional Review Organization to determine if appropriate care is rendered. If a patient does not meet criteria for acute care, but remains in the hospital, the hospital is required to document efforts to place the patient in a nursing home. Sanctions are imposed if a hospital misuses resources by keeping patients who did not need acute care in acute care bed spaces even if the amount of reimbursement is not at issue. The hospital, therefore goes to extraordinary lengths to place patients in nursing home facilities outside the hospital. Additionally, the inference is reasonable since the review of hospital records did not capture all non-acute patient days. Only Medicare records were used. Medicare only constitutes about half of all of West Florida's admissions. Therefore, it is likely that the number of excess patient days or charges was underestimated in 1986 for the 1985 CON application. The review of the hospital's records was completed in March, 1987, and showed that 485 patients experienced an average of 10.8 excess non-acute days at the hospital for a total of 5,259 patient days. The hospital was not receiving reimbursement from Medicare for those excess days. West Florida maintained that the above numbers demonstrated a "not normal need" for 21 additional ECF beds at West Florida. However as indicated earlier, HRS agreed to certify only 13 of those beds. The 13 beds were certified in 1987. The 13-bed unit opened in February, 1988. Since West Florida had planned for 21 beds, all renovations necessary to obtain the 8-bed certification were accomplished when the 13- bed unit was certified in 1987. Therefore, no capital expenditures will be required for the additional 8 beds under review here. The space and beds are already available. The same study was submitted with the application for the additional eight beds at issue in these proceedings. In the present application it was assumed that the average length of stay in the extended care unit would be 14 days. However, since the 13 bed unit opened, the average length of stay experienced by the 13-bed unit has been approximately 15 days and corroborates the data found in the earlier records survey. Such corroboration would indicate that the study's data and assumptions are still valid in reference to the problem placements. However, the 15- day figure reflects only those patients who were appropriately placed in West Florida's ECF unit. The 15-day figure does not shed any light on those patients who have not been appropriately placed and remain in acute care beds. That light comes from two additional factors: The problems West Florida experiences in placing sub-acute, high skill, medicare patients; and the fact that West Florida continues to have a waiting list for its 13 bed unit. Problem Placements Problem placements particularly occur with Medicare patients who require a high skill level of care but who no longer require an acute level of care. The problem is created by the fact that Medicare does not reimburse medical facilities based on the costs of a particular patients level of care. Generally, the higher the level of care a patient requires the more costs a facility will incur on behalf of that patient. The higher costs in and of themselves limit some facilities in the services that facility can or is willing to offer from a profitability standpoint. Medicare exacerbates the problem since its reimbursement does not cover the cost of care. The profitability of a facility is even more affected by the number of high skill Medicare patients resident at the facility. Therefore, availability of particular services at a facility and patient mix of Medicare to other private payors becomes important considerations on whether other facilities will accept West Florida' s patients. As indicated earlier, the hospital goes to extraordinary lengths to place non- acute patients in area nursing homes, including providing nurses and covering costs at area nursing homes. Discharge planning is thorough at West Florida and begins when the patient is admitted. Only area nursing homes are used as referrals. West Florida's has attempted to place patients at Bluff's and Bay Breeze nursing homes operated by Advocare. Patients have regularly been refused admission to those facilities due to acuity level or patient mix. West Florida also has attempted to place patients at Baptist Manor and Baptist Specialty Care operated by Baptist Hospital. Patients have also been refused admission to those facilities due to acuity level and patient mix. 16 The beds originally rented to Sacred Heart Hospital have been relinquished by that hospital and apparently will not come on line. Moreover the evidence showed that these screening practices would continue into the future in regard to the 120 beds granted to Advocare and Baptist Manor. The president of Advocare testified that his new facility would accept some acute patients. However, his policies on screening would not change. Moreover, Advocare's CON proposes an 85 percent medicaid level which will not allow for reimbursement of much skilled care. The staffing ratio and charges proposed by Advocare are not at levels at which more severe sub-acute care can be provided. Baptist Manor likewise screens for acuity and does not provide treatment for extensive decubitus ulcers, or new tracheostomies, or IV feeding or therapy seven days a week. Its policies would not change with the possible exception of ventilated patients, but then, only if additional funding can be obtained. There is no requirement imposed by HRS that these applicants accept the sub-acute-patients which West Florida is unable to place. These efforts have continued subsequent to the 13-bed unit's opening. However, the evidence showed that certain types of patients could not be placed in area nursing homes. The difficulty was with those who need central lines (subclavian) for hyperalimentation; whirlpool therapy such as a Hubbard tank; physical therapy dither twice a day or seven days a week; respiratory or ventilator care; frequent suctioning for a recent tracheostomy; skeletal traction; or a Clinitron bed, either due to severe dicubiti or a recent skin graft. The 13-bed unit was used only when a patient could not be placed outside the hospital. The skill or care level in the unit at West Florida is considerably higher than that found at a nursing home. This is reflected in the staffing level and cost of operating the unit. Finally, both Advocare and Baptist Manor involve new construction and will take approximately two years to open. West Florida's special need is current and will carry into the future. The Waiting List Because of such placement problems, West Florida currently has a waiting list of approximately five patients, who are no longer acute care but who cannot be placed in a community nursing home. The 13-bed unit has operated at full occupancy for the last several months and is the placement of last resort. The evidence showed that the patients on the waiting list are actually subacute patients awaiting an ECF bed. The historical screening for acuity and patient mix along with the waiting list demonstrates that currently at least five patients currently have needs which are unmet by other facilities even though those facilities may have empty beds. West Florida has therefore demonstrated a special unmet need for five ECF beds. Moreover, the appropriate designation and placement of patients as to care level is considered by HRS to be a desirable goal when considering CON applications because the level of care provided in an ECF unit is less intense than the level of care required in an acute care unit. Thus, theoretically, better skill level placement results in more efficient bed use which results in greater cost savings to the hospital. In this case, Petitioner offers a multi-disciplinary approach to care in its ECF unit. The approach concentrates on rehabilitation and independence which is more appropriate for patients at a sub-acute level of care. For the patients on the awaiting proper placement on the waiting list quality of care would be improved by the expansion of the ECF unit by five beds. Finally, there are no capital costs associated with the conversion of these five beds and no increase in licensed bed capacity. There are approximately five patients on any given day who could be better served in an ECF unit, but who are forced to remain in an acute care unit because no space is available for them. This misallocation of resources will cost nothing to correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a CON to Petitioner for five ECF beds. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraph 1-29 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 20, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 33 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The first sentence of paragraph 7 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact was not shown to be the evidence. Strict compliance with the local health plan was not shown to be an absolute requirement for CON certification. The remainder of paragraph 7 is subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 9, 10, 11 and 30 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The first part of the first sentence of paragraph 13 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact before the semicolon is adopted. The remainder of the sentence and paragraph is rejected. The first sentence of paragraph 14 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact was not shown by the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 17, 26 and 32 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The acts contained in paragraph 18 are rejected as supportive of the conclusion contained therein. The first (4) sentences of paragraph 19 are subordinate. The remainder of the paragraph was not shown by the evidence. The first (2) sentences of paragraph 21 are adopted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected. The facts contained in paragraph 22 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 23 is adopted. The remainder of paragraph 23 is subordinate. The first sentence of paragraph 24 is rejected. The second, third, and fourth sentences are subordinate. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected. The first sentence of paragraph 25 is subordinate. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire MOYLE, FLANIGAN, KATZ, FITZGERALD & SHEEHAN, P.A. The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
