Findings Of Fact The Parties FRTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation (Charter) which proposes to construct and operate a freestanding, 60 bed, 24- hour-a-day, Intensive Residential Treatment Program for children between the ages of 6 and 18 in Palm Beach County within HRS District IX, pursuant to Rule 10-28.152(8), F.A.C. and Chapter 395, F.S. Although FRTC represents it will construct its proposed facility with or without CON licensure, which it is entitled to do, given the peculiarities of this type of health care entity, it is clear that a prime motivator in FRTC's CON application is that with CON licensure, FRTC potentially will have greater access to insurance reimbursement because it may then call itself a "hospital." FRTC will seek JCAH accreditation. HRS is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications, pursuant to Chapter 10-5.011, F.A.C. and Sections 381.701-381.715, F.S. (1987). HRS preliminarily approved FRTC's application, and supported it through formal hearing and post-hearing proposals. RTCPB is an existing 40 bed residential treatment center for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18, located in Palm Beach County, on the campus of Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches. It provides services similar or identical to those services proposed to be offered by FRTC. It is JCAH accredited through an extension of Lake Hospital's accreditation and is close to JCAH accreditation in its own right. RTCPB is a subsidiary of Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA) . PIA operates two residential treatment centers in Florida. RTCPB is not CON licensed as an IRTP, under Chapters 381 and 395, F.S., but is licensed as a child care facility under Chapter 395, F.S., as a provider of services to HRS under Chapters 10M-9 and 10E-10, F.A.C. RTCPB accepts substance abusers in residency. RTCPB has also applied for CON licensure as an IRTP in a batching cycle subsequent to the present one. That application has been preliminarily denied by HRS and RTCPB is awaiting a Section 120.57(1), F.S., formal administrative hearing thereon. RTCPB now estimates its current patients' average length of stay (ALOS) as 106 days but projects a 315 day (10 1/2 months) ALOS in its subsequent CON application. RTCPB is charging $185 per day or HRS patients and $255 with $23-26 ancillaries [sic] per day for private pay patients. Like FRTC, it uses a "levels" system of behavior modification and patient control. Humana is a 250 bed JCAH accredited hospital located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Of Humana's 250 beds, 162 are traditional acute care beds and 88 are psychiatric beds. The 88 psychiatric beds are administratively divided into different units, one of which is a 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit; this unit opened January 20, 1987, and has an average length of stay of nine months. Humana's existing CONs are for short-term adult psychiatric beds and do not authorize an adolescent unit with an average length of stay of over 30 days. Ninety days is the demarcation, by rule, between short- and long-term psychiatric beds. Humana recently applied for a CON for more psychiatric beds and also applied for an IRTP CON in a subsequent batch to the present one. Humana's present 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit provides grossly similar services to those proposed to be offered by FRTC, but its emphasis is more medical-psychiatric than emotional-behavioral. Like FRTC, Humana does not accept in residency adolescents with a primary diagnosis of substance abuse. Like FRTC and RTCPB, Humana uses a "levels" system. Eighty percent of Humana's patient mix are commercial pay, and the unit is running at a 15 to 20 percent profit margin. Humana usually charges $325 per day on their adolescent unit plus ancillaries [sic] amounting to 10 percent of the patient's bill, but HRS contract patients pay only $225 per day. Humana has lost a number of adolescent unit referrals to RTCPB since RTCPB opened June 1, 1987, but the unit continues to be almost fully occupied. Humana's main referral asset, as well as the source of the confusion of referring entities, appears to be the reputation of its director, Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly previously directed a program at Lake Hospital which was identical to the program that he now directs at Humana. Lake Hospital currently has RTCPB operating under its auspices, but not Dr. Kelly. Nature of the FRTC Program FRTC's proposed program is designed to serve those persons in the designated age group who have psychiatric diagnoses of a severity requiring a long-term approach in a multidisciplinary structured living setting to facilitate recovery. It will not, however, treat adolescents with an active diagnosis of chemical dependency or substance abuse. It also only commits to 1.5 percent indigent care. The proposed FRTC program differs from an acute care setting in significant quantitative and qualitative ways, the most visible of which is that acute care psychiatric settings (either long- or short-term) are geared toward dealing with patients actively dangerous to property, themselves, or others, but patients whom it is reasonably assumed will respond primarily to physiologically-oriented physicians and registered nurses administering daily medication, treatment, and monitoring, as opposed to a long-term living arrangement emphasizing behaviorally-oriented group interaction as an alternative to parental care at home. FRTC will, however, accept patients with psychiatric diagnoses of effective disorders, depression, schizophrenia and impulse disorders and those who may be potentially harmful to themselves, others, or property for whom no other less intensive or less restrictive form of treatment would be predictably helpful. FRTC would fall on the continuum of care below an acute psychiatric facility such as Humana. Assessment of such a target group on a patient by patient basis is obviously subject to a wide variation of interpretation by qualified health care professionals, but FRTC anticipates both verifying referral diagnoses and assuring quality of care by insuring that each new patient is seen by a psychiatrist within 24 hours of admission, and by having each case reviewed by an independent utilization review committee. FRTC also plans to complete appropriate patient assessments and develop and update individual, integrated treatment programs. FRTC will provide, where appropriate, for continuity of care from previous acute care institutions through the FRTC program and out into more normal individual or family living arrangements. Parents will have to consent to their child's placement at FRTC. FRTC's program proposes an average length of stay of 365 days (one year) with a range of six months to two years. Based upon all the credible record evidence as a whole, including, but not limited to, the protestants' respective ALOS, this is a reasonable forecast despite contrary evidence as to Charter's experience at its "template" Virginia institution, Charter Colonial. FRTC's program components will include individual therapy, recreational therapy, occupational therapy, and general education. The general education component in FRTC's proposed program is more general and more open than that offered in acute care settings, such as Humana. FRTC's overall program will utilize a "levels" system of behavioral management based upon patients earning privileges, which levels system has a good patient rehabilitation and functional administrative track record in many different kinds of psychiatric health care facilities, including Humana and RTCPB. FRTC intends that each patient's program will be individualized according to age and program component directed to his/her diagnosis and each patient will receive individual, resident group, and family therapies. As to assessment, types of therapy, continuity of care, and general education provisions, FRTC's proposal is grossly consistent with that of its "template." To the extent there is evidence of inconsistencies between the two programs in the record, the FRTC proposal represents either improvements over, or refinements of, its template program which have been developed as Charter/FRTC has learned more about what actually "works" for the IRTP form of health care, or it represents changes to accommodate Florida's perception of what less restrictive but still intensive residential treatment should be, or it anticipates local community needs. Quality of Care The applicant's parent corporation is an experienced provider of many types of accredited psychiatric facilities. The type of quality assurance program proposed and the staff mix provide reasonable quality care assurances. Design, Construction, and Personnel Refinements to FRTC's original schematic take into consideration the influence that physical structure has on an Intensive Residential Treatment Program. Those refinements include modification of a multipurpose room into a half-court gymnasium, addition of a classroom, addition of a mechanical room, modification of the nursing station to decrease the amount of space, and the deletion of one seclusion room and addition of a four to six bed assessment unit. The modifications resulted in the addition of approximately 1,000 square feet to the original design. A minimum of four to six acres would be necessary to accommodate the modified design which totals approximately 32,000 square feet. Public areas, such as administration and support services, dining room, and housekeeping areas, are to the front; private areas, such as the nursing units, are to the back. The facility's middle area houses gym, classrooms, and occupational therapy areas. The location encourages residential community involvement. Each of three, 20-bed units is made up of a group of two consultation rooms, a galley, a laundry, a day room and core living space located directly across from the nursing station for maximum observation and efficiency. Each unit comprises a separate wing. Six handicapped accessible patient beds are contemplated; the building will be handicapped-accessible. The staffing projections have increased and the pattern has been minimally altered in the updates. The updated pro forma also modified the initial financial projections so as to increase salary expense and employee benefits based on this change in staffing. An increase in the total project cost impacted on depreciation, and interest expense changed with time. All these changes are reasonable and insubstantial. FRTC's design is adequate for providing a suitable environment for intensive residential treatment for children and adolescents even though it is not identical to Charter's "template" for residential treatment and even though Charter's extensive experience with acute care facilities has focused these changes in its residential treatment concepts. The parties stipulated to the adequacy of FRTC's proposed equipment list and costs. Total construction cost was demonstrated to be reasonably estimated at $2,078,000. The square footage costs of $64.86 per square foot represet an increase from the square footage costs contained in the original CON application. The original budget was updated based upon a three percent inflation factor and the addition of the approximately 1,000 square feet. The additional space is not a significant construction change. The total project costs of $4,728,000 are reasonable. The testimony of HRS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, John Griffin, who testified by deposition, (RTCPB's Exhibit 8, pp. 21-22) revealed no firm policy on what the agency, within its expertise, views as substantial and impermissible amendments to a CON application; HRS did not move at hearing to remand for further review; and the undersigned concludes that the changes in facility design, costs, and staffing do not represent significant changes which would be excludable as evidence and that they do represent permissible minor modifications and refinements of the original FRTC application. Site Availability No party contended that FRTC's application was a "site specific" application, that a residential treatment program is otherwise required to be "site specific," or that an IRTP CON is governed by a "site specific" rule or by "site specific" statutory criteria. Therefore, it was only necessary for FRTC in this noncomparative proceeding to establish that several suitable sites were available within the required geographic parameters at the financial amount allotted in FRTC's projections. FRTC did establish financially and geographically available and suitable sites through the testimony of Robert H. Ellzey, a qualified expert in commercial real estate values. The Non-Rule Need Policy There are no hospital licensed Intensive Residential Treatment Programs in Palm Beach County or in District IX. IRTPs are in a separate licensure category by law from psychiatric beds, acute care beds, and rehabilitation beds. There is a separate need methodology for long-term psychiatric beds and there are no CON licensed long-term psychiatric programs for children and adolescents in District IX, unless one considers Humana which is treating adolescents well beyond 30 or 90 days residency. HRS has no promulgated rule predicting need for IRTPs seeking specialty hospital licensure under Chapter 395, F.S. Subsequent to advice of its counsel that a CON must be obtained as a condition of IRTP licensure pursuant to Chapter 395, F.S., HRS elected to evaluate all IRTP CON applications in the context of the statutory criteria of Chapter 381, F.S., and in the context of HRS' non-rule policy establishing a rebuttable presumption of need for one "reasonably sized" IRTP in each HRS planning district. The May 5, 1988 Final Order in Florida Psychiatric Centers v. HRS, et al., DOAH Case No. 88- 0008R, held this non-rule policy invalid as a rule due to HRS' failure to promulgate it pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S., but that order also held the policy not to be invalid as contrary to Chapter 381, F.S. That Final Order intervened between the close of final hearing in the instant case and entry of the instant Recommended Order, however, it does not alter the need for the agency to explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case by case basis. HRS was unable to do so in the formal hearing in the instant case. Notwithstanding the oral testimony of Robert May and Elizabeth Dudek, and the deposition testimony of John Griffin, it appears that the non- rule policy is not based upon generally recognized health planning considerations, but solely on the agency's statutory interpretation of recent amendments to Chapter 395 and some vague perception, after internal agency discussions, that the policy is consistent with certain promulgated need rules and with certain other non-rule policies for other types of health care entities, which other non-rule policies were never fully enunciated or proved up in this formal hearing. The HRS non-rule policy was also not affirmatively demonstrated to be rational because it does not take into account the reasonableness of a proposed facility's average length of stay, referral sources, geographic access, or other factors common to duly promulgated CON rules. Numerical Need and Conformity to Applicable Health Plans FRTC sought to support HRS' non-rule policy on numerical need for, and definition of, a "reasonably sized" IRTP through the testimony of Dr. Ronald Luke, who was qualified as an expert in health planning, development of need methodologies, health economies, survey research, and development of mental health programs. In the absence of a finding of a rational non-rule policy on numerical need, Dr. Luke's evidence forms the cornerstone of FRTC's demonstration of numerical need. Through the report and testimony of Dr. Luke, and despite contrary expert health planning testimony, FRTC established the numerical need for, and reasonableness of, its 60 licensed IRTP beds in District IX with projected 60 percent occupancy in the first year and 50 percent in the second year of operation using two bed need methodologies. Dr. Luke ultimately relied on a utilization methodology based upon 1991 population projections. Dr. Luke used a census rate per 100,000 population of 21.58. This is appropriately and reasonably derived from national data for residential treatment patients aged 0-17, regardless of the fact that the types of residential treatment considered by the NIMH data base employed by Dr. Luke greatly vary in concept and despite HRS having not yet clearly defined the nature of the programs and services it expects to be offered by a Florida specialty hospital licensed IRTP. Therefrom, Dr. Luke derived an average daily census of 52 in 1991. That figure yields a bed sizing of between 58 and 61 beds, depending on whether an 85 percent or 90 percent occupancy factor is plugged in. Either 58 or 61 beds is within the range of ratios calculated by Dr. Luke's other methodology for currently licensed Florida IRTPs in other districts. Assuming a target occupancy rate of 85 percent and an ALOS of one year, Dr. Luke considered the gross District IX IRTP bed need to be 60. In the absence of any like program to assess occupancy for and in the presence of similar programs such as Humana operating at nearly full occupancy now and RTCPB forecasting its occupancy at 88 percent in 1990 if it were IRTP-licensed, it is found that 60 beds are justified. Since there are no IRTP beds licensed as specialty hospitals in the current district bed inventory, no adjustment of this figure must be made to account for existing licensed IRTP beds. Simply stated, this is a CON application for an IRTP, nothing more and nothing less, and the subtrahend to be subtracted from gross district bed need is zero when there is a zero specialty hospital licensed IRTP bed inventory. Luke's calculated gross need of 60 bed is also his net need and is accepted. Fifty beds is generally the minimum size HRS will approve to be feasible for any free standing facility to be eonomically efficient and to be able to benefit from economies of scale. This 50 bed concept is within the wide range of bed ratios that HRS implicitly has found reasonable in, previously- licensed IRTP CON approvals. Conformity With Applicable Health Plans Section 38l.705(1)(a), F.S., requires HRS to consider CON applications against criteria contained in the applicable State and District Health Plans. In this regard, neither the applicable State Health Plan nor the applicable District IX Local Health Plan make any reference to a need for intensive residential treatment facilities. The District IX Health Plan addresses the need for psychiatric and substance abuse services to be available to all individuals in District IX. FRTC's project addresses this goal only in part. The District Health Plan states that priority should be given to CON applicants who make a commitment to providing indigent care. FRTC proposes only 1.5 percent indigent care which works out to only 1/2 of the ALOS of one patient at the proposed facility and is hardly optimum, but in a noncomparative hearing, it stands alone as advancing the given accessibility goal within the plan. Objective 1.3 of the State Health Plan provides: Through 1987, additional long-term inpatient psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy for all existing and approved long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the HRS District is at least 80 percent. FRTC's project is neutral as to this goal. The District Plan also contains a goal for a complete range of health care services for the population of the district. FRTC advances this goal. The State Health Plan further provides: Goal 10: DEVELOP A COMPLETE RANGE OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN EACH HRS DISTRICT OBJECTIVE 10.1: Develop a range of essential mental health services in each HRS district by 1989. OBJECTIVE 10.3: Develop a network of residential treatment settings for Florida's severely emotionally disturbed children by 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.03A: Develop residential placements within Florida for all SED children currently receiving ing treatment in out-of-state facilities by 1990. The FRTC project advances these goals in part. To the extent SED patients placed outside the state for residential treatment services are HRS patients whom FRTC as yet has not contracted to treat, the FRTC project does not advance this goal. However, increased insurance reimbursement will advance accessibility for those SED children and adolescents in need of this type of care whose families have insurance coverage. The State Plan also emphasizes a goal for a continuum of care. The FRTC plan advances this goal. Financial Feasibility William S. Love, Senior Director of Hospital Operations for Charter, was accepted as an expert in health care finance. Mr. Love prepared the pro forma financial statement contained in the original CON application and the update of the pro forma in response to HRS' completeness questions. Mr. Love also had input into the updated financial information which increased salary and benefit expense. (See FOF No. 11). The revised pro forma utilized an assumption of gross patient revenues of $300 per day and a 365 day ALOS, both of which are reasonable and both of which support the rest of FRTC's assumptions (See FOF No. 9). Routine revenues are based on the types of routine services patients normally receive on a daily basis. Ancillary revenues are support revenues such as pharmacy charges, X-rays, lab charges, and other charges not generally utilized on a routine basis. The only charges to patients at the proposed FRTC facility are the routine and ancillary charges. The assumptions with regard to contractual adjustments are that there will be no Medicare utilization since the facility is projected for children and adolescents and no Medicaid since freestanding facilities in Florida are not eligible for Medicaid. Two percent of gross patient revenues are estimated to be contractual adjustments which relate to HMOs and PPOs. FRTC addresses indigent care by 1.5 percent of gross revenues which will be dedicated to Charter Care which is free care. The assumptions with regard to bad debt are that 8 percent of gross revenue will be the allowance for bad debt. An assumption of 20 percent of salaries was used for employee benefits which include the FICA tax, health insurance, dental insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits. Supplies and expenses were calculated as a function of patient day with a $90 per day estimate. Included in supplies and expenses are supplies utilized in the delivery of health care services as well as medical professional fees such as the half-time medical director and purchased services such as laundry, linen, speech and hearing services, utilities, telephone, malpractice insurance, repairs and maintenance. The depreciation assumptions are that the building would be depreciated over 40 years, fixed equipment over 20 years and major movable equipment over 10 years. Pre-opening expenses for the first 45 days of operation have been capitalized over 60 months with low amortization costs over 15 years. There is no income tax assumed in the first year but the assumption in subsequent years is that the tax rate will be 38 percent. The failure to assume a hospital tax is inconsequential. The assumptions for the second fiscal year are basically the same. Although staffing remained the same, the FTEs per occupied bed increased, and a 7 percent inflation factor was added. The project will be financially feasible even though the facility is pessimistically projecting a loss of $102,000 for the first year because a facility can suffer a loss in its first year of operation and remain financially feasible. The facility projects a $286,000 profit in its second year of operation. With regard to utilization by class of pay, FRTC has assumed that the insurance category represents 65.5 percent of total revenues projected and includes such things as commercial insurance, Blue Cross and any third party carrier other than Medicare and Medicaid. Assumptions with regard to the private pay are that 25 percent of the total revenues will be generated by private pay patients and would include the self pay portions of an insurance payor's bill, such as deductible and co-insurance. Bad debt was assumed to be 8 percent, and Charter Care or free care, 1.5 percent. FRTC's projected utilization by class of pay is reasonable and is supported by the protestants' current experience with commercial insurance utilization and reimbursement and the predicted recoveries if RTCPB were IRTP-licensed. In the second year of operation, the assumptions with regard to utilization by class of pay demonstrated an increase in the insurance category from 65.5 to 66.5 percent with everything else remaining the same except for a decrease in bad debt to 7 percent. The assumption with regard to a decrease in bad debt is based upon the establishment of referral patterns from acute psychiatric facilities, outpatient programs, mental health therapists, and miscellaneous programs. The assumption is that 65 percent of the patients would be covered by insurance, not that 65 percent of each bill would be paid by insurance. Charter's experience has been that a good portion of the deductible and co-insurance payments are collectible. FRTC did not assume payment from any governmental contracts or HRS reimbursement. FRTC's projected self pay percentages assumption reasonably contemplates the percentage of households in the district which can afford its projections for self pay. For purposes of evaluating the financial feasibility of this proposal, a management fee was not included because in looking at the financial feasibility of a facility the expenses of a corporate home office are incurred whether or not the facility is built. It was not appropriate to allocate a management fee to the hospital because it showed a loss in its first year of operation and a profit in its second. When the facility becomes profitable, FRTC anticipates passing the profit through to the corporation to help reduce the corporate overhead. If a management fee had been allocated to this facility, allocations would have had to have been made to the other Charter facilities to show where their management expense had decreased and their profitability increased. It would have been inappropriate to take these fixed expenses and allocate a portion of them to the proposed FRTC facility. In addition to the fact that the failure to include a management fee in the pro forma should not affect the feasibility of the project, Charter has good cause not to apply a $44 per patient day management fee in its IRTP. FRTC's categories of payor class are generally reasonable based in part on the results of a survey performed in Florida. FRTC's assumptions and calculations are reasonable, based upon the testimony of William S. Love and Dr. Ronald Luke, notwithstanding the testimony of Dan Sullivan, Donald Wilson, and Christopher Knepper, also qualified as experts. Specifically, it is found that Dr. Luke's assessment that the designation of a facility as a licensed specialty hospital has a beneficial effect on its ability to obtain insurance reimbursement for services, that reimbursement impacts to increase ALOS, and that the breakdown of sources of payment that FRTC has used is reasonable, is a credible assessment, supported elsewhere in the record. It is also found that Mr. Knepper's assessment for bad debt is inadequately supported and inconsistent with other evidence, and therefore not credible. Mr. Sullivan's testimony is not persuasive. Staffing and Recruitment Dr. Brett, a Charter regional director for hospital operations, was accepted as an expert in staffing psychiatric facilities including residential treatment centers. His distinctions between the acute care and residential types of facilities are corroborated and explained by other witnesses and evidence. Mr. Joyner was accepted as Charter's expert recruiter. Although the depth of Mr. Joyner's hands-on involvement in active recruitment is not extensive, the Charter network of manpower referrals and "head hunting" will obviously support this project. Upon the combined testimony of Dr. Brett, Mr. Joyner, and Paul Bodner, Charter's senior director of physician relations, there is sufficient evidence that FRTC can recruit a suitable staffing pattern to ensure quality of care (see FOF Nos. 9 and 10) in its proposed program, even if it has to hire from out of state and pay somewhat higher salaries due to some qualified manpower shortages in certain categories in Palm Beach County. In making this finding, the undersigned has considered the testimony of Donald Wilson concerning certain institution-specific recruiting problems of his principal, RTCPB, and the "step down" status of residential treatment as testified by Mary Certo, of Humana. Impact on Costs and Competition The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to attract patients with insurance coverage who would otherwise go to existing facilities for care, however, in light of the relatively consistent occupancy rates at Humana and RTCPB despite both their geographical proximity and the unique confusion of referrals arising over the relocation of Dr. Kelly, this impact is not altogether clear. Dr. Kelly's reputation will not be impacted by granting of a CON to FRTC. It is also not possible upon the basis of the record created in this hearing to factor out reimbursement differences inherent in Humana's current CON classification and RTCPB's circumstance as an unlicensed intensive residential treatment center. In any case, the negative impact upon Humana must be measured against the health planning goals expressed by several witnesses that it is desirable to substitute more suitable, less restrictive facilities for institutionalization of the severely emotionally disturbed child and adolescent whenever possible and that it is also desirable to encourage residential treatment upon a continuum of care basis after acute psychiatric care. The FRTC project will obviously increase the accessibility to this type of treatment for young people who have the appropriate insurance coverage. These goals are in conformity with the applicable health plans. The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to initially increase some costs of health services throughout the district because it will inflate some salary costs due to competition, but the negative impact will probably be short term.
Recommendation Upon a balanced consideration of all relevant criteria it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order approving FRTC's CON application for an IRTP, as updated, for licensure as a specialty hospital. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 28th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-2037 & 87-2050 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., with regard to the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) of FRTC: Covered in "issue" and FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 2. 3-7. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 8. Accepted in FOF 12. 9-12. Except as subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative, accepted in FOF 7-9. 13. Accepted in FOF 10. 14-17. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 7-11, 30. Although portions of the underlying data referred to in proposal 16 and by Mr. Joyner in his testimony was excluded from evidence, he was qualified as a recruitment expert and for the reasons set forth in FOF 30, his opinion is accepted. 18-19. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 23. Accepted in FOF 24. Accepted in FOF 25 and 29. Accepted in FOF 26 and 29. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 27. Except as mere argument or statement of position, accepted in FOF 26-27, and 29. 27-29. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 26-29. 30-31. Accepted in FOF 28. 32-40. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 9, 11, 21, 26-29. 41-44. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 29-32. 45-47. Rejected, as recital or summation of testimony and as part of preliminary agency review not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 48. Covered in FOF 7, 18-20, 22, and 26. 49-52. dejected as set out in "organic law and legislative background," "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15. See also COL. 53. Accepted in FOF 16. 54-58. Rejected in part and accepted in part as set out in FOF 14-15. Rejected where not supported in full by the record as a whole, where subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found and where mere recital of testimony. 59. Accepted in principle and modified to conform to the record in FOF 18-20, 31. 60-61. Accepted in part and rejected in part as stated in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and in FOF 14-16 and the COL. Accepted in FOF 15 and COL. Accepted in FOF 18-20, 31. 64-68. Rejected as unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 1, 7, 13-15 and 29, also in part as not supported by the record as a whole, and as primarily legal argument and recitation of testimony. Accepted in FOF 3-4 and 30. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 3-4, 7, 26, and 29. 71-74. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9 and 30-32. HRS' Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF): 1-3. Accepted in "organic law and legislative background." 4. (Two paragraphs) Accepted FOF 3-4. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. Accepted, FOF 29-32. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted, FOF 1. 10-18 & 20. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5, 6, 15, 26, 31. 19. Rejected as irrelevant. 21-28. Accepted in part as modified to conform to the record as a whole in FOF 6-9, 30-31. The irrelevant, unnecessary or subordinate material has also been rejected. 29-31. Accepted in FOF 4, 9, 21, 26, 29-31. 32-35. Accepted in FOF 7-9. 36-41. Accepted in FOF 7-9 as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application, in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 42-45. Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 9-11, 21, 23, 30 and 32. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 22, 26. 49-52. Accepted in FOF 3, 4, 21-29. Assuming, based on the transcript reference, that this proposal refers to FRTC's pro forma, this proposal is accepted but unnecessary for the reasons set forth in rulings on HRS' PFOF 36-45. See FOF 11 and 21-29. Accepted in FOF 13-15. 55-58. Rejected as unnecessary. 59. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 13-15. 60-62. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-14, as mere recital of testimony and statements of position. 63. Accepted in FOF 29. 64-65. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Accepted in FOF 7-9. Accepted that HRS made this assumption but it fails to explicate the non-rule policy. See FOF 13-14. Accepted in FOF 16. Rejected as a statement of position or COL. Peripherally, see COL. Accepted in FOF 13-14 but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. Rejected in FOF 13-14. 72-74. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 75-76. Accepted in FOF 17-20. This is a subordinate definition and not a FOF. See FOF 30-31 and COL. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 17-20, 31. Accepted in FOF 10. Accepted in FOF 13-15. Accepted as stated in the "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15 and in the COL. 82-85. Covered in FOF 3-6, 13-15. 86. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 87-88. Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary. 89. Accepted in FOF 29. 90-96. Accepted as modified to conform to the record evidence as a whole and FOF 15-16 and to reject subordinate and unnecessary material. Accepted without any connotations of the word "therefore" in FOF 4, 7-9, 21 and 29. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Accepted in "organic and legislative background" and FOF 13-15. Rejected as not established upon the record as a whole; unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of position only. Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of RTCPB and Humana 1-2 Accepted in FOF 1. 3-4. Accepted in FOF 2. 5-6. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. 7. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 5-6. 8-13. Accepted in part and rejected in part as set out under "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 3-6, 13-15, and the COL. 14-18. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 1, 7-9, 11, 21-29. 19-27. Rejected as irrelevant preliminary action to this de novo proceeding. 28-36. Rejected in part and accepted in part upon the compelling competent, substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set forth in FOF 13-14. Also as to 33 see FOF 15. 37-52. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-16 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence of record as a whole. Irrelevant, unnecessary and subordinate material has been rejected, as has mere argument of counsel. Accepted in FOF 17. Rejected in FOF 20, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 20, 31. Excepting the mere rhetoric, accepted in FOF 18, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 7, 18-20, 26, 31. 58-59. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 17-20, 26, Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as recital of testimony and argument 62-63. Rejected as unnecessary. 64-67. Accepted in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The first sentence is rejected as cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. Rejected in FOF 4, 21. Accepted in FOF 4 and 21, 29. Rejected as unnecessary Accepted in FOF 26. Rejected in FOF 15-20, 31. Rejected as unnecessary in a noncomparitive hearing. 75-87. Except as irrelevant, unnecessary, or subordinate, accepted in FOF 5-9, 30, 31. Rejected in part as unnecessary and in part as not comporting with the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 7-10 and 30. Accepted in FOF 1, 5-9. 90-92. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Rejected in FOF 5-6. Rejected as subordinate. 95-98. Accepted in FOF 5-9. 99-102. Rejected as unnecessary. 103. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9. 104-118. Except as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, these proposals are covered in FOF 5-9, 30-31. Except as Subordinate, covered in FOF 6 and 31. Accepted in part in FOF 5-9, 21-29, otherwise rejected as misleading. Except as subordinate, accepted in FOF 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 21-29. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 21-29. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary in part and not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in 21-29. 127-128. These proposals primarily recite testimony by Mr. Grono, an administrator of a psychiatric hospital for very severely disturbed persons (Grant Center). This evidence by itself is not persuasive in light of Dr. Luke's study and other admissions of the parties referenced in FOF 21-29. Upon the greater weight of contrary evidence, it is rejected. 129. Rejected as subordinate except partly accepted in FOF 29. 130-133. Rejected upon the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 9, 11 and 21-29. 134, 139. Rejected as legal argument without citation. 135-138. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 140-144. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence and as partly mere legal argument. See FOF 9, 21-29. 145. The first sentence is rejected upon the reference to PFOF 140-144 for the same reasons given above and the remainder is rejected as subordinate. 146. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 147. Rejected as mere legal argument without citation. 148-149. Rejected in FOF 21-29, particularly 27 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. The mere legal argument is also rejected. 150-157. Rejected as set out in FOF 28 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. Uncited argument and statements of position have likewise bean rejected. 158, 160. Rejected as mere argument without citation. 159. Rejected as subordinate and not dispositive of any material issue at bar in FOF 23. 161. Rejected as mere argument. 162-167. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in FOF 30-32. Also 167 is rejected as mere argument without citation. 168. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 30-32. 169. Accepted but subordinate. 170. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 31. 171-180. Covered in FOF 30-32. 181-185. Rejected as contrary to the evidence in part and in part unnecessary and cumulative to the ruling in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 7, 10-11, 21, 23, 30-32. 186-188. Rejected in FOF 7, 10 and 30 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. 189. Rejected as unnecessary 190. Rejected in FOF 30. 191-392. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 30-32. 193. Rejected in FOF 30-32. 194-195. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, rejected in the several references to future establishment of referral networks. See FOF 21, 27. 196-197 & 199. Rejected as unnecessary 198. Rejected as irrelevant in part and immaterial in part upon the rulings in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 200. Rejected as unnecessary 201-202. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 26-27 and 31, but cumulative. 203. Covered in the COL. Rejected in FOF 21-22. 204. Rejected as mere argument without citation. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE, CAROTHERS & PROCTOR 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire BONNER & O'CONNEL 900 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH & MADSEN 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred W Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact CON APPLICATIONS HCR-CON No.7530 HCR is a publicly owned, for-profit corporation which operates approximately 25 nursing homes in Florida. HCR filed an application, CON No. 7530, to construct a 98-bed freestanding nursing home. HCR proposes to locate the nursing home in the northwest part of Orange County, Florida. HCR proposes that the entire 98-bed facility will be dedicated to the care of patients with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias. The total cost of the HCR project is $7,132,000 for 47,750 square feet, or $472,776 per bed. The HCR proposal is modeled after an HCR 120-bed nursing home facility in Boynton Beach, Florida. The Boynton Beach facility is entirely dedicated to the treatment of patients with Alzheimer's Disease or related dementias. The proposed HCR facility in Orange County would be identical to the Boynton Beach facility less one patient wing. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, as well as HCR's existing Orange County nursing home facility, have superior licensure ratings. HCR's Boynton Beach facility received accreditation with commendation from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHCO), a national accreditation body which has established standards to measure the quality of care in dementia care units. Dementia is a complex of symptoms that can be caused by many different underlying diseases. Alzheimer's disease is one cause of dementia. Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia. Significant research is being conducted into the cause and treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Dementia is defined as a decline in intellectual function; global cognitive impairment, that is memory impairment and at least one of the following: impairment of abstract thinking; impairment of judgment; impairment of other complex capabilities such as language use, ability to perform complex physical tasks, ability to recognize objects or people, or to construct objects; and, personality change. The Reisberg Cognitive Rating Scale (RCS) classifies the stages of Alzheimer's disease from 1 to 7, with a rating of 7 being most severe. The rating scale is based on 10 axes: concentration, recent memory, past memory, orientation, functioning and self-care, speech, motor functioning, mood and behavior, practice of an art or skill, and calculation ability. The Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) for Age-Associated Cognitive decline and Alzheimer's Disease also defines seven stages of deterioration ranging from no cognitive decline to very severe cognitive decline. Persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease generally cannot survive without assistance upon reaching early dementia or level five on both the RCS and GDS. Approximately 50-58 percent of persons currently residing in community nursing homes suffer from some form of dementia. There is a need for community nursing home beds for persons suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease in Orange County. It is particularly difficult to place in nursing homes in Orange County, persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease (levels 5-7) who also have displayed a history of disruptive behavior patterns. Persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease have specific needs for care and treatment in nursing homes. Alzheimer's victims tend to wander and should have areas set aside for secured walking. The movement of Alzheimer's victims should also be carefully monitored. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, which is the prototype for HCR's proposed Orange County facility, has specific design features to accommodate the needs of patients suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease. HCR proposes a pod design of five residential pod units each with a central living area, also called the atrium area. The resident rooms open to the central living area. Each pod has an enclosed courtyard. Access to the courtyards is controlled. The two nursing stations are centrally located in each wing of the facility. Each central living area, or atrium, is visible from one or the other of the nursing stations. HCR provides specific staff training in the care and treatment of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. A unit or a facility dedicated to the treatment of dementia patients may reduce the need for psychotropic medication of the patients. On a long-term basis, there may be some staff burnout in a facility or unit dedicated solely to the care and treatment of victims of Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. HCR proposes that its CON be conditioned upon locating in northwest Orange County, providing at least 30 percent of its patient days to Medicaid eligible persons, providing respite care, and dedicating all 98 beds to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. HCR currently meets its Medicaid commitment in the Boynton Beach facility. LIFE CARE CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P LIFE CARE is a for-profit corporation which owns and operates two nursing homes in Florida. LIFE CARE also operates three other nursing homes in Florida. As of September 1993, LIFE CARE had a net worth of approximately $50 million. LIFE CARE proposes to construct a freestanding 98-bed nursing home (CON No. 7534) in southwest Orange County, at a total cost of $5,988,000. The LIFE CARE 98-bed facility proposal includes a 20-bed unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a 20-bed subacute unit, an adult day care center, mental health services, and services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. LIFE CARE also made a partial request (CON No. 7534P) for a 60-bed facility which would be constructed at the same site and would include the same features. For economic reasons, patients are being released from acute care hospital settings at earlier stages of recovery and there is a need for subacute nursing home services in Orange County. The incidence of AIDS/HIV is increasing and there is a need for nursing home services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The 20-bed unit proposed by LIFE CARE for the care and treatment of Alzheimer's patients will be a distinct part of the facility, separate from other residents. The Alzheimer's unit has its own dining area and activity area, a centrally located bathing facility, and a secured courtyard for wandering space. The 20-bed LIFE CARE subacute unit will also be separate. The subacute unit will have two ventilator areas and be contiguous to a therapy area. The LIFE CARE design includes outdoor courtyards, a library, gift shop, and ice cream parlor. Pursuant to Sections 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, one of the required elements of a CON application is the listing of capital projects, which is presented in Schedule 2 of the CON application. The Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in these proceedings is identical to the Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in the December 1993 batching cycle for LIFE CARE'S proposed Clay County Project, CON No. 7501. It has been held that Schedule 2 of the LIFE CARE Clay County Project CON application No. 7501 met minimum CON application content requirements. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, 20 F.L.W. 1435 (Fla. 1st DCA June 12, 1995). During November of 1993, a LIFE CARE nursing home located in Altamonte Springs was downgraded from a superior to a conditional licensure rating due to a deficiency related to outdated medication. The conditional rating given to the facility was in effect for approximately fifty days. The facility was then given a standard rating, and upon the annual survey in the fall of 1994, the facility has been recommended for a superior rating. All other LIFE CARE facilities have superior ratings. LIFE CARE proposes to condition its CON application upon providing Medicaid participation of 65 percent in the 98-bed facility, and 43 percent in the 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST CON No. 7528 ADVENTIST is a not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care related enterprises. ADVENTIST is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Health Care Corporation, which owns and operates hospitals and health care facilities throughout the United States. ADVENTIST has operated health care facilities in Orange County since the early 1900s when Florida Hospital was founded. ADVENTIST is the largest hospital system in Orange County, with more than 1,400 beds located on five campuses. ADVENTIST proposes to add 38 beds to an existing freestanding 80-bed community nursing home, Sunbelt Living Center-East Orlando (SLC), which is directly adjacent to Florida Hospital's East Orlando campus. The ADVENTIST proposal would include a 20-bed subacute unit and also an 18-bed skilled nursing unit. This addition to SLC would be accomplished by constructing two new wings to the existing facility. The projected cost of the ADVENTIST addition is $1,386,500, or approximately $36,000 per bed. SLC is an 80-bed skilled nursing facility which opened in January of 1993. SLC has a superior licensure rating. SLC provides nursing home service to a variety of residents, including persons with AIDS/HIV, as well as persons with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. SLC does not have a distinct Alzheimer's unit, but is equipped with security features to accommodate Alzheimer's patients. SLC staff is trained in the care and treatment of all its residents, including those with dementia. SLC reached an occupancy rate of 96 percent-97 percent capacity in its first ten months of operation. The SLC design is based on a residential model. The intent of the design is to create a residential community, and to encourage the interaction among the residents, and also between the residents and staff. The residential wings contain twelve rooms with private and semiprivate accommodations. Each room has its own toilet facilities. The support facilities, food service, therapy areas, administrative offices, visitor and welcoming areas, are located in the center of the facility. The residential wings are clustered on each side of the facility. The facility also features outdoor courtyards and walkways adjacent to the residential wings. ADVENTIST proposes to condition its CON application on providing a Medicaid commitment of 65 percent of total patient days in the non-subacute wing of the 38-bed expansion. The ADVENTIST proposal also features an AIDS program and respite care. ADVENTIST currently meets it Medicaid commitment at SLC. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. There is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. In the 20-bed subacute unit ADVENTIST proposes that each room will include wall-mounted suction and gases to accommodate ventilator dependent patients, which will enable ADVENTIST to provide more intensive subacute care. RHA/PRINCETON CON No.7538 RHA is the owner and operator of Princeton Hospital, located on the west side of Orlando. Princeton Hospital is situated on 32 acres bordering Lake Lawne. Princeton Hospital has 150 beds, including 24 psychiatric beds, a multipurpose intensive care unit, a 13-bed progressive care unit, a nursery, pediatric services, women's services, an obstetrical unit and an inpatient cardiac catheterization lab. The psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital treats a wide range of mental disorders, including those afflicting the elderly population. The hospital also operates a senior psychiatric partial hospitalization program which serves geriatric patients, including persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Princeton Hospital currently provides care and treatment to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. Princeton Hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. On August 1, 1994, subsequent to the filing of CON application No. 7538, Princeton Hospital entered into a wide-ranging affiliation agreement with the University of Florida, College of Medicine and Shands Hospital. The agreement provides for extensive reciprocal training and educational programs between Princeton Hospital and the College of Medicine, as well as Shands Hospital. The agreement also provides for priority transfer of patients between Princeton and Shands hospitals. RHA proposes to include its nursing home facility within the scope of the affiliation agreement. The nursing home staff would benefit from the training and educational opportunities, and the nursing home patients would have access to priority reciprocity with the College of Medicine and Shands Hospital as provided for in the agreement. During fiscal years 1993 and 1994 Princeton Hospital had a Medicaid patient ratio of approximately 40 percent. Princeton Hospital also provides indigent care. RHA proposes to construct a freestanding 60-bed Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility on the campus of Princeton Hospital at a cost of $4,991,961 for 43,741 square feet, or $83,199 per bed. The services that are proposed include subacute care, a 15-bed unit for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, long term care, and two pediatric beds. Respite care will also be provided. RHA proposes that its subacute care unit would provide step-down care for patients referred from acute care hospital settings. RHA also proposes to provide rehabilitative therapies to serve patients suffering from fractured hips and joint replacements as well as other patients needing more intensive physical therapy. Cardiac and respiratory patients will also be served in the subacute unit. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. RHA's proposed 15-bed Alzheimer's unit will be a distinct and secured part of the facility. The unit will have its own enclosed courtyard and activities area. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in Orange County. RHA also proposes a program dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This program will provide long-term care, and will include psychiatric, as well as subacute services. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The RHA proposal includes two pediatric nursing home beds. It is not uncommon to provide pediatric nursing home beds in a small unit within a nursing home facility. These beds will provide subacute care to pediatric patients referred from acute care hospital settings. It is anticipated that the pediatric unit will serve patients with respiratory problems and other multiple system failures. RHA has experienced difficulty in placing pediatric patients discharged from Princeton Hospital. The RHA facility is designed in a series of modules. There are four patient wings located around a single nursing station. The Alzheimer's wing is distinct and secured. The pediatric beds are located in a single semiprivate room close to the nursing station. The subacute unit includes six beds with wall-mounted medical gases and vacuums. Each residential room has approximately 272 net square feet, and features its own handicapped toilet and bathing facilities. The facility includes a chapel, convenience store, laundry, ice cream shop, and beauty shop, designed in a mall concept. The corridors are ten feet in width instead of the standard eight feet. The intent of the design concept is to encourage social interaction. As designed, the location of the soiled utility room in the facility does not comply with applicable Florida code regulations; however, a proposed minor change in the design will move the soiled utility room approximately twenty feet to bring the facility into compliance with Florida code regulations. ALLOCATION FACTORS Relationship to District and State Health Plans Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes District Health Plan Allocation Factor 1 of the District Health Plan provides a priority for an applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center. This preference will continue to be given applicants until a total of 120 beds is obtained. HCR is the only applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center; however, in January of 1993, Sunbelt Living Center, a 120-bed community nursing home opened in Apopka, Florida, which is located in the northwest Orange County population center. Accordingly, the total bed number for this preference has been obtained, and this district allocation factor is inapplicable to these proceedings. Allocation Factor 2 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for applicants developing specific services for newborn and/or pediatric patients. RHA is the only applicant proposing specific services which include a unit for the care and treatment of pediatric patients. Accordingly, RHA is the only applicant which meets this allocation factor. Allocation Factor 3 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for an applicant proposing to develop a specific specialty service (or services), such as a unit for medically complex patients, a unit dealing with psychiatric disorders as a primary diagnosis, or services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This preference is also provided to an applicant which commits to working with, or in conjunction with, an existing provider of a specialty service, such as hospices, or mental health providers. RHA is the applicant which best meets this allocation factor. The RHA proposal provides for specialty services for medically complex patients, provides for services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV, and RHA specifically commits to working with mental health providers, including working with the psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE also propose to provide specialty services to medically complex patients in subacute units; however, the ADVENTIST facility is better equipped in this regard and is designed with piped in medical gases, vacuum, and expanded electrical capacity will have the capability to provide more extensive services. LIFE CARE also proposes to treat persons suffering from AIDS/HIV and persons with mental disorders. The LIFE CARE proposal, however, is not as specific in this regard as that of RHA. HCR proposes to provide specialty services to persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, and is in general compliance with this allocation factor. State Health Plan Allocation Factors Each applicant meets the first State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to locate in areas within the subdistrict with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate in Orange County exceeds 90 percent. RHA and LIFE CARE meet the second State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to serve Medicaid patients in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of nursing homes. In Orange County the average is 65 percent for Medicaid service. ADVENTIST meets this preference with regard to its non-subacute unit. HCR which proposes a 30 percent Medicaid service does not meet this preference. The third State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Each applicant generally complies with this allocation factor and offers specialty services; however, RHA with its broader spectrum of specialty services, including services to AIDS/HIV residents, Alzheimer's residents, and its specific commitment to working with residents suffering from psychiatric disorders best meets this preference. The fourth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents including, but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this preference. RHA and ADVENTIST have a history of providing quality health care service to the community. RHA and ADVENTIST have extensive ongoing relationships with acute care hospitals. HCR and LIFE CARE have also established relationships which will address providing a continuum of care, but not to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. The fifth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. Each applicant proposes facilities designed to provide resident comfort and quality care. Each design has comfortable resident rooms, spacious activities areas, recreation areas, courtyards, landscaping, therapy rooms, and staff lounge areas. Each applicant meets this preference. The sixth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing innovative therapeutic programs which have proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functioning level and which emphasize restorative care. Each of the applicants' proposals feature specific elements of innovative therapeutic programs. HCR has received an award for its innovative design of the Boynton Beach Alzheimer's unit. RHA offers a multi-discipline approach with a psychiatric program. ADVENTIST offers an intensive subacute care unit, and LIFE CARE offer a well-balanced approach with intensive staff training. The seventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. In this respect, HCR projects Medicaid charges of $96.20 per patient day in Year 1, and $93.32 in Year 2. LIFE CARE projects Medicaid charges of $104.74 per patient day in Year 1, and $106.20 in Year 2. ADVENTIST projects Medicaid charges of $106.00 per patient day in Year 1, and $111.30 in Year 2. RHA projects Medicaid charges of $107.02 per patient day in Year 1, and $109.24 in Year 2. While HCR projects the lowest Medicaid per diem charges and appears to best meet this allocation factor, all applicants have agreed to a specified Medicaid utilization rate, and will accept the appropriate Medicaid reimbursement levels. The eighth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant with a history of providing superior resident care in Florida or other states. HCR has maintained superior licensure ratings, and its prototype Boynton Beach facility currently is rated superior. LIFE CARE in 1993 experienced a conditional rating for its Altamonte Springs facility; however, the facility, upon evaluation in the fall of 1994, is now recommended for a superior licensure rating. RHA does not currently operate nursing homes; however, RHA has a history of providing quality care in its Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST is the only applicant proposing to add nursing home beds to an existing facility that currently has a superior licensure rating, and in this respect, ADVENTIST best meets this allocation factor. The ninth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing staff levels which exceed minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents shall be given preference. All applicants meet this factor; however a comparison of the nursing staffing patterns of the applicants reflects that HCR (45.40 nursing FTE) and LIFE CARE (45.30 nursing FTE) have a higher than the minimum required ratio of nursing staff to residents for their proposed 98-bed facilities. RHA has proposed 35.30 nursing FTE for its 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST proposes a total 62.40 nursing FTE for its facility after the proposed 38-bed addition. The tenth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreational activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals shall include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All the applicants offer a wide range of social, spiritual, nutritional, and recreational services. RHA, however, also proposes specific utilization of mental health care professionals, and a specific affiliation with the psychiatric care professionals from Princeton Hospital, and best meets this factor. The eleventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who ensures the residents' rights and privacy, and who implements a well-designed quality assurance and discharge planning program. Each applicant has documented specific plans for quality assurance and ensuring the residents' rights and privacy are protected. Accordingly, each applicant meets this factor. The final State Health Plan allocation factor provides for a preference to an applicant proposing lower administrative costs, and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. HCR has the lowest projected administrative and overhead costs ($18.28 per patient day as of Year 2), and best meets this allocation factor. Statutory Review Criteria, Section 408.035(1), F.S. Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, inadequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. HCR, LIFE CARE, and RHA each proposes a unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (HCR 98-bed facility, LIFE CARE 20-bed unit, and RHA 15-bed unit). ADVENTIST, while currently providing care for Alzheimer's patients at SLC, does not propose a distinct Alzheimer's unit in its 38-bed addition. There are currently at least five nursing homes in the service district, and two others in close proximity, which feature dedicated Alzheimer's units, with a total of at least 345 nursing home beds serving Alzheimer's patients. There is a high utilization rate of Alzheimer's nursing home beds in the district. While there is an established need for more beds to serve Alzheimer's patients, particularly Alzheimer's patients with a history of disruptive behavior, there are additional needs in the service district to provide care and treatment for subacute patients, and for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. It is difficult to quantify the need for subacute nursing home beds due to the differing professional definitions of what constitutes subacute care; however, acute care hospitals in Orange County are, for cost-effective reasons, now releasing patients on an earlier basis, and there is an established need for nursing home beds to accommodate persons released from acute care hospitals. There is a high utilization rate of subacute beds in the district. There has also been an increase in the incidence of AIDS/HIV patients, and in the need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in the service district. Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Each applicant has the ability to provide quality of care, and each applicant has a history of providing quality of care. The distinguishing factors in this regard are that LIFE CARE is the only applicant that has experienced a downgrading of a nursing home facility from a superior to a conditional licensure rating, and ADVENTIST is the only applicant that proposes to add nursing home beds to a facility that currently has a superior licensure rating. In comparison, ADVENTIST best meets this factor, and LIFE CARE least meets this factor. Section 408.035(1)(e): Probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. ADVENTIST and RHA both have specific proposals to work with, and share services with acute care hospitals. Both are in close proximity to acute care hospitals which will expedite sharing of medical resources. RHA will also share dietary services with Princeton Hospital. The freestanding facilities proposed by HCR and LIFE CARE do not have this advantage. Section 408.035(1)(f): The need in the service district for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. This factor is inapplicable to the proposals. No specific need was established as to special services and equipment not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. There are dedicated Alzheimer's units and dementia services for persons in adjoining areas. Section 408.035(1)(g): The need for research and educational facilities, including but not limited to, institutional training programs and community training programs for health care practitioners. RHA has an extensive proposal for the participation and training of health care practitioners in conjunction with Princeton Hospital and best meets this criterion. RHA's affiliation with the University of Florida College of Medicine, Shands Hospital, and the Brain Institute at the University of Florida enhances this proposal. ADVENTIST shares a similar educational and training relationship with Florida Hospital, and with Florida Hospital's registered nurse baccalaureate degree program through Southern College. LIFE CARE proposes to establish relationships with local community colleges and education centers to sponsor nursing programs. Section 408.035(1)(h): The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures for project accomplishment As stipulated, each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant also has substantial personnel and management resources available for project accomplishment. Section 408.035(1)(i): The immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. LIFE CARE, ADVENTIST and RHA meet this criterion, and reasonably project positive cash flows by the second year of operation. RHA a not-for- profit corporation, projects a net loss of $114,000 in Year 1 of operation, and an excess of revenues over expenses of $53,000 in Year 2 of operation. LIFE CARE projects a net loss of $440,496 in Year 1 and a net gain of $145,085 in Year 2 for the 98-bed facility, and a net loss of $259,971 in Year 1 and a net gain of $54,920 in Year 2 for the 60-bed facility. HCR projects an after-tax profit of $25,000 in Year 2; however, in order to attain a level of profitability HCR must meet its projected 65 percent private pay utilization. This is a very high private payor mix, and there is a significant question as to whether this payor mix is attainable in the subdistrict; however, as proposed, HCR meets this factor. Sections 408.035(1)(k)(l) and (m): Impact of the project on cost of health services; cost effective- ness; construction costs. ADVENTIST proposes the most cost-effective project by adding beds to an existing facility (SLC). The addition of 38 beds to SLC will promote and maximize the overall efficiency of the facility which was originally designed with core support features to accommodate 120 residents. The proposed 38-bed addition to SLC will also lower the costs per patient day of the entire facility. The ADVENTIST proposal adds nursing home beds at the lowest per bed cost ($36,000 per bed) of all applicants. Similarly, RHA is located on the campus of an existing acute care hospital owned by the applicant and, unlike HCR and LIFE CARE, projects no actual cash expenditure for land acquisition. Each applicant has proposed a reasonable design of its proposed facility and reasonable construction costs, and taken into consideration applicable costs and methods of energy provision and conservation. Each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant has also proposed a very high quality of care facility that will foster competition and promote quality assurance and cost- effectiveness. Each applicant meets this criterion. Section 408.035(1)(n): The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. RHA, ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE have proposed providing health care services to Medicaid patients at rates at, or in excess of, the district average. HCR proposes the lowest Medicaid service rate at 30 percent. RHA also has a strong record of providing Medicaid services and service to the medically indigent at Princeton Hospital. All applicants except HCR meet this factor. Section 408.035(1)(o): The applicant's past and proposed provision of services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals best meet this criterion. Both the RHA and the ADVENTIST proposals are closely associated with existing hospitals, and emphasize a continuum of care from the acute hospital setting to a nursing home facility. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals promote the interaction of health care professionals in a multilevel health care system. The HCR and LIFE CARE proposals do not reflect such an extensive interconnection with other aspects of the health care system, and do not promote a continuum of care to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. Section 408.035(2)(b): Whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those being proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. The evidence reflects that the existing inpatient facilities in, or adjacent to, the district which offer subacute and AIDS services, as well as services dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are operating at, or near, capacity, and are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: RHA's application for CON No. 7538 be APPROVED. ADVENTIST'S application for CON No. 7528 be APPROVED. HCR's application for CON No. 7530 be DENIED. LIFE CARE'S applications for CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 27th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX HCR's Proposed Findings 1-5. Accepted in substance. 6. Rejected, insofar as quantification of need for subacute services, while not readily ascertainable, was demonstrated by other applicants.demonstrated need existed in district 7-8. Accepted in substance. 9. See Number 6. 10-14. Accepted in substance, but disposed of by ruling in Clay County case. 15-27. Accepted in substance. 28-36. Rejected insofar as quantification of need for subacute services is not readily accessible; however, need for such services was established. Accepted, except that need for 120 beds has been met. Accepted, except that RHA proposes specific pediatric services and is entitled to preference. Accepted in substance, except last sentence is rejected. Accepted. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST meets preference as to the non- subacute unit. 42-43. Accepted in substance. 44-45. Rejected. Accepted in substance. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST and RHA also meet this factor, and ADVENTIST is adding beds to an existing superior-rated facility. 48-50. Accepted in part, other applicants meet these factors. 51-65. Accepted in substance; however other services are also needed in the district. 66-67. Rejected. 68-73. Accepted in substance. 74-76. Accepted; however other services are also needed in the district. 77. Rejected. 78-86. Accepted in substance. 87-94. Accepted only to the extent that the HCR proposal meets the minimum requirements to demonstrate financial feasibility. 95-103. Accepted in substance; however each applicant's proposal also meets this factor. 104-112. Accepted in substance. 113. Rejected. 114. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. 115-116. Accepted only as to RHA design features. 117-122. Rejected. 123-127. Accepted in substance. 128-131. Rejected. LIFE CARE's Proposed Findings 1-3. Accepted in substance. 4. Accepted, except that district plan includes consideration of pediatric population. 5-7. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. See Finding No. 4. Rejected to the extent that it is not uncommon for pediatric care to be provided in a nursing home setting. 10-38. Accepted in substance. 39-40. Rejected to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST have competitive staff salaries and have experienced no difficulty in hiring qualified staff. 41-57. Accepted in substance. 58-59. Rejected. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. Rejected. 62-65. Accepted in substance. 66-69. Disposed of by Clay County case. Accepted; however ADVENTIST meets this factor in the non-subacute unit. Accepted in substance. ADVENTIST's Proposed Findings 1-4. Accepted in substance. 5. Accepted only to the extent that HCR does not propose a specific subacute care unit. 6-13. Accepted in substance. Rejected to the extent that HCR's proposal meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. Accepted. 16-17. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. 20-21. Accepted in substance. 22-26. Disposed of by Clay County case. 27-29. Accepted in substance 30-31. Rejected. 32-35. Accepted in substance. 36. Rejected; see No. 19. 37-106. Accepted in substance. 107. Accepted; see No. 19. RHA's Proposed Findings 1-21. Accepted in substance. 22. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. 23-54. Accepted in substance. 55. Accepted to the extent that there are at least seven nursing homes with dedicated Alzheimer's units in or near the service area. 56-92. Accepted in substance. 93-96. Accepted; however HCR meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 97-102. Accepted; however LIFE CARE meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 103. Rejected. 104-122. Accepted in substance. 123. Rejected. 124-135. Accepted in substance. 136. Rejected to the extent that all applicants have met the design criterion. 137-140. Accepted in substance. 141. Rejected. 142-145. Accepted in substance. 146. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen K. Boone, Esquire BOONE, BOONE & BOONE, P.A. Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida. 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire PENNINGTON & HABEN, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire MACFARLANE, AUSLEY, FERGUSON & MCMULLEN, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Dean Bunton, Esquire Senior Attorney, AHCA Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire MATEER, HARBERT & BATES, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 James M. Barclay, Esquire COBB, C0LE & BELL 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency") concerning the preliminary approval of Certificate of Need (“CON”) Application No. 10199 submitted by Select Specialty Hospital-Daytona Beach, Inc., (“Select-Daytona”), to establish a 34-bed Long Term Acute Care Hospital (“LTCH”) in District 4. 1. The Agency preliminarily approved Application No. 10199 submitted by Select- Daytona to establish a 34-bed LTCH in District 4. 2. In response to the Agency’s decision, Kindred Hospitals East, LLC (“Kindred”) filed a petition for formal hearing, challenging the preliminary approval. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) where it was assigned Case No. 14-0121CON for hearing. Select-Daytona filed a Motion to Intervene in the DOAH and the case was styled with Select-Daytona being treated as an intervenor. Filed March 17, 2014 2:04 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 3. Subsequently, Kindred filed a corrected notice of voluntary dismissal of its petition in the DOAH, which closed the case. It is therefore ORDERED: 4. The preliminary approval of CON No. 10199 is upheld and will be issued subject to the conditions noted in the State Agency Action Report. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this IE day of far ch. Elizabeth Dudelj, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2014,
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules, The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below- —_— named persons by the method designated on this SL ‘a day of LS ere 4 , 2014. Shoop, Agency Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 412-3630 Facilities Intake Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) R. Bruce McKibben Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings www.doah.state. fl.us M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole cbryant@ohfe.com amooney@ohfc.com (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire James McLemore, Supervisor Ausley and McMullen Certificate of Need Unit mglazer@ausley.com Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail)
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need ("CON") Application No. 9481 by St. Vincent's Medical Center, Inc. ("St. Vincent's"), for a 10- bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit ("NICU") at the hospital proposed in CON Application No. 9484P should be approved?
Findings Of Fact The Acute Care Cases Pursuant to order rendered March 14, 2002, this case (the "NICU Case") was heard in the same final hearing with DOAH Case Nos. 02-0447CON, 02-0882CON, 02-0943CON, and 02-0971CON, (the "Acute Care Cases"). The Order acknowledged overlap between the Acute Care Cases and this case but did not consolidate the cases so that separate recommended orders are required for the Acute Care Case and for this case. The final hearing in the Acute Care Cases and the NICU Case commenced on May 13, 2002, and concluded on June 20, 2002. (The record was reopened in the Acute Care Cases and the hearing on reopening ended October 9, 2002. The proceeding on reopening did not concern the NICU Case.) A Recommended Order was rendered in the Acute Care Cases on February 5, 2003. To the extent relevant, its findings of fact are incorporated into this order. Obstetrics at St. Vincent's St. Vincent's has a significant obstetrical practice that includes neonatal intensive care services. It operates a 17-bed Labor-Delivery-Recovery-Postpartum ("LDRP") Unit that has an adjacent 23-bed unit for overflow postpartum and gynecology patients. In the same area of the hospital is its 10-bed Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ("NICU"). There are 2,300 to 2,400 births annually at St. Vincent's. The NICU has an average daily census of six. St. Vincent's participates in a family practice residency program in which residents rotate through the obstetrical department and "as far as the nurseries go" (tr. 912) the pediatric program. St. Vincent's operates a program unique to Jacksonville in which postpartum services are provided at no cost: the Seton Center. The center's services can be expanded to St. Luke's if acquired by St. Vincent's. St. Vincent's Level II NICU is staffed by the same neonatologists that staff the Level II NICU at St. Luke's. Obstetrics at St. Luke's St. Luke's has an existing 17-bed LDRP unit with 10 antipartum beds. The Obstetrics ("OB") Program is known as the Family Birth Place. Opened in March of 1998, it had approximately 500 deliveries that year. The number of births increased to 1,600 in 2000 and has remained in the range of 1,500 to 1,800. Not part of the original hospital construction but added later to accommodate the new obstetrical service, the Family Birth Place for security has a separate entrance at the hospital. It uses a strong LDRP concept, "meaning that the mothers are admitted to a room where they labor, they deliver and they usually stay there." (Tr. 971) There are two C-section rooms in the LDRP unit. If an obstetrical patient needs an extra day or two, she may be moved to the overflow unit. If not, as in the typical case of other obstetrical patients, the stay is spent in a "well decorated, [private] room that has the ability to take care of the baby, stabilize the baby and stabilize the mother during the birth process." (Tr. 972) There are both Mayo and community obstetricians on staff delivering babies at St. Luke's. In August of 2000, a 10-bed Level II NICU was opened as part of the Family Birth Place. The CON for the unit at St. Luke's was approved without opposition from Memorial. Obstetrics at Memorial Memorial provides OB and NICU level II services to the residents of District 4 at its Woman's Center. The center offers a complement of OB and Level II NICU services in an integrated, multi-floor, single patient tower on the Memorial Campus. The center includes an admitting area, a lactation consultant's office, multiple operative and post operative discharge areas, operating room suites for women's surgery, holding areas for meetings between candidates for surgery and anesthesiologists and other clinicians, labor and recovery beds, an overflow area, an anti-partum testing and triage area, an inpatient unit for C-section patients, and LDRP suites with a full spectrum of obstetrical and GYN services both inpatient and outpatient and the 10-bed Level II NICU. Memorial has invested in a number of improvements to the center. Rooms have been converted from semi-private to private. Hard wood floors and other improvements have been made to enhance the health care environment for OB and NICU patients. The quality of care at Memorial's Women Center is excellent. Relationship of the Proposed Project to Other Applications The 10-bed Level II NICU proposed by St. Vincent's to be located at St. Luke's is related and contingent upon the approval of two other CON applications. The first is St. Luke's CON No. 9483 for a 214-bed replacement hospital on the Mayo Clinic Campus. The second is St. Vincent's CON Application No. 9494P for establishment of a 135-bed facility to be operated at the existing St. Luke's facility. The two other applications are interdependent. Neither can be implemented unless both are approved. If both are not approved or if either is not approved, St. Luke's will continue to operate a Level II NICU at St. Luke's. The status quo will be unaffected vis-à-vis the Level II NICU at St. Luke's. If the two other applications are both approved and this application is approved the outcome vis-à-vis the number and type of NICU beds at St. Luke's will be no different than if the other two applications are not approved. There will continue to be a 10-bed Level II NICU at the St. Luke's facility. Approval of the all applications means that the operators of the NICU beds will be different (St. Vincent's instead of St. Luke's) but the number and type of beds will remain the same. The transfer in control of the NICU from St. Luke's to St. Vincent's, moreover, will be without interruption in the services rendered to the NICU patients. Only if the other two applications are both approved and this application is not approved will there be a change in the status quo vis-à-vis the number and type of the Level II NICU beds at the St. Luke's facility. In such a case, the Level II NICU beds at the St. Luke's facility will cease to exist.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration dismiss the Petition of Memorial Healthcare Group Inc., d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kathryn F. Fenske, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 8355 Northwest 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33166 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Sean M. Frazier, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0391 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Law Office of R. Terry Rigsby, P. A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) 7700 filed by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, LTD. d/b/a Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart or MH).
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and taking action on CON applications pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes. The applicant, Miami Heart, operates a hospital facility known as Miami Heart Institute which, at the time of hearing, was comprised of a north campus (consisting of 273 licensed beds) and a south campus (consisting of 258 beds) in Miami, Florida. The two campuses operate under a single license which consolidated the operation of the two facilities. The consolidation of the license was approved by CON 7399 which was issued by the Agency prior to the hearing of this case. The Petitioner, Mount Sinai, is an existing health care facility doing business in the same service district. On February 4, 1994, AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero adult inpatient psychiatric beds for the planning horizon applicable to this batching cycle. The fixed need pool was not challenged. On February 18, 1994, Miami Heart submitted its letter of intent for the first hospital batching cycle of 1994, and sought to add twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at the Miami Heart Institute south campus. Such facility is located in the Agency's district 11 and is approximately two (2) miles from the north campus. Notice of that letter was published in the March 11, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Miami Heart's letter of intent provided, in pertinent part: By this letter, Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Miami Heart Institute announces its intent to file a Certificate of Need Application on or before March 23, 1994 for approval to establish 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults at Miami Heart Institute. Thus, the applicant seeks approval for this project pursuant to Sections 408.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The proposed capital expenditure for this project shall not exceed $1,000,000 and will include new construction and the renovation of existing space. Miami Heart Institute is located in Local Health Council District 11. There are no subsdistricts for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11. The applicable need formula for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults is contained within Rule 59C-1.040(4)(c), F.A.C. The Agency published a fixed need of "0" for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11 for this batching cycle. However, "not normal" circumstances exist within District which justify approval of this project. These circumstances are that Miami Beach Community Hospital, which is also owned by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., and which has an approved Certificate of Need Application to consol- idate its license with that of the Miami Heart Institute, has pending a Certificate of Need Application to delicense up to 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults. The effect of the application, which is the subject of this Letter of Intent, will be to relocate 20 of the delicensed adult psychiatric beds to the Miami Heart Institute. Because of the "not normal" circumstances alleged in the Miami Heart letter of intent, the Agency extended a grace period to allow competing letters of intent to be filed. No additional letters of intent were submitted during the grace period. On March 23, 1994, Miami Heart timely submitted its CON application for the project at issue, CON no. 7700. Notice of the application was published in the April 8, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Such application was deemed complete by the Agency and was considered to be a companion to the delicensure of the north campus beds. On July 22, 1994, the Agency published in the Florida Administrative Weekly its preliminary decision to approve CON no. 7700. In the same batch as the instant case, Cedars Healthcare Group (Cedars), also in district 11, applied to add adult psychiatric beds to Cedars Medical Center through the delicensure of an equal number of adult psychiatric beds at Victoria Pavilion. Cedars holds a single license for the operation of both Cedars Medical Center and Victoria Pavilion. As in this case, the Agency gave notice of its intent to grant the CON application. Although this "transfer" was initially challenged, it was subsequently dismissed. Although filed at the same time (and, therefore, theoretically within the same batch), the Cedars CON application and the Miami Heart CON application were not comparatively reviewed by the Agency. The Agency determined the applicants were merely seeking to relocate their own licensed beds. Based upon that determination, MH's application was evaluated in the context of the statutory criteria, the adult psychiatric beds and services rule (Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code), the district 11 local health plan, and the 1993 state health plan. Ms. Dudek also considered the utilization data for district 11 facilities. Mount Sinai timely filed a petition challenging the proposed approval of CON 7700 and, for purposes of this proceeding only, the parties stipulated that MS has standing to raise the issues remaining in this cause. Mount Sinai's existing psychiatric unit utilization is presently at or near full capacity, and MS' existing unit would not provide an adequate, available, or accessible alternative to Miami Heart's proposal, unless additional bed capacity were available to MS in the future through approval of additional beds or changes in existing utilization. Miami Heart's proposal to establish twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its Miami Heart Institute south campus was made in connection with its application to delicense twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its north campus. The Agency advised MH to submit two CON applications: one for the delicensure (CON no. 7474) and one for the establishment of the twenty beds at the south campus (CON no. 7700). The application to delicense the north campus beds was expeditiously approved and has not been challenged. As to the application to establish the twenty beds at the south campus, the following statutory criteria are not at issue: Section 408.035(1)(c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o) and (2)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Miami Heart meets, at least minimally, those criteria. During 1993, Miami Heart made the business decision to cease operations at its north campus and to seek the Agency's approval to relocate beds and services from that facility to other facilities owned by MH, including the south campus. Miami Heart does not intend to delicense the twenty beds at the north campus until the twenty beds are licensed at the south campus. The goal is merely to transfer the existing program with its services to the south campus. Miami Heart did not seek beds from a fixed need pool. Since approximately April, 1993, the Miami Heart north campus has operated with the twenty bed adult psychiatric unit and with a limited number of obstetrical beds. The approval of CON no. 7700 will not change the overall total number of adult general inpatient psychiatric beds within the district. The adult psychiatric program at MH experiences the highest utilization of any program in district 11, with an average length of stay that is consistent with other adult programs around the state. Miami Heart's existing psychiatric program was instituted in 1978. Since 1984, there has been little change in nursing and other staff. The program provides a full continuum of care, with outpatient programs, aftercare, and support programs. Nearly ninety-nine percent of the program's inpatient patient days are attributable to patients diagnosed with serious mental disorders. The Miami Heart program specializes in a biological approach to psychiatric cases in the diagnosis and treatment of affective disorders, including a variety of mood disorders and related conditions. The Miami Heart program is distinctive from other psychiatric programs in the district. If the MH program were discontinued, the patients would have limited alternatives for access to the same diagnostic and treatment services in the district. There are no statutes or rules promulgated which specifically address the transfer of psychiatric beds or services from one facility owned by a health care entity to another facility also owned by the same entity. In reviewing the instant CON application, the Agency determined it has the discretion to evaluate each transfer case based upon the review criteria and to consider the appropriate weight factors should be given. Factors which may affect the review include the change of location, the utilization of the existing services, the quality of the existing programs and services, the financial feasibility, architectural issues, and any other factor critical to the review process. In this case, the weight given to the numeric need criteria was not significant. The Agency determined that because the transfer would not result in a change to the overall bed inventory, the calculated fixed need pool did not apply to the instant application. In effect, because the calculation of numeric need was inapplicable, this case must be considered "not normal" pursuant to Rule 59C-1.040(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency determined that other criteria were to be given greater consideration. Such factors were the reasonableness of the proposal, the ability to afford access, the applicant's ability to provide a quality program, and the project's financial feasibility. The Agency determined that, on balance, this application should be approved as the statutory and other review criteria were met. Although put on notice of the other CON applications, Mount Sinai did not file an application for psychiatric beds at the same time as Miami Heart or Cedars. Mount Sinai did not claim that the proposed delicensures and transfers made beds available for competitive review. The Agency has interpreted Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code, to mean that it will not normally approve an application for beds or services unless the statutory and rule criteria are met, including the need determination criteria. There is no list of circumstances which are routinely considered "not normal" by the Agency. In this case, the proposed transfer of beds was, in itself, considered "not normal." The approval of Miami Heart's application would allow an existing program to continue. As a result, the overhead to maintain two campuses would be reduced. Further, the relocation would allow the program to continue to provide access, both geographically and financially, to the same patient service area. And, since the program has the highest utilization rate of any adult program in the district, its continuation would be beneficial to the area. The program has an established referral base for admissions to the facility. The transfer is reasonable for providing access to the medically under-served. The quality of care, while not in issue, would be expected to continue at its existing level or improve. The transfer would allow better access to ancillary hospital departments and consulting specialists who may be needed even though the primary diagnosis is psychiatric. The cost of the transfer when compared to the costs to be incurred if the transfer is not approved make the approval a benefit to the service area. If the program is not relocated, Medicaid access could change if the hospital is reclassified from a general facility to a specialty facility. The proposed cost for the project does not exceed one million dollars. If the north campus must be renovated, a greater capital expenditure would be expected. The expected impact on competition for other providers is limited due to the high utilization for all programs in the vicinity. The subject proposal is consistent with the district and state health care plans and the need for health care facilities and services. The services being transferred is an existing program which is highly utilized and which is not creating "new beds." As such, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing services in the district will not be adversely affected by the approval of the subject application. The proposed transfer is consistent with, and appropriate, in light of these criteria. Therefore, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The subject application demonstrates a full continuum of care with safeguards to assure that alternatives to inpatient care are fully utilized when appropriate. Therefore, the availability and adequacy of other services, such as outpatient care, has been demonstrated and would deter unnecessary utilization. Thus, Miami Heart has shown its application complies with Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Miami Heart has also demonstrated that the probable impact of its proposal is in compliance with Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. The proposed transfer will not adversely impact the costs of providing services, the competition on the supply of services, or the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of services which foster competition, promote quality assurance, and cost-effectiveness. Miami Heart has taken an innovative approach to promote quality assurance and cost effectiveness. Its purpose, to close a facility and relocate beds (removing unnecessary acute care beds in the process), represents a departure from the traditional approach to providing health care services. By approving Miami Heart's application, overhead costs associated with the unnecessary facility will be eliminated. There is no less costly, more efficient alternative which would allow the continuation of the services and program Miami Heart has established at the north campus than the approval of transfer to the south campus. The MH proposal is most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. The renovation of the medical surgical space at the south campus to afford a location for the psychiatric unit is the most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. In totality, the circumstances of this case make the approval of Miami Heart's application for CON no. 7700 the most reasonable and practical solution given the "not normal" conditions of this application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order approving CON 7700 as recommended in the SAAR. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4755 Note: Proposed findings of fact are to contain one essential fact per numbered paragraph. Proposed findings of fact paragraphs containing multiple sentences with more than one statement of fact are difficult to review. In reviewing for this case, where all sentences were accurate and supported by the recorded cited, the paragraph has been accepted. If the paragraph contained mixed statements where one sentence was an accurate statement of fact but the others were not, the paragraph has been rejected. Similarly, if one sentence was editorial comment, argument, or an unsupported statement to a statement of fact, the paragraph has been rejected. Proposed findings of fact should not include argument, editorial comments, or statements of fact mixed with such comments. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Mount Sinai: Paragraphs 1 through 13 were cited as stipulated facts. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15 it is accepted that Miami Heart made the business decision to move the psychiatric beds beds from the north campus to the south campus. Any inference created by the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as repetitive, or immaterial, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 28 is accepted but not relevant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant as the FNP was not in dispute. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive, or comment. Paragraph 38 is rejected as repetitive, comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41, 42, and 43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and/or argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as argument and comment on the testimony. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, and/or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 47 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as comment on testimony. It is accepted that the proposed relocation or transfer of beds is a "not normal" circumstance. Paragraph 50 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 53 is rejected as argument, comment or recitation of testimony, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant, comment, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 57 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 63 is accepted. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Mount Sinai could have filed in this batch given the not normal circumstances disclosed in the Miami Heart notice. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 66 is rejected as comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 70 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Agency: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the words "cardiac catheterization" and the inclusion of the word "psychiatric beds" in place, paragraph 7 is accepted. Cardiac catheterization is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or an error of law, otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraphs 11 through 17 are accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 21 are accepted; the remainder rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 22 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as argument, speculation, or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Miami Heart: Paragraphs 1 through 13 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 14 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to law or irrelevant since MS did not file in the batch when it could have. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted as the Agency's statement of its authority or policy in this case, not fact. Paragraphs 17 through 20 are accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence to the extent that it concludes the distance to be one mile; evidence deemed credible placed the distance at two miles. Paragraphs 42 through 47 are accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment. Paragraphs 49 through 57 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Terry Rigsby Geoffrey D. Smith Wendy Delvecchio Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Stephen Ecenia Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
The Issue Whether Winter Haven Hospital should be authorized for a Level II, neonatal intensive care service with 11 beds via the final inventory of NICU beds for District VI, to be published by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Whether Lakeland Regional Medical Center should be authorized for more than 14 Level II beds in the same final inventory. Whether University Community Hospital established its right to challenge the number of Level II NICU beds to be authorized for either hospital.
Findings Of Fact Description of the Parties Winter Haven is a 579-bed general hospital in Winter Haven, Florida. Since 1987, it has been authorized to operate 475 acute care, 80 short term psychiatric and 24 comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds. Lakeland is an 897-bed general hospital in Lakeland, Florida. Its licensed bed complement includes the following: 805 acute care, 54 psychiatric short term and 38 substance abuse short term beds. University is a 404-bed acute care hospital in Tampa, Florida. University is seeking a certificate of need for a 10-bed Level II NICU at its facility. In order to obtain the license, University proposes to convert 10 of its existing medical-surgical beds to a 10-bed NICU. HRS is the state agency charged with the duty of regulating tertiary services, including neonatal intensive care. The provision of Level II NICU services in HRS District VI is the subject of this proceeding. All three hospitals are located in the district. University's Standing to Intervene University does not have a program to provide neonatal intensive care services at the present time. However, as part of the hospital's long-range planning goals, it intends to develop a Women's Center, which will include a 10- bed Level II NICU. University applied for the Level II NICU service in the batching cycle of 1990, prior to the effective date of the NICU rule. At the close of evidence on April 15, 1991, the outcome of the application was still pending. Additionally, University filed a Letter of Intent and an application for a 10- bed Level II NICU in the first batching cycle of 1991. That application was also still pending during the evidentiary portion of these proceedings. University's attempt to secure a certificate of need for NICU beds are directly impacted by the number of NICU beds reacknowledged and validated in the District VI inventory of "grandfathered" NICU beds. The number of beds ultimately established by the inventory will directly affect the fixed need pool to be applied to all subsequent certificate of need batching cycles. The NICU Rule The NICU Rule promulgated by HRS went into effect on August 6, 1990. The preliminary inventory of authorized Level II and Level III providers in District VI was published August 24, 1990. According to this inventory, Lakeland was authorized to have 11 Level II NICU beds and Winter Haven was not allocated any Level II beds on the initial preliminary inventory. Winter Haven's Inclusion in a Revised Preliminary Inventory Published September 12, 1990 When the preliminary inventory of Level II NICU beds was published, Winter Haven advised HRS that it had been excluded. Documentation was transmitted to the agency to support Winter Haven's contention that it has continuously developed and now has a operating Level II neonatal intensive care unit based upon past authorization from the agency. The documentation supplied by Winter Haven included past authorizations from the agency, which were relied upon by the hospital before expenditures were made on construction of the NICU and the unit created, and before a personal service contract was entered into for a hospital-based neonatologist in April 1988. Reliance on the agency's approval of the expansion project began on July 9, 1985, and was continuously relied upon throughout the development and establishment of these services at Winter Haven. When the documentation was reviewed by HRS, the decision was made to amend the preliminary inventory to include 11 NICU beds at this hospital. The revised preliminary inventory that included these beds was published on September 12, 1990. HRS decided 11 was the appropriate number of Level II beds to place on the inventory for Winter Haven as the approved construction plans show an isolation room of four beds and a continuing care room with seven beds. The beds in these rooms were described on the plan as "neonatal intensive care centers" and "intensive care bassinets." During the approval period, the square footage for each bed satisfied the draft rules that proposed fifty square feet per each Level II NICU bed. The decision to include Winter Haven on the revised preliminary inventory does not comport with the grandfathering provisions of the NICU Rule. Winter Haven does not meet the threshold requirements specified in sub- subparagraphs 14.a, 14.b or 14.f of the rule deems necessary for grandfathering to occur. During the years in which the NICU Rule was created, HRS did not consider the possibility that some hospitals might have progressed in the development stage of Level II NICU beds to such a level that the promulgated rule would contradict prior agency approvals reasonably relied upon by these hospitals. Before Winter Haven's beds were placed on the revised preliminary inventory, HRS permitted Alachua General Hospital's Level II NICU beds to be placed on the inventory based upon a CON exemption letter and construction plans approved prior to October 1, 1987. There have been no challenges to this decision, therefore, Alachua General can continue these services without a certificate of need as a grandfathered facility. Like Winter Haven, Alachua General did not comport with the grandfathering provisions of the NICU Rule. The decision to place Level II beds on the inventory was based on the approval of construction plans obtained through the licensure process at HRS in effect prior to October 1, 1987. HRS created the construction plans exception to the rule to acknowledge pre-existing bed authorizations not covered by the NICU Rule. Lakeland's Increase to 16 Level II Beds in the Revised Preliminary Inventory Published October 12, 1990 Lakeland was issued a CON exemption by HRS for 16 "Level II neonatal intensive care beds" in a letter dated March 12, 1985. This letter allowed Lakeland to re-designate 16 medical/surgical beds as Level II neonatal intensive care beds. On May 20, 1986, HRS approved Lakeland's construction plans for a 14- bed, Level II NICU. Lakeland did not rely on its opportunity to re-designate all 16 beds as Level II NICU beds when it established its NICU pursuant to the CON exemption. Lakeland was providing Level II NICU services prior to October 1, 1987, and continuously since then under the direction of a neonatologist or group of neonatologists, who were providing 24-hour coverage and who were either board-certified or board-eligible in neonatal-perinatal medicine as the various terms are defined in the NICU Rule. In its 1989 Neonatal Intensive Care Survey response to HRS, Lakeland erroneously underreported its Level II patient days from October 1, 1987 through September 20, 1988. The number reported was different than the 4,412 Level II neonatal intensive care services patient days reported separately to the Hospital Cost Containment Board for the same period, based upon audited data. A third review of the data revealed Lakeland provided, 4,414 Level II patient days in 1987-1988 reporting period for the 1989 survey. Pursuant to the formula set forth in sub-subparagraph 14.c of the NICU Rule, Lakeland should be authorized for 15 Level II beds on the final inventory which lists the established NICU beds that meet the grandfathering provisions of the rule. The inclusion of 16 Level II NICU beds on the revised preliminary inventory published October 12, 1990, went beyond the bed numbers allowed by rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended: A Final Order be entered which excludes Winter Haven from the inventory which lists authorized neonatal intensive care services based on the provisions of sub-subparagraphs 14.a. through 14.g. of the NICU Rule. A Final Order be entered reducing Lakeland's inventory to 15 Level II NICU beds. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 90-7682 and 90-7683 Lakeland Regional Medical Center's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #8, #11, #17 and #22. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. First two sentences accepted. The rest of the paragraph is rejected. Argumentative. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to law. See Conclusions of Law. Accept the first two sentences. Reject the next sentence. Speculative. The next two sentences accepted. The last sentence is rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accept first three sentences. See HO #10. Reject fourth sentence. Incompetent legal conclusion. 21. Rejected. Irrelevant. 22. Rejected. Speculative. 23. Accepted. 24. Accepted. 25. Accepted. 26. Accepted. 27. Accepted. 28. Rejected. Cumulative. 29. Rejected. Irrelevant. 30. Rejected. Irrelevant. 31. Rejected. Irrelevant. 32. Accepted. 33. Rejected. Cumulative. 34. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. 35. Accepted. See HO #12. 36. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 37. Rejected. Irrelevant. 38. Rejected. Improper summary of testimony. Irrelevant. 39. Accepted. 40. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 41. Rejected. Irrelevant. 42. Accept all but last sentence which is a distinction without substance. See HO #12, #15 and #16. 43. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 44. Accepted. 45A. Accepted. 45B. Accepted. 45C. Accepted. 45D. Accepted. 45E. Accepted. 45F. Rejected. Irrelevant. 46A. Accepted. 46B. Rejected. Irrelevant. 47. Rejected. Not evidence. Rejected. Irrelevant to resolution of material fact dispute. Accepted. See HO #17 and #19. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. See HO #21. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #12 and Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #12 and #22. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accept all but last sentence. See HO #16. The last sentence is improper Conclusion of Law. Winter Haven Hospital's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected under current definition. Accepted to the extent the room provided many aspects of Level II care. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15 and #16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #18. Accepted. See HO #21. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. See HO #23 - #26. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7. Accepted. Rejected. Incorrect legal conclusion. Accepted. Rejected. Insufficient foundation provided for the opinion to assist Hearing Officer as to weight and sufficiency. Accepted. Accepted. University Community Hospital's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #12 and #22. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6 and #7. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. This opinion was rejected by the Hearing Officer as an improper legal conclusion. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Rejected. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire PARKER HUDSON RAINES & DOBBS 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 John M. Knight, Esquire PARKER HUDSON RAINES & DOBBS 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire CARLTON FIELDS WARD EMMANUEL SMITH & CUTLER, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street - Suite 410 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner Naples Community Hospital, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to add a total of 35 beds to Naples Community Hospital and North Collier Community Hospital should be approved based on peak seasonal demand for acute care beds in the relevant subdistrict.
Findings Of Fact Naples Community Hospital, Inc., ("NCH") holds the license for and operates Naples Community Hospital ("Naples"), a 331 bed not-for-profit acute care hospital, and North Collier Community Hospital ("North Collier"), a 50 bed acute care hospital. NCH also operates a 22 bed comprehensive rehabilitation facility and a 23 bed psychiatric facility. NCH is owned by Community Health Care, Inc., "(CHC"). Both Naples and North Collier are located within Agency for Health Care Administration ("ACHA") district 8 and are the only hospitals within subdistrict 2 of the district. Naples is located in central Collier County. North Collier is (as the name implies) located in northern Collier County approximately 2-3 miles from the county line. NCH's primary service area is Collier County from which approximately 85-90 percent of its patients come, with a secondary service area extending north into Lee County. Neither Naples nor North Collier are teaching hospitals as defined by Section 407.002(27), Florida Statutes (1991). NCH is not proposing a joint venture in this CON application. NCH has a record of providing health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. NCH proposes to provide health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Neither Naples nor North Collier are currently designated by the Office of Medicaid as disproportionate share providers. NCH has the funds for capital and initial operating expenditures for the project. NCH has sufficient financial resources to construct and equip the proposed project. The costs and methods of the proposed construction are reasonable. The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency charged with responsibility for administering the Certificate of Need program. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center ("Southwest") is a 400 bed for-profit acute care hospital located in Fort Myers, Lee County. Lee County is adjacent to and north of Collier County. Southwest is owned by Columbia Hospital Corporation ("Columbia"), which also owns Gulf Coast Hospital in Fort Myers, and two additional hospitals in AHCA District 8. Southwest's primary service area is Lee County. Although Southwest asserts that it would be negatively impacted by the addition of acute care beds at NCH, the greater weight of the credible evidence fails to support the assertion. The primary market services areas of NCH and Southwest are essentially distinct. However, the facilities are located in such proximity as to indicate that secondary service areas overlap and that, at least during peak winter season periods, approval of the NCH application could potentially impact Southwest's operations. Southwest has standing to participate in this proceeding. Southwest offered evidence to establish that it would be substantially affected by approval of the NCH application. The NCH length-of-stay identified in the Southwest documents is inaccurate and under-reports actual length-of-stay statistics. The documentation also includes demographic information from a zip code (33912) which contributes an insignificant portion of NCH patients, and relies on only two years of data in support of the assertion that utilization in the NCH service area is declining. Southwest's chief operating officer testified that he considers Gulf Coast Hospital, another Columbia-owned facility, to offer more competition to Southwest that does NCH. Further, a physician must have admitting privileges at a hospital before she can admit patients to the facility. Of the physicians holding admitting privileges at Southwest, only two, both cardiologists, also have admitting privileges at NCH. Contrary to Southwest, NCH does not have an open heart surgery program. Accordingly, at least as to physician-admitted patients, approval of the NCH application would likely have little impact. On August 26, 1991, NCH submitted to AHCA a letter of intent indicating that NCH would file a Certificate of Need ("CON") application in the September 26, 1991 batching cycle for the addition of 35 acute care beds to the Naples and North Collier facilities. The letter of intent did not specify how the additional beds would be divided between the two facilities. The determination of the number of beds for which NCH would apply was solely based on the fact that the applicant had 35 observation beds which could be readily converted to acute care beds. The observation beds NCH proposes to convert are equipped identically to the acute care beds at NCH and are currently staffed. The costs involved in such conversion are minimal and relatively insignificant. Included with the letter of intent was a certified corporate resolution which states that on July 24, 1991, the NCH Board of Trustees authorized the filing of an application for the additional beds, authorized NCH to incur related expenses, stated that NCH would accomplish the proposed project within time and budget allowances set forth in the application, and that NCH would license and operate the facility. By certification executed August 7, 1991, the NCH secretary certified that the resolution was enacted at the July 24, 1991 board meeting and that the resolution did not contravene the NCH articles of incorporation or bylaws. Article X, Sections 10.1 and 10.1.3 of the NCH bylaws provides that no CON application shall be legally effective without the written approval of CHC. On September 26, 1991, NCH filed an application for CON No. 6797 proposing to add 31 acute care beds to Naples and 4 acute care beds to North Collier. The CON application included a copy of the NCH board resolution and certification which had been previously submitted with the letter of intent as well as the appropriate filing fee. NCH published appropriate public notice of the application's filing. As of the date of the CON application's filing, CHC had not issued written approval of the CON application prior to the action of the NCH Board of Directors and the filing of the letter of intent or the application. On October 2, 1992, four days prior to the administrative hearing in this case, the board of CHC ratified the actions of NCH as to the application for CON at issue in this case. The CHC board has previously ratified actions of the NCH in such fashion. There is uncontroverted testimony that the CHC board was aware of the NCH application and that no reservation was expressed by any CHC board member regarding the CON application. Although NCH's filing of the CON application without appropriate authorization from its parent company appears to be in violation of the NCH bylaws, such does not violate the rules of the AHCA. There is no evidence that the AHCA requested written authorization from the CHC board. After review of the application, the AHCA identified certain deficiencies in the application and notified NCH, which apparently rectified the deficiencies. The AHCA deemed the application complete on November 8, 1991. As required by statute, NCH included a list of capital projects as part of the CON application. The list of capital projects attached to the application was incomplete. The capital projects list failed to identify approximate expenditures of $370,000 to construct a patio enclosure, $750,000 to install an interim sprinkler system, $110,000 to construct emergency room triage space, and $125,000 to complete electrical system renovations. At hearing, witnesses for NCH attempted to clarify the omissions from the capital projects list. The witnesses claimed that such omitted projects were actually included within projects which were identified on the list. When identifying the listed projects within which the omitted projects were supposedly included, the witnesses testified inconsistently. For example, one witness testified that the patio project was included in the emergency room expansion project listed in the application. Another witness claimed that the patio enclosure was included in an equipment purchase category. Based on the testimony, it is more likely that the patio enclosure was neither a part of an emergency room expansion nor equipment purchase, but was a separate construction project which was omitted from the CON application. Similarly inconsistent explanations were offered for the other projects which were omitted from the capital projects list. The testimony was not credible. The capital projects omitted from the list do not affect the ability of NCH to implement the CON sought in this proceeding. The parties stipulated to the fact the NCH has sufficient financial resources to construct and equip the proposed project. As part of the CON application, NCH was required to submit a pro forma income statement for the time period during which the bed additions would take place. The application failed to include a pro forma statement for the appropriate time period. Based on the stipulation of the parties that the costs and methods of the proposed construction are reasonable, and that NCH has adequate resources to fund the project, the failure to include the relevant pro forma is immaterial. Pursuant to applicable methodology, the AHCA calculates numeric acute care bed need projections for each subdistrict's specific planning period. Accordingly, the AHCA calculated the need for additional acute care beds in district 8, subdistrict 2 for the July, 1996 planning horizon. The results of the calculation are published by the agency. The unchallenged, published fixed need pool for the planning horizon at issue in this proceeding indicated that there was no numeric need for additional acute care beds in district 8, subdistrict 2, Collier County, Florida, pursuant to the numeric need methodology under Rule 59C-1.038 Florida Administrative Code. The CON application filed by NCH is based on the peak seasonal demand experienced by hospitals in the area during the winter months, due to part-time residents. NCH asserts that the utilization of acute care beds during the winter months (January through April) results in occupancy levels in excess of 75 percent and justifies the addition of acute care beds, notwithstanding the numerical need determination. Approval of the CON application is not justified by the facts in this case. The AHCA's acute care bed need methodology accounts for high seasonal demand in certain subdistricts in a manner which provides that facilities have bed space adequate to accommodate peak demand. The calculation which requires that the average annual occupancy level exceed 75 percent reflects AHCA consideration of occupancy levels which rise and fall with seasonal population shifts. The applicant has not challenged the methodology employed by the AHCA in projecting need. Peak seasonal acute care bed demand may justify approval of a CON application seeking additional beds if the lack of available beds poses a credible threat of potentially negative impact on patient outcomes. The peak seasonal demand experienced by NCH has not adversely affected patient care and there is insufficient evidence to establish that, at this time, such peak demand poses a credible threat of potential negative impact on patient outcomes in the foreseeable future. There is no dispute regarding the existing quality of care at Naples, North Collier, Southwest or any other acute care hospital in district 8. The parties stipulated that NCH has the ability to provide quality of care and a record of providing quality of care. In this case, the applicant is seeking to convert existing beds from a classification of "observation" to "acute care". The observation beds NCH proposes to convert are equipped identically to the acute care beds at NCH. Approval of the CON application would result in no net increase in the number of licensed beds. NCH offered anecdotal evidence suggesting that delays in transferring patients from the Naples emergency room to acute care beds (a "logjam") was caused by peak seasonal occupancy rates. There was no evidence offered as to the situation at the North Collier emergency room. The anecdotal evidence is insufficient to establish that "logjams" (if they occur at all) are related to an inadequate number of beds identified as "acute care" at NCH facilities. There are other factors which can result in delays in moving patients from emergency rooms to acute care beds, including facility discharge patterns, delays in obtaining medical test results and staffing practices. NCH asserted at hearing that physicians who refer patients to NCH facilities will not refer such patients to other facilities. The evidence fails to establish that such physician practice is reasonable or provides justification for approval of CON applications under "not normal" circumstances and further fails to establish that conditions at NCH are such as to result in physicians attempting to locate other facilities in which to admit patients. The rule governing approval of acute care beds provides that, prior to such approval, the annual occupancy rate for acute care beds in the subdistrict or for the specific provider, must exceed 75 percent. This requirement has not been met. Applicable statutes require that, in considering applications for CON's, the AHCA consider accessibility of existing providers. The AHCA- established standard provides that acute care bed accessibility requirements are met when at least 90 percent of the residents in an urban subdistrict are within a 30 minute automobile trip to such facilities. At least 90 percent of Naples residents are presently within a 30 minute travel time to NCH acute care beds. The number of acute care beds in the subdistrict substantially exceed the demand for such beds. Additional beds would result in inefficient utilization of existing beds, would further increase the current oversupply of beds, would delay the time at which need for additional beds may be determined and, as such, would prevent competing facilities from applying for and receiving approval for such beds. The financial feasibility projections set forth in the CON application rely on assumptions as to need and utilization projections which are not supported by the greater weight of the evidence and are not credited. Accordingly, the evidence fails to establish that the addition of 35 acute care beds to NCH facilities is financially feasible in the long term or that the income projections set forth in the CON application are reasonable. As to projections related to staffing requirements and costs, the beds are existing and are currently staffed on a daily, shift-by-shift basis, based on patient census and acuity of illness. There is reason to believe that the staffing patterns will remain fairly constant and accordingly the projections, based on historical data, are reasonable. Generally stated, where there is no numeric or "not normal" need for the proposed addition of 35 acute care beds in the relevant subdistrict, it could be predicted that the addition of acute care beds would exacerbate the oversupply of available beds and could cause a slight reduction in the occupancy levels experienced by other providers. In this case, the market service areas are sufficiently distinct as to suggest that such would not necessarily be the result. However, based on the lack of need justifying approval of the CON application under any existing circumstances, it is unnecessary to address in detail the impact on existing providers. The state and district health plans identify a number of preferences which should be considered in determining whether a CON application should be approved. The plans suggest that such preferences are to be considered when competing CON applications are reviewed. In this case there is no competing application and the applicability of the preferences is unclear. However, in any event, application of the preferences to this proposal fail to support approval of the application.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered DENYING the application of Naples Community Hospital, Inc., for Certificate of Need 6797. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of March, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1510 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3-4, 6-8, 16-20, 29-36, 38, 41, 44, 47, 49-61, 80, 88, 95-96, 100, 104, 108, 117-119, 122-125, 127, 134-138. Rejected as unnecessary. 15. Rejected as irrelevant. Peak seasonal demand is accounted for by the numeric need determination methodology. There is no credible evidence which supports a calculation of three years of four month winter occupancy to reach a 12 month average occupancy rate. 21-27, 37, 42-43, 62-64, 66, 97, 99, 101-103, 105-107, 109, 120-121, 126. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 28. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence and contrary to the stipulation filed by the parties. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish that the transfer of patients from emergency room to acute care beds is delayed due to numerical availability of beds. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish that the alleged lack of acute care beds is based on insufficient number of total beds as opposed to other factors which affect bed availability. Rejected as immaterial and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence Rejected as immaterial and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which fails to establish reasonableness of considering only a four month period under "not normal" circumstances where the period and the peak seasonal demand are included within the averages utilized to project bed need. 86. Rejected as cumulative. 114. Rejected as unsupported hearsay. Respondent/Intervenor The Respondent and Intervenor filed a joint proposed recommended order. The proposed order's findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6, 45, 51, 53, 59-67, 69-70, 94-113. Rejected as unnecessary. 16. Rejected as to use of term "false", conclusion of law. 58. Rejected as not clearly supported by credible evidence. 71-93, 114-124. Rejected as cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, & Cole Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Edward G. Labrador, Esquire Thomas Cooper, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D.C. Newton, II, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle, Thomas & Beranek Monroe Park Tower, Suite 1000 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues involved in this case, as stipulated to by the parties, are as follows: Issues Remaining to Be Litigated Again, because of their inability to separate the purely factual issues from those which also involve legal determinations, the parties have combined below all issues which remain to be litigated. 1A. Was it proper for DHRS to compute the formula for need contained in FACs 10- 5.11(25)(a)1-3 on a subdistrict basis? 1B. Even if the answer is "yes", did DHRS properly use the result of such a computation as a reason for denying Charter- Ocala's application in this case? 2A. Was it proper for DHRS to take into account both existing and approved beds in computing the occupancy standard formula contained in FACs 10-5.11(25)(d) 5? 2B. Even if the answer is "yes," did DHRS properly use the results of such a computation as a reason for denying Charter- Ocala's application in this case? Does the level of Charter-Ocala's indigent care commitment cause its application not to fully meet the requirement in subsection 8 of Fla. Stat. s 381.494(6)(c) that the proposed services "be accessible to all residents of the service district"? Is the proposed project financially feasible in the long term? Will the proposed project result in an increase in health care costs? In light of all factors, should Charter-Ocala's application be granted?
Findings Of Fact GENERAL Procedural. On or about October 15, 1985, the Petitioner filed an application for a certificate of need with the Respondent. On or about December 26, 1985, the Petitioner filed amendments to its application. On or about February 27, 1986, the Respondent issued a State Agency Action Report proposing to deny the Petitioner's application. On March 27, 1986, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Respondent. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned case number 86-1466. On November 12, 1986, the parties filed a Prehearing Stipulation in which they agreed to certain facts and conclusions of law. The facts agreed upon by the parties are hereby adopted as findings of fact. The Parties. The Petitioner is a free-standing 68-bed short-term psychiatric and substance abuse specialty hospital located in Ocala, Florida. The 68 beds consist of 48 short-term psychiatric beds and 20 substance abuse beds. The Petitioner began operating on October 17, 1985. The Respondent is the agency responsible for determining whether the Petitioner's proposal should be approved. The Petitioner's Proposal. In its application, the Petitioner has proposed an expansion of its existing 48 short-term psychiatric beds by 24 beds. The Petitioner proposed that the 24 additional beds consist of 10 beds in a geriatric psychiatric unit and 14 beds in an adult psychiatric unit. The total proposed cost of the additional beds was $1,491,850.00. The Petitioner amended the total proposed cost to $1,213,880.00 on December 26, 1985. At the final hearing, the Petitioner represented that it will operate an adult eating disorder program in the new 14-bed psychiatric unit. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM PSYCHIATRIC BEDS. A. General. The Petitioner's existing facility for which additional beds are sought is located in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. Marion County is located in the Respondent's planning district 3. District 3 consists of Alachua, Bradford, Citrus, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Hernando, Lafayette, Lake, Levy, Marion, Putnam, Sumter, Suwannee and Union Counties. The existing providers of short-term psychiatric services in district 3 in addition to the Petitioner consist of Alachua General Hospital, Shands Teaching Hospital, Lake City Medical Center, Munroe Regional Medical Center and Lake Sumter County Mental Health Clinic. The District III Health Plan divides the district into 2 subdistricts: southern and northern. The southern subdistrict includes Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Marion and Sumter Counties. The northern subdistrict consists of Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Putnam, Suwannee and Union Counties. Marion County is located in the northern portion of the southern subdistrict. Ocala, which is located in the northern portion of Marion County is approximately 20 miles from the border of the subdistricts. B. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. The projected population of district 3 in 1990 is 972,450. Based upon the projected population of district 3 in 1990, there is a gross need for 340 short-term psychiatric beds for district 3 in the relevant planning horizon year 1990. There are 316 licensed and approved short-term psychiatric beds for district 3. There is a net need for 24 short-term psychiatric beds for district 3 in 1990. Of the 316 licensed and approved short-term psychiatric beds located or to be located in district 3, 149 are located in hospitals holding a general license and 167 are located in specialty hospitals. Multiplying the projected 1990 district 3 population by a ratio of .15 beds per 1,000 population indicates a gross need for 146 short-term psychiatric beds in hospitals holding a general license. There will be a net surplus of three beds located in hospitals holding a general license in 1990 (146 beds needed less 149 licensed and approved beds). Multiplying the projected 1990 district 3 population by a ratio of .20 beds per 1,000 population indicates a gross need for 194 short-term psychiatric beds which may be located in specialty hospitals. There will be a net need of 27 beds which may be located in specialty hospitals (194 beds needed less 167 licensed and approved beds). The approval of the Petitioner's proposal will not create an imbalance between specialty beds and general beds in district 3 for 1990. There is sufficient need for additional beds in district 3 for approval of the Petitioner's proposal. Occupancy. Objective 1.2 of the State Health Plan provides: dditional short-term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing and approved adult short-term inpatient psychiatric beds in the service district is at least 75 percent ... [Emphasis added]. The occupancy rates in 1985 for the existing short-term psychiatric beds in district 3 were as follows: Facility Beds Occupancy Alachua General Hospital 30 77.5 percent Shands Teaching Hospital 42 77.8 percent Lake City Medical Center 9 69.2 percent Munroe Regional Medical Center 18 56.4 percent Lake/Sumter County Mental Health 18 88.0 percent. The average occupancy rate for the existing facilities listed in finding of fact 27 is 75.5 percent. There are 151 short-term psychiatric beds approved for district 3 which are not yet operational. The occupancy rate of the existing and approved beds of district 3 is less than 75 percent. The approved beds should be assumed to have a 0 percent occupancy since they are not in use. Planning Guideline 2 of the District III Health Plan provides: Additional inpatient psychiatric services should not be developed until existing or approved services reach the occupancy standards Specified in the State Inpatient Psychiatric ... Rule. The occupancy standard Specified in the State Inpatient Psychiatric Rule is 75 percent. It is reasonable to expect that approved beds will affect existing occupancy rates when the beds become operational. Consumer demand for short-term psychiatric beds cannot expand indefinitely to meet supply. Since 48 percent of the licensed and approved beds for district 3 are approved beds, it does not make sense to ignore approved beds. Applying the occupancy standard on a subdistrict basis, licensed beds in the southern subdistrict had an average occupancy rate of 72.2 percent for 1985 (excluding the Petitioner's existing beds). If the 51 approved beds at Community Care of Citrus, 35 approved beds in Hernando County and the 15 approved beds at Lake/Sumter Mental Health are taken into account, the occupancy rate is Substantially lower. The Petitioner's proposal does not meet the occupancy standards of the state health plan or the district health plan (on a district or subdistrict basis). Subdistrict Allocation of Bed Need. Planning Guideline 4 of the District III Health Plan provides: Needed inpatient psychiatric ... beds will be allocated within the District based on the proportion of need generated in each planning area using the State methodology. The northern and southern subdistricts are the appropriate planning areas under the district health plan. The projected population for the southern subdistrict for 1990 is 549,536. Applying the state methodology to the southern subdistrict, there will be a gross need for 192 short-term psychiatric beds in 1990. Subtracting the 84 licensed and 101 approved beds yields a net need for 7 short-term psychiatric beds for the southern subdistrict for 1990. Of the 192 gross beds needed for the southern subdistrict in 1990, 82 should be located in hospitals holding a general license and 110 may be located in specialty hospitals. There are 66 licensed and 101 approved beds located or to be located in specialty hospitals in the southern subdistrict. Therefore, under the district health plan, there will be a surplus of 57 short-term psychiatric beds located in specialty hospitals in the southern subdistrict in 1990. All existing and approved short-term psychiatric specialty hospitals for district 3 are or will be located in the southern subdistrict; there are no specialty hospitals located or approved for the northern subdistrict. The Petitioner is the closest specialty hospital to the northern district. There is insufficient need for the Petitioner's proposal in the southern subdistrict of district 3 under the district health plan. Until December, 1985, or early 1986, the Respondent's policy and practice was to apply the need formula of Rule 10-5.11(25)(d), Florida Administrative Code, on a district-wide basis, not on a subdistrict basis. In approximately December, 1985, or early 1986, the Respondent implemented a new policy of reviewing the need for proposed short-term psychiatric services on a subdistrict basis in the applicable district health plan recognized subdistricts. This new policy was based upon a new interpretation of existing statutes and rules. Specifically, the Respondent relied upon Rule 10-5.011(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.494(6)(c)1, Florida Statutes, which direct an evaluation of the relationship between proposed services and the applicable district health plan in reviewing certificate of need applications. The evidence failed to prove: (a,) when the policy was formulated; (b) who was responsible for the formulation and implementation of the policy; and (c) whether any sort of investigation, study or analysis was performed or relied upon in connection with the policy. The effect of this policy can be outcome-determinative in that it can cause an application for a certificate of need to be denied. Prior to the adoption of the policy, the Respondent Promulgated Rule 10-17, Florida Administrative Code, which Provided for sudistricting of district This rule was repealed. Geographic Access. A small portion of the population of district 3 is within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes from the Petitioner's facility. Only 36 percent of the district 3 population is within 45 minutes driving time from the Petitioner's facility. The Petitioner's facility is located near the center of district 3. Approximately 60 percent of the population of district 3 is located within 60 minutes travel time from Ocala. There are excellent transportation routes from parts of the northern subdistrict to Ocala, including Interstate Highway 75 and U.S Highways 27, 301 and 441. Approximately 73 percent of the Petitioner's Patients during its first year of operation came from the southern subdistrict. Of those Patients, approximately 58 percent were from Marion County and 15 percent were from other southern subdistrict counties, including 10.5 percent from Citrus County and none from Hernando County. Approximately 15 percent of the Petitioner's patients during its first year of operation came from the northern subdistrict: 8 percent from Alachua County, 1.7 percent from Putnam, 1.2 percent from Bradford, .2 percent from Union, Suwannee and Gilchrist, .7 percent from Columbia and none from Hamilton, Lafayette, and Dixie. Approximately 12 percent of the Petitioner's patients during its first year of operation came from outside of district 3. Other Factors Approximately 16 percent to 17 percent of Marion County's population was 65 years of age or older in 1980. By 1990, the 65 and older population is projected to increase to approximately 22 percent. Approximately 28 percent of the population of the southern subdistrict is projected to be 65 or older in 1990. Top of the World, a retirement community, is being developed 10 to 15 miles from the Petitioner's present location. There is a large population of females aged 18 to 30 attending the University of Florida. The University is located in Gainesville which is within a 40 to 50 minute drive time from the Petitioner's present location. There are over 83,000 females aged 15-44 residing in Alachua and Marion Counties. Young adult females have the highest incidence of eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia. From a clinical and programmatic perspective, to provide optimal therapy for geriatric and eating disorder patients: (1) the patients should be separated from the general psychiatric population; (2) the staff should be specially trained to deal with the unique problems posed by the two types of patients; and (3) the program and physical surroundings should be specially designed to accommodate the needs of the patients and to facilitate the rendition of services to patients. The Petitioner represented in its application that the Petitioner has a 16-bed geriatric program. Munroe Regional and Marion-Citrus Mental Health Center and Lake/Sumter Mental Health Supported the Petitioner's original application for its present facility based in part on the Petitioner's representation that 16 beds would be designated as geriatric beds. A facility for Citrus County with 51 beds has been approved which will have a gerontology program. In Hernando County 35 beds have been approved which includes a gerontology program. Seven letters of Support were submitted with the Petitioner's application. Only one of those letters mentions geriatric beds. No mention of an alleged need to provide an eating disorder program was mentioned by the Petitioner in its application. Eating disorder patients are treated at Shands in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. There are no existing or approved Specialized geriatric or eating disorder programs in district 3. The Petitioner Should be able to recruit physicians and other medical professionals to staff its proposed programs. ECONOMIC ACCESS. The Petitioner's admissions criteria include the ability to pay. The Petitioner has projected that 1.5 percent of patient revenues from the operation of the 24 additional beds will be attributable to indigent care. This amount is low. Applicants generally propose 3 to 7 percent indigent care. Generally, Short-term psychiatric Services are accessible to all residents of district 3. The evidence failed to prove, however, that short-term psychiatric Services in specialty hospitals are readily accessible to indigent residents. Munroe Regional Medical Center and Lake/Sumter County Mental Health provide psychiatric services to indigents. Lake/Sumter was recently granted a certificate of need authorizing it to move to Leesburg and to expand its hospital to include 33 short-term psychiatric beds which will be devoted almost exclusively to the treatment of indigents. These facilities are not specialty hospitals, however. The Petitioner's projected care of indigents does not include free evaluations and assessments provided at the Petitioner's counseling centers. In light of the fact that the Petitioner takes into account the ability to pay, however, this service will not significantly increase the care provided to indigent patients or accessibility of services to indigents. During the Petitioner's first year of operation it provided indigent care of approximately 4 percent of total revenues. It is therefore likely that the Petitioner will exceed its projected 1.5 percent indigent care. The Petitioner did not prove how much of an increase can be expected, however. The Petitioner has a corporate policy never to deny admission to a patient in need of emergency treatment because of inability to pay. The Petitioner's proposal will not significantly enhance services available to indigents. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AND IMPACT ON COSTS. 8O. If the Petitioner's proposal is considered based upon the need for additional beds in the district, it will be financially feasible. Its projected patient day projections are reasonable based upon district-wide need. If need is determined only on a district-wide basis, the opening of approved beds will not negatively affect the Petitioner's referral patterns or patient base. If need is determined only on a district-wide basis, the cost of psychiatric services in district 3 will not be negatively impacted by the Petitioner's proposal. If need is determined on a subdistrict basis, the Petitioner's proposal will not be financially feasible. There is insufficient need in the southern subdistrict for the Petitioner to achieve its patient day projections on a subdistrict basis. Planning Guideline 6 of the District III Health Plan provides: Providers proposing to expand or establish new psychiatric facilities should document that these services will not duplicate or negatively affect existing programs in the region. In light of the existence of an excess of 57 short-term psychiatric beds for the southern subdistrict based upon a subdistrict allocation of bed need, the Petitioner's proposed new beds will duplicate beds in existence or approved beds. If need is determined on a subdistrict basis, the cost of psychiatric services in the southern subdistrict will be negatively impacted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for the addition of 24 short- term psychiatric beds be approved. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1987. 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. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ". Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance or of Fact Number Reason for Rejection 1 RO 7, 9-10 and 12. 2 RO 13-14. 3 RO 13 and 16. 4 RO 17. 5 RO 51. 6 RO 54 and 61. 7 RO 54. 8-10 Irrelevant. 11 RO 58-59. 12 RO 59. 13 The first sentence is accepted in RO 60. The second sentence is irrelevant. 14 RO 61-63. 15 Irrelevant. 16 RO 20 and 22. 17 RO 43. 18 RO 19. 19 RO 19-21. 20 RO 23. 21 RO 24. 22 RO 28. The last sentence is irrelevant. 23 RO 1, 9-10 and 12. 24 Irrelevant. It has been stipulated that the quality of care criterion has been met. 25 RO 64. 26 RO 71. The first sentence is accepted in RO 70. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 29-30 Irrelevant. 31 RO 55-56. 32 RO 74. RO 75. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. RO 73 and 76. The Petitioner did not commit to provide 1.5 percent of total revenues it committed to provide 1.5 percent of revenues from the 24 beds. The last sentence is irrelevant. 35 RO 77. 36 RO 78. 37 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 38-39 and 41 If need is determined on a district- wide basis these proposed findings of fact are true. If, however, need is determined on a subdistrict basis these proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 80 and 83. 40 Irrelevant. 42-44 Cumulative. See RO 80 and 83. 45 and 46 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 47-48 Irrelevant. If need is determined on a district-wide basis these proposed findings of fact are true. If, however, need is determined on a subdistrict basis these proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 82 and 85. Irrelevant. The first sentence is statement of the law. The last sentence is irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. How the Respondent reached its initial decision is irrelevant. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is accepted in RO 50. Statement of law. 52 RO 45. 53 RO 46. 54 RO 47. 55 Irrelevant. 56 RO 48. 57 RO 49. Irrelevant. Conclusion of law. Irrelevant. 61-62 Prehearing Stipulation. Irrelevant. The parties have stipulated that the portion of the rule mentioned in the first sentence is met. The proposed finding of fact is also a discussion of law. It is therefore rejected. 65-67 Consideration of the state health plan is statutorily required. The Respondent does not apply the occupancy standard of the state health plan as a matter of policy, therefore. These proposed findings of fact are therefore irrelevant to the extent that they apply to the determination concerning the state health plan. To the extent that they pertain to the occupancy standard of the district health plan, they are hereby adopted. Conclusion of law. Irrelevant. The first sentence is irrelevant. The second sentence is contained in the Prehearing Stipulation as a stipulated fact. 71 RO 30. 72 Irrelevant and conclusion of law. 73-82 Irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 RO 1, 3-4, 9 and 11 2 RO 7 and 13. 3 RO 19. 4-6 Prehearing Stipulation. 7 8 and 9 RO 26. RO 27-28. The last sentence is 10 contrary to the facts stipulated to by the parties. The parties have stipulated that existing beds meet the occupancy standard. This proposed finding of fact is therefore unnecessary. RO 29. 11 RO 30 and 32-33. 12 RO 31. 13 RO 16 and 36. 14 RO 34. 15 RO 37-41. There are 84 licensed beds not 81. 16-17 Irrelevant. 18 RO 55-56. The evidence established that "at least" 73 percent of the Petitioner's patients originate from the southern subdistrict not that more than 73 percent. 19 RO 43. 20 Hereby accepted. 21 RO 51. RO 10 and 64. The first sentence is accepted in RO 65. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is uncorroborated hearsay. 24 RO 67. RO 12 and 68. Irrelevant or based upon uncorroborated hearsay. Not a finding of fact. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 29 RO 84-85. 30 Statement of law. 31 RO 72-73. 32 RO 85. 33 RO 83. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Culpepper, Pelham, Turner & Mannheimer 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3300 J. Kevin Buster, Esquire Ross O. Silverman, Esquire King & Spalding 2500 Trust Company Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30303
The Issue Whether the application of Elysium Rehabilitation Center Inc., (“Elysium”) for a certificate of need (CON) to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home along with a CON application for an included 20-bed subacute unit in Palm Beach County, Florida, and the application of Good Samaritan Hospital (“Good Samaritan”) for a CON to convert 27 acute care beds to a 27-bed hospital-based skilled nursing unit (SNU), also known as a “subacute unit”, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact AHCA published a “Notice of Community Nursing Home Fixed Need Pool” on April 19, 1996, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 22, No. 16. In District 9, Subdistrict 4, the published numerical need, as acknowledged by the parties, was zero for the January 1999 planning horizon. The published need resulted from calculation of projected need for additional community nursing beds in accordance with need methodology contained in Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code. On May 24, 1996, AHCA published a “Notice To Potential Applicants” for CONs. The notice stated the following: In the review of applicants seeking beds from the January, 1999 Nursing Home Fixed Need Pool, as published in the April 19, 1996 F.A.W., which includes the same need for long and short term beds, the agency will consider the need for short and long term beds separately. Those applicants seeking both short and long term [beds] must file applications for each type of bed. As acknowledged by the parties, the notice specifically set out a “Need For Short Term Beds” in AHCA’s Subdistrict 9-4 of zero. Neither the April 19 published fixed need pool or the May 24 notice was challenged by any of the parties. Although the term “subacute” is not defined in federal or Florida law, the weight of expert testimony in this case establishes that for health planning purposes in the current environment, measurement of Medicare certified skilled nursing days or services (“Short Term Beds”) is a fair and reasonable surrogate for “subacute” care. Good Samaritan’s Application By letter of intent and application for CON filed in the batching cycle applicable to the January, 1999 planning horizon, Good Samaritan seeks to convert 27 acute beds at its Palm Beach County facility in AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 4, to a 27-bed subacute unit or SNU. Good Samaritan has attempted to demonstrate a need for the proposed beds through the presentation of an “internal survey,” in addition to calculations under three different methodologies. The internal survey results relied upon by Good Samaritan to show the existence of need is a product of the social work staff of Good Samaritan and its affiliate, St. Mary’s Hospital. The purpose of the survey was to identify patients who could, on the day of the survey, have received subacute as opposed to acute care. The survey results were compiled from 36 patients who, at that time, were in acute care beds and, according to Rehabilitation Services Expert Joan Horvath, needed to be in a subacute program. Survey documentation includes descriptive columns documenting “Reason for SNU Potential” and “Reason for Occupying Acute Bed.” Short, non-specific statements of the “reasons” for a patient’s occupation of an acute bed are listed for most of those surveyed. Reasons are varied with some having little to do with availability of an appropriate subacute bed. Of all survey results, only one patient case arguably reports unavailability of subacute care. There is no contention that attempts were made to provide placement to the patients in the survey. Karen Rivera, AHCA’s CON review consultant testified that the survey “raised more questions than it answered.” Good Samaritan’s application confirms that most patients included in the survey were subsequently placed in free standing SNU facilities without any substantiation by Good Samaritan of unnecessary delays. Good Samaritan has failed to demonstrate or document any lack of patient access to needed services. Dr. Jeffrey Farber, slated to be the medical director of Good Samaritan’s proposed subacute unit, testified “from an anecdotal level” that certain physicians may retain patients longer than necessary in acute care because of a lack of physician comfort with available facilities. Farber is unaware of any quantification of patient need related to systematic or chronic lack of availability of subacute care services. Evidence related to physician convenience or patient preference is not responsive to the rule-based criteria which requires a finding of a lack of reasonable access to appropriate medical care. Reasons advanced by Dr. Farber to support a finding of need for additional access to subacute services are, as he conceded, “those same issues [that] would exist as to any acute care patient at any acute care facility which did not have a subacute care unit.” Several methodologies presented in Good Samaritan’s application seek to support the conclusion that the proposed project is needed. Reliance is primarily on a health planning product called the Subacute Care Market Analysis Model, developed and marketed by Dr. Harold Ting as a means to estimate demand for subacute care in a given market. A “normative” demand model, the Ting methodology attempts to project potential demand for subacute services based on a subjective ideal, the number of patients that should or could have been provided subacute care—as opposed to actual experience with patients. Without regard to any specific infirmities in the Ting theory, the Ting methodology cannot be credited as a means of determining need in this case. It is a proprietary collection of calculations which, as a result, cannot be expressly described or tested. It can be discerned, however, that the theory may be flawed in its application inasmuch as it uses an inflated average length of stay for patients in subacute facilities of 36 days for purpose of need calculation, as opposed to the median length of stay for patients in subacute units in hospitals in Florida of approximately 24 days. An adjustment to calculations for this inflation factor which were then run at the final hearing by Jay Cushman, Good Samaritan’s expert in the field of health planning, did not demonstrate any need for additional hospital-based subacute capacity. Neither of the other two numeric methodologies presented by Good Samaritan at the final hearing demonstrated need for the proposed project sufficient to warrant its approval. Hospital-based SNUs or subacute units, beyond convenience and preference issues, in relation to free standing skilled nursing facilities, offer more immediate availability of emergency and acute services and the possibility that laboratory tests are completed in a shorter time. Good Samaritan maintains that the need pool for community nursing homes published by AHCA on April 19, 1996, is inapplicable to its application, although Good Samaritan filed no challenge to that bed need pool. Since affirmation by the First District Court of Appeal in Health Care and Retirement Corp. v. Tarpon Springs, 671 So.2d 217 (Fla. App. 1st DCA 1996)of Administrative Law Judge James York’s decision invalidating Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, no comparative review of SNU beds in hospitals in relation to all community nursing home beds has been conducted and AHCA no longer conducts such reviews. Subsequent to publication of the court’s opinion in Tarpon Springs, AHCA published the fixed need pool for the planning horizon at issue in this case based upon a calculation of need using the same numeric methodology contained in Rule 59C- 1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code. The calculation includes consideration of the entire Subdistrict population, and the need for all of the various categories of services included under the heading of skilled nursing care, including subacute and Alzheimer’s care. AHCA’s calculation also accounts fully for the number and occupancy rates of skilled nursing beds within the Subdistrict’s hospitals and free standing nursing homes. The published fixed need of zero represents “overall” need for skilled nursing beds, including Medicare certified and non-Medicare certified (also referred to as “short term” and “long term”). AHCA’s expert health planner, responsible for CON rule development, testified at final hearing that the need number calculated under the methodology contained in Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code, represents the “overall” need for all nursing beds except for private contract “sheltered beds” requiring entry fees which are a specific category regulated by another government agency and not available to the public at large. This need number also includes all skilled nursing facility beds, whether located in freestanding nursing homes or hospitals. After determination of overall need, AHCA determined the need for Medicare certified beds in each subdistrict, based upon existing utilization of such beds. In response to the decision in Tarpon Springs, AHCA explored options and proceeded to determine, as reflected in the April 19 and May 24, 1996 notices published in this case, the need for Medicare certified nursing home beds separately from non-Medicare certified or “long term” beds, without regard to the location of those beds in hospitals or nursing homes. AHCA segregated nursing home beds into two groups, Medicare certified and non-medicare certified, for need determinations and comparative review purposes. Under this approach, comparison of applicants is made on the character of the services being provided. Good Samaritan’s position is that AHCA’s need determination is inconsistent with the court’s holding in Tarpon Springs. As established by proof at the final hearing, there has been no showing that subdividing the applications into short-term and long-term services is flawed or irrational. Additionally, Good Samaritan has not shown any rational alternative means of creating subgroups of skilled nursing applications or determining need for short-term beds on anything broader than an institution- specific basis. AHCA’s position is that the actual need methodology in Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code was not invalidated by Tarpon Springs. The court’s decision in that case is limited to a prohibition of comparative review between hospital-based SNUs or subacute care beds and all community nursing home beds. Elysium’s Application Elysium, like Good Samaritan, did not challenge the April 19, 1996, published notice of the fixed need pool for the January 1999 planning horizon. As noted above, the notice, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, established a projected bed need of zero (0) for community nursing homes in AHCA’s planning district 9, Subdistrict 4, Palm Beach County. Elysium’s timely filed application for a CON to construct a 120 bed skilled nursing facility containing a 20 bed subacute care unit (medicare certified) and a 16 bed Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia Unit, however, seeks approval pursuant to provisions of Rule 59C-1.036(2)(h) and Rule 59C- 1.030(2), Florida Administrate Code for CON issuance to meet “special circumstances” despite the lack of numeric need. It is Elysium’s contention that elderly Jews who keep kosher are an identifiable ethnic minority in Palm Beach County with unique ethnic, religious, cultural and dietary needs who will be effectively denied access to long term care absent CON issuance. However, the applicant, Elysium Rehabilitation Center, Inc., owns no nursing homes and operates no nursing homes. The applicant has virtually no operating assets and no businesses. Sole shareholder of Elysium is John Fiorella, Jr. He is not a licensed nursing home administrator. He has never worked full time in a nursing home. He has not operated or opened a nursing home. The board of directors of Elysium include Fiorella and his mother and father. Both of the parents are experienced in the nursing home industry, but stopped working in 1986. A related corporation is Elysium of Boca Raton, Inc., which owns an assisted living facility (ALF) in Boca Raton, Florida, but no nursing homes. The ALF has a kosher kitchen. Elysium proposes to locate its nursing home facility on the ALF campus. The proposed facility is a freestanding building to be connected by an enclosed walkway to the ALF operated by Elysium of Boca Raton, Inc. The proposed facility’s connection to the existing ALF is intended to allow residents of the facility to be visited by spouses who are residing in the adjacent ALF, to allow use of common staff elements, and to allow for sharing of the common space of the existing facility. The projected cost of the proposed facility approximates 7.9 million dollars and includes proposals for a 20 bed subacute care unit and a 16 bed Alizheimer’s disease/related dementia unit. Elysium projects 65 percent occupancy in year one and 90 percent occupancy in year two. The proposed payor mix is: 7.1 percent private, 16.6 percent semiprivate, 55.5 percent Medicaid, 16.7 percent Medicare, 0 percent HMO or insurance and 4.2 percent “other”. The facility will admit Jewish and non-Jewish residents. While proposing to “provide a predominantly Jewish environment and meet the dietary laws of glatt kosher for the large number of elderly Jewish citizens residing in the area”, Elysium’s application also documents that the proposed facility will have a “predominately non-Jewish staff.” The proposed nursing home will not have an in-house kosher kitchen since the kosher kitchen at the adjoining ALF has been designated as glatt kosher by the Va’ad Hakashrut section of the Rabbinical Association. Elysium also proposes to offer its residents Hebrew classes, Yiddish discussion groups, religious studies, programs at the local Jewish Community Center and holiday celebrations. Need Per Section 408.035(1)(b) and (2), Florida Statutes And Rule 59C-1036(2), Florida Administrative Code Section 408.035(1)(b) and (2) requires that consideration be given to the availability, need, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in a District. By Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code, AHCA projects bed need on a county-wide basis. The need formula considers elderly population in a county, projected growth in the elderly population, the occupancy of existing nursing homes, number of licensed and CON-approved beds in a county, and other health variables. The formula projects need for all nursing home services, inclusive of custodial care, Alzheimer/related dementia disease, and subacute care. AHCA has published a zero need for additional nursing home beds in Palm Beach County. Elysium does not dispute AHCA’s finding. Additionally, there are 630 CON-approved, but not yet opened, nursing home beds in Palm Beach County. As established by the testimony at the final hearing of Dan Sullivan, an expert in health care planning and health care finance, the zero fixed need for Palm Beach County is attributable to these already approved beds. Many of the CON-approved beds will serve the same geographic area as that proposed by Elysium. Further, all nursing homes in Palm Beach County provide custodial care, Alzheimer’s care, subacute care, and Medicaid services. As conceded at final hearing by Elysium’s expert in health planning, Sharon Gordon-Girvin, custodial care, Alzheimer’s care, subacute care, and Medicaid services are provided at all nursing homes in Palm Beach County and are not unique or “not normal” services. Jewish residents in Palm Beach County currently receive Alzheimer’s services and subacute services with no problem in regard to clinical outcomes or quality of care issues. Subacute bed need is subsumed within AHCA’s need methodology. The specific subacute disorders proposed to be dealt with by Elysium are commonly provided in any subacute unit and, clinically, subacute care is the same regardless of religion. Per Rule 59C-1.036(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, proof of need in the absence of fixed need requires proof of an access problem. Documented need means persons must be denied access or demonstrate that actual need exceeds the number of available beds. The testimony of Dan Sullivan at hearing establishes that Elysium’s allegation of unique need is not proven in that there has not been identification of “a single patient who had been denied services or refused services in nursing home” due to a lack of glatt kosher services. The lack of documentation of an “access” problem for glatt kosher food is illustrated by the lack of demand for same. Diane Karolkowski was the admissions director at Menorah House, a Jewish facility, in 1996. An in-house survey conducted by her documented that of 115 patients, only 2 preferred kosher foods. Jewish residents are adequately served at existing nursing homes in Palm Beach County. As established by testimony of Dr. Ira Sheskin, Elysium’s expert in Jewish demography, the majority of Jewish residents in south Palm Beach County nursing homes are in nursing homes other than Jewish nursing homes. About 60 percent of patients at Intervenor Manor Care’s facility are Jewish, including orthodox and conservative Jews. Kosher foods are made available to residents requesting same, but such foods are rarely requested by even the orthodox Jewish residents. Manor Care’s Boynton, Florida facility has conducted studies of residents’ food preferences with the result that residents simply do not prefer the kosher foods. The ALF owned by Elysium of Boca Raton, Inc. has a kosher kitchen. With 144 beds, the ALF averages only 55 residents—a very low occupancy demonstrative of the little demand for kosher kitchen services. Elysium’s submittal that 20 percent of elderly Jews in south Palm Beach County keep kosher does not establish a demand or need for kosher kitchen services in a nursing home. Occupancy rates are expressly incorporated in the calculation of fixed need. The occupancy rates of the two Jewish nursing homes in the area accordingly do not justify deviation from the zero fixed need. Waiting lists at nursing homes do not demonstrate need. As indicators of bed need, such list are not meaningful. Nursing homes with empty beds have waiting lists. Waiting lists can reflect patient preference for a particular accommodation such as a private room or need for a Medicaid bed, a subacute bed, an Alzheimer’s bed, or simply a desire to be with a friend. Additionally, such lists become outdated when people change their minds or develop other placement options without removing themselves from other waiting lists. Waiting for a Medicaid bed, not kosher foods, is the primary reason given by those on waiting lists. Elysium And Quality Of Care Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Elysium is without any record of providing quality of care. Neither owner nor operator of any nursing home, this applicant has no experience or record of nursing home operations. A premium is placed on nursing home provider experience and competence since people are discharged earlier from hospitals than in the past and are consequently sicker than in previous years. Elysium’s ability to provide quality of care is not demonstrated. Schedule 6 in Elysium’s application presents projected staffing patterns. The projected staffing is not proposed by specific unit. Staffing will vary between the proposed facility’s 20-bed subacute unit, the 16-bed Alzheimer’s unit, and the custodial care units but this variance is not indicated in the application. Also, Elysium’s sole shareholder could not testify concerning the different staffing ratios for different units. There is no indication in Elysium’s application regarding whether a dedicated staff is contemplated for the subacute or Alzheimer’s units. Lack of a dedicated staff for these units is not reasonable. A minimum of 2.7 nursing hours per day for the subacute patient is reflected by on page 1b-5 of Elysium’s application, an unreasonable number since subacute units usually require at least 4.7 nursing hours per day to properly service the complexity and acuity of subacute disorders. Special Alzheimer’s units require 2.8 nursing hours per patient day. Elysium’s application fails to state what the ratio will be for such units in its facility. Assuming a standard of 4.7 nursing hours per day for subacute, 2.8 nursing hours per day for an Alzheimer’s unit and 1.9 nursing hours per day for custodial patients, measures established at final hearing by testimony of Marta Meers, Manor Care’s expert on Nursing, Nursing Administration and Clinical Services, the nursing full time equivalency (FTEs)required per Elysium’s utilization projections in year two for Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) is as follows: UNIT RN/LPN CNA TOTAL Alzheimer’s 4.2 10 14.2 Subacute 8.2 8.2 16.4 Long-Term 6.3 24 30.3 (Custodial) TOTAL FTEs 60.9 The 30.3 FTEs for custodial beds presumes that all 72 custodial, non-specialty beds are in one contiguous unit. Under Elysium’s proposal these units are to be located on separate floors of the proposed facility and would require more FTEs. Elysium’s projections in year two show requirements for 5.6 RNs, 8.5 LPNs, and 34.1 CNAs for a total of 48.2 positions. This is at least 12.7 FTEs low, as established by testimony of expert Meers. Elysium’s professed intent, as documented on Schedule 6, to contract for therapists (physical, speech, occupational, and audiological) instead of hiring these professionals as employees does not promote quality of care or quality assurance since contract staff provides less continuity. Many companies send different therapists to nursing homes at different times. Elysium’s application fails to state the volume of therapy that will be provided to subacute patients. Normal practice is to provide three hours of physical, occupational and speech therapy to patients requiring same. While stating that subacute programmatic policies and procedures will be developed, Elysium’s application is absent any such formulated policies—evidence of an inexperienced provider. The Elysium application also projects zero HMO or insurance days for its subacute program. In Palm Beach County, 30 to 40 percent of subacute patients are managed care with the likelihood that this percentage will increase in the future. Deficiencies of the proposed facility include mixing custodial and subacute patients; location of the physical therapy room on the second floor while subacute patients are located on the first floor; and a nurses’ station layout that complicates the possibility of a dedicated staff by locating the one station to service the subacute unit, the Alzheimer’s Unit, and custodial beds. Successful subacute programs require a dedicated, trained staff who normally exhibit a higher level of skill and professionalism than the custodial bed staff. Elysium’s application lacks established protocols of care and has not identified any employee who will serve in the capacity of therapist, unit director, or nurses for the subacute program. Elysium’s proposed 16-bed Alzheimer’s unit provides no nursing station within the unit, no separate dining room, no activity space, therapy space, family visitation area or quiet time room. These spaces are necessary for a quality, operational unit. Elysium’s proposal to mainstream Alzheimer’s residents for various services and activities is at variance with the fundamental reason for a special unit, particularly in view of the special needs of latter stage Alzheimer patients which make separate services appropriate. Mainstreaming these patients does not promote quality of care or quality assurance, and the application fails to indicate what mainstreaming for what stage of disease is contemplated. Elysium’s application promotes a less than ideal bracelet security system for the Alzheimer’s unit. Patients will be fitted with bracelets that will trigger and lock doors as the patients approach them. Safer measures would include the locked ward concept where doors are locked and alarms sound when the door is opened. Adequate And Available Alternatives Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Consideration of adequate alternatives to the proposed project is required by Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The many available and accessible nursing homes already existent in the area illustrate such alternatives to Elysium’s proposal. Most of the existing nursing homes provide the same services proposed by Elysium. Additionally, many of the CON-approved beds that are still to come on line will provide further alternatives. Most of the nursing homes in the southern part of Palm Beach County admit Jewish residents, observe Jewish holidays, and allow other cultural practices and customs for the Jewish population, inclusive of religious services. Kosher foods can and are provided without kosher kitchens in many of the area nursing homes, but, as noted earlier, demand for such foods is rare. Catering kosher food, if necessary, from the under-utilized ALF which would supply Elysium’s proposed facility is a cheaper, better alternative to meeting the occasional need for kosher food than building an unneeded nursing home. Improvements In Services Through Joint Resources Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, addresses whether improvements in services may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. With exception of limited discussion regarding joint use of the ALF’s kosher kitchen, the Elysium application does not meet this criterion. Additionally, financial projections in the application fail to indicate any economies, reduction in staff, reduction in non-salary expense, or other expense relief resulting from locating the nursing home next to the ALF. There is no discussion in the application of shared services with other health care providers. The ALF administrator, Claire Bojanoski, even professes no knowledge of the application or involvement in discussions about coordination between the existing ALF and the proposed facility. Applicant Resources For Project Accomplishment Section 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Section 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes, considers whether the applicant has available resources in personnel, management, and funds for project accomplishment and operation. Elysium’s application does not meet this criterion. As noted above, Elysium neither owns or operates nursing homes. The sole shareholder has no ownership or operational experience in the field. The applicant has no employees or specific individuals employed in any key operational or management positions. With regard to funding, the applicant proposes to borrow 5.8 million in long-term debt for project development. The only evidence in the application with regard to availability of such funding are two “letters of interest” from banks. The letters are casual, in no way binding, and cannot be viewed as firm commitments to provide debt funding. The applicant does have 250,000 dollars in capital for the nearly 8 million dollar project. Such a small percentage of the initial requirement for funding, plus the need for working capital when the facility opens, necessitates a finding that Elysium has not demonstrated in its application that it can firmly secure funds for project accomplishment and operation. Project Financial Feasibility Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Immediate financial feasibility is the ability to finance construction and initial operations. It is similar to the criterion of funds availability for capital and operating expenditures and, based on findings set forth above in that regard, it is found that the project lacks immediate financial feasibility. Long term feasibility addresses whether a project is financially viable after two years of operation. Elysium’s position that the large and growing Jewish population in the southern part of Palm Beach County will be adequate to assure long term feasibility is not sufficient to meet this criterion, particularly in view of the present usage of the ALF (less than 40 percent occupancy) and the lack of documented need for a facility that will target primarily a Jewish population. Utilization projections advanced by Elysium in Schedule 5 of its application are not reasonable. There is inadequate demand for glatt kosher in Palm Beach County to justify the high occupancy and rapid fill up of occupancy projected by Elysium. Physical needs of patients primarily direct nursing home placement as opposed to cultural or dietary preferences, and the zero fixed need also illustrates the lack of need on that basis for the Alzheimer’s services, subacute care, Medicaid services, and custodial services associated with the typical nursing home. Elysium projects, in Schedule 10 of the application, that it will capture 6,588 Medicare days. Equated to subacute days, such a figure amounts to 337 subacute admissions for which no specific referral sources are identified. Subacute services are increasingly funded by managed care, yet Elysium projects zero days from managed care for the entire facility. With regard to projected Medicare revenues, a significant portion of total revenues, Elysium did not calculate Medicare costs on the basis of actual cost of delivering subacute services, but chose instead to assume that Medicare reimbursement would equal the average Medicare reimbursement for all Palm Beach County nursing homes. Such an assumption for an alleged unique facility is not reasonable. Additionally, projected Medicare revenues do not indicate staffing patterns or amount of therapy to be provided subacute patients. With respect to projected expenses, Elysium projected these expenses merely as a percentage of projected revenues. No consideration was given to the purported unique aspects of the proposed facility. Salary expenses, the largest expense item for a nursing home, are very understated in view of the dramatic understated number of nursing home employees required to operate the specialized units and the total facility. As established at the final hearing by testimony of the expert on health care planning and health care finance, Dan Sullivan, Elysium’s projection on Schedule 11 of $61.58 patient care costs per day in year 2000, the second year of operation, is unrealistic. Palm Beach County nursing homes averaged $61.27 in 1994. If the 1994 figure is inflated 4 percent per year, that would increase Elysium’s patient care costs by $15 per day. Multiplication of $15 per day times 39,528 patient days (utilization projections in year two) generates an additional expense of almost $600,000. Elysium projected a profit of $300,000, which, as Sullivan opined, becomes a $300,000 loss with the additional $600,000 cost. Promotion Of Competition, Quality Assurance, Or Cost-Effectiveness Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. There are no competitive benefits associated with Elysium’s application in view of the lack of Fixed Need and the existence of many nursing homes that presently provide the same services proposed by this applicant. Additionally, Jewish residents now receive adequate, available, and accessible cultural and religious services at existing facilities. For the same facts set forth earlier, finding that Elysium’s application fails to meet the “quality of care” criterion, the criterion of quality assurance is not met. With regard to cost effectiveness, there is no specific cost savings or cost effectiveness for health care delivery systems identified by Elysium’s application. Elysium has substantially understated its expenses and has expended no effort to share costs with the ALF or to provide any meaningful economic linkage with the ALF. Reasonableness Of Project Cost And Design Section 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes. The layout of Elysium’s Alzheimer’s unit and subacute unit, as previously noted, are not reasonable. Additionally, Elysium’s projected “start-up” costs of $25,000 shown on Schedule 1 manifests a misapprehension of what is involved in developing and operating a nursing home. Testimony of Marta Meers establishes that start-up involves hiring an administrator and other key staff six to eight months before opening; hiring and training other staff prior to opening; marketing and promotion. A projection of $25,000 for these costs is unrealistic and fails to meet this criterion. Elysium is inconsistent with regard to whether there will be a separate kosher kitchen for the proposed facility. Page 3-16 of the application states there will not be a separate kitchen, contrary to the project architect’s testimony that the proposed facility could accommodate preparation of kosher and non-kosher foods. The architect’s testimony is not credited on this point. Applicant’s Past And Proposed Provision Of Medicaid And Indigent Services Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Elysium has no history and therefore has no history of providing service to Medicaid or indigent persons. Elysium projects 55 percent Medicaid which is the Palm Beach County nursing home average. Elysium makes no attempt to quantify Medicaid need for nursing home residents demanding glatt kosher foods and puts further in question whether the applicant seeks to offer a unique service. Elysium does not satisfy this criterion. Continuum Of Care In A Multi-Level Health Care System Section 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes. This proposed facility is not linked to any other element in the health care system of Palm Beach County with the exception of the ALF which is not particularly viable. There are no letters of support from hospitals or other nursing homes. The applicant has failed to establish that the proposed facility is an integrated part of a continuum of services. Local And State Health Plan Satisfaction Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Local Health Plan The District 9 Local Health Plan includes preferences for consideration in the review of applications for nursing home beds. The first preference gives priority to applicants for new nursing homes who agree to provide a minimum of 30 percent Medicaid patient days. Elysium has proposed a minimum of 55 percent Medicaid patient days and, therefore, meets this preference. The second preference contains four subparts that establish priorities for applicants: documented history of providing good residential care; staffing ratios, particularly for registered nurses and aids, that exceed staffing requirements; provision for the treatment of residents with mental health problems; and the inclusion of intensive rehabilitation services for those short stay patients requiring rehabilitation below the level of an acute care hospital. Elysium has not operated a skilled nursing facility to date and therefore does not have a rating history to report. With regard to staffing ratios, provision of treatment of residents with mental health problems, the inclusion of intensive rehabilitation services for those short stay patients requiring rehabilitation such as a subacute unit, these preferences are not met by Elysium in view of the facts found above documenting the applicant’s failure to demonstrate an ability to provide high quality of care and quality assurance for its specialized services. The third priority under the local/district health plan establishes a priority for applicants who propose to serve a distinct population that is not currently being served within the Subdistrict. As noted above, the distinct population in this instance is already well served by other nursing homes in Palm Beach County which meet the ethnic, religious, cultural and dietary needs of the elderly Jewish population who keep kosher. Florida State Health Plan The Florida State Health Plan contains twelve allocation factors for reviewing CON applications for community nursing home beds. Factor 1 provides a preference for applicants proposing to locate in subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. Elysium conforms to this preference since occupancy rates in Palm Beach County have exceeded 90 percent throughout 1995. Factor 2 provides a preference to those proposing to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the subdistrict average. At risk to its claim that it proposes a truly unique facility, Elysium conforms to this preference. Factor 3 provides a preference to applicants proposing specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS, Alzheimer’s and mentally ill residents. As previously noted above, the applicant’s failure to demonstrate an ability to provide high quality of care and quality assurance for its specialized services prevents conformance with this preference. Factor 4 provides a preference to applicants proposing a continuum of services, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. As previously noted, Elysium’s failure to demonstrate an ability to provide quality of care or quality assurance precludes consideration of this preference. Factor 5 of the State Health Plan is for applicants proposing reasonable facility design. As found above, Elysium’s proposal is unreasonable in design, particularly with regard to the specialized units for Alzheimer’s and subacute patients. Factor 6 provides a preference to applicants providing innovative and therapeutic programs that enhance residents’ physical and mental functional level and emphasize restorative care. Elysium’s proposed subacute program does not offer services not provided at other nursing homes in the area. Additionally, Elysium does not demonstrate an ability to provide quality of care in its programs. Factor 7 provides a preference to applicants proposing charges that do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the Subdistrict. Elysium conforms with this preference. Factor 8 provides a preference to applicants with a history of providing superior residential care in existing facilities in Florida and other states. Elysium has not operated a skilled nursing facility to date and therefore does not have a rating history to report. Factor 9 provides a preference to applicants proposing staffing levels that exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. The staffing ratios proposed by Elysium’s application do not meet minimum staffing ratios under the licensure rules due to understatement by the applicant of the number of nursing employees needed to operate its proposed facility. Factor 10 provides preference to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents’ needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation and spiritual guidance. Elysium minimally complies, with proposed contractual services, with requirements for this preference. Factor 11 provides a preference to applicants who document how they will ensure residents’ rights and privacy, if they use residents’ councils, and if they plan to implement a well-designed quality assurance and discharge planning program. Absent quality assurance concerns, Elysium qualifies for priority under this factor. Factor 12 provides preference to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Elysium does not meet this preference in that proposed patient care costs are lower than average. Adverse Impact To Other Facilities Manor Care is a 180 bed nursing home. Superior-rated, it has a 32-bed Alzheimer’s unit and provides subacute services. Service is provided to the Medicaid population and 60 percent of its residents are Jewish. It is located 1.5 miles from Elysium’s proposed site. Presuming that Elysium reached projected utilization, 20 percent of that business would come at the expense of Manor Care in an amount equal to the loss of 8,000 patient days. Currently generating a contribution margin of $60 per resident day, the loss to Manor Care would approximate $480,000 should Elysium’s application be approved. This is a substantial and adverse financial loss.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the applications of Elysium and Good Samaritan which are at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Sheehan, III, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, et al. 625 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33402 David K. Friedman, Esquire Weiss and Handler, P.A. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 218A Boca Raton, FL 33431 James C. Hauser, Esquire Skelding, Labasky, Corry et al. 318 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Gilroy, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3426 Tallahassee, FL 32308 R. Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403
