The Issue Whether the second and third sentences of Rule 59C-1.033(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code, are invalid? If so, whether they may be severed from the remainder of the Rule?
Findings Of Fact Subparagraph (7)(c) of the Rule states: Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in paragraph (b) above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for a district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 350 open heart surgery operations. In determining whether this condition applies, the Agency will calculate (Uc x Px)(OP + 1). If the result is less than 350, no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved. (Emphasis supplied to indicate the challenged portion of the Rule.) The first sentence sets forth the objective and intent of subparagraph (7)(c) of the Rule: unless there are "not normal circumstances," a new open heart surgery program will not be approved in a district if the approval would reduce the volume below 350 procedures annually at any existing OHS provider in the district. This is the intent and objective of the sentence despite the use of the word "an" to modify the term "existing adult open heart surgery program in the district" used toward the end of the sentence. As was testified by the Agency representative: [T]he entire notion of the rule, the entire intent of the rule is that existing providers maintain the 350 level. I mean, [there's] no question about that, so that has to be considered. (Tr. 3287). Indeed, intent that it is desirable for individual existing OHS providers to perform 350 procedures in 12-month periods is expressed elsewhere in the Rule. And that goal is so desirable, in fact, that new programs in a district are not under normal circumstances to be approved if the 350 level has not been met recently by an existing provider in the district: (7) Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. (a) A new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district if any of the following conditions exist: * * * One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; . . . Rule 59C-1.033, F.A.C., (e.s.). Given the clear intent of the Rule as a whole and of the first sentence of subparagraph (7)(c), the formula in the challenged portion of the Rule (the "formula"), should be used to measure and determine whether the approval of a new OHS program would reduce the annual volume of OHS procedures at any existing OHS provider below 350. Under the formula, adult open heart surgeries are projected for each service district. The resulting number is divided by the number of existing OHS programs plus one new OHS program. If calculation results in a number less than 350, the third sentence of the subparagraph purports to carry out the intent of the first sentence of subparagraph (7)(c), that is, "no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved." For example, assume 3000 OHS are projected for a service district with five existing programs. Under the formula, 3000 would be divided by six (the existing five plus the proposed program). The result is 500, and the operation of the subparagraph does not prohibit a new OHS program. If, on the other hand, a volume for the district of 3000 were projected and there were eight existing providers, the addition of a ninth program would bring the average below 350 and, by operation of the third sentence, prohibit the approval of a new program. The challenged portion of the Rule, however, does not necessarily implement the objective of the first sentence of subparagraph (7)(c). The calculations in the challenged portion do not determine whether the volume at any specific provider would fall below 350 as the result of a new program. Instead, the calculations measure only the "average" volumes at existing programs plus one new one. A program operating slightly above 350 (such as CRMC), with the addition of a new program (such as the one proposed by Venice) in close enough proximity that their primary service areas significantly overlap, could drop below 350, even though the number of OHS procedures in the district is calculated district-wide to increase and even though the average calculated by the formula exceeds 350. Such a result increases in likelihood when one of the providers in the district (such as Memorial) is projected to have volume significantly above 350. Illustrations of the ineffectiveness of the challenged portion for achieving the clear objective set forth in the first sentence of subpararaph (7)(c) are in CRMC Exhibit no. 58. For example, in 1997, existing OHS providers in District 8 had an average volume of 716. That year CRMC performed only 369 OHS procedures. Had Venice commenced an OHS program in 1997, adverse impact analysis and service area overlap as used by Mr. Baehr in this proceeding show that CRMC would have dropped below 350 procedures in 1997, while the district average would have remained well above 350 despite the addition of a new program.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether the following statement was made by Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; whether the statement violates the provisions of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes; whether the statement constitutes a declaratory statement under Section 120.565, Florida Statutes; whether Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC., has standing to maintain this action; and whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The alleged agency statement which is at issue in this case is: The Agency for Health Care Administration takes the position that a shared service agreement may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and the shared service contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition, the Agency takes the position that modifications to a shared service agreement do not require prior review and approval by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC. (hereinafter ALL CHILDREN'S), is a medical facility located in St. Petersburg, Florida, which provides pediatric hospital care. Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA), is the agency of the State of Florida vested with statutory authority to issue, revoke or deny certificates of need in accordance with the statewide and district health plans. Intervenor, BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER (BAYFRONT), is an acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida. ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT are located adjacent to each other and are connected by a thirty-yard tunnel. In 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S began operation of a pediatric cardiac catheterization program. ALL CHILDREN'S pediatric cardiac catheterization program existed prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to provide such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S cardiac catheterization program. Since 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S has expended at least $500,000 on upgrading the cardiac catheterization program. Since 1970, ALL CHILDREN'S has operated a pediatric open heart surgery program. ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program existed prior to the statutory requirement for issuance of a certificate of need to perform such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program. By letter dated May 13, 1974, HRS specifically advised ALL CHILDREN'S that modifications to the ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program were not subject to agency approval. In May of 1973, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT entered into a shared service agreement to provide adult cardiac catheterization services. In accordance with the shared service agreement, the actual catheterizations are performed in the physical plant of ALL CHILDREN'S and with equipment located on the ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult cardiac catheterization shared service program by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. Beginning in 1975, BAYFRONT has also provided adult open heart surgery services through a joint program with ALL CHILDREN'S with the actual surgeries being performed at the physical plant on ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult open heart surgery shared service by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. The shared service agreement between ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT to provide adult cardiac catheterization and open heart surgical services was in existence prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to perform such services. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need to provide such services. The cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery program operated by ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT was "grandfathered" in because the program existed prior to the certificate of need requirement. Because no certificate of need was issued to ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT for its shared adult cardiac service program, no conditions have been imposed by AHCA on the operation of the program. "Conditions" placed on certificates of need are important predicates to agency approval and typically regulate specific issues relating to the operation of the program and the provision of the service such as access, location, and provision of the service to Medicaid recipients. The ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT cardiac shared services program is the only "grandfathered in" shared service arrangement in Florida, and is the only shared service arrangement operating without a certificate of need in Florida. An open heart surgery program is shared by Marion Community Hospital and Munroe Regional Medical Center in Ocala, Florida. The Marion/Munroe program operates pursuant to a certificate of need issued by AHCA. On December 22, 1995, AHCA published a notice of its intent to approve a certificate of need for a shared pediatric cardiac catheterization program between Baptist Hospital and University Medical Center in Duval County, Florida. BAYFRONT has applied for, but has not yet been issued, a certificate of need to perform cardiac catheterization services independent of the shared services arrangement with ALL CHILDREN'S. The agency receives hundreds of inquiries each year requesting information and guidance from health care providers regarding the certificate of need application process and other requirements of the certificate of need program. On more than one occasion ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT have inquired either orally or in letters to the agency regarding whether certain changes in their adult cardiac shared services program would require agency approval through a certificate of need application. In response to a 1990 written inquiry from ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT regarding modifications to the shared services agreement, the agency (then HRS) by letter dated September 18, 1990, stated in pertinent part that "the alterations you propose still constitute shared services." The agency response went on to state that it is therefore "...determined that they (the proposed changes) have not altered the original intent." On January 31, 1991, Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code, governing shared service arrangements in project-specific certificate of need applications was promulgated. The rule provides: Shared service arrangement: Any application for a project involving a shared service arrangement is subject to a batched review where the health service being proposed is not currently provided by any of the applicants or an expedited review where the health service being proposed is currently provided by one of the applicants. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services where none of the applicants are currently authorized to provide the service: Each applicant jointly applying for a new health service must be a party to a formal written legal agreement. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service will authorize the applicants to provide the new health service as specified in the original application. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service shall not be construed as entitling each applicant to independently offer the new health service. Authority for any party to offer the service exists only as long as the parties participate in the provision of the shared service. Any of the parties providing a shared service may seek to dissolve the arrangement. This action is subject to review as a termina- tion of service. If termination is approved by the agency, all parties to the original shared service give up their rights to provide the service. Parties seeking to provide the service independently in the future must submit applications in the next applicable review cycle and compete for the service with all other applicants. All applicable statutory and rule criteria are met. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services when one of the applicants has the service: A shared services contract occurs when two or more providers enter into a contractual arrangement to jointly offer an existing or approved health care service. A shared services contract must be written and legal in nature. These include legal partnerships, contractual agreements, recognition of the provision of a shared service by a governmental payor, or a similar documented arrangement. Each of the parties to the shared services contract must contribute something to the agreement including but not limited to facilities, equipment, patients, management or funding. For the duration of a shared services contract, none of the entities involved has the right or authority to offer the service in the absence of the contractual arrangement except the entity which originally was authorized to provide the service. A shared services contract is not transferable. New parties to the original agreement constitute a new contract and require a new Certificate of Need. A shared services contract may encom- pass any existing or approved health care service. The following items will be evaluated in reviewing shared services contracts: The demonstrated savings in capital equipment and related expenditures; The health system impact of sharing services, including effects on access and availability, continuity and quality of care; and, Other applicable statutory review criteria. Dissolution of a shared services contract is subject to review as a termination of service. If termination is approved, the entity(ies) authorized to provide the service prior to the contract retains the right to continue the service. All other parties to the contract who seek to provide the service in their own right must request the service as a new health service and are subject to full Certificate of Need review as a new health service. All statutory and rule criteria are met. By letter dated October 22, 1993, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT inquired again of the agency regarding modifications of the adult inpatient cardiac shared service program. AHCA did not respond to the 1993 inquiry, and AHCA ultimately considered the inquiry withdrawn. By letter dated February 24, 1995, BAYFRONT made further inquiry of the agency, and requested agency confirmation of the following statement: The purpose of this letter is to confirm our understanding that the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") takes the position that the shared services agreement between Bayfront and All Children's may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and that the shared services contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4) F.A.C. By letter dated March 16, 1995, the agency made the following reply to BAYFRONT from which this proceeding arose: The purpose of this letter is to confirm your understanding of this agency's position with reference to the reviewability of a modifica- tion of the shared services agreement between Bayfront Medical Center and All Children's Hospital set forth in your February 24, 1995 letter.
Findings Of Fact In June 1983 Delray filed an application with HRS for a CON for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery service for its hospital in Delray, Palm Beach County, Florida. During the same batching cycle, JFK/HI filed an application for a CON to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory on the campus of John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital in Atlantis, Palm Beach County, Florida. The Delray application was reviewed as one application by HRS. In November 1983, and during a subsequent batching cycle, JFK filed an application for a CON to establish an open heart surgery program. Delray Community Hospital is located in the Medical Center at Delray, the geographic center of the southern half of Palm Beach County. The Medical Center already does or will include a 160-bed acute care hospital (with a 51-bed addition in progress) a 120-bed skilled nursing facility, a 72-bed psychiatric hospital, a 60-bed rehabilitation hospital, an adult congregate living facility, medical office buildings and a shopping mall. Delray intends to perform coronary angioplasty in its cardiac catheterization laboratory. Delray is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. JFK is a 333-bed acute care hospital located in Atlantis, Florida, adjacent to Lake Worth, Florida, in central Palm Beach County. It is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. The hospital presently offers a full range of acute care services, including blood banking and renal dialysis. HRS has recently approved the establishment of a cancer center, outpatient surgery center, and psychiatric unit at JFK. PBGMC is an acute care hospital located in Palm Beach Gardens, the northern portion of Palm Beach County. The hospital offers cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services. The great majority of PBGMC's cardiac patients reside in Martin County, northern Palm Beach County, Ft. Pierce, and Okeechobee. Approximately 80 percent of JFK's patients reside in the communities of Lake Worth, West Palm Beach, and Lantana, all of which are in central Palm Beach County. Delray's primary service area is located in the southern part of Palm Beach County and includes the City of De1ray, unincorporated Delray, sections of western Boynton Beach, and some sections of western Boca Raton. Approximately 75 percent of Delray's patients are drawn from its primary service area. Delray's service area is also described as that area of Palm Beach County between Hypoluxo Road and the Broward County line. JFK is north of Hypoluxo Road. Accordingly, the Delray primary service area does not overlap with the JFK Primary service area. North Ridge is an acute care hospital located in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The hospital offers cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services. The general service area of the hospital is primarily north Broward County. The facility also draws patients from southern Palm Beach County. North Ridge is located in HRS District Ten. Delray, JFK, and PBGMC, however, are located in HRS District Nine. District Nine is comprised of the following counties: Palm Beach, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Indian River. The service area for cardiac catheterization services and for open heart surgery services consists of the entire service district. At the present time, the only cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery service in HRS District Nine are located at PBGMC. In 1986, the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research projects that just over one million people will live in District Nine. Approximately 70 percent of the population of District Nine lives in Palm Beach County, and 30 percent lives in the four remaining counties to the north. Ninety percent of the population living within HRS District Nine live within 2 hours travel time, under average travel conditions, of Delray and JFK. Section 10-5.11(15)(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides a formula for computing the number of cardiac catheterization laboratories needed in a District. A two-year planning horizon is used in determining need. In HRS District Nine, a 1981 statewide use rate is employed in the formula since there were no existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in the District in 1981. According to the need formula, there is a 1986 need for five cardiac catheterization laboratories in District Nine. Subtracting the one existing laboratory leaves a net need of four cardiac catheterization laboratories in the District. The need formula for determining the number of open heart surgery programs in the District is found in Section 10-5.11(16)(h), Florida Administrative Code. A two-year planning horizon is used in computing the need for this service. In HRS District Nine, a 1981 statewide use rate is utilized in the formula because there were no open heart surgery programs in the District in 1981. According to this formula, there is a need in HRS District Nine for three open heart surgery programs, or a net need for two programs in the District. Section 10-5.11(15)(o), Florida Administrative Code, provides that no additional cardiac catheterization laboratories shall be established in a service area unless the average number of procedures performed by existing laboratories is greater than six hundred. The PBGMC laboratory was established in 1982 and has yet to perform six hundred procedures on an annualized basis. Each expert health planner agreed that the applications at issue should be granted, notwithstanding PBGMC's inability to meet the six hundred procedure standard at this time, in that: the projected need for cardiac catheterization services in District Nine is overwhelming; there has been significant growth in the number of procedures performed at PBGMC; based upon such growth, and PBGMC's own projections, it is likely that PBGMC will perform six hundred procedures in 1984; PBGMC's laboratory) is still in a "start-up" phase; and PBGMC expects minimal impact from the approval of these applications. Section 10-5.11(16)(k), Florida Administrative Code, provides that no additional open heart surgery programs shall be established within a service area unless each existing open heart surgery program within the area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 surgery cases per year. The PBGMC open heart surgery program was established in November, 1983, and has yet to perform 350 cases on an annual basis. The expert health planners agree that pending applications should be granted, nonetheless, in that; the projected need for open heart surgery services in District Nine is overwhelming; the PBGMC program just began operation; PBGMC projects that it will reach the 350 procedures a year standard in its own application for open heart surgery services; and the PBGMC program has experienced tremendous growth in utilization during its first several months of operation. Historically, Palm Beach County residents needing cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services have been referred to Broward County and Dade County hospitals. This referral pattern is not in the best interest of the patients, patients' families, or treating physicians. There is potential for danger, even death, to the patient in transport, the patient does not receive continuity in care from his/her primary physician, and psycho-social problems exist for patients and families. While the cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs in Broward County may he within two hours' travel time of many of the residents of District Nine, it was demonstrated that it is neither reasonable nor economical for patients in District Nine to travel to Broward County for cardiac catheterization or open heart surgery. It is the policy of JFK to admit all patients who demonstrate a need for service, and JFK participates fully in the Medicaid program. This policy will be consistent for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services at JFK. Delray is in the process and will obtain a Medicaid contract for indigent patients using cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services at Delray since Delray believes it has an obligation to provide such regional services to all in need. Based on projected need and the intentions of JFK medical staff cardiologists and internists regarding utilization of the proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory, JFK will perform 300 cardiac catheterization procedures annually within its first three years of operation. Delray's financial projections for the cardiac catheterization laboratory were based on 520 procedures performed during the lab's first year of operation and 650 procedures during the lab's second year of operation. These projections are reasonable in light of the number of procedures needed according to the applicable need methodology and the number of cases presently being referred out of Palm Beach County by physicians using JFK and Delray. The service costs for the proposed JFK laboratory and for the proposed Delray laboratory are comparable to the cost for such services at other facilities in the area. Both Delray and JFK have the financial resources to provide capital for the proposed cardiac catheterization laboratories. There have been significant advances in the technology regarding cardiac catheterizations. Catheterization is no longer simply a diagnostic tool, but can also be used in the emergency treatment of heart attack victims. However, to be effective, the catheterization service must be quickly available in a facility close to the patient. Further, more coronary angioplasty is being performed, a procedure that takes longer and reduces the capacity of cardiac catheterization laboratories. Approval of cardiac catheterization laboratories at Delray and at JFK should positively impact and help reduce mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases in District Nine. Regional, or tertiary care, services should be located in the major metropolitan areas. In District Nine, Palm Beach County is the major population base, accounting for 70 percent of the District's population. It is not reasonable, from a planning perspective to establish an open heart surgery program in an area with a relatively small population base. Open heart surgery is a very sophisticated service, in relation to general acute care services. In order to operate a quality open heart surgery program, a hospital needs access to adequate resources relative to staff and other facility capabilities. Delray already has a number of existing programs and departments in place which can economically be utilized with a catheterization lab and open heart surgery service. Delray has one operating room sized as a primary open heart surgery room and another room sized as a backup operating room for open heart surgery. In addition Delray has departments for nuclear medicine, respiratory therapy, physical therapy, and various types of imaging, which can be utilized in a cardiovascular program. Delray also can take advantage of national purchasing contracts through NME which should result in cost savings to the patients. In that the open heart surgery suite at JFK was constructed pursuant to JFK's recent expansion and renovation of its surgery department, any indirect overhead expense associated with the implementation of the JFK open heart surgery program is insignificant, as such costs are already being absorbed by the facility. Based on projected need and the intentions of JFK medical staff cardiologists and internists regarding utilization of the proposed program, JFK will perform 200 open heart surgery procedures annually within the first three years of operation. Delray has projected that it will perform 195 open heart surgeries during year one and 270 open heart surgery procedures during the second year of operation. These projections are reasonable in light of the number of procedures projected by the applicable need methodology described above and in light of the number of cases referred out of District Nine by physicians on staff at Delray and JFK. JFK did not utilize Medicare DRG rates in preparing its pro forma statement of income and expense in that it sought to determine the feasibility of the utilization of the surgical suite to perform open heart surgery, rather than considering all costs and revenues associated with the patient's hospital stay. Although the hospital will be reimbursed by Medicare on a DRG basis, it is difficult to project accurately on that basis, as JFK's DRG rates have already changed three times in six months. The pro forma contained in JFK's application for a CON to establish open heart surgery services assumed DRG implementation. That pro forma, if projected forward to 1986, the year in which the service will be instituted, still shows the project to be financially feasible. On the other hand, Delray projected its expenses using the DRG rates although it has no contract obligating it to use those rates at the present time. Even so, by considering all directly related expenses, Delray has demonstrated that its cardiac cath lab and open heart surgery service would be financially feasible on an immediate and long-term basis. Delray's projected costs and charges are comparable to or lower than the charges established by other institutions in the service area. Likewise, the charges for open heart surgery at JFK will be comparable to charges established by similar institutions in the service area. Both Delray and JFK have adequate capital resources to establish open heart surgery programs. Neither Delray nor JFK should have any problem recruiting fully qualified cardiovascular surgeons based upon the overwhelming need for the programs, based upon the desirability of working and living in the Palm Beach County area, and based upon the recent experience of PBGMC, which hospital has just recently recruited a cardiovascular surgeon for its program. Neither PBGMC nor North Ridge participate in the Medicaid program. Accordingly, the approval of open heart surgery programs (and cardiac catheterization laboratories) at Delray (which will obtain a Medicaid contract) and at JFK (which already has a Medicaid contract), will result in the availability of cardiac services to indigent and Medicaid patients in District Nine for the first time ever. At the time of the final hearing, the open heart surgery service at PBGMC had been in operation less than six months. However, that service was experiencing rapid growth. The service areas of PBGMC and Delray for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery do not overlap to any significant extent. Less than 3 percent of the PBGMC cath lab and open heart surgery patients come from the Delray service area. A cath lab and open heart surgery service at Delray will have no impact on the ability of PBGMC to obtain and maintain the minimum number of procedures required by the applicable rules. Although PBGMC, located in northern Palm Beach County, may he impacted by JFK located in central Palm Beach County, the record is clear that most of PBGMC's cardiac patients reside in northern Palm Beach County - Stuart, Ft. Pierce, Okeechobee, and Belle Glade, all of which are located outside of Palm Beach County. Accordingly, PBGMC has become a primary provider of cardiac services to the residents of the four counties in District Nine north of Palm Beach County. Therefore, the approval of open heart surgery programs (in addition to cardiac catheterization laboratories) at Delray and JFK will result in a highly appropriate locating of facilities according to health planning standards: Delray serving the residents of southern Palm Beach County, JFK serving the residents of central Palm Beach County, and PBGMC serving the residents of northern Palm Beach County and the four counties north of Palm Beach County. Moreover, the approval of all applications herein will result for the first time in cardiac services being reasonably and economically accessible to residents of District Nine. Although North Ridge failed to prove any impact it would suffer from approval of the programs sought by JFK, it is likely that North Ridge will experience some loss of patients from south Palm Beach County if Delray opens a high-quality cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery program. However, it is not likely that Delray will immediately begin to serve 100 percent of the patients in south Palm Beach County requiring those services, and North Ridge can still continue to compete for those patients. Further, the only impact shown by North Ridge from the loss of patients from Palm Beach County is economic. More significantly, any financial losses that might be experienced by North Ridge can be more than offset by reducing some of its current expenses. During its last fiscal year, North Ridge paid over $11 million to related companies, including a $3.7 million management fee which was shown to be exorbitant. More than $4.5 million of the monies paid to related companies was not permitted by Medicare as reimbursable costs. It was also shown that North Ridge is overstaffed and is paying an excessive amount for supplies for its cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Dismissing the petitions of North Ridge, PBGMC, and Delray in opposition to the JFK applications in that each of the Petitioners and Intervenors have failed to demonstrate standing to contest the JFK applications; Dismissing the petitions of North Ridge and PBGMC in opposition to the Delray application in that each has failed to demonstrate standing to contest the Delray application; and Granting Certificates of Need to Delray and JFK for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery services. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard M. Benton, Esquire P. O. Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1833 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire 318 North Monroe Street P. O. Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire P. O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert Weiss, Esquire Perkins House, Suite 101 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Gilroy 318 North Calhoun Street P. O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3300 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether there is need for a new Pediatric Heart Transplant and/or Pediatric Heart and Lung Transplant program in Organ Transplant Service Area (OTSA) 3; and, if so, whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10471 (heart) and/or 10472 (heart and lung), filed by The Nemours Foundation, d/b/a Nemours Children’s Hospital (Nemours or NCH), to establish a Pediatric Heart Transplant and/or Pediatric Heart and Lung Transplant program, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for award of a CON.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Applicant, Nemours Nemours Children’s Hospital is a licensed Class II specialty children’s hospital located in Orange County, Health Planning District 7, Subdistrict 7-2, OTSA 3, which is owned and operated by The Nemours Foundation. Nemours is licensed for 100 beds, including 73 acute care, nine comprehensive medical rehabilitation, two Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and 16 Level III NICU beds, and is a licensed provider of pediatric inpatient cardiac catheterization and pediatric open-heart surgery. As the primary beneficiary of the Alfred I. duPont Testamentary Trust established in the will of Alfred duPont, the Foundation was incorporated in Florida in 1936. The Foundation set out to provide children and families medical care and services, its mission being “[t]o provide leadership, institutions, and services to restore and improve the health of children through care and programs not readily available, with one high standard of quality and distinction regardless of the recipient’s financial status.” Foundation assets reached $5.5 billion, by the end of 2015. The Foundation has funded $1.5 billion of care to Florida’s pediatric population through subspecialty pediatric services, research, education, and advocacy. Nemours has established a pediatric care presence throughout the State of Florida. Nemours operates over 40 outpatient clinics throughout Florida that offer primary care, specialty care, urgent care, and cardiac care services to pediatric patients in central Florida, Jacksonville, and the panhandle region. Nemours also provides hospital care to pediatric inpatients at Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, as well as through affiliations with Wolfson’s Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville, West Florida Hospital in Pensacola, and numerous hospital partners in central Florida. The resources Nemours offers in the greater Orlando area are especially significant with 17 Primary Care Clinics, five Urgent Care Clinics, 10 Specialty Care Clinics, nine Nemours Hospital partners, and, of course, NCH itself. These clinics are located throughout OTSA 3 where Nemours determined access to pediatric care was lacking, including Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona Beach, Titusville, Kissimmee, Lake Mary, and Sanford, as well as neighboring Lakeland. The clinics are fully staffed with hundreds of Nemours-employed physicians who live in the clinic communities. Through these satellite locations, as well as the Nemours CareConnect telemedicine platform, Nemours is able to bring access to its world-class subspecialists located at NCH to children throughout the State of Florida who otherwise would not have access to such care. Nemours was established to provide state of the art medical care to children through its integrated model. Nemours’ development has been and continues to be driven by its mission and objective to be a top-tier, world-class pediatric healthcare system. NCH is the first completely new “green field” children’s hospital in the United States in over 40 years, allowing Nemours to integrate cutting-edge technology and a patient-centered approach throughout. Nemours has created a unique integrated model of care that addresses the needs of the child across the whole continuum, connecting policy and prevention, to the highest levels of specialized care for the most complex pediatric patients. From its inception, Nemours envisioned the development of a comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program as proposed by the CON applications at issue in this proceeding. NCH is located in the Lake Nona area, just east of downtown Orlando in a development known as Medical City. Medical City is comprised of a new VA Hospital, the University of Central Florida (UCF) College of Medicine and School of Biomedical Sciences, the University of Florida (UF) Research and Academic Center, the Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute, and a CON-approved hospital, which is a joint venture between UCF and AHCA, which will serve as UCF’s teaching hospital. Medical City is intended to bring together life scientists and research that uses extraordinarily advanced technology. Co- location in an integrated environment allows providers and innovators of healthcare, “the brightest minds,” so to speak, to interact and to share ideas to advance healthcare and wellness efforts. Agency for Health Care Administration AHCA is the state health-planning agency that is charged with administration of the CON program as set forth in sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes. Context of the Nemours Applications Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044, AHCA requires applicants to obtain separate CONs for the establishment of each adult or pediatric organ transplantation program, including: heart, kidney, liver, bone marrow, lung, lung and heart, pancreas and islet cells, and intestine transplantations. “Transplantation” is “the surgical grafting or implanting in its entirety or in part one or more tissues or organs taken from another person.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065. Heart transplantation, lung transplantation, and heart/lung transplantation are all defined by rule 59C-1.002(41) as “tertiary health services,” meaning “a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of such service.” AHCA rules define a “pediatric patient” as “a patient under the age of 15 years.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(c). AHCA rules divide Florida into four OTSAs, corresponding generally with the northern, western central, eastern central, and southern regions of the state. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(f). The programs at issue in this proceeding will be located in OTSA 3, which is comprised of Brevard, Indian River, Lake, Martin, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Counties. Currently, there are no providers of PHT in OTSA 3, and there are no approved PHLT programs statewide. The incidence of PHT in Florida, as compared to other types of solid organ transplants, is relatively small. The chart below sets forth the number of pediatric (ages 0-14) heart transplant discharges by year for the four existing Florida PHT programs during Calendar Years (CY) 2013 through 2016, and the 12-month period ending June 2017: HOSPITAL HEART TRANSPLANT CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 2017 All Children’s Hospital 7 14 9 8 7 UF Health Shands Hospital 6 8 15 15 9 Memorial Regional Hospital 5 5 5 7 4 Jackson Health System 2 2 1 4 1 Total 20 29 30 34 21 The above historic data demonstrates that the incidence of PHT statewide is relatively rare, and does fluctuate from program to program and from year to year. As can be seen, the most recent available 12-month data reflects that only 21 PHTs were performed during that time, for an average program volume of only 5.25 cases. Florida has more existing and approved PHT programs than every other state in the country except California, which has more than double the pediatric population of Florida. And like Florida, two of the California programs are extremely low- volume programs. Additionally, evidence regarding the number of PHLT patients demonstrated just how rare this procedure is. From 2013 to 2016, there was an annual average of only four PHLTs nationally, with only one actual transplant on a Floridian. Nemours’ health planner stated that although Nemours projected in its application that it would perform one heart/lung procedure each year, it is a “very low-volume service,” and Nemours in actuality expects that there will be years with zero volume of PHLT. The CON Applications Nemours filed its applications for heart transplantation, heart/lung transplantation, and lung transplantation in the second Other Beds and Programs Batching Cycle of 2016. Nemours is proposing the development of a comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program, which will be the only such program in Florida. This will be achieved by combining three types of transplant services (heart, lung, and heart/lung) in one comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program. Each application was conditioned on the development of all three transplantation programs. Nemours is located in OTSA 3, where there is currently no PHT provider, PLT provider, or PHLT provider. There are, however, three providers of pediatric open-heart surgery and pediatric cardiac catheterization, and a large, growing pediatric population. Unlike any other facility in Florida, the Nemours Cardiac Center (Cardiac Center) is uniquely organized to treat all forms of congenital heart disease. The Cardiac Center employs a “programmatic approach” to offer the most beneficial environment and the finest care available for pediatric patients. The Cardiac Center, physically located at NCH, throughout Florida, is organized as a single Department of Cardiovascular Services to house Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Anesthesia, Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and Cardiology. Cardiac Center physicians throughout Florida are organized as a single entity with the goal of providing the highest quality, patient-centered care to all patients without the usual barriers created by the departmental “silos.” The entire Cardiac Center clinical team, including nurses and physicians, is dedicated solely to the special challenges of congenital heart abnormalities and makes the care of children with heart disease the life’s work of team members. The fully integrated organizational structure permits the team to take shared responsibility for all aspects of the delivery of quality care to these pediatric patients from admission to discharge. The Cardiac Center holds weekly patient consensus conferences, where all providers, including physicians, nurses, and the patients’ caregivers, participate in case reviews of all inpatients and those patients scheduled for surgery or catheterization. The Cardiac Center is “state of the art” with a designated cardiovascular operating room, a designated cardiovascular lab that includes an electrophysiology lab, and a dedicated comprehensive care unit. In addition, The Foundation has furthered the commitment to the Cardiac Center by funding an additional $35 million expansion to the sixth floor of NCH, adding an additional 31 inpatient beds, an additional operating room, and a comprehensive cardiovascular intensive care unit. Dr. Peter D. Wearden joined Nemours in 2015 as the chief of cardiac surgery, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular Services, and director of the Cardiac Center at Nemours. Dr. Wearden will serve as director of the Comprehensive Cardiothoracic Transplant Program at Nemours and will be instrumental in the development and implementation of the program. Dr. Wearden was recruited from the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP), where he served as the surgical director of Heart, Lung, and Heart/Lung Transplantation. He was also the director of the Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Support and Artificial Heart Program. CHP rose to a US News and World Report top 10 program during Dr. Wearden’s tenure. CHP is at the forefront of organ transplantation and is where the first pediatric heart/lung transplantation was performed. Dr. Wearden is a trained cardiothoracic surgeon who completed fellowships in both cardiothoracic surgery (University of Pittsburgh) and Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery (Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada). He is certified by the American Board of Thoracic Surgery and holds additional qualifications in Congenital Heart Surgery from that organization. In his tenure as a board-certified pediatric transplant specialist, he has participated in over 200 pediatric cardiothoracic transplantations, of which he was the lead surgeon in over 70. In addition, he has procured over $20 million in National Institutes of Health research funding since 2004 specific to the development of artificial hearts and lungs for children and their implementation as a live-saving bridge to transplantation. Dr. Wearden was a member of the clinical team that presented to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel for approval of the Berlin Heart, the only FDA-approved pediatric heart ventricular assist device (VAD)1/ currently available, and he proctored the first pediatric artificial heart implantation in Japan in 2012. A VAD is referred to as “bridge to transplant” in pediatric patients because the device enables a patient on a waiting list for a donated heart to survive but is a device on which a child could not live out his or her life. Both utilization of VADs and heart transplantation procedures are in the “portfolio of surgical interventions” that can save the life of a child with heart failure. Dr. Wearden is an international leader in the research and development of VADs. Victor Morell, an eminent cardiac surgeon and chief of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery at CHP, testified that Dr. Wearden’s presence in Orlando alone and the work that he will be able to do with VADs and a PHT program will likely save lives. Many of the physicians that comprise the Nemours Cardiac Center transplant team not only have significant transplant experience, but also have experience performing transplants together. These physicians came with Dr. Wearden from CHP, were trained by Dr. Wearden, or otherwise worked with Dr. Wearden at some point in their careers. The physicians recruited to the Nemours transplantation team were trained at or hail from among the most prestigious programs in the country. For example, Dr. Kimberly Baker, a cardiac intensivist, was trained by Dr. Wearden in the CHP ICU. Dr. Constantinos Chrysostomou, Nemours’ director of cardiac intensive care, worked with Dr. Wearden at CHP, and has experience starting the pediatric ICU in Los Angeles at Cedar Sinai Hospital. Dr. Steven Lichtenstein, chief of cardiac anesthesia, held the same position at CHP for 12 years before he was recruited to Nemours. Dr. Karen Bender, a cardiac anesthesiologist, was recruited by Dr. Wearden from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia – one of the leading programs in the country. Dr. Michael Bingler, a cardiac interventionalist, was at Mercy Children’s Hospital in Kansas City for eight years. Dr. Adam Lowry of the Nemours cardiac intensive care center previously trained at both Texas Children’s Hospital (the number one program in the country) and Stanford. The 11 physicians that comprise the Cardiac Center’s Cardiothoracic Physician Team have collectively participated in 1,146 cardiothoracic transplantations. These physicians came to Nemours to care for the most acute, critically ill patients, including those requiring PHT. In addition to the physician team, the expertise and skill of the non-physician staff in the catheterization lab, the operating room, and the cardiac ICU are crucial to a successful program. Dr. Dawn Tucker is the administrative director of NCH’s Cardiac Center and heads the nursing staff for NCH’s Cardiac Center, which includes 23 registered nurses with transplant experience. Dr. Tucker holds a doctorate of Nursing Practice and was formerly the director of the Heart Center at Mercy Children’s Hospital in Kansas City, where she oversaw the initiation of a PHT program. The average years of experience for total nursing care in cardiac units across the nation is two years. The average years of experience in the Nemours Cardiac Center is eight years. Medical literature shows the greater the years of nursing staff experience, the lower the mortality and morbidity rates. The nursing staff at Nemours, moreover, has extensive experience in dealing not only with pediatric cardiac patients, but with pediatric heart transplants as well. The Cardiac Center’s cardiothoracic nursing staff has over 220 years of collective cardiothoracic transplant experience. Nemours operates a “simulation center” that allows the Cardiac Center to simulate any type of cardiac procedure on a model patient before performing that procedure on an actual patient. The model patient’s “heart” is produced using a three- dimensional printer that creates a replica of the heart based on MRI’s or other medical digital imaging equipment. These replica hearts are printed on-site, using the only FDA-approved software for such use, and are ready for use in the simulation center within a day after medical imaging. Nemours Cardiac Center currently performs what the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has coined “STAT 5” cardiac procedures. STAT 5 cardiac procedures are the most complex; STAT 1 procedures are the least complex. A PHT is a STAT 4 procedure. Since Dr. Wearden’s arrival at the Nemours Cardiac Center, there have been no patient mortalities. The uncontroverted evidence established that Nemours has assembled a high-quality, experienced, and unquestionably capable team of physicians and advanced practitioners for its cardiothoracic transplantation programs and is capable of performing the services proposed in its applications at a high level. UF Health Shands While not a party to this proceeding,2/ UF Health Shands’ (Shands) presence at the final hearing was pervasive. AHCA called numerous witnesses affiliated with Shands in its case-in-chief. The scope of the testimony presented by Shands- affiliated witnesses was circumscribed by Order dated December 13, 2017 (ruling on NCH’s motion in limine) that: At hearing, the Agency may present evidence that the needs of patients within OTSA 3 are being adequately served by providers located outside of OTSA 3, but may not present evidence regarding adverse impact on providers located outside of OTSA 3. Baycare of Se. Pasco, Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., Case No. 07-3482CON (Fla. DOAH Oct. 28, 2008; Fla. AHCA Jan. 7, 2009). UF Health Shands Hospital is located in Gainesville, Florida. UF Health Shands Children’s Hospital is an embedded hospital within a larger hospital complex. Shands Children’s Hospital has 200 beds and is held out to the public as a children’s hospital. The children’s hospital has 72 Level II and III NICU beds. Unlike Nemours, Shands offers obstetrical services such that babies are delivered at Shands. It also has a dedicated pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) as well as a dedicated pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. The Shands Children’s Hospital has its own separate emergency room and occupies four floors of the building in which it is located. It is separated from the adult services. Shands Children’s Hospital is nationally recognized by U.S. News & World Report as one of the nation’s best children’s hospitals. The children’s hospital has its own leadership, including Dr. Shelley Collins, an associate professor of pediatrics and the associate chief medical officer. As a comprehensive teaching and research institution, Shands Children’s Hospital has virtually every pediatric subspecialty that exists and is also a pediatric trauma center. The children’s hospital typically has 45 to 50 physician residents and 25 to 30 fellows along with medical students. Over $139 million has been awarded to Shands for research activities. As a teaching hospital, Shands is accustomed to caring for the needs of patients and families that come from other parts of the state or beyond. Jean Osbrach, a social work manager at Shands, testified for AHCA. Ms. Osbrach oversees the transplant social workers that provide services to the families with patients at Shands Children’s Hospital. Ms. Osbrach described how the transplant social workers interact with the families facing transplant from the outset of their connection with Shands. They help the families adjust to the child’s illness and deal with the crisis; they provide concrete services; and these social workers help the families by serving as navigators through the system. These social workers are part of the multidisciplinary team of care, and they stay involved with these families for years. Shands is adept at helping families with the issues associated with getting care away from their home cities. Shands has apartments specifically available in close proximity to the children’s hospital and relationships with organizations that can help families that need some financial support for items such as lodging, transportation, and gas. Ms. Osbrach’s ability to empathize with these families is further enhanced because her own daughter was seriously ill when she was younger. Ms. Osbrach testified that, while she was living in Gainesville, she searched out the best options for her child and decided that it was actually in Orlando. Despite the travel distance, she did not hesitate to make those trips in order to get the care her child needed at that time. The Shands Children’s Hospital is affiliated with the Children’s Hospital Association, the Children’s Miracle Network, the March of Dimes, and the Ronald McDonald House Charities. Shands operates ShandsCair, a comprehensive emergency transport system. ShandsCair operates nine ground ambulances of different sizes, five helicopters, and one fixed-wing jet aircraft. ShandsCair does over 7,000 transports a year, including a range of NICU and other pediatric transports. ShandsCair is one of the few services in the country that owns an EC-155 helicopter, which is the largest helicopter used as an air ambulance. This makes it easier to transport patients that require a lot of equipment, including those on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Patients on ECMO can be safely transported by ground and by air by ShandsCair. Shandscair serves as a first responder and also provides facility-to- facility transport. It has been a leader in innovation. The congenital heart program at Shands includes two pediatric heart surgeons, as well as pediatric cardiologists Dr. Jay Fricker and Dr. Bill Pietra, both of whom testified for AHCA. Dr. Fricker did much of his early work and training at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and came to the University of Florida in 1995. He is a professor and chief of the Division of Cardiology in the Department of Pediatrics at Shands. He is also the Gerold L. Schiebler Eminent Scholar Chair in Pediatric Cardiology at UF. He has been involved in the care of pediatric heart transplant patients his entire career. Dr. Bill Pietra received his medical training in Cincinnati and did his early work at several children’s hospitals in Colorado. He came to the University of Florida and Shands in July 2014 and is now the medical director, UF Health Congenital Heart Center. Shands performed its first pediatric heart transplant in 1986. Shands treats the full range of patients with heart disease and performs heart transplants on patients, from infants through adults, with complex congenital heart disease. Shands provides transplants to pediatric patients with both congenital heart defects and acquired heart disease (cardiomyopathy). Shands will accept the most difficult cases, including those that other institutions will not take. Data presented by AHCA dating back to the beginning of 2014 demonstrate that Shands has successfully transplanted numerous patients that were less than six months old at the time of transplantation. This data also demonstrates that Shands serves all of central and north Florida, as well as patients that choose to come to Shands from other states. PHT patients now survive much longer than in the past, and in many cases, well into adulthood. Because Shands cares for both adult and pediatric patients, it has the ability to continue to care for PHT patients as they transition from childhood to adulthood. Managed care companies are now a significant driver of where patients go for transplantation services. Many managed- care companies identify “centers of excellence” as their preferred providers for services such as PHT. Shands is recognized by the three major managed-care companies that identify transplant programs as a center of excellence for PHT services. AHCA’s Preliminary Decision Following AHCA’s review of Nemours’s applications, as well as consideration of comments made at the public hearing held on January 10, 2017, and written statements in support of and in opposition to the proposals, AHCA determined to preliminarily deny the PHT and PHLT applications, and to approve the PLT application. AHCA’s decision was memorialized in three separate SAARs, all dated February 17, 2017. Marisol Fitch, supervisor of AHCA’s CON and commercial-managed care unit, testified for AHCA. Ms. Fitch testified that AHCA does not publish a numeric need for transplant programs, as it does for other categories of services and facilities. Rather, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate need for the program based on whatever methodology they choose to present to AHCA. In addition to the applicant’s need methodology, AHCA also looks at availability and accessibility of service in the area to determine whether there is an access problem. Finally, an applicant may attempt to demonstrate that “not normal” circumstances exist in its proposed service area sufficient to justify approval. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1) establishes the statutory review criteria applicable to CON Applications 10471 and 10472. The parties have stipulated that each CON application satisfies the criteria found in section 408.035(1), (d), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes. The only criteria at issue essentially relate to need and access. However, the Agency maintains that section 408.035(1)(c) is in dispute to the extent that center transplant volume as a result of Nemours’ approval would lead to or correlate with negative patient outcomes. AHCA believes that there is no need for the PHT or PHLT programs that Nemours seeks to develop because the needs of the children in the Nemours service area are being met by other providers in the state, principally Shands and Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. Section 408.035(1)(a) and (b): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed; and the availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the district of the applicant. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044(6)(b).3/ The criteria for the evaluation of CON applications, including applications for organ transplantation programs, are set forth at section 408.035 and rule 59C-1.044. However, neither the applicable statutes nor rules have a numeric need methodology that predicts future need for PHT or PHLT programs. Thus, it is up to the applicant to demonstrate need in accordance with rule 59C-1.044. There are four OTSAs in Florida, numbered OTSA 1 through OTSA 4. NCH is located in OSTA 3, which includes the following counties: Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Brevard, Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, Lake, and Volusia. (See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat; Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 01.044(2)(f)3.) OTSA 3 also generally corresponds with the pediatric cardiac catheterization and open-heart surgery service areas defined by AHCA rule. (See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 1.032(2)(g) and 59C-1.033(2)(h)). Currently, there is no provider of PHT in OTSA 3, but there are three providers of pediatric cardiac catheterization and pediatric open-heart surgery: Orlando Health Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children; Florida Hospital for Children; and Nemours. There are no licensed providers of PHLT anywhere in the State of Florida. There are four existing providers and one approved provider of PHT services in Florida: UF Shands in OTSA 1; Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in OTSA 2; Jackson Memorial Hospital in OSTA 4; and Memorial Regional Hospital, d/b/a Joe DiMaggio’s Hospital in OTSA 4; and a third approved program in OTSA 4, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, which received final approval from AHCA in August 2017. As noted above, there is no fixed-need pool published for PHT, PHLT, or PLT programs. Alternatively, AHCA follows rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., which requires consideration of population demographics and dynamics; availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; medical treatment trends; and market conditions. To quantify the need for a new PHT program in District 7, OTSA 3, Nemours created and presented a methodology that started with the statewide use rate in its projected first year. Then for the second year, Nemours aggressively increased the use rate to the highest rate in any of the other transplant service areas in the state. Then, in an even more aggressive (and unreasonable) assumption, Nemours projected that it would essentially capture all of the cases in OTSA 3 by the second year of the program. In its application, the assumptions resulted in a projection that Nemours would do four transplants in the first year of operation and eight in the second. These projections fall short of the rule requirement that the applicant project a minimum of 12 transplants per year by the second year of operation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(6)(b)2. At hearing, Nemours updated (increased) those first and second year projections to 7 and 13 cases, respectively. However, these updated projections included one child, aged 15 to 17, in year one, and two in year two. There are several reasons these projections lack credibility. First, as noted, Nemours assumed a near- 100 percent market share based on the highest use rate in the state by just year two. Second, when Nemours prepared its update, it used the most recent calendar year data. However, this was not the most current data. Calendar Year 2016 reflected 34 cases statewide, but that number had dropped to 21 for the most recent 12-month period available at the time of the hearing. Use of this most recent 12-month data would have significantly decreased the Nemours PHT volume projections. In addition, the projection of 13 cases by year two would place Nemours at a higher PHT case volume than three of the four established programs in the state, and would be at a level that is nearly equivalent to the much more established Shands program. This is not credible, especially considering that Nemours also admitted at hearing that only two OTSA 3 residents received pediatric heart transplants in 2016. The existence of unmet need cannot be based solely on the absence of an existing service in the proposed service area. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)3. While Nemours’ own health planner agreed that the absence of a PHT program in OTSA 3 is not itself a basis for finding need, Nemours nevertheless argues that this rule is inapplicable in this proceeding because the title to this subsection of the rule is “Comparative Review” and a portion of this subsection addresses competing applications in the same cycle. As detailed further in the Conclusions of Law section herein, this interpretation is unconvincing and rejected. AHCA interprets this rule provision to apply to those batched applications submitted without the submission of a competing application in the same batching cycle, as with Nemours in this proceeding. Nemours initiated its cardiac catheterization and cardiac surgery program in June/July 2016. In its PHT application, Nemours projected that it would meet or exceed the rule minimum required volumes of 200 cardiac catheterizations and 125 open-heart surgery cases by the end of 2017. Actual volumes achieved by Nemours in CY 2017 were 97 open-heart cases and 196 cardiac catheterizations. The incidence of PHLT is extremely low. During the four calendar years, 2013 through 2016, there were only 16 PHLT transplants performed nationwide. Only one Florida resident received a PHLT during that four-year period, and that was performed in Massachusetts. Also during that four-year period, only three Florida residents were registered for PHLT. There is no evidence in this record as to why two of the three registered Florida residents did not obtain a PHLT. Based on the national use rate for PHLTs from CY 2013 through CY 2016, Nemours projects that it will perform an average of one PHLT per year. Nemours acknowledges that due to the extremely low incidence of PHLTs, there may be some years that no PHLTs are performed at Nemours. Geographic Access There is no evidence of record that families living in central Florida are currently being forced to travel unreasonable distances to obtain PHT services. Indeed, there are five existing or approved programs within the state, with at least two located very reasonably proximate to OTSA 3. According to the analysis of travel distances for PHT patients living in OTSA 3 contained in the Nemours application (Exhibit 15), only some residents located in Brevard and Indian River Counties are not within 120 miles of an existing PHT program. There was agreement that patients that need a PHT are approaching the end-stage of cardiac function, and in the absence of a PHT will very likely die. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that the parents of a child living in central Florida and needing a PHT will travel to St. Petersburg or Gainesville for transplant services rather than let their child die because the travel distance is too far. To the contrary, the evidence in this record from witnesses on both sides, as well as common sense, is that families will go as far as necessary to save their child. The notion that there is some pent-up demand for PHT services among central Florida residents (especially when there is no evidence of a single OTSA 3 patient being turned down or unable to access a PHT) is without support in this record. The parents of four pediatric patients testified at the final hearing. Two testified for Nemours. The other two testified for AHCA and were parents of children that received PHTs at Shands. One of the Nemours witnesses was the parent of a child that has not received a transplant. The other received transplant services at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg. The parents of the two Shands patients were representative of the two broad categories of PHT patients. One was a patient with a congenital heart defect that lives in Cocoa Beach (Brevard County). The patient likely had the heart defect since birth, but it was not diagnosed until she was six years old. That patient was asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis but deteriorated over a period of years. While she was first seen at Shands, the family had the time and researched other prominent institutions, including Texas Children’s Hospital, Boston Children’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. They did this because, like all of the parents that testified, they “would have gone to the ends of the earth” to save their child. This family researched the volumes and experience of the programs they considered and looked for what they felt was the best program for their child, and ultimately chose Shands. It was clear that they felt Shands was the right choice. Their daughter received her heart transplant at Shands, is doing well, and is now considering what college to attend. Additionally, this family did not find the two hours and 35 minute travel time from their home in Brevard County to Shands to be an impediment, and actually consider Shands as being relatively close to their home. This testimony supports the obvious truism that obtaining the best possible outcome for a sick child is the paramount goal of any parent. The other parent witness called by AHCA has a daughter that, on Christmas Eve in 2008, went from perfectly healthy to near death and being placed on life support within a 24-hour period. As opposed to a congenital heart defect, this patient had cardiomyopathy. This family lives in Windermere, a suburb of Orlando. She acquired a virus that attacked her heart. She was initially treated at Arnold Palmer Children’s Hospital where she had to be placed on ECMO. From there, she was safely airlifted to Shands while still on ECMO where, upon arrival, the receiving team of physicians informed the family that she was one of the most critically ill children they had ever seen. After an 11-hour open-heart surgery, a Berlin Heart was successfully implanted and kept her alive for four months until an appropriate donor heart became available. This patient also had an excellent outcome and is now a student at the University of Florida. The following exchange summarizes how the child’s mother felt about the inconvenience of having to travel from the Orlando area to Gainesville: Q If a family in Orlando told you, or in your city of residence told you that their child was critically ill and they were worried about having to travel and potentially spend time in Gainesville to get care, what would you tell them? A Well, I would tell them to just take it a day at a time and – when your child is critically ill, convenience never really comes into your mind. What comes into your mind is how do I help my child live. And so you will go anywhere. And it’s just an hour and a half, it just doesn’t matter. When you are talking about saving your child, it means nothing. It literally means nothing. It is clear from the testimony of these two parents that nothing about having a gravely ill child is “convenient.” It creates great stress, but it was also clear that having an experienced provider was more important than just geographic proximity. The mothers of the two Shands patients persuasively spoke of their concerns about further diluting the volumes of the existing programs that could result from approval of a sixth pediatric heart transplant program in Florida, particularly when there are two other programs that are not that far from the Orlando area.4/ While transplantation is not an elective service, it is not done on an emergent basis. As noted, the number of families affected is, quite fortunately, very small. While having a child with these issues is never “convenient,” the travel issues that might exist do not outweigh the weight of the evidence that fails to demonstrate a need for approval of either application. The Orlando area, being centrally located in Florida, is reasonably accessible to all of the existing providers. Most appear to go to Shands, which is simply not a substantial distance away. The credible evidence is that families facing these issues are able to deal with the travel inconvenience. In addition, Nemours presented evidence regarding the various locations at which they provide services, ranging from Pensacola to Port St. Lucie. Clearly, Nemours sees itself as providing some cardiac services to patients in these locations, but it would also suggest that patients seen at these locations may be referred to NCH for transplant services, which would mean that some patients would be bypassing closer facilities. As observed by AHCA, for Nemours to posit that it is appropriate for patients to travel from Pensacola or Jacksonville to Orlando while asserting that it is not acceptable for patients in Orlando to go to Gainesville or St. Petersburg is an illogical inconsistency. Financial Access Nemours asserts that approval of its proposed programs will enhance financial access to care. Nemours currently serves patients without regard to ability to pay and will extend these same policies to transplant recipients. Approximately half of Nemours’ projected PHTs are to be provided to Medicaid recipients, the other half to commercially insured patients.5/ However, there was no competent evidence of record that access to PHT or PHLT services was being denied by any of the existing transplant providers because of a patient’s inability to pay. Transplant Rates at Shands In its need methodology, Nemours utilized the use rate from OTSA 1 where Shands is located because it is the highest use rate in the state. Despite this, Nemours then asserted that Shands is not performing as many PHTs as it could or should. The Nemours CON applications are not predicated on any argument that their proposed programs are needed because of poor quality care at any of the existing pediatric transplant programs in Florida. Indeed, Dr. Wearden stated his belief that Shands provides good quality care in its transplant programs, and he respects the Shands lead surgeon, Dr. Mark Bleiweis. As evidence of his respect for the Shands PHT program, Dr. Wearden has referred several transplant patients to Dr. Bleiweis at Shands. Despite that position, Nemours argued that the Shands program is unduly conservative and cautious in its organ selection and may have some “capacity” issues due to a few cited instances of apparent surgeon unavailability. These assertions, made by Nemours witnesses with no first-hand knowledge of the operations of the Shands program, are not persuasive. With regard to whether the Shands program is unduly “cautious,” “conservative,” or “picky,” Nemours relied on a document produced by Shands in discovery. Nemours also relied on data reported by Shands to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The data included a list of all of the organs offered to Shands since the beginning of 2015, the sequencing of the offer of that organ to Shands, whether the organ was transplanted at Shands or elsewhere, the primary and secondary reasons the organ was refused (if refused) and other information. The SRTR exhibit demonstrates that a high number of the organs that are offered are not acceptable for transplant on patients waitlisted at Shands. It also shows that organs that are accepted may have to be examined by many different centers before being deemed potentially acceptable. This demonstrates the extensive level of complexity, nuance, and clinical judgment involved in the decision to accept an organ for transplant in a pediatric patient. Indeed, Dr. Wearden agreed that the decision by a program to accept or turn down an organ involves both clinical expertise and judgment, and that there are many reasons an organ might be turned down, which helps explain why the transplanted percentage of total organs offered nationally is on average, so small. Dr. Wearden chose a few examples of organs that were not taken by Shands to express an opinion that Shands may be unduly conservative in its organ selection. However, this assertion was credibly refuted by Dr. Pietra, a transplant cardiologist and the medical director of the UF Health Congenital Heart Center. Dr. Pietra discussed the complexity of these cases and how simply looking at the SRTR data does not provide enough information to reach Dr. Wearden’s conclusion. An organ that might be acceptable for one patient would not be acceptable for another for a host of reasons. Many more organs are rejected by transplant centers than are accepted. Dr. Pietra credibly opined that being conservative and cautious are important traits for a transplant surgeon, particularly for one that wants the accepted organ to work well for the patient long-term. That does not mean that Shands is rejecting organs when it should have taken them, nor does the SRTR data support the proposition that the Nemours program should be approved because its program may have accepted an organ for a particular patient that Shands might have rejected. Nemours also argues that Shands performs PHTs at a rate lower than the region and the country, and that this should mitigate for the approval of another program. This assertion is predicated on waitlist information reported in the SRTR data. Patients that are placed on the waitlist have different status designations, depending on the severity of their condition. That status may change, up or down, over time. Due to the shortage of organs, until a patient reaches status 1A, he or she is unlikely to be offered an organ. The evidence reflected that Shands puts patients on the PHT organ waitlist at a time earlier than the moment they require the transplant surgery under what is called the “pediatric prerogative.” This helps those patients maintain their status on the list but does not result in organs being provided to less severely ill patients to the detriment of those in greater need. Further, the record evidence supports the finding that Shands waitlists patients because the clinical determination has been made that the child will ultimately require a transplant. This was corroborated by the parent of a Shands PHT patient who testified that when her daughter was placed on the waitlist, Dr. Fricker concluded at that time that her daughter would ultimately need a PHT, even though she was placed on a lower status initially, and it was a few years before the transplant occurred. Transplant surgeon Dr. Victor Morell, of the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, testified that he waitlists his PHT patients not only when they need the procedure performed immediately, but rather when, in his clinical judgment, he determines the patient will ultimately need a PHT. This testimony supports the finding that there is nothing clinically unusual or inappropriate about how the Shands program waitlists patients. Shands realizes that its philosophy, which is contemplated within and permitted under the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) rules, makes its statistics, both in terms of percent of patients transplanted and waitlist mortality, look worse. While Shands’ waitlist mortality may be higher than expected as reflected in the SRTR data, it is still significantly lower than in the UNOS region or the United States. Shands advocates for its patients by their waitlist practices because it believes it helps secure the best outcomes for its patients. It does not indicate need for a new PHT program. Nemours also suggests that there may be a “capacity” problem at Shands because the organ rejection information provided by Shands shows that, during the 3-year period of CY 2015 through CY 2017, there were seven entries showing as either a primary or secondary reason for organ rejection that the surgeon was unavailable. However, this included both adult and pediatric hearts, and further investigation revealed that in only four instances were there potential PHT recipients at Shands. Of those four hearts that were rejected, two were not accepted by any PHT provider, and the two that were accepted were placed with adult transplant patients, not PHT patients. Shands has two PHT transplant surgeons. In very few instances at Shands, an organ was offered but not accepted because the surgeon was not available for one of several reasons. In one instance, there was another transplant scheduled. A surgeon could be ill, could be gone, or may have just completed another long surgery and be too fatigued to safely perform another. Like Shands, Nemours also has two experienced PHT surgeons. Although Dr. Wearden believes that Nemours would endeavor to not reject an organ for this reason, this ambition ignores reality. He cannot guarantee that the same could not or would not happen at Nemours for the same reasons it occasionally occurs at Shands. As explained by Dr. Pietra, when there are only small to medium volume programs, there is not likely to be a sufficient number of surgeons such that this scenario can be avoided entirely. Not Normal Circumstances In both its heart and heart/lung applications, Nemours articulated the following “not normal circumstances” in seeking approval: Florida does not have any approved pediatric heart/lung transplant programs. Florida's only two approved pediatric lung transplant programs have not performed any lung transplant programs in the last two reporting years according to AHCA reporting data. Significantly, there are no pediatric heart transplant or lung transplant programs in AHCA's Organ Transplant Service Area OTSA 3 in which NCH is located-an area of the State with one the fastest growing and youngest populations. Florida has no other pediatric comprehensive, multi-organ thoracic transplant program. Florida has no other pediatric comprehensive, multi-organ thoracic transplant program that is part of a pediatric specific integrated delivery system such as Nemours offers. NCH offers a unique, dedicated model of cardiothoracic care developed at its Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children (AIDHC) in Wilmington, Delaware and implemented upon the opening of the program at NCH. The key and differentiating element of this Model of Care is a unified team of cardiac clinical and administrative professionals who serve children with cardiac problems in dedicated facilities (the "Cardiac Team"). The Cardiac Team only cares for children with cardiac diagnoses. As such, the Cardiac Team of anesthesiologists, surgeons, cardiologists, nurses, and other support personnel do not "float" to other hospital floors or departments as in a typical hospital setting. This dedicated model of cardiac care allows the Cardiac Team to develop highly specialized knowledge and relationships to provide the best treatment protocols for patients with cardiac conditions. NCH has developed state-of-the art facilities and innovative clinical pathways for the care of the most complex pediatric thoracic patients. NCH has and will bring new opportunities for research in pediatric cardiology, cardiac surgery, and pulmonary medicine, particularly clinical translational and basic research into the linkages between childhood obesity and cardiac conditions. Nemours operates a regional network of clinics in Florida, with primary locations in Pensacola, Jacksonville, and Orlando, that will operate in partnership with NCH for the appropriate regional referral of patients in Florida for pediatric thoracic care. NCH can reduce the out-migration of pediatric, thoracic transplant patients from OTSA 3 to other parts of the State as well as the out-migration of these patients to other out-of-state transplant programs. Similarly, NCH will reduce the outmigration of organs donated in Florida to other states ensuring that Florida recipient patients are first priority for organs donated in Florida. NCH has in place the infrastructure, facilities, and resources to seamlessly add thoracic transplant services to its existing comprehensive cardiac surgery program. Additional needed staff are already being recruited to this program. As a result, the project has minimal incremental cost that will need to be incurred. Total project costs are, therefore, estimated to be $715,425.00. In addition, according to Nemours, an additional “not normal” circumstance has emerged since the filing of the applications: the approval of Nemours’ PLT application in the absence of a PHT program at the facility, which it contends is “a very unusual situation.” Noteworthy about these purported reasons for approval are that: (1) none of them are specifically directed at a unique circumstance relating to a need for another PHT program; and (2) most of them are either a recitation of the fact that there is no existing program in the service area or are about Nemours’ capability to provide these services. They are not directed at whether there is a need for its proposed programs. In fact, the main thrust of Nemours’ case was directed at proof regarding its capabilities. But the flaw in this theme is best demonstrated in the testimony of Dawn Tucker, the last witness called by Nemours. Ms. Tucker is the cardiac program administrative director for Nemours. When asked why she supported the proposed program, she talked about the experience of the team, a desire to care for sick patients, an organization (Nemours) that financially supports the program, and the network of centers that Nemours has in Florida. These factors address why Nemours “wants” these CONs. None of them addresses the threshold issue of whether there is a “need” for these programs in OTSA 3. More specifically, the first, third, and fourth bullet points are all based on the absence of a program in OTSA 3. By rule, that is not a basis for establishing need. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.009(2)(e)3. AHCA appropriately rejected the absence of a program in OTSA 3 as the sole basis upon which need for the proposed projects could be established. The second bullet point relates to the pediatric lung transplant application that is not at issue in this matter. The fifth and sixth bullet points relate to the Nemours integrated model of care. But again, this does not address whether there is a need for the proposed programs. The fact that Nemours has an employed-physician model is not unique or “not normal.” AHCA considered the information regarding the model of care and correctly noted that the model of care does not itself enhance access or improve outcomes. It should be noted that Shands’ doctors are employed by the University of Florida. In addition, the reliance on this model does not guarantee a robust program. This bullet point references the much older and more established Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware, that is touted as the model for Nemours. Nemours presented evidence relating to its more established hospital in Delaware that also provides PHT services. However, the PHT program at duPont is a low-volume program, performing only one PHT in 2016. None of the managed- care companies that recognize Shands as a center of excellence also recognizes the duPont Hospital as such. One of the companies--Lifetrac--acknowledges duPont as a “supplemental” program, whereas Shands is one of its “select” programs. This demonstrates that simply having the financial resources of the duPont Foundation or the model of care used by that organization does not guarantee high volumes or success. The “not normal circumstance” bullet points regarding Nemours’ facilities, research, and other infrastructure similarly do not demonstrate need. Otherwise, a hospital could obtain a CON for a new program by spending the money in advance and then demanding approval based upon those expenditures. AHCA recognized that Nemours had recruited some very qualified clinicians, but correctly noted that that does not create or evidence need for the proposed programs. The remaining bullet point asserts that approval of the PHT and PHLT programs could reduce outmigration of both patients and organs. By definition, because neither of these transplant programs exists in OTSA 3, all patients leave OTSA 3 for these services. Again, that alone does not establish need, nor is it automatically a “not normal” circumstance. As discussed herein, Nemours has not demonstrated a sufficient need or an access problem that justifies approval of either application. With regard to the outmigration of organs from Florida, Nemours has argued that Florida is a net exporter of organs and that this is a “not normal” circumstance justifying approval of its application. However, organs harvested in one state are commonly used in another. There is nothing unusual or negative about that fact. Indeed, Dr. Wearden agreed that in his experience, this is a common occurrence. There is a national allocation system through UNOS and this sharing, as explained by Dr. Pietra, facilitates the best match for organs and patients. UNOS divides the country into regions for the purpose of allocation of donor organs, with Florida being one of six states in Region 3. The evidence of record did not establish that approval of the Nemours applications would result in the reduction of organs leaving Florida, or even that such would be a desirable result. Nemours also argued at hearing that approving their applications would increase the number of donor organs that are procured and transplanted in Florida. Nemours suggested that its programs would increase public awareness and implied that it would accept organs for future patients that surgeons at other programs turn down. However, these arguments are purely conjectural and are rejected. No record evidence exists which demonstrates that a Nemours program would increase the supply of organs in Florida. Indeed, Nemours presented no such relevant data or statistical evidence in its applications to demonstrate that this will occur. Finally, Nemours argues that its PHT and PHLT applications should be approved because it does not make sense for AHCA to have approved the PLT program but denied the other two applications. Nemours goes on to note that while there are hospitals in the country that do PHTs but not PLTs, there are no hospitals that do lungs but not hearts. Regardless of whether that is true, Florida law separates these three services into separate CON applications, which are reviewed independently. The wisdom of the rule is not at issue in this proceeding. Regardless of any overlap in the skill sets required to perform these procedures, approval of the pediatric lung transplant application does not determine need for pediatric heart or pediatric heart/lung programs. Nemours failed to establish that “not normal” circumstances currently exist that would warrant approval of either the PHT or PHLT programs. Nor did Nemours credibly demonstrate any other indicators of need for its proposed programs. 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. The parties stipulated that Nemours is a quality provider. However, AHCA maintains that this criterion is in dispute to the extent that center transplant volume as a result of Nemours’ approval would lead to or correlate with negative patient outcomes. Nemours failed to demonstrate that it would achieve the volumes it projected unless it takes significant volumes from other Florida providers.6/ Approval of Nemours will not create transplant patients that do not exist or are not currently able to reasonably access services. While Nemours has assembled a team of professionals with varying levels of transplant experience, it has not been demonstrated that it will achieve volume sufficient to reasonably assure quality care.7/ Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. Approval of the Nemours PHT and PHLT programs would unquestionably improve geographic access to those services for the very few residents of OTSA 3 that need them. However, given the extreme rarity of pediatric heart and heart/lung transplants, approval of the Nemours programs would not result in enhanced access for a significant number of patients. Moreover, there was no credible non-hearsay evidence presented at hearing that any resident of OTSA 3 that needed PHT or PHLT services was unable to access those services at one of the existing PHT programs in Florida or, for PHLT, at a facility elsewhere. Based upon persuasive evidence at hearing, there is also clearly a positive relationship between volume and outcomes. As with any complex endeavor, practice makes perfect. In this instance, maintaining a minimum PHT case volume provides experience to the clinicians involved and helps maintain proficiency. According to the credible testimony of Dr. Pietra, programs should perform no fewer than 10 PHTs per year. “If you can stay above 10, then your program is going to be exercised at a minimum amount to keep everybody sort of at a peak performance.” The clear intent of the minimum volume requirement of 12 heart transplants per year contained in rule 59C- 1.044(6)(b)2. is to ensure a sufficient case volume to maintain the proficiency of the transplant surgeons and other clinicians involved in the surgical and post-surgical care of PHT patients. In addition, pediatric transplant programs are measured statistically based on outcomes, such as mortality and morbidity. Because of this, the loss of even one patient in a small program can be devastating to that hospital’s mortality statistics. As such, small programs may become less willing to take more complicated patients. In a perverse sort of way, adding more programs that dilute volumes may decrease, rather than increase, access because of the fear a small program might have for taking more complex patients. Adequate case volume is also important for teaching facilities, such as Shands, to benefit residents of all the OTSAs by being able to train the next generation of transplant physicians. The mothers of the two Shands patients that testified made note of the complexity of their daughters’ conditions and how their cases were used for training purposes. There was no persuasive evidence of record that approval of the Nemours applications would meaningfully and significantly enhance geographic access to transplant services in OTSA 3. The modest improvement in geographic access for the few patients that are to be served by the two programs is not significant enough to justify approval in the absence of demonstrated need. There is no evidence that approval of the Nemours applications will enhance financial access nor that patients are not currently able to access PHT or PHLT services because of payor status. Section 408.035(1)(g): The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness. It is clear that establishing and maintaining a transplant program is expensive. Given the limited pool of patients, the added expense of yet a sixth Florida program is not a cost-effective use of resources. This criterion also relates to the Nemours position that AHCA should approve the PHT and PHLT applications simply because the PLT application was approved, and it would not be cost-effective for Nemours unless the PHT and PHLT applications were also approved. However, each of these applications must rise or fall on its own merit. As of the hearing, Nemours had not yet implemented its PLT program. Given the absence of need for either the PHT or PHLT programs, the cost-effective solution might be for Nemours to reconsider implementation of the PLT program. 408.035(1)(i): The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. AHCA agreed at hearing that Nemours satisfies section 408.035(1)(i). Nonetheless, Nemours provides a very high level of Medicaid services, and projects a high-level volume related to Medicaid patients and charity care patients. As noted, approximately half of the PHTs projected by Nemours will be performed on Medicaid patients. Conformance with this criterion would mitigate toward approval had there been persuasive evidence that Medicaid and medically indigent patients are currently being denied access to PHT and PHLT services. However, no such evidence was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying CON Application Nos. 10471 and 10472 filed by The Nemours Foundation, d/b/a Nemours Children’s Hospital. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether this case presents "not normal circumstances" that lead to award to St. Anthony's Hospital, Inc., of a certificate of need for an Open Heart Surgery program?
Findings Of Fact The parties and existing programs in District 5. St. Anthony's Hospital, Inc., the applicant for CON No. 7418 (the subject of this proceeding), is a not-for-profit corporation. Its facility, St. Anthony's Hospital, at which the adult open heart surgery program would be operated if CON No. 7418 were granted, is a 427-bed licensed general community hospital providing adult acute medical services in surgery, psychiatry and obstetrics. Located south of Ulmerton Road in Pinellas County, (generally considered "South Pinellas County,") St. Anthony's also provides home health care, family medicine clinics, outreach education, health screening and occupational health. Also located in South Pinellas County are Bayfront Medical Center, All Children's Hospital, and Northside Hospital. Northside is not a party to this proceeding although it recently received approval for a CON to provide open heart surgery services. Northside is located 6-1/2 to 7 miles from St. Anthony's and provides services in the same service area. Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., is one of two intervenors in this proceeding. Its facility, Bayfront Medical Center is a 518-bed, acute care, not-for-profit hospital located within the limits of the city of St. Petersburg and 1.7 miles from St. Anthony's. It offers cardiac, cancer and emergency services as well as a Level II trauma center. Bayfront also maintains a large women's and children's program, a rehabilitation center and a neurology program. Its cardiology program includes adult and pediatric cardiac catheterization, angioplasty and open heart surgery. But the open heart surgery program is shared with All Children's Hospital. Pre-operative and post-operative patient care is Bayfront's responsibility. The actual surgery takes place on the premises of All Children's. All Children's Hospital is a research hospital affiliated with the University of South Florida College of Medicine. Most importantly, and certainly most pertinent to this case, it is a dedicated Class II pediatric specialty hospital, one of two pediatric specialty hospitals in Florida, and one of only 47 in the nation. It provides, therefore, primary, secondary and tertiary care for children, in addition to the open heart surgery services it provides adults. Its cardiac surgery program was grandfathered under CON law to begin children's cardiac surgery in 1975. At the time of the grandfathering, All Children's was asked by state officials to consider adult cardiac surgery services as well. The hospital trustees and medical staff agreed and began a combined pediatric/adult open heart surgery program in 1976. As explained, above, the adult program is shared with Bayfront. All Children's Hospital is not a party to this proceeding. Largo Medical Center, Inc.'s facility, Largo Medical Center is a 256- bed, acute-care hospital specializing in cardiology and open heart surgery. Largo, the other intervenor in the proceeding, is located in AHCA's District 5 but outside South Pinellas County, as are two other open heart surgery programs: a program at Morton F. Plant Hospital in Clearwater and a program at HCA Bayonet Point/Hudson Medical Center located in Hudson in Pasco County. Morton F. Plant Hospital and HCA Bayonet Point/Hudson Medical Center are not participants in this proceeding. The Agency for Health Care Administration is the single state agency authorized by Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes, to issue or deny certificates of need, "written statements ... evidencing community need for a new ... health service [such as an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program.]" Section 408.032(2), Florida Statutes. Standing of the Intervenors. Over half of Largo's open heart surgery patients originate from St. Anthony's defined service area and 35 percent from South Pinellas County. If St. Anthony's achieves its projected volume, Largo likely will lose 35 percent of its open heart surgery patients in the third year of operation. A loss of that number of patients will contribute to a substantial loss of revenue to Largo. As concerns Bayfront's standing to intervene in this proceeding, St. Anthony's purpose in seeking a CON for an open heart surgery program is to obtain authorization for a program to take the place of the All Children's/Bayfront adult open heart surgery program. As counsel for St. Anthony's made clear in oral representation during hearing, whether made clear from the face of St. Anthony's application or not, the application is a "replacement application for Bayfront/All Children's [open heart surgery program]." (Tr. 208.) Filing of the CON application Under cover of a certification of its authorized agent dated September 17, 1993, St. Anthony's Hospital, Inc., filed an application for Certificate of Need 7418 with the Agency for Health Care Administration. The application seeks expansion of existing cardiology services at St. Anthony's health care facility in Pinellas County to include an on-site program for adult open heart surgery. d . Background This is not the first time St. Anthony's has initiated proceedings to obtain a CON for open heart surgery. It has filed applications before because of its concern that South Pinellas County is not being served appropriately by the adult open heart services program shared by Bayfront Medical Center and All Children's Hospital. In the application in this case, St. Anthony's describes its previous attempts in this way: ... St. Anthony's has on eight occasions, since 1987, applied for a Certificate of Need to provide open heart surgery services. Each application has either been denied, or was withdrawn by St. Anthony's based on represent- ations St. Anthony's received that All Children's/Bayfront shared program was adequate and appropriate to meet the needs of south Pinellas adult open heart patients. St. Anthony's has historically deferred to All Children's so as not to unnecessarily duplicate services. St. Anthony's Ex. 1, p 27. In CON application 7396, filed July 14, 1993, All Children's Hospital requested AHCA to allow the hospital "to discontinue services to the adult cardiac surgery population effective June 30, 1994 ...". St. Anthony's Ex. No. 20, attachment at p.7. The reason for the request was that All Children's had experienced and projected to continue to experience growth in its pediatric surgery caseload. Since "All Children's mission and legal responsibility lies with Florida's children ... the [hospital's] obvious difficulty ... [was] how to continue dealing with a growing pediatric patient load with decreasing availability of facilities." Id. At the same time, although not increasing as rapidly as children's surgery, the growth of the caseload for adult open heart surgery, as of the summer of 1993, was continuing in St. Petersburg. As a licensed pediatric hospital, All Children's opined in CON Application 7396, [W]e are unable to expand the adult program in even a moderate fashion and are unable to provide the true continuum of adult cardiac care that adult cardiologists and surgeons believe to be needed in the community. Only an adult licensed hospital can provide those services and allow for future growth. Id., at 8. With regard to the growing pediatric patient load threatened by decreasing availability of facilities, the application projected, "a true crisis within one year in the surgery, SICU area if adjustments are not made to alleviate the situation." Id. The crisis, however, did not materialize. As of June 20, 1994, nearly one year after the filing of the withdrawal application, the President and Chief Executive Officer of All Children's Hospital was of the opinion that there was not a crisis in the care of pediatric patients. Nor was there a crisis in the care of adult open heart surgery patients. In fact, adult open heart surgery patients were receiving very high quality care within one year of the projection of crisis made in the application. The application to terminate the open heart surgery program was withdrawn prior to June 20, 1994. All Children's withdrew the application in response to wishes expressed in the community that the program be continued. Nonetheless, St. Anthony's viewed the representations made by All Children's in CON application 7396 to "impeach any continued suggestion by All Children's or Bayfront that the existing shared services agreement is a normal or appropriate setting for adult open heart services." St. Anthony's Ex. No. 1, pg. 27. It filed, therefore, the application that initiated this proceeding. Transfer Stress and Limitations of the All Chidren's/Bayfront OHS program. After pre-operative care at Bayfront, adult open heart surgery patients are transferred through an enclosed corridor connecting Bayfront to All Children's. The same corridor is used to transfer the patients back to Bayfront for appropriate post- operative care following the surgery and intensive care at All Children's. Patients typically suffer stress when being transferred from one institution to another. They certainly suffer "transfer stress" when being transferred from St. Anthony's to Bayfront for open heart surgery in the All Children's/Bayfront program, just as they would suffer stress in transfers from Bayfront to St. Anthony's were St. Anthony's application to be granted and were the St. Anthony program to take the place of the All Children's/Bayfront program. Typical transfer time, however, between Bayfront and All Children's is only about five minutes. Most patients do not realize they are going from one institution to another. Although the arrangement is less than ideal, it is doubtful that open heart surgery patients suffer stress due to the transfers from Bayfront to All Children's and back again. There are, however, some drawbacks with regard to angioplasty patients in the All Children's adult program. Ambulation of angioplasty patients cannot be appropriately observed postoperatively at All Children's because there are not telemetry facilities available at All Children's for observation. There are such facilities at Bayfront and the patients may be observed there post- operatively once out of the intensive care unit at All Children's. Carlos M. Estevez, M.D., is a cardiologist with St. Petersburg Medical Clinic with active privileges at St. Anthony's, Bayfront, All Children's and Edward White Hospital. Beds have been unavailable postoperatively for adult therapeutic anigoplasty patients of his on occasion at All Children's. The patients have been required to be transferred to Bayfront or back to St. Anthony's, with French sheaths in their groin, a less- than-ideal situation. Dr. Estevez' therapeutic anigoplasty patients requiring open heart backup at All Children's are typically discharged from All Children's after spending the night in the intensive care unit. For the average angioplasty patient, intensive care services are an overutilization of services. Dr. Estevez believes "crisis" would be a fair term to describe the current situation for his angioplasty patients in the All Children's/Bayfront program. Not Normal Circumstances Part of CON review is to look for factors the application shows to be "beyond the norm," or "any unusual circumstances." AHCA's interrogatory answer responded with regard to defining "not normal circumstances," in this way: There is no definition for "not normal circum- stances." In the absense (sic) of a projected numeric need pursuant to a fixed pool publication, an applicant may demonstrate valid need, justi- fiable evidence of situations or occurrences in a service area which are not accounted for such as access problems, which may support approval. St. Anthony's Ex. 7, p. 9. Circumstances of the All Children's/Bayfront Program. As a dedicated Class II pediatric specialty hospital, All Children's, alone, cannot provide the continuum of care needed by adult open heart surgery patients. Its provision of services, as stated above, is limited to surgery and postoperative intensive care. Other services in the continuum of care required by adult open heart surgery patients include admission to an emergency room, and pre-operative coronary care as well as post-operative care (other than intensive care) all the way through cardiac rehabilitation. The components of the continuum other than the actual surgery and post-op intensive care are provided by Bayfront and other hospitals. Despite All Children's inability to provide "continuum of care," by itself, to adult open heart surgery patients, the care provided the open heart surgery patient in the All Children's/Bayfront program is of high quality. All Children's physical site is limited for future growth both as to the adult open heart program and its pediatric programs. The physical outer limits of the hospital building are right on the property line, "all the way around. It has no room to expand." St. Anthony's Ex. No. 20. But for physical limitations, All Children's pediatric services would expand because the need for expansion in the pediatric program exists. The inability of the pediatric programs to expand compromises All Children's mission: pediatric care in a hospital dedicated to pediatrics. The adult open heart surgery program, if withdrawn, would free All Children's somewhat for further pediatric program growth both as to resources and space. But All Children's is no longer trying to withdraw from the program. All Children's board of trustees believes that only an adult licensed hospital can provide the continuum of care needed for adult open heart surgery patients and allow for future growth. Moreover, it is not possible to put together a competitive adult open heart pricing structure for the continuum of care that one hospital could provide when adult open heart surgery patients are being transferred from All Children's to and from other hospitals in order to provide the full continuum of care. AHCA's Response to the Application. AHCA's response to the application was denial based on a determination of no need to support the application. After review, AHCA determined that the application did not demonstrate that St. Anthony's could support sufficient volume even were the All Children's/Bayfront program to become non-operational. There was, however, an even more fundamental objection to granting the application on the part of the agency. As Elizabeth Dudek, Chief of the Certificate of Need and Budget Review sections of the agency, explained with regard to St. Anthony's premise that the application seeks to have its program "replace" the All Children's/Bayfront adult open heart surgery program, I don't understand that premise. I don't understand it because, one, the All Children's/ Bayfront program is still operational. There is no indication that the All Children's/Bayfront program has somehow indicated that it would relinquish its program volume to St. Anthony's. dditionally, ... by law they wouldn't be able to [accomplish a transfer] through the CON program, you can't transfer [or replace] a program ... Tr. 1534, ll. 2-12. Need. For those in need of open heart surgery services in South Pinellas County, there is another facility in South Pinellas County at which the services can be obtained: Northside. As for all of AHCA District 5, there are other facilities at which open heart surgery services are available. There is no evidence, despite the inability of the All Children's/Bayfront adult program to expand, that the needs of those requiring high quality open heart surgery services in South Pinellas County or AHCA District 5 are going unmet.
The Issue Whether proposed rule amendments to Rule 59C- 1.033(7)(c) and (7)(d), Florida Administrative Code, published in the Notice of Change on June 15, 2001, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether the proposed rule is invalid due to the absence of a provision specifying when the amendments will apply to the review of certificate of need applications to establish open heart surgery programs.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is responsible for administering the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. The goals of the Act are containment of health care costs, improvement of access to health care, and improvement in the quality of health care delivered in Florida. AHCA initiated the rulemaking process by proposing amendments to existing Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code, the rule for determining the need for adult open heart surgery (OHS)1 services, which currently provides, in part, that: Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. a new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the district. One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; or One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for less than 12 months during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 29 adult open heart surgery operations per month. Provided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) and (7)(c) do not apply, the agency shall determine the net need for one additional adult open heart surgery program in the district based on the following formula: NN =((Uc x Px)/350)) -- OP>=0.5 Where: NN = The need for one additional adult open heart surgery program in the district projected for the applicable planning horizon. The additional adult open heart surgery program may be approved when NN is 0.5 or greater. Uc = Actual use rate, which is the number of adult open heart surgery operations performed in the district during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool, divided by the population age 15 years and over. For applications submitted between January 1 and June 30, the population estimate used in calculating Uc shall be for January of the preceding year; for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31, the population estimate used in calculating Uc shall be for July of the preceding year. The population estimates shall be the most recent population estimates of the Executive Office of the Governor that are available to the department 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. Px = Projected population age 15 and over in the district for the applicable planning horizon. The population projections shall be the most recent population projections of the Executive Office of the Governor that are available to the department 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. OP = the number of operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district. Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in paragraph (b) above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for a district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 350 open heart surgery operations. In determining whether this condition applies, the agency will calculate (Uc x Px)/(OP+1). If the result is less than 350 no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved. Based on the issues raised by the Petitioner, Bethesda, and the factual evidence presented on these issues, AHCA must demonstrate that its proposed amendments to the existing OHS rule are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority or, more specifically, that it (a) followed the statutory requirements for rule-making, particularly for changing a proposed rule; (b) considered the statutory issues necessary for the development of uniform need methodologies; (c) acted reasonably to eliminate potential problems in earlier drafts of the proposed rule; (d) used appropriate proxy data to project the demand for the service proposed; (e) appropriately included county considerations for a tertiary service with a two-hour travel time standard; and (f) was not required to include a provision advising when CON applications would be subject to the new provisions. Rule challenges and rule development process The existing rule was challenged by IRMH on June 27, 2000, in DOAH Case No. 00-2692RX. Martin Memorial intervened in that case, also to challenge the rule. Like IRMH, Martin Memorial was an applicant for a certificate of need (CON), the state license required to establish certain health care services, including OHS programs, in Florida. Both are located in AHCA health planning District 9, as is the Petitioner in this case, Bethesda. AHCA entered into a settlement agreement with IRMH and Martin Memorial on September 11, 2000, which was presented when the final hearing commenced on September 12, 2000. Prior to the rule challenge settlement agreement, staff at AHCA had been discussing, over a period of time, possible amendments to the OHS rule to expand access and enhance competition. Issues raised by AHCA staff included the continued appropriateness of OHS as a designated tertiary service and the anti-competitive effect of the 350 minimum volume of OHS cases required of existing providers prior to approval of a new provider in the same district. The staff was considering whether the rule was too restrictive and outdated given the advancements in technology and the quality of OHS programs. The relationship of volume to outcomes was considered as various studies and CON applications were received and reviewed, as was the increasing use of angioplasty also known as percutaneous coronary angioplasty, referred to as PTCA or simply, angioplasty, as the preferred treatment for patients having heart attacks. Angioplasty can only be performed in hospitals with backup open heart services. During an angioplasty procedure, a catheter or tube is inserted to open a clogged artery using a balloon-like device, sometimes with a stent left in the artery to keep it open. Discussions of these issues took place at AHCA over a period of years, during the administrations of the two previous Agency heads, Douglas Cook and Reuben King-Shaw. In August 2000, AHCA published notice of a rule development workshop to consider possible changes to the OHS rule. Because it could not get the parties to settle DOAH Case No. 00-2692RX at the time, rather than proceed with the workshop while defending the existing rule, AHCA cancelled the workshop. As a result of the September 11, 2000, settlement agreement, on October 6, 2000, AHCA published a proposed rule amendment and notice of a workshop, scheduled for October 24, 2000. That version of a proposed rule would have changed Subsection (7)(a) of the OHS Rule to allow approval of "additional programs" rather than being limited to approval of one new program at a time in a district. The October proposal would have also eliminated OHS from the list of tertiary health services in Rule 59C-1.002(41). Tertiary health services are defined, in general, in Subsection 408.032(17), Florida Statutes, as follows: "Tertiary health service" means a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost-effectiveness of such service. Examples of such services include, but are not limited to, organ transplantation, specialty burn units, neonatal intensive care units, comprehensive rehabilitation, and medical or surgical services which are experimental or developmental in nature to the extent that the provision of such services is not yet contemplated within the commonly accepted course of diagnosis or treatment for the condition addressed by a given service. The agency shall establish by rule a list of all tertiary health services. With this statutory authority, AHCA adopted Rule 59C- 1.002(41), Florida Administrative Code, to provide a more specific and complete list of tertiary services: The types of tertiary services to be regulated under the Certificate of Need Program in addition to those listed in Florida Statutes include: Heart transplantation; Kidney transplantation; Liver transplantation; Bone marrow transplantation; Lung transplantation; Pancreas and islet cells transplantation; Heart/lung transplantation; Adult open heart surgery; Neonatal and pediatric cardiac and vascular surgery; and Pediatric oncology and hematology. As an additional assurance that tertiary services are subject to CON regulation, the tertiary category is specifically listed in the projects subject to review in Subsection 408.036, Florida Statutes. The October 2000 version included a proposal to increase the divisor from 350 to 500 in the formula in Subsection (7)(b), to represent the average size of existing OHS programs, but to decrease from 350 to 250, the minimum number required of an existing provider prior to approval of a new program in Subsection (7)(a)2. The definition of OHS would have been amended to add an additional diagnostic group, DRG 109, to delete DRG 110 and to eliminate the requirement for the use of the heart-lung by-pass machine during the surgery. Most controversial in the October version was a separate county- specific need methodology for counties which have hospitals but not OHS programs, in which residents are projected to have 1,200 annual discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. On October 24, 2000, AHCA held a workshop on the proposed amendments. At the workshop, AHCA Consultant, John Davis, outlined the proposed changes. As a practical matter, eight Florida counties are not eligible to provide OHS because they have no hospitals. When Mr. Davis applied the county-specific need methodology, as if it were in effect for the planning horizon of January 2003, six Florida counties demonstrated a need for OHS: Hernando, Martin, Highlands, Okaloosa, Indian River, and St. Johns. Two of these, Martin and Indian River are in AHCA District 9. AHCA has already approved an OHS program for Martin County, at Martin Memorial. Mr. Davis also presented a simplified methodology for reaching the same result. In support of the proposed rule, AHCA received data, although not adjusted by the severity of cases, showing better outcomes in hospitals performing from 250 to 350 OHS, as compared to larger providers. Although the majority of heart attack patients are treated with medications, called thrombolytics, for some it is inappropriate and less effective than prompt, meaning within the so-called "golden hour," interventional therapies. In these instances, angioplasty is considered the most effective treatment in reducing the loss of heart muscle and lowering mortality. Opposing the proposed rule at the October workshop, Christopher Nuland, on behalf of the FSTCS, testified that OHS is still a highly complex procedure, that it requires scarce resources, equipment and personnel, and should, therefore, be available in only a limited number of facilities. In general, however, the opponents complained more about process rather than the substance of the proposal. Having petitioned on October 13, 2000, for a draw-out proceeding instead of the workshop, those Petitioners noted that AHCA had obligated itself to predetermined rule amendments based on the settlement agreement, regardless of information developed in the workshop. The draw- out Petitioners were the Florida Hospital Association, Association of Community Hospitals and Health Systems of Florida, Inc., Delray, Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Punta Gorda HMA, Charlotte Regional Medical Center, JFK, HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point; Tampa General and the FSTCS. While agreeing that OHS is complex and costly, supporters of the proposed rule, particularly the declassification of OHS as a tertiary service, noted that many cardiologists are now trained to do invasive procedures. In support of fewer restrictions on the expansion of OHS programs in Florida, other witnesses at the October workshop discussed delays and difficulties in arranging transfers to OHS providers, possible complications from deregulated diagnostic cardiac catheterizations at non-OHS provider hospitals, and hardships of travel on patients and their families, especially older ones. On December 22, 2000, AHCA published another proposal, which retained most of the October provisions, continuing the elimination of OHS from the list of tertiary services, the addition of DRG 109, the deletion of DRG 110, the elimination of the requirement for the use of a heart-lung by-pass machine, and the authorization for approval of more than one additional OHS program at a time in the same district. The minimum number of OHS performed by existing providers prior to approval of a new one continued from the October 2000 version, to be decreased from 350 to 250, and the divisor in the numerical need formula continued to be increased from 350 to 500. As in the October version, the requirement that existing providers be able to maintain an annual volume of 350 OHS cases after approval of a new program was stricken. The separate need methodology for counties without an OHS program was simplified, as proposed by Mr. Davis, and was as follows: Regardless of whether need for additional a new adult open heart surgery programs is shown in paragraph (b) above, need for one a new adult open heart surgery program is demonstrated for a county that meets the following criteria: None of the hospitals in the county has an existing or approved open heart surgery program; Residents of the county are projected to generate at least 1200 annual hospital discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, as defined by ICD-9- CM codes 410.0 through 414.9. The projected number of county residents who will be discharged with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease will be determined as follows: PIHD = (CIHD/CoCPOP X CoPPOP) Where: PIHD = the projected 12-month total of discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease for residents of the county age 15 and over; CIHD = the most recent 12-month total of discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease for residents of the county age 15 and over, as available in the agency's hospital discharge data base; CoCPOP = the current estimated population age 15 and over for the county, included as a component of CPOP in subparagraph 7(b)2; CoPPOP = the planning horizon estimated population age 15 and over for the county, included as a component of PPOP in subparagraph 7(b)2; If the result is 1200 or more, need for one adult open heart surgery program is demonstrated for the county will not normally be approved for a district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 350 open heart surgery operations. In determining whether this condition applies, the agency will calculate (Uc X Px)/(OP + 1). If the result is less than 350 no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved. County-specific need identified under paragraph (c) is a need occurring because of the special circumstances in that county, and exists independent of, and in addition to, any district need identified under the provisions of paragraph (b). A program approved pursuant to need identified in paragraph (c) will be included in the subsequent identification of approved and operational programs in the district, as specified in paragraph (a). On January 17, 2001, a public hearing was held to consider the December amendments. Opponents complained that the proposals resulted from a private settlement agreement rather than a public rule development workshop as required by law. They noted that declassification of OHS as a tertiary service is contrary to the recommendations of AHCA's CON advisory study group and the report of the Florida Commission on Excellence in Health Care, co-chaired by AHCA Secretary Reuben King-Shaw, created by the Florida Legislature as a part of the Patient Protection Act of 2000. The risk of inadvertently allowing some OHS procedures to become outpatient services was also raised, because of the statute that specifically states that tertiary services are CON-regulated. The reduction from 350 to 250 in the annual volume required at existing programs prior to approval of new ones was criticized for potentially increasing costs due to shortages in qualified staff, including surgical nurses, perfusionists, recovery and intensive care unit nurses, who are needed to staff the programs. The potential for approval of more than one program at a time, under normal circumstances, was viewed as an effort to respond to the needs of two geographically large districts out of the total of eleven health planning districts in Florida. That, in itself, one witness argued demonstrated that more than one approval at a time should be, as it currently is, a not- normal circumstance. The combination of the district-wide and county- specific need methodologies was criticized as double counting. The district formula which relied on the projected number of OHS, overlapped with the county formula, which used projected ischemic heart disease discharges, to the extent that the same patient hospitalization could result in first, the diagnosis, and then the OHS procedure. Approximately, eighteen percent of diagnosed ischemic heart disease patients in Florida go on to have OHS. The county-specific methodology was also characterized as inappropriate health planning based on geo- political boundaries rather than any realistic access barriers. Although 500, the average size of existing programs was the proposed divisor in the formula, and 250 was the threshold number existing providers, the proposal included the deletion of any provision assuring that existing programs maintain some minimum annual volume, which is 350 in subsection 7(e) of the current rule. AHCA representatives testified that the proposal to delete a minimum adverse impact was inadvertent. The combined effect of a district-wide need methodology, an independent but overlapping county need methodology, and the absence of an adverse impact provision, created concern whether approvals based on county need determinations could reduce volumes at providers in adjacent counties to unsafe levels. Some health planners predicted that, as a consequence of adopting the December draft, like the October version, a number of new OHS programs could be coming into service at one time, seriously draining already scarce resources. One witness, citing an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, testified that higher volume OHS providers, those over 500 cases, do have better outcomes, and that the relationship persists for angioplasties, including those performed on patients having heart attacks. Florida has 63 or 64 OHS programs. Of those, 25 to 30 percent have annual OHS volumes below 350 surgeries a year. The demand for OHS is increasing slowly and leveling off. AHCA was warned, at the January public hearing by, among others, Eric Peterson, Professor of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center (by videotaped presentation); and Brian Hummel, M.D., a Cardiothoracic Surgeon in Fort Myers, President of the Florida Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons, that simultaneously easing too many provisions of the OHS rule was a risk to the quality of the programs and the safety of patients. Among other specific comments made at the January public hearing related to the December proposal were the following: This change would authorize a county- specific methodology to support approving a program on the theory that that county needs better access to open heart surgery program. Yet there is no inquiry under the proposed provision into how accessible adjacent programs are or, indeed, how low the volumes of adjacent programs are. Most blatantly, the county provision requires double counting and double need projections. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 14, by Elizabeth McArthur). The proposed rule creates an exemption for counties that are currently without open heart surgery programs. One can only surmise that the purpose of this exemption is to improve access, and certainly improving access is an appropriate goal and it is possible that there are few situations around the state where access to open heart surgery is a concern, but the proposed rule is completely inadequate and a thoroughly inappropriate way to identify which situations those are . . . (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 26, by Carol Gormley). With the county exemption provision, the Agency has stumbled on an entirely new method for estimating need. In fact, the only good thing about this provision is that it demonstrates that the Agency actually can look at some alternative ways to estimate need, and the use of data about incidence of ischemic heart disease might be one of those. Certainly it should be explored if there is ever a valid planning process that addresses open heart surgery. However, the proposed rules cobble together the county- based epidemiology with the district-wide demand based formula, and I believe that this method is not applicable for evaluating access to care. It is not applicable because the provision only considers the population's rate of ischemic heart disease and does not even attempt to assess the extent to which county residents with ischemic disease are, in fact, already receiving open heart surgery. Therefore, a determination that county residents generate at least 1,200 ischemic heart disease discharges annually does nothing to indicate whether or not they experience any barriers to obtaining that needed service. * * * Another problem with county exemption permission [sic: provision] is that the addition of this assessment, quote "regardless of the results of the district need formula," end quote, constitute double counting of a need in districts where counties without programs are located. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 27-30, by Carol Gormley). * * * As further evidence of the benefits of limiting open heart surgery to a few high volume programs, the Society would like to place into record the following articles. The first one you've heard on several occasions is the Dudley article, "Selective referral to high volume hospitals." The second, from Farley and Osminkowski, is, "Volume-outcome relationships and in- hospital mortality: Effective changes in volume over time," from Medicare in January of 1992. There's another article from Grumbach, et al., "Regionalization of cardiac surgery in the United States and Canada," again from JAMA. Another article from Hannon, et al., "Coronary artery bypass surgery: The relationship between in-hospital mortality rate and surgical volume after controlling for clinical risk factors," Medical Care. Hughes, et al., "The effects of surgeon volume and hospital volume on quality care in hospitals," again from Medical Care; finally, Riley and Nubriz, "Outcomes of surgeries among Medicare aged: Surgical volume and mortality." Each of these scholarly articles comes to the same inevitable conclusion: outcomes improve as the volume of cardiac surgeries in any given program and hospital increases, therefore increasing the number of hospitals in which these services are provided inevitably will lead to an increase in morbidity. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 83-84, by Christopher Nuland). * * * On or before the January public hearing, AHCA also received the following written comments: Martin Memorial supports the exception provision for Counties that do not have an open heart surgery program and have a substantial number of residents experiencing cardiovascular disease. This provision ensures an even dispersion of programs, and that adequately sized communities are not denied open heart surgery. (Martin Memorial Ex. 6, Letter of 10/24/2000, from Richard M. Harman, Chief Executive Officer, Martin Memorial, to Elizabeth Dudek) * * * Adding new open heart surgery programs to counties that currently lack programs will increase geographic access to coronary angioplasty services as well as open heart surgery. Primary angioplasty is now the treatment of choice for a significant percentage of patients presenting in the emergency department with acute myocardial infarction (patients who would otherwise be treated with thrombolytic drugs to dissolve blood clots in occluded coronary arteries). Thus, the provision of the proposed regulations that addresses the need for open heart surgery at a county level will also increase access to life-saving invasive cardiology services. The effect of the proposed rule changes is to slightly broaden the circumstances in which the Agency would see presumed need for new programs. Initially, the increase in the number of programs presumed to be needed would be only five. These potential new approvals would be in counties which currently have no programs. This is consistent with the reasoning that supports removing open heart surgery from the list of tertiary procedures. All else equal, distributing new programs to counties where they already exist is reasonable in light of the goal of improving geographic accessibility of advanced cardiology services. As with the other draft proposed rule changes, there is no certainty that any programs will be approved on the basis of the county-specific need formula in (7)(c). These proposed programs would still have to meet the statutory and rule criteria. As discussed above, a number applications for programs have been ultimately denied even when presumed need was shown by the need formula. We recommend adoption of this additional formula for demonstrating need. (IRMH Ex. 1, p. 25, Comments of Ronald Luke, J.D., Ph.D., 10/24/2000) In what could be interpreted as an admission that the process resulting in the development of the earlier drafts was flawed, Jeff Gregg, Chief of the AHCA CON Bureau, concluded the January public hearing by saying, . . . in terms of the analysis that the Agency did about the proposed rule, I would simply have to tell you that CON staff was not involved in that analysis, and that's CON staff including myself. So I cannot elaborate on what went into it. But having said that, I do want to assure you that CON staff will be involved in further analysis and we will do our best to consider all the points that have been made and present them as clearly and concisely as we can in assisting the Agency to formulate its response to this hearing. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 86). The December draft was also challenged by a number of Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 01-0372RP, filed on January 26, 2001, and ten other consolidated cases. In response to the criticism that the adverse impact provision should not have been deleted and because that omission was unintended, AHCA published another proposed amendment to the OHS rule, on May 4, 2001, reinstating a minimum adverse impact volume, this time set at 250 OHS operations, down from 350 in the existing rule. On May 31, 2001, AHCA and the other parties to DOAH Case No. 01-0372RP and the consolidated cases entered into another settlement agreement, which provided: that in an effort to avoid further administrative proceedings, without conceding the correctness of any position taken by any party, and in response to materials received in to the record on or before the public hearing, the Agency for Health Care Administration agrees to publish and support . . . The Notice of Change . . . (Bethesda Ex. 34, p. 2-3). In upholding that agreement, AHCA superseded or revised all prior drafts and published a notice of change on June 15, 2001. In this final version, AHCA limited normal approval of a new OHS program to one at a time, used 500 as the numeric need formula divisor, increased the required prior-to-approval OHS minimum volume at mature existing providers from 250 in the October version to 300 (down from 350 in the existing rule) and for non- mature programs from a monthly average of 21 in the October draft to 25 (down from 29 in the existing rule), retained the classification of OHS as a tertiary service, and altered the separate, independent county need methodology to make it a county preference. The June 15th version, containing Subsections 7(c) and 7(d), which are challenged in this case is as follows: Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. An additional open heart surgery programs shall not normally be approved in the district if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the district; One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 300 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for less than 12 months during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 25 adult open heart surgery operations per month. * * * Provided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) do not apply, the agency shall determine the net need for an additional adult open heart surgery programs in the district based on the following formula: NN=[(POH/500)-OP]> 0.5 where: NN = the need for an additional adult open heart surgery programs in the district projected for the applicable planning horizon. The additional adult open heart surgery program may be approved when NN is 0.5 or greater. POH = the projected number of adult open heart surgery operations that will be performed in the district in the 12-month period beginning with the planning horizon. To determine POH, the agency will calculate COH/CPOP x PPOP, where: COH = the current number of adult open heart surgery operations, defined as the number of adult open heart surgery operations performed in the district during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. CPOP = the current district population age 15 years and over. PPOP = the projected district population age 15 years and over. For applications submitted between January 1 and June 30, the population estimate used for CPOP shall be for January of the preceding year; for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31, the population estimate used for CPOP shall be for July of the preceding year. The population estimates used for COP and PPOP shall be the most recent population estimates of the Executive Office of the Governor that are available to the agency 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. OP = the number of operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district. In the event there is a demonstrated numeric need for an additional adult open heart surgery program pursuant to paragraph (7)(b), preference shall be given to any applicant from a county that meets the following criteria: None of the hospitals in the county has an existing or approved open heart surgery program; and Residents of the county are projected to generate at least 1200 annual hospital discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, as defined by ICD-9- CM codes 410.0 In the event no numeric need for an additional adult open heart surgery program is shown in paragraphs (7)(a) or (7)(b) above, the need for enhanced access to health care for the residents of a service district is demonstrated for an applicant in a county that meets the criteria of paragraph (7)(c)1. and 2. above. An additional adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for the district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 300 open heart surgery operations. Bethesda objects to Subsections 7(c) and 7(d) as invalid. It challenges the rule promulgation process as a sham, having resulted from settlement negotiations rather than from statutorily mandated considerations and processes. That charge was, in effect, conceded by AHCA, as related to the October draft. That version carried over into the December draft, essentially unchanged, but did gain support at the October workshop. The October and December versions are not at issue in this proceeding. The proposed rule amendments at issue in this proceeding must have been supported by information provided to AHCA before or during the January public hearing. The proposal at issue differs substantially from the terms of the September settlement agreement, but is precisely what was attached to the May 31, 2001, settlement agreement. For example, the settlement agreement of September 11, 2000, included a proposal to reduce the prior minimum volume of cases at existing OHS providers from 350 to 250, but in May and June, that number was set at 300. AHCA, in the September settlement agreement, was to eliminate any limitation on the number of additional programs approved at a time, but the May and June version retains the one-at-a-time provision of the existing rule. AHCA agreed to determine county numeric need independent of and in addition to district numeric need, in September, but that provision is, in the May 31st and June 15th version, a preference. In September 2000, AHCA agreed to delete adult OHS from the list of tertiary services in Rule 59C-1.002(41), but it is a tertiary service in the May and June version. Bethesda is correct that the records of the October workshop and January public hearing contained criticisms of the county need methodology but no specific proposal to modify it into a preference. The first draft of that concept is the May 31, 2001, settlement agreement. (See Findings of Fact 26 and 27). Statutory rule-making issues Subsection 408.034(3), Florida Statutes, provides that: The Agency shall establish, by rule uniform, need methodologies for health care services and health facilities. In developing uniform need methodologies, the agency shall, at a minimum, consider the demographic characteristics of the population, the health status of the population, service use patterns, standards and trends, geographic accessibility, and market economics. As required by statute, AHCA considered the demographics and health status of the population and examined, as a part of the rule adopting process, age-specific calculations of ischemic heart disease. AHCA relied on statistical evidence of the relationship of ischemic heart disease and OHS. In 1999, for example, there were 33,027 OHS in Florida, and 25,257 of those patients had a primary diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Consideration of service use patterns, and standards and trends related to OHS led AHCA to increase the divisor in the numeric need formula to maintain the average size of 500 surgeries for existing providers. The availability of more reliable data than that collected when the existing rule was promulgated allowed AHCA to propose reliance on residential use rates. The trend towards the use of angioplasty, as a preferred treatment for heart attack patients, and the need for timely geographical access to care are major factors for AHCA's proposal to consider a county services within the normal need analysis or as a not normal indication of a need for enhanced access when a county has a critical mass of heart disease patients. Geographical accessibility is also addressed in the travel time standard in the existing rule, which the proposal would not change. AHCA received testimony on the issue of market economics and health status, related to care for indigent and minority patients in not-for-profit, county-funded hospitals, and related to reimbursement formulas. The record demonstrates that AHCA was provided with evidence on the effect of scare resources on the costs of operating OHS programs. County-specific need methodology in earlier drafts as compared to the county preference in 7(c) and the need for enhanced access in 7(d) Bethesda alleges that the county preference in the June version is essentially another need methodology, like the county-specific need methodology in the earlier versions of the proposed rule. Bethesda also contends that a preference for a hospital because it is in a county which does not have an open heart program over a reasonably accessible facility in an adjoining county in the same district is irrational health planning which could lead to a maldistribution of programs. The county-specific need methodology was first included in the September settlement agreement, and the preference in 7(c) and need for access in 7(d), originated after the January 17, 2001, public hearing. During the public hearing, counsel for the Florida Hospital Association complained that the county-specific need methodology precluded any inquiry into accessibility and volumes at adjoining programs. Another representative of the Florida Hospital Association surmised that the goal of the county exemption was improved access but explained that it was an inappropriate means to identify access concerns. For example, while Hernando County would qualify for need with the separate methodology, most of its residents, 97 percent receive OHS services at a hospital in another district which is only 13 miles from the population center. (See Finding of Fact 26). The preference under normal circumstances in Subsection 7(c) and finding of need for enhanced access in Subsection 7(d), must be supported by evidence that county boundaries, in general, do create valid access issues. On or before the January workshop, information provided to AHCA indicated that some special inquiry into access issues related to CON applications for programs in counties without OHS programs is warranted. See Finding of Fact 27). AHCA found correctly that counties matter for several reasons. First is the fact that emergency services are funded and organized by counties, in general, and operated by municipal and county agencies. Approximately 60 percent of heart attack patient discharges in Florida are admitted through emergency rooms. Emergency heart attack patients who live in counties with OHS programs are twice as likely to be taken to a hospital with OHS as those who live in counties without an OHS provider. Second, whether a patient is taken to an OHS provider affects the care received. The probability of having an angioplasty performed is almost 50 percent greater for residents of counties with OHS programs as compared to those in counties without an OHS program. Third, some health care reimbursement plans and health care districts are operated within counties, limiting financial access to out-of-county hospitals. AHCA has always considered whether or not a county has an OHS program as a part of access issues. The issue of greater access to OHS was the basis for AHCA's initial consideration of the possibility of easing the OHS rule. With the May and June draft, it has codified and specified when that policy will apply. AHCA's deputy secretary noted that geographic access in the absence of numeric need was the basis for approvals of OHS CONs for Marion County, and for hospitals located in Naples and Brandon. In each instance, the applicants argued a need for enhanced access. AHCA has experience in applying preferences as a part of balancing and weighing criteria from statutes, rules and local health plans, particularly to distinguish among multiple applicants. In the totality of the review process, other factors which Bethesda's expert testified should be considered, including financial, racial and other potential access barriers, are not precluded. Preferences related to specific locations within health planning areas are included in CON rules governing the need for nursing home beds and hospices. Bethesda noted that these are not tertiary services, suggesting that a county location preference is inappropriate for tertiary services, but similar preferences for OHS exist in some of the local health plans. In AHCA District 1, the CON allocation factors for OHS and cardiac catheterization services include a preference for applicants proposing to locate in a county which does not have an existing OHS program. In District 4, the preference favors an applicant located in a concentrated population area in which existing programs have the highest area use rates. District 5 is similar to District 4, supporting OHS projects in areas of concentrated population with the highest use rates. The District 8, like District 1, preference goes to the applicant located in a county without an OHS program. There is no evidence that the existing preferences have been difficult to apply within the context of other CON criteria for the review of OHS applications. In effect, the proposed amendments establish an uniform state-wide county preference which is more concrete in terms of the requirements for a potential patient base. Bethesda has questioned the rationale for standards which are, in effect, different in Subsection 7(c) as compared to Subsection 7(d). The lower requirement, according to Bethesda, 1200 ischemic heart diagnoses, in 7(d), applies when there is no numeric need. But, the 500 divisor and 300 minimum at existing providers, when combined with 1200 ischemic heart diagnoses is a heavier burden to meet in 7(c), although under normal circumstances. Bethesda did not adequately explain reasons for this objection to the proposed rule. In addition, it is not inconsistent logically for AHCA to require applicants to demonstrate lower numeric need in situations in which AHCA has determined that these will be, in general, a greater need for enhanced access. Bethesda also raised a concern for the eventual maldistribution of programs as a result of the county preference. In 1999, Palm Beach county residents received 2700 OHS, or an average of 900 cases for each of the three programs. The total for District 9 was 3800 cases in 1999. When 500 St. Lucie County resident cases, in which Lawnwood is an OHS provider, are combined with 2700 Palm Beach resident cases, that leaves only 650 resident cases from Okeechobee, Indian River and Martin Counties. If programs are approved in all three, then the total will be inadequate for each to reach 300 cases, while, presumably, the demand in Palm Beach could be increasing disproportionately and not be met adequately. Disproportionate need, the appropriate dispersion of programs, and the benefits of enhanced competition are among the factors which AHCA can consider along with county need when choosing among competing applicants. 1200 ischemic heart disease discharges The proposed amendments require a projection that residents will reach a threshold of 1200 cases of ischemic heart disease discharges as a condition for the entitlement to the numeric need preference or to demonstrate a not normal need for enhanced access. In general, ischemic heart disease, which is also known as coronary heart disease, is characterized by blocked arteries which, in turn, limit blood to heart muscles causing first the onset of angina from acute coronary syndrome, progressing on to acute myocardial infarction, or a heart attack. The use of heart disease as a proxy for OHS utilization is consistent with AHCA's use of live births in pediatric open heart surgery and pediatric cardiac catheterization rules, deaths in the hospice rule, and related diagnoses in organ transplantation rules rather than actual utilization. It was supported by information received during or before the January workshop (See Finding of Fact 26 and 27). Bethesda's criticism of the use of a proxy per se is also not well-founded because any single statistical approach could be misleading. For example, historic use rates can understate future use with a growing service or an artificially imposed access limit. Using heart disease data in a preference or a need for enhanced access as opposed to a need formula or conclusive finding allows more flexibility in determining need in conjunction with other significant factors. One of Bethesda's expert health planners was also critical of the use of 1200 ischemic heart disease diagnoses as inadequate for projecting OHS cases, and for not equating to approximately 300 annual OHS cases, the minimum required of existing providers in Subsection 7(a) and the minimum adverse impact allowed in Subsection 7(e). Based on actual historical Florida data, 1200 ischemic heart disease diagnoses on average resulted in 207 OHS in 1997, 203 in 1998, and 203 in 1999. Ischemic heart disease has approximately an 18 to 20 percent conversion rate to OHS, and results in a total of 76 to 80 percent of all OHS cases. OHS cases from other diagnoses added statistically another 54 OHS in 1997, 59 in 1998, and 61 in 1999, to those from ischemic heart disease, giving, in each year a total less than 300. Bethesda presented evidence of wide variations in the ischemic heart disease to OHS conversion ratios from county-to- county. For example, only 14 percent of Bradford County ischemic heart diseases converted to OHS, and only 11 percent of the 700 cases in Columbia County converted to OHS. In Columbia County, the average state conversion rate of 20 percent yields 140 cases but, in reality, there were only 78 OHS cases from Columbia County in 1999. Bethesda's expert concluded that conversion ratio discrepancies resulting in the approval of a program that cannot achieve 300 OHS, as required in Subsection 7(a)2. and 7 (e), of the proposed rule, could bar the approval of new programs when needed in the district and would not be of minimum required quality. Bethesda also proved that the accuracy of projected OHS cases can also be affected by patterns of patient migration for health care, particularly if in- and out-migration do not offset each other. In counties with OHS programs, the average out-migration for acute care is 10.7 percent, varying widely from 3.8 percent in Alachua County to 70 percent in Seminole County. In counties without an OHS provider, average out- migration for acute care is 44 percent, but ranges from 17.6 percent in Indian River County to 98 percent in Baker County. An average of 18 percent of the residents of Florida counties with OHS programs have their surgeries performed elsewhere. Like out-migration, in-migration for acute care, for ischemic heart disease care, and for OHS varies from county to county in Florida. Counties without OHS programs have acute care in-migration from lows of 5.3 percent for Flagler County up to highs of 40 percent for Columbia County. In counties with OHS, in-migration for acute care is as low as 8 percent for Brevard and Polk, and as high as 60 percent for Alachua County. Similarly, in-migration, as determined by ischemic heart disease discharges averages 19.4 percent in counties without OHS programs and approximately 25 percent in those with OHS. In-migration for OHS, averages 35.7 percent for the state, but that is derived from a range from 9.2 percent in Pinellas County to 74 percent in Alachua and Leon Counties. Bethesda demonstrated, patterns of migration for health care vary throughout Florida, but there are trends due to the presence of OHS programs. Average net in-migration to counties with OHS is 29 percent, and is positive in sixteen of the twenty-four counties with OHS programs. All of these differences can be considered within the regulatory scheme proposed by AHCA. The issue of whether 1200 residential ischemic heart disease diagnoses is, in fact, the critical mass of prospective OHS patients needed or is deceptive due to migration patterns, due to access to alternative providers or any other review criteria listed in rule or statutes can be considered on a case-by-case basis with the proposed amendments. Bethesda's specific concern is that Indian River with well over 1200 ischemic heart disease discharges could be approved even though that represented only 255 OHS cases, and that if Indian River is approved under the county preference provision, then Bethesda would not be approved under normal circumstances until Indian River achieved and was projected to maintain 300 OHS cases a year. That Bethesda may be delayed in meeting the requirements for normal need is likely, but that appears to be a function of its location as compared to existing providers as much as it is the result of the county preference. Bethesda is not precluded, however, under either the existing or proposed rules from demonstrating not normal circumstances in District 9 for the issuance of an OHS CON to Bethesda. Bethesda's assumption that 300 is the minimum volume required for adequate quality is not supported by studies from various professional societies. The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons set minimums of 200 to 250 annual hospital cases as the volumes necessary to maintain the skills of the staff. The American College of Surgeons, in 1996, published their opinion that 100 to 125 cases per hospital is sufficient for quality, while at least 200 cases a year are needed for the economic efficiency of a program. AHCA has never used the required and protected volumes as the volume which must also be projected for a new programs. In the current OHS rule, the volume required is 350 a year for existing programs but that has not been required of applicants. In the recent approval of an OHS CON for Brandon Regional Hospital, the applicant projected reaching 287 cases in the third year of operation. County preference, tertiary classification and travel time Bethesda argued that the tertiary classification, suggesting a regional approach, is inconsistent with having a county access provision. Bethesda correctly noted that the county provision first appeared in a draft which included the elimination of OHS from the list of tertiary services. But AHCA proposes to establish the county preference and to maintain OHS on the list of tertiary services under Rule 59C-1.002(41), and to maintain the two-hour drive time standard in Rule 59C- 1.033(4)(a). Substantial information, mostly from medical doctors and studies linking morbidity to low volume, supports the view that OHS continues to be a complex service. Obviously, those services in the tertiary classification range in complexity and availability from OHS at the lower level to organ transplantation at the upper level. The tertiary classification is justified to assure AHCA's continued closer scrutiny of OHS CON applications. It is also consistent with the increase in the need formula divisor to 500, which together serve as restrains on the approval of additional programs. AHCA reasonably concluded, based on case law and precedents with local health plan that it is not inconsistent to apply county preferences to OHS while it is classified a tertiary service. The two-hour travel time standard, is as follows: Adult open heart surgery shall be available within a maximum automobile travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the district's population. The counties most likely qualify for the preference, based on meeting or exceeding 1200 residential ischemic heart disease diagnoses, are Citrus, Martin, Hernando, St. Johns, Highlands, Indian River, and Okaloosa. The population centers in each of these counties are well within two hours of an existing provider. Citrus County, in which there is an approved but not yet operational OHS program, is about an hour's drive from Marion County. Hernando is approximately 25 minutes from the Pasco County provider. The population center of St. Johns County is approximately 40 minutes away from Duval County OHS providers. Okaloosa County is approximately a one-hour drive away from Escambia County OHS providers. In District 9, Indian River is approximately a 30- minute drive from the Lawnwood OHS program. Martin Memorial, is an approved provider, is approximately 20 miles or 35 minutes from Lawnwood and 30 miles or 40 minutes from Palm Beach Gardens, another existing OHS provider. In the next three to five years, it is foreseeable that Okeechobee County in northwestern District 9 could qualify for the county preference. Adjacent to Okeechobee, Highlands County's population can drive either an hour and thirty minutes to a Charlotte County OHS program or an hour and twenty minutes to a Polk County facility. The evidence related to travel times, according to one of Bethesda's experts, demonstrates that the county preference is not needed to assure access which is already provided for each and every likely qualifying county. But the population centers in the entire state of Florida are all within the two- hour travel standard, and there has been no suggestion that Florida cease approval of new OHS programs. Bethesda's contention that no need exists for enhanced access if the travel time standard is met, and its claim that the rule is internally inconsistent with a county preference and two-hour drive time are rejected. Two hours is, as the rule clearly states, a "maximum" not a bar, and has never been interpreted by AHCA as a bar, to more proximate locations. Any other interpretation is an impossibility considering the numerous counties across the state with multiple programs, including Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Orange, Volusia, Duval, and Escambia, among others. AHCA can appropriately and consistently establish reasonable guidelines for choosing among applicants to enhance access within the maximum travel standard. There is no language in the proposed rule indicating when it will take effect. Although the issue was raised in Bethesda's petition, it failed to provide evidence or legal arguments at hearing or subsequently to support its objection to the omission. AHCA's deputy secretary testified that the agency reviews applications using need methodology rules in effect when the applications are filed. Before new rules are applied, applicants are given the opportunity to reapply to address new provisions in a rule.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner University Community Hospital's certificate of need application to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart program in Tampa, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On August 11, 1982, the Petitioner University Community Hospital, a non-profit hospital, (hereafter Petitioner or UCH) filed an application for a certificate of need (hereafter CON) to expend some $934,000 to establish cardiac catheterization and open heart surgical services at its 404 bed facility located at 3100 East Fletcher Avenue, on the north side of Tampa, approximately 9 miles from the Intervenor Tampa General Hospital (hereafter TGH or Tampa General). Petitioner's CON application was reviewed by the Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereafter Respondent or Department) under Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, and compared with other facilities in the Health Systems Agency, Region IV, which consisted of Pasco, Pinellas, Manatee and Hillsborough Counties. On November 30, 1982, the Department denied the Petitioner's application. The basis for the Department's denial as reflected in the State Agency Action Report, was that two hospitals in Health Services Area IV, Medical Center and Morton Plant, were below the 350 open heart procedures threshold required by Rule 10-5.11(16), Florida Administrative Code. Since Petitioner was not entitled to a CON for open heart surgery, it was not entitled to a CON for cardiac catheterization because Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, which was in existence when Petitioner's application was reviewed, required that an applicant for cardiac catheterization must be able to offer open heart surgery. Following the Department's denial of Petitioner's application and prior to the final hearing, the Legislature abolished the Health Systems Agency Regions and provided instead that health planning be based on HRS Districts. Intervenor TGH, a 611 bed public hospital located on Davis Island in downtown Tampa, in the same service area as the Petitioner, and presently offering cardiac catheterization and open heart surgical services, intervened in this proceeding on the side of the Department. The Need for Cardiac Catheterization Services In the Service District Prior to the final hearing, the Department admitted to the need for an additional cardiac catheterization laboratory in Hillsborough and Manatee counties. See Petitioner's Exhibit 17. There are presently three adult cardiac catheterization labs in Hillsborough-Manatee, two at TGH and one at St. Joseph's Hospital. In the five- county area, Lakeland Regional has an approved and existing program for a total of four programs. Applying the methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, the Petitioner has established that a need exists for at least one additional cardiac catheterization lab regardless of whether the service district is defined to include two or five counties. As projected and calculated by Thomas Porter, a Department witness who utilized the rule methodology, five catheterization labs are need in the five-county area by the year 1985. However, based on historical data, the need formulated pursuant to the rule is probably understated. Porter's testimony was confirmed by Dr. Warren Dacus, a hospital planning consultant, who after obtaining population and projection figures from the Department and the University of Florida, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, concluded that a need existed for one additional catheterization lab in 1985 in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. On June 16, 1983, the Department approved a CON application filed by Tampa Heart Institute (hereafter THI) which authorized the establishment of three cardiac catheterization labs. The Department's proposed agency action to award a CON to THI was challenged by the Intervenor Tampa General and St. Joseph's Hospital and is presently the subject of a pending administrative proceeding. The CON granted to THI was based on the Department's assumption that most, if not all, of its patients would come from Latin America. THI's CON application presented a unique set of circumstances which fell outside the methodology normally considered during CON reviews. Since the CON proposed to be granted to THI was administratively challenged and was based on the assumption that patients would be drawn from outside any defined service district, it is logically inconsistent and legally inappropriate to consider THI's three cardiac catheterization labs in the instant proceeding. If the CON is granted to the Petitioner, there will be sufficient utilization of the cardiac catheterization laboratory to insure quality of services as required by Rule 10-5.11(15)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Based on previous referrals to other hospitals and historical data obtained from other hospitals in the district, the Petitioner can expect to perform in excess of 300 cardiac catheterization procedures annually for the next three years following initiation of the service. The Need for an Open Heart Surgical Program in the Service District In the Hillsborough-Manatee Service District, two open heart programs presently exist, one program is located at St. Joseph's Hospital, the other is at Tampa General. The formula found at Rule 10-5.11(16), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the number of open heart procedures projected to be done in a future year is determined by multiplying the number of procedures per 100,000 population performed in the service area in 1981 by the projected population in the service area in the future year. No additional programs will normally be approved if such program will reduce the volume of an existing program below 350 surgery cases. In the service distract represented by the two-county area, there is a need for four open heart surgical programs by 1985. Using the methodology found at Rule 10-5.11(16), Florida Administrative Code, the two-county area requires the capacity to perform 1,433 open heart surgeries in 1985, which establishes a need for four programs. Although the addition of an open heart program at UCH would draw certain patients from both St. Joseph's and Tampa General, the number of open heart surgeries performed at St. Joseph's and Tampa General would not fall below 350 per year if UCH were granted a CON. In the five-county area which includes Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Highlands and Hardee counties, 1,587 open heart surgical procedures are projected for 1984 and 1,623 for 1985. Applying the rule methodology a need exists for five open heart programs in 1984 and 1985. Three programs, Tampa General, St. Joseph's and Lakeland Memorial Medical Center, presently exist or are approved in the five-county area. The petitioner has demonstrated a sufficient projected volume of open heart surgeries to assure quality of service under Rule 10-5.11(16)(e)(4), Florida Administrative Code. UCH can expect to perform in excess of 200 adult open heart surgical procedures during its first year of operation and within three years after initiation of the service. Moreover, UCH's surgery program will be capable of providing 500 open heart operations per year. In 1981, Lakeland Memorial performed 81 open heart surgical procedures which is significantly below the 350 procedures required by the rule. UCH's proposed program would have little if any effect on the open heart program at Lakeland Memorial, or its ability to meet minimum service levels now or in the foreseeable future. The 350 procedures per year threshold is required to ensure that cardiac surgery teams and staff remain proficient so that patient care is not jeopardized. If, due to the low number of procedures performed at Lakeland Memorial, patient care is being jeopardized, the purpose of the rule is not served by denying a CON to the Petitioner on such a basis since the grant or denial of the instant CON would have no effect on Lakeland Memorial's ability to meet the threshold. UCH's non-invasive coronary procedures including echocardiograms, stress testing and halter monitoring have been utilized by patients to a noteworthy degree. The levels of utilization for these non-invasive tests at UGH in comparison to Tampa General and St. Joseph's are as follows for the period July, 1980 to June, 1981: echocardiogram, UCH 1021, Tampa General 1,175, St. Joseph's 539; stress testing, UCH 598, Tampa General 490, St. Joseph's 371; halter monitoring, UCH 618, Tampa General 328, and St. Joseph's 290. A direct relationship exists between the volume of non-invasive coronary procedures and invasive catheterization procedures that can be expected to be performed at UCH. Approximately 30 percent of the patients at UCH are referred to other hospitals for invasive procedures following non-invasive testing. Transferring patients between hospitals for invasive procedures after non-invasive testing lessens the quality of patient care and increases the probability of duplication of testing, thus increasing health care costs. The Adequacy of she Petitioner's Proposed Facility UCH's proposed facilities for open heart and cardiac catheterization services are adequate for their intended purposes. The proposed plans and equipment lists for the cardiac catheterization lab and open heart surgical program are acceptable from a medical and planning perspective, and are similar to other facilities offering such services. UCH has or if the CON is approved will have, the necessary staff and equipment to meet the requirements of Rules 10-5.11(15)(g) and 10-5.11(16)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner will provide the training programs set forth at Rule 10-5.11 (15)(i)(3), Florida Administrative Code. The catheterization lab will maintain the hours of operation specified in Rule 10-5 11 (15)(h)(2), Florida Administrative Code, and the open heart surgery program will operate in accordance with the requirements of Rule 10- 5.11(16)(d)(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals as required by Rules 10-5.11 (15)(i)(1) and 10-5.11 (16)(e)(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner has a written plan projecting case loads, and projecting space, support, equipment and supply needs as required by Rule 10- 5.11(16)(e)(5), Florida Administrative Code. The Financial Feasibility of the Petitioner's Proposed Cardiac Program UCH's proposed open heart surgery program and cardiac catheterization lab are financially feasible. Funds for the project are available and no long term debt exists since the projects are to be funded out of cash. Projected net income from the service is in the 5 percent range which is conservative for a not-for-profit hospital which requires a degree of profitability to ensure that sufficient revenue is generated to meet expenses. The projected costs for the proposed cardiac catheterization lab are reasonable. The proposed renovation of the lab is part of a general large scale renovation for which UCH has secured a binding contract for the amount specified in the application. The equipment and personnel budget for the lab is also reasonable. Based upon a comparison of the proposed charges at UCH with the projected 1984 charges at Tampa General, UCH offers the least costly alternative for providing cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services. For example, at Tampa General, the projected charge for cardiac surgery, exclusive of charges for room and ancillary services, is $1,711 compared to $1,244.81 at UCH. For cardiac catheterization, the projected 1984 charge at Tampa General is $1,338 as compared to $1,093.75 at UCH. The Petitioner's charges and proposed charges for cardiac catheterization, open heart surgery and other hospital services are comparable to other similar hospitals in the service district, and accordingly, the Petitioner has established that the requirements of Rules 10-5.11(15)(j) and 10- 5.11(16)(f)(2), Florida Administrative Code have been met. Petitioner's Proposed Cardiac Program and its Effect on Tampa General The Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, a public agency which was created by special act of the Legislature, see Chapters 67-1498 and 80-510, Laws of Florida, is required by law to treat indigent patients who are in need of immediate or emergency medical treatment. Hillsborough County is required to reimburse the Hospital Board of Trustees for the full cost 2/ of any hospital or related services provided patients properly certified as indigent. Tampa General has experienced severe monetary problems as a result of its role as provider of free medical care to indigent residents of Hillsborough County. Unfunded patients have averaged 80-100 admissions per week at a cost of $280,000-$350,000 per week to the hospital. Approximately 30 percent of the claims that the hospital files with Hillsborough County for reimbursement of indigent expenses are rejected. As a result, Tampa General has been forced to subsidize its cost of providing indigent care through added charges passed on to paying patients. Since the Hospital Authority has no taxing power, Tampa General is dependent upon funds provided by the County. Among public hospitals in Florida's major urban areas, Tampa General receives the least amount of financial assistance from local government. Tampa General has budgeted $24 million worth of free care for 1984 and this amount is projected to increase through 1988. The amount of free care provided to indigents at Tampa General is approximately 16 percent of gross revenues. Tampa General utilizes the profits it derives from the operation of its cardiac programs to subsidize the considerable amount of free care that it provides to indigent residents of Hillsborough County. In 1981, Tampa General embarked on an ambitious expansion program in order to attract additional paying patients and to remain competitive with other private hospitals in the community. In order to finance this project, the Authority issued bonds in the amount of $160,260,000. In deciding to issue these bonds, the Authority considered the revenues generated by the hospital's cardiac programs which constitute 17-18 percent of total net revenues and the relative lack of competition from other coronary programs in the Hillsborough area. In the absence of adequate funding by the State and/or County, Tampa General's cardiac program is an essential element in the hospital's plan to continue to provide free care to indigents. The subsidization or contribution margin of the cardiac program helps offset the bad debt of indigent costs which are not being reimbursed by local government. The amount of subsidization or contribution margin for each cardiac procedure performed at Tampa General in 1984 was $3,721 and is projected to increase to nearly $5,700 in 1988. However, notwithstanding the monies projected by Tampa General which it expects to be contributed by its cardiac program, it is likely that third- party payers will follow the federal government in adopting a prospective payment system based on diagnosis related groups of illnesses which will limit the amount of revenues which can be collected from private pay patients. Assuming that this occurs, the amount of subsidization derived from cardiac programs at Tampa General will be significantly decreased regardless of the outcome of the instant proceeding. The evidence regarding the effect of UCH's proposed cardiac program on Tampa General's existing program is unclear. Unquestionably, some of the patients which would have gone to Tampa General for cardiac care will go to UCH if its program is established. However, since cardiac catheterizations are increasing in volume and a direct relationship exists between cardiac catheterizations and open heart surgery, it can be concluded that while Tampa General's rate of growth would decrease, it is unclear whether its present volume would decrease significantly below existing levels. No evidence was presented that Tampa General's cardiac catheterization and open heart programs would decline below the thresholds established by rule if UCH's application were granted. The financial problems facing Tampa General are clearly serious. The hospital has taken drastic steps to attempt to control costs including eliminating staff positions and severely restricting indigent access to health care. Tampa General's problems existed prior to UCH's application for a CON and will likely continue regardless of whether the Petitioner's CON is approved. The long-term solution of Tampa General's financial problems should not be dependent upon whether UCH prevails in this proceeding. If Tampa General is to fulfill its mission as a public hospital, it must be assured of reliable and consistent course of funding for all of its operations. In enacting Chapter 80-510, Laws of Florida, the Legislature intended that the cost of indigent hospital care in Hillsborough County be borne by all of the citizens of the County, and not primarily by paying patients who by circumstance or otherwise, find themselves at Tampa General. Tampa General's reliance on its cardiac programs to finance its long- term debt and offset its indigent care losses is dependent on the existence of two factors: first, Tampa General must maintain what is essentially a monopoly on the services to be guaranteed a supply of paying cardiac patients and second, it must have the ability to pass on to its paying cardiac patients the amount needed to subsidize its other operations. Tampa General, however, no longer maintains a monopoly on cardiac programs in the Hillsborough area as evidenced by the certificate of need awarded to St. Joseph's. Moreover, the Department has stated its intention to authorize another open heart program and three catheterization labs at Tampa Heart Institute. The prospective reimbursement system implemented by the federal government which is expected to be followed by private insurers will further limit Tampa General's ability to generate excess revenues from private-pay coronary patients. The result of the inability of Tampa General to secure a long-term solution to its problems of unreimbursed indigent care is reflected in the institution of a policy limiting indigent admissions to the most serious cases. Due to this new policy limiting admissions at Tampa General to emergencies, Tampa General's and UCH's policies regarding coronary care for indigents are essentially the same. The Petitioner's Compliance with Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes It was uncontroverted that UCH's proposed cardiac services are consistent with the state health plan. Since the Department has not yet promulgated as a rule the health systems' plan for the District, the parties agree that the question of the Petitioner's compliance with the local plan is not an issue in this case. See Section 381.494(6)(c)(1), Florida Statutes. The proposed cardiac program has been approved by UCH's Board of Directors, and is an appropriate progression considering the size of UCH and the mix of cardiologists and patients at the facility. See Rule 10-5.11(2), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner has carried its burden by demonstrating a need for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgical services regardless of whether the service district is defined as a two or five-county area. See Section 381.494 (6)(c)(2), Florida Statutes. Utilizing a two-county area including Hillsborough and Manatee counties, the projected population in 1985 is 890,000. The 1981 use rate was 276.4 cardiac catheterization procedures per 100,000 population. Multiplying the 1981 use rate by the projected population, 2,640 catheterization procedures are projected for 1985. Dividing 2,460 by the threshold number 600, results in a need for 4.1 catheterization labs in Hillsborough and Manatee counties in 1985. Presently, three existing and approved catheterization laboratories exist in Hillsborough and Manatee counties, one at St. Joseph's and two at Tampa General. A need, therefore, exists for an additional catheterization laboratory in the two-county area. 3/ In the five-county area which includes Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Hardee and Highlands counties, the projected population for 1985 is 1,330,400. The 1981 use rate was 207 procedures per 100,000 population. A total of 2,693 and 2,754 procedures are projected for 1984 and 1985, respectively. Dividing 2,754 by 600 demonstrates a need in 1985 for five laboratories while four presently exist or are approved in the five-county area, one at St. Joseph's, two at Tampa General and one at Lakeland Memorial. Petitioner has therefore demonstrated a need for an additional cardiac catheterization services in the five-county area. In considering the need for open heart surgery services in the two- county area and utilizing the projected population of 890,000 and a use rate of 160.99, the projected number of open heart procedures in 1985 is 1,433. When 1,433 is divided by 350, a need exists for four open heart surgery programs in Hillsborough and Manatee counties in 1985. Since there are only two existing and approved programs in the two-county area, the Petitioner has demonstrated a need for two additional open heart surgical programs by 1985. In the five-county area, the projected 1985 population is 1,330,400. The 1981 use rate was 122 procedures per 100,000 population. Multiplying the projected population by the use rate results in 1,623 open heart procedures projected in 1985. When 1,623 is divided by 350, a need is established for five open heart surgical programs by 1985. Since only three existing or approved programs are in place, the Petitioner has demonstrated a need for two additional open heart programs in the five-county area by 1985. The Petitioner presently performs a significant number of non-invasive cardiac procedures. It was uncontroverted that UCH provides quality of care to its patients. If the Petitioner's application is approved, it can be assumed that present acceptable quality of care standards will be met in the operation of the program. See Section 381.494(6)(c)(3), Florida Statutes. The proposed project is financially feasible, and UCH has the ability to attract sufficient nurses and support staff to operate both programs. See Section 381.494(6)(c)(8) and (9), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has argued throughout this proceeding that the initiation of cardiac service at its facility will foster competition thereby reducing health care costs in Hillsborough County. If price competition in fact existed under the present system of health care delivery, lower costs would be expected. However, with rare exception, health care consumers do not select hospitals nor do they pay their own hospital bills. Rather, third-party payers, including the federal government and private insurance companies, are responsible for reimbursing hospitals for patient costs and physicians generally determine which hospital is utilized by a patient. In an understandable effort to control health care costs, the federal government and the state have enacted a complex regulatory scheme for health care providers which limits competition and places the burden on providers of establishing that a need exists in a given area for a proposed service. To a significant extent, this scheme protects the financial interests of existing providers. This process can have an unfortunate side-effect of limiting the choices available to health care consumers and eventually could result in a diminished quality of health care. 4/ While the presence of additional hospitals in an area does not necessarily result in lower health care costs, it does create potential competition for patients through physician referrals. Hospitals have an incentive to provide quality care including state of the art equipment and competent staff, to ensure that they attract their share of patients. As a result, the preferences of physicians and health care consumers should have a greater impact in an area where health care services exist at more than one facility. The difficulty encountered in CON proceedings is attempting to balance the legitimate needs of health care consumers with the state's efforts to control costs by discouraging the duplication of unnecessary services. The Petitioner has demonstrated that its proposal is cost-effective, and should foster innovation and improvement in the delivery of health services in the service area as required by Section 381.494(6)(c)(12), Florida Statutes. The assertion by Tampa General that the expansion of its facility represents a less costly alternative is too speculative to be considered in this proceeding. While TGH is in the process of a $300,000 conversion of a pediatric catheterization lab to an adult lab, this fact was apparently either unknown or not considered by the Department at the time of the final hearing since HRS witnesses stated that Tampa General has only two adult labs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting a CON to Petitioner University Community Hospital to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgical program in Tampa, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1984.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Venice Hospital, Inc., (Venice) meets the statutory and rule criteria for a Certificate of Need (CON) to operate an open heart surgery program, and therefore, whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) should approve its CON Application Number 5715.
Findings Of Fact The Parties 1. Venice is a 342 bed general hospital located in Venice, Florida, which is in south Sarasota County and is a part of the Department's Service District There are no subdistricts in District 8 for open heart surgery. The majority of patients served by Venice are from 50-55 years of age or older, and 22%-25% of patients admitted to Venice have a primary diagnosis of heart disease. If patients with heart disease as a secondary diagnosis are considered along with those who have this as their primary diagnosis, the total represents over 40% of all patients admitted at Venice. Of the cardiac catheterization patients treated at Venice in 1988, 78% were Medicare patients. Venice is a Medicaid provider, projecting 1.6% of its total revenue from Medicaid. It has a critical care center with 32 beds capable of invasive monitoring, multi-infusion of medications, pacemakers, Swans Ganz catheters, and care of post- catheterization patients. A separate 8-bed unit has been designated for use by open heart patients, with the same monitoring capability as the remainder of the unit. Memorial is an acute care hospital located in Sarasota, Florida, and is governed by the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board, which is elected to provide health care services to all residents of Sarasota County. It provides a full range of services, including an open heart surgery program, and is the largest provider of services to medically indigent and Medicaid patients in Sarasota County. Medical Center is a 208 bed not-for-profit hospital located in Punta Gorda, Florida, which has provided cardiac catheterization since 1985, and has been approved to initiate an open heart surgery program which is scheduled to open in late 1989. It has a 5% Medicaid payor mix. The primary service area for Medical Center is Charlotte County. Its secondary service area includes south Sarasota County. Both Memorial and Medical Center are also located in District 8, with Venice located between these facilities. Venice is approximately 35 miles to the north of Medical Center, and about 25 miles to the south of Memorial. There are two existing open heart programs in District 8, one at Memorial and the other at Southwest Regional Medical Center in Ft. Myers. In addition, there are two approved, but not yet operational, open heart programs, one at Medical Center and the other at Lee Memorial in Ft. Myers. The Department is the state agency which is responsible for administering Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes, the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", under which applications for Certificates of Need (CON) are filed, reviewed, and either granted or denied by the Department. The Application On or about September 27, 1988, Venice filed an application with the Department for a CON to implement an open heart surgery program at its hospital in Venice, Florida, with a capital expenditure of $665,500. This application was designated as CON Application Number 5715. The Department reviewed this application, and in October, 1988, forwarded an omissions letter to Venice. Venice responded to the omissions letter, and addressed not only the items noted by the Department in its omissions letter, but also provided additional materials, information, and corrections not requested in the omissions letter. Effective on November 14, 1988, the Department deemed Venice's application complete. A public hearing was held on this application at the request of Memorial on November 18, 1988. Thereafter, the Department reviewed and considered all material received from the applicant, as well as the information received at the public hearing, and prepared its State Agency Action Report (SAAR) noticing its intent to grant CON 5715. Memorial and Medical Center timely filed petitions to challenge the Department's notice of intent to issue this CON. Venice is relying upon its application which was deemed complete and reviewed by the Department in its SAAR, and not upon its original application that was filed prior to the omissions letter. Additionally, the applicant is not relying upon a "not normal circumstance" justification for its application, but rather urges that it meets the statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of this CON. The Department's CON Manual HRSM 235-1, dated October 1, 1988, is irrelevant to this proceeding since it has not been adopted by, or incorporated in, a rule, and was not applied in the batching cycle in which Venice's application was filed, or in the subsequent batch. It has not yet been applied to any hospital CON application. Therefore, the matters contained within this Manual concerning what is a permissible response to an omissions letter have not been considered. As part of its originally filed application, Venice included a document prepared by Ernst & Whinney entitled, "Audited Financial Statements and Other Financial Information, Venice Hospital, Inc., June 30, 1987." Through a clerical error in the copying process, page one of this twenty-four page document was omitted. At the time it filed its omissions response, Venice included this missing first page which is signed on behalf of Ernst & Whinney, and which states that the examinations contained therein were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. It expresses the opinion that these financial statements present fairly the financial position of the applicant. An auditor's opinion letter is an essential part of the audited financial statement which must be included with the CON application. However, Venice provided this inadvertently missing page prior to its application being deemed complete. Thus, it was available to, and was reviewed by, the Department in the preparation of the SAAR on this application. Venice's application did raise concerns which it was seeking to address concerning availability and accessibility by addressing the current practice of transferring patients requiring open heart surgery to other facilities. Patient costs for such transport, as well as patient risk, inconvenience and comfort for the patient and family members, were all referenced in the application. Additionally, testimony at the public hearing held on November 18, 1988, which the Department considered in the preparation of its SAAR, dealt with concerns and problems arising from patient transport, including delay, risks to the patient from ambulance or helicopter transfers, and adverse effects which may occur on quality of care through this practice which is inconsistent with the concept of a continuum of care. The SAAR specifically notes that Venice contends its proposal will improve geographic access in its immediate service area, and that from July, 1987 through June, 1988, it transferred 144 of its cardiac patients from its facility for open heart surgery and an additional 125 were transferred for angioplasty procedures. The application did not specifically address or identify any adverse impact which its approval would have on existing providers. However, evidence on this issue is admissible at hearing since it is relevant to the issue of the standing of Memorial and Medical Center, and also because it is relevant to establish whether approval of this application would be consistent with statutory and rule review criteria, and provisions of the Local Health Plan that require assessment of any such impact. The SAAR notes that Venice did contend that approval of this CON will not affect the economy or quality of existing services in the District. Stipulations The parties stipulated that: The project is financially feasible in the short term; Venice has a record of providing quality care and this record is not an issue in this case; Other than for open heart services, other facilities are adequate and available to act as alternatives; The size and cost of construction for Venice's proposal are appropriate; Open heart surgery programs currently exist within a two hour drive time under average driving conditions for at least 90% of the District's population; The type and cost of equipment in the application are reasonable; If approved, Venice will provide the services required by Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)3a and 3b, Florida Administrative Code, and does provide the services shown at paragraph 3c of said Rule. State Health Plan Objective 4.2 of the State Health Plan applicable to this application is to "maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990." (Emphasis Supplied.) The goal set forth in the State Plan relative to open heart surgery programs is to ensure the appropriate availability of such services at reasonable costs. Venice's application is not consistent with Objective 4.2. If Venice's application were to be approved, there would be five programs in the District. The number of procedures projected for 1990 is 1683, and if 1683 is divided by 5 programs, the result is an average of only 337 procedures per program. The two existing providers in District 8 are currently performing over 1600 procedures annually, and as is discussed below, it does not appear that Venice itself will be able to achieve an acceptable level of service at any time established by the record in this case. Approval of this application will also significantly and adversely impact the ability of the two approved programs to achieve an acceptable level of service. In the State Health Plan narrative, it is recognized that "quality of patient care is a primary concern in open heart surgery programs due to the potential consequences to the patient of poorly trained and/or skilled staff.11 In order to ensure quality, and in recognition of the relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures and quality, the State Plan references the Department's requirement, set forth by Rule, that a minimum of 200 adult procedures be performed within 3 years of initiation of an open heart program. The narrative also notes that a broad range of services must be provided to fulfill the requirements of an open heart surgery program. Venice's application is partially consistent with these narrative statements in the State Health Plan since the parties have stipulated that it has a record of providing quality care, and it offers a complete range of services with departments within the hospital where a broad range of diagnostic techniques and expertise are available. However, it was not established that a minimum of 200 adult open heart surgical procedures will be performed at Venice within three years of initiation of this program. Local Health Plan Even though an applicant does not include within its application every element in a Local Health Plan which is relevant to its application, the Department itself will look at the applicable Local Plan to determine if an application is consistent therewith. The applicable District 8 Health Plan recommends that "existing facilities should be afforded the opportunity for expansion before developing a new cardiac surgical center." However, if a numeric need for an additional program is shown, and if existing facilities do not seek to expand their existing programs to meet such need, an application for a new program would not be inconsistent with this portion of the Local Health Plan. Under the facts of this case where there are no competing applications from hospitals with existing open heart surgery programs, and where a numeric need for one additional program in District 8 is projected by the Department's need methodology, Venice's application is consistent with this recommendation. The Local Plan also recommends that preference be given to applications for new or expanded programs which clearly document the impact of the proposed new service on existing providers in the District and adjacent Districts. As found above, Venice did not specifically address any adverse impact its proposal would have on existing providers, and therefore, its application is not consistent with this recommendation. The Department's Need Methodology and the "35O Rule" Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Department's methodology for calculating the numeric need for additional open heart surgery programs It provides a formula by which the number of open heart procedures for the horizon year, in this case 1990, are to be estimated. Pursuant to the formula, there are projected to be 1683 open heart surgery procedures performed in 1990 in District 8. This number of projected procedures is then divided by 350 procedures in order to determine the number of programs which will be needed. See Rule l0-5.011(1)(f)11b. Using this methodology, the Department has identified the need for 4.8, rounded to 5, programs in the District in the horizon year. Since there are currently 2 existing and 2 approved programs in District 8, the Department and Venice have concluded that there is a projected numeric need for Venice's additional program in 1990. There is a direct relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures performed at a facility and the quality of care provided at such facility, with lower mortality rates generally at hospitals with higher volumes than those with low volumes. Therefore, in addition to its numeric need calculation, the Department has also developed a "350 standard" to address patient safety and quality of care concerns by ensuring that each existing and approved open heart surgery program achieves a volume sufficient to assure quality and efficiency prior to approval of a new program. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)11aI, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the establishment of new open heart surgery programs unless: the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart cases per year. Memorial and Medical Center urge an interpretation and application of the 350 standard in a manner which would require each existing and approved program to actually operate at the level of 350 cases per year. Since approved programs are not yet operational, and therefore cannot operate at the 350 level, they argue that the intent of this standard, as set forth in the above-cited Rule, is to preclude the approval of any additional programs while there are approved programs, or existing programs which are not meeting the 350 standard. To the contrary, the Department and Venice urge that the 350 standard be applied by averaging the actual number of cases at existing programs, and the number of cases which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs. Under this interpretation, as long as the average between cases which are performed at existing, and which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs exceeds 350, then the further approval of an additional program is not prohibited. Having considered the testimony and evidence presented by the parties, and in particular the testimony of Eugene Nelson and Elizabeth Dudek, which is found to be more credible, consistent, and reasonable than the testimony of Michael Carroll and Harold Luft, it is found that the Department's interpretation and application of the 350 standard is reasonable and consistent with the terms of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)11aI. It is also noted that if the interpretation urged by Memorial and Medical Center were to be followed, it is inexplicable how there could presently be two approved, but not operational, open heart programs in District 8. The Department has consistently applied this 350 standard since its adoption in 1983 by averaging caseloads at existing programs and reasonably projected caseloads for approved programs. To interpret this standard as urged by Memorial and Medical Center would impose a moratorium on new open heart surgery programs while there is an already approved, but not operational, program in a District, or while a newly operational program has not yet attained the 350 standard. There is no basis for this prohibitory interpretation which would not only reduce competition, but would also be inconsistent with sound health planning and the State Health Plan Objective 4.2, as discussed above. Quality of Care Venice is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Facilities for special care units, and it has been stipulated that it has a record of providing quality care in its existing programs and departments. On average, hospitals performing greater than 200 open heart procedures per year have superior surgical outcomes than hospitals doing less than 200 procedures. Mortality rates are significantly lower at hospitals performing more than 200 procedures annually than at those performing less. It was established that there is a direct relationship between volume of open heart surgical procedures and quality of care at facilities with open heart surgery programs. Therefore, the existence of more open heart programs than are truly needed in an area may result in some existing programs not achieving sufficient volume to assure patient safety and quality of care. Certainly, not every hospital should have an open heart program, but as long as there is sufficient volume to assure quality, the competition among programs will encourage quality care, and result in an overall increase in the quality of care provided at all departments in a hospital with an open heart program. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)5d, Florida Administrative Code, was adopted by the Department in order to set forth the minimum volume deemed necessary to assure quality of care, and provides, in part: There shall be a minimum of 200 adult open heart procedures performed annually, within 3 years after initiation of service, in any institution in which open heart surgery is performed for adults. Although Venice urges that it will be able to meet this threshold level within three years, it failed to establish by competent substantial evidence that it would actually attract the patients necessary to perform either the number of open heart procedures projected in its application, or this minimum number of 200 procedures required by the Department to assure quality of care in its third year of operation, given the current pattern of physician referrals in the area, its market share in relation to those of Memorial and Medical Center, and actual utilization levels for the existing District 8 programs at Memorial and Southwest Regional Medical Center, as is more fully discussed below. Without the assurance of sufficient volume to meet the 200 procedure threshold established by the Department by Rule, the validity of which is not at issue in this case, Venice has failed to show that it will be able to achieve and maintain a patient volume in its proposed program which will assure quality of care in its proposed open heart surgery program. Availability and Access While the addition of the Venice program would obviously increase the availability of services in the District, open heart surgery services are already reasonably available in District 8, especially in view of there being two approved programs which will become operational before 1990, the horizon year in this case, in addition to the two existing programs. The two hour travel time standard is already being met in District 8, as stipulated to by the parties. Geographic accessibility will not be appreciably or significantly increased by this proposal since Venice's facility lies approximately midway between Memorial and Medical, which are sixty miles apart. There is significant excess capacity in existing and approved open heart surgery programs in District 8 during most of the year, especially at Memorial. Therefore, there is ready access to, and availability of open heart surgery services to patients in the District. Venice did not establish that approval of its application would enhance access to open heart surgery services for the medically indigent. Despite its assertion in its application that its program would be available to the underserved, there is no definite commitment to serve charity care patients as a percentage of total patient days or of total revenue. Venice has proposed to serve Medicaid patients at the level of 1.5% of total patient days, but Medicaid patients are currently receiving services through existing programs at substantially higher levels of commitment. The applicant has reserved the right to refuse non-emergency care to indigents. While it was established that unstable patients who have to be transferred from one hospital to another face increased risks, and that members of the medical staff at Venice feel that there are unacceptable delays in transferring patients who need open heart surgery from Venice to other facilities due to an asserted lack of available beds, it was not shown that such delays have actually jeopardized the safety of patients or resulted in a reduction in the quality of care received by patients to an unacceptable level. A delay in transferring a patient from one facility to another of from 6 to 8 hours is reasonable, and in line with experience nationally. The anecdotal evidence presented by Venice on this point was not competent and substantial, and in fact shows that the number of delays exceeding 8 hours has increased only slightly from 1986 to 1988, a condition that may be addressed in any event when the two approved programs become operational. Additionally, the applicant never formally shared any concerns about transfer delays with existing facilities in an effort to reduce such delays or to document extreme cases of delay. Transfer delays are exacerbated by seasonal increases in population in District 8, but there continues to be a reasonable likelihood that patient transfers can be accommodated, even during seasonal population increases, without adverse impacts to patient care. However, a large majority of open heart surgery cases are non- emergency that can be scheduled for surgery within 6 to 48 hours after diagnosis without any compromise in patient care. Emergency patients are given priority, and there are sufficient available beds to accommodate emergency patients, regardless of seasonal delays. Recent studies have shown that even emergency patients benefit from a delay of up to 24 hours in order to stabilize their condition rather than rushing them to surgery. In any event, such seasonal delays do not establish that there is a lack of available beds in District 8 which would require the approval of this application, especially with two approved programs already in the District which will become operational by 1990. Alternatives Considered Venice did not fully explore alternatives, including less costly alternatives, to a new program at its facility, such as a joint or shared program with an existing provider. In fact, a consultant retained by Venice recommended on September 8, 1988, that Venice pursue a joint program with Memorial, but Venice never approached Memorial to ascertain if its administrators or medical staff would be interested in such a joint effort, even though these two hospitals have previously cooperated in providing joint services in obstetrics, shared nursing services, and jointly provided emergency services to the Town of North Port. Memorial previously loaned Venice 24 nursing full time equivalent positions (FTE) to fully staff a 35 bed unit at Venice during a critical nursing shortage. There are existing or approved open heart surgery programs at Tampa General Hospital, Manatee Memorial Hospital in Bradenton, Memorial, Medical Center, and Southwest Regional Medical Center in Ft. Myers. In addition, there are additional approved programs at HCA Blake Memorial Hospital in Bradenton and at Lee Memorial in Ft. Myers. Venice did not consider these existing and approved programs as alternatives to its proposed new program. It was not established that Venice has attempted, or proposed to establish a joint open heart surgery program with any of these facilities, or to secure staff privileges for its cardiologists at Memorial, or any of these other hospitals. Regionalization of health care services for open heart surgery patients is being encouraged and reviewed by the Medicare program. Under this concept, primary care hospitals would treat common diagnoses and offer common treatments, while regional referral hospitals would provide specialized care and offer more complex services referred to as tertiary level services. Open heart surgery is a specialized, tertiary care service. Venice did not consider regionalization or establish why it would not be appropriate in District 8. Personnel Availability and Costs There has been a long-term shortage of nurses, particularly in intensive care and open heart surgery, which even Venice's expert in nursing administration recognized and acknowledged. This shortage is present in Sarasota County not merely for nursing staff, but also for technical support staff, and is particularly acute in operating room and critical care personnel. While Venice does have nursing staff with open heart surgery experience, it would have to recruit additional nurses to fully staff this new program. It is not always possible to fill open heart surgery or critical care nursing positions with trained personnel. Memorial presently has 32 registered nursing vacancies, including 5 open heart surgery and 3 open heart critical care RN positions, despite a full-time nurse recruiter and an aggressive recruiting program. Because of this critical shortage, Memorial has been forced to use "traveler" or temporary nurses in its open heart surgery unit. In contrast to Venice's lack of actual experience in attracting and training open heart surgery and critical care nurses, Memorial established that in Sarasota County, it takes 6 to 8 months and costs $15,000 to $16,000 to train open heart surgery nurses, and 6 to 8 weeks to- train open heart critical care nurses. Venice will compete with Memorial and Medical Center in attracting open heart surgery nursing and technical staff. There has been a recent instance of a nurse leaving Venice to join Memorial, being trained as an open heart surgery nurse at Memorial, and then leaving to return to Venice. With the limited pool of available, trained open heart surgery nurses, and in view of the two approved open heart surgery programs in District 8 which need to be staffed and become operational prior to 1990, the implementation of the Venice program will have an adverse impact on the ability of existing and approved programs to attract and maintain trained open heart surgery nursing and technical staff, and can reasonably be expected to increase personnel costs for these providers. Venice proposes to add two cardiovascular surgeons to its medical staff prior to opening its open heart surgery program, and to retain a consulting firm to assist in recruiting these physicians. However, the consulting firm contacted by Venice has not agreed to accept this recruiting assignment. Memorial has been trying to recruit an additional open heart surgeon for over a year, without success. Venice has been trying to recruit a neurosurgeon, neurologist or cardiologist for almost a year, without success. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that Venice will have difficulty recruiting two cardiovascular surgeons in less that one year. The salaries and benefits in Venice's application are generally reasonable, including the proposed salary for a perfusionist, although it did slightly underproject open heart surgery nursing salaries. However, its estimate of the number of additional positions, or FTE, which would be required throughout the hospital to accommodate the workload resulting from an open heart surgery program is incomplete. For example, an additional 3.5 FTE that would be needed for the clinical lab and donor center is not reflected in the application, although the costs associated therewith are included. Venice does have a record of successfully staffing critical care services, such as its open heart catheterization and thoracic surgery programs, without attracting staff from other hospitals in the District. It does propose to have a training program for open heart surgery personnel, and has an affiliation with nurse training programs at four universities. Financial Feasibility In its application, Venice projects that it will perform 125 open heart surgery procedures in its first year of operation, 175 in its second year, and 211 in its third year of operation. However, it is specifically found that these projections are not reasonable, based upon the testimony and evidence received. The testimony and exhibits prepared by Mark Richardson and Michael Carroll, who were accepted as experts in health planning, as well as the testimony offered by Rick Knapp, an expert in health care finance, was more credible and persuasive than, and outweighs the testimony and exhibits prepared by Eugene Nelson, an expert in health care planning, Dr. Henry W. Zaretsky, an expert in health care economics and planning, and Michael Rolph, who was accepted as an expert in health care finance and accounting. Initially, Venice relies upon the Department's Rule for determining the numeric need for additional programs, discussed above, and divides the Department's number of projected procedures in District 8 (1683) by 350 to arrive at the need for an additional program in 1990 by rounding 4.8 up to 5. However, Venice has conducted no analysis of market share or physician referral patterns to test the reliability of this projected need. Thus, this projection of numeric need is made in a vacuum, without any reference to the actual number of procedures already being performed, or actual market shares and referral patterns which are critical to an understanding of patient and physician preferences which have existed, and are likely to continue to be experienced, in the future. Venice's administration and members of its medical staff consider Memorial's open heart surgery program to be excellent and convenient to Venice's patients. It is unlikely that all five of Venice's cardiologists will refer all of their open heart surgery patients to Venice, and in fact, a member of Venice's medical staff who supports this application testified that he would only refer about half of his patients to Venice. Since most open heart patients are referred, and since there is no apparent dissatisfaction with the quality of Memorial's program, existing market share and referral patterns would likely continue and should have been considered in any meaningful analysis presented by the applicant. For the July, 1990 horizon in District 8, the Department's numeric need methodology projects that there will be 1683 open heart surgery procedures. With referral patterns in place and two existing providers with operational and well regarded programs, it is unlikely that Venice will have an automatic, equal share of the District's pool of open heart patients, or even that it will perform the 125 procedures in its first year, and 175 procedures shown on its pro forma for the second year of operation. In fact, the two existing providers, Memorial and Southwest Regional Medical Center, already performed 1637 procedures in 1988, leaving fewer than 50 procedures projected through the Department's numeric need methodology for the two already approved programs and Venice, if it were to be approved. Memorial has been performing over 600 procedures per year from 1986 through 1988, and has the capacity to perform up to 1,000 procedures annually. Thus, the existing and approved programs have more than sufficient capacity to absorb growth in open heart surgery volumes which are being projected. A second method Venice uses to justify its projected number of open heart procedures is to quantify the population of Venice's service area, and then apply the Department's open heart surgery use rate to that population. This assumes that virtually all of Sarasota County's population growth will occur in the south county area, which is an inaccurate assumption, and also assumes that Venice will capture all of the open heart surgeries in its service area, which is unreasonable given existing market shares and referral patterns. Memorial presently has a 42% market share of District 8 open heart surgery patients. To perform 200 procedures in its third year of operation, Venice would have to capture an 83% market share, and there is no basis to find that it would be successful in attracting this unreasonably high market share in its primary service area. In fact, Venice projects that it will only achieve a 45% and 61% market share in the first and second year of operation, respectively. Applying these percentages, Venice will perform 99 procedures in its first year, not 125, and 140 in its second year, not 175. It must be noted that Venice's consultant, which had recommended that it explore a joint or shared program with Memorial, had projected market shares of only 29% in the first year, 35% in the second year, and 45% in year three. Using these figures, Venice would only perform 63 procedures in its first year of operation, 81 in the second year, and 102 in the third. Given this level of operation in its second year of operation (81 procedures), the Venice program would lose $334,000 in its second year, and therefore, not be financially feasible. The third method used by the applicant to support its projection of the number of procedures it will perform, which is the basis of its assertion of financial feasibility, is based upon its assessment of cardiac catheterization volumes and applies a conversion factor to determine the number of open heart surgery procedures that will result. This analysis again assumes that it would receive a 100% market share, and does not take into account referral patterns and satisfaction with existing programs. In addition, while the growth of Venice's cardiac cath volume has stabilized, and may even be decreasing, this analysis incorrectly uses a l5%-16% annual growth rate in cardiac caths through 1990, which is unrealistic and not supported by the record. Venice relies upon the expert testimony of Eugene Nelson to establish that the use rate for open heart surgery has been increasing since 1985, and will continue to increase. The use rate increased over 53% between 1985 and 1988, and Nelson projects a continued 15.3% annual increase in the use rate through 1991. Under his projections the use rate per 100,000 population will be 235.79 in 1990, and 257.97 in 1991. Nelson's projected continued annual increase in the use rate of over 15%, and the use rates he projects for 1990 and 1991, are unreasonable. He has ignored the fact that annual increases in the use rate have been steadily decreasing from 17.5% between 1985 and 1986, to 13% between 1987 and 1988, as testified to be all health planners, and as even he acknowledged. Applying this decrease in the annual use rate increase, it would be increasing only 9% in 1990, and this would result in a total of 2108 procedures that could be projected to be performed in 1990. With the two existing programs in District 8 already performing 1600 procedures, a figure that will reasonably grow by 1990, there will be less than 444 procedures for the two already approved programs and Venice, if it were to be approved. Given this fact, which is even acknowledged by Venice, it is unlikely that Venice will be able to reach its projected number of cases in its first two years of operation in order to achieve financial feasibility. As recognized by Harold Urschel, Jr., M.D., who was called by Venice as an expert in cardiovascular surgery and open heart surgery programs, for the next five years open heart surgery volumes nationally will be "stable", although they "probably" will go up some. Open heart use rates have plateaued on a national level, with an average national use rate of l80~per 100,000 population. This use rate compares favorably with the Department's current use rate of 183 for District 8, and further questions the reasonableness of Nelson's projected use rates of almost 236 and 258 in 1990 and 1991, respectively. These use rates have stabilized and shown a marked decrease in their rates of increase due to the development of acceptable alternatives to open heart surgery, and close review of the necessity of this treatment by third party payors. As testified to by Nelson, there is a danger that an excess of open heart surgery programs in an area will exacerbate an already stabilized or flattened use rate, and may cause it to decline. He cited both the Miami and Jacksonville areas as examples of Districts in which there appear to be an excess of programs, with a resulting decline in the District's use rate, and inability of a substantial number of programs to even achieve the requisite level of 200 procedures per year to maintain quality of care. When it comes to open heart surgery programs, more is not necessarily better and may actually result in less, according to Nelson. Even applying Nelson's inflated use rate of 236 per 100,000 population in 1990 to the Venice service area population, the applicant will not achieve its projected number of procedures when the market share of 29% in 1990 predicted by Venice's consultant is considered. Applying its consultant's projected market shares, Venice will realize only 81 procedures in the first year, 98 in year two, and 126 procedures in the third year. Since Venice's pro forma bases its assessment of financial feasibility upon its projections of 125 procedures in year one, and 175 in year two, and since the applicant has not established the reasonableness of these projections, the long- term financial feasibility of this project has not been shown. Further, Venice has also failed to establish that it can reasonably be expected to achieve the level of 200 procedures in its third year, and therefore, it has also failed to show that it can achieve that minimum level which the Department, by Rule, requires to ensure quality of care. In other respects, the assumptions used by Venice in its pro forma are reasonable, including its 2% inflation factor for income, bad debt, payor mix and utilization by class of pay, projected charges, expenses, and depreciation. Effect on Competition and Costs There will not be a significant difference between the charges proposed by Venice and the actual charges at Memorial. The applicant projects that 80% of its open heart surgery will be reimbursed through Medicare, which reimburses on a fixed fee basis to which hospital charges have no direct relevance. Therefore, there would be no appreciable impact on costs in the health care community if this application is approved. As previously discussed, there would be greater competition among existing and approved programs in District 8 for trained open heart surgery and critical care nurses, which are in short supply. While Venice has projected open heart surgery nurses' salaries at a somewhat unrealistically low level, it can reasonably be expected that greater competition for trained personnel who are in short supply will eventually result in higher salaries and health care costs. If this application is approved, the cost to transport patients who require open heart surgery from Venice to another facility would be eliminated. This would mean that patients could avoid a $235 to $250 ambulance charge for transfer to Memorial, a $450 charge for ambulance transport to Tampa General, or a $1,000 to $1,300 helicopter charge for transport to Tampa General Hospital. This savings is not significant when compared to total charges for open heart surgery procedures. Impact on Existing and Approved Programs As discussed above, approval of the Venice application will adversely affect the ability of existing providers to attract and retain trained open heart surgery and critical care RNs due to the already existing shortage of personnel to fill these positions, and the fact that two already approved programs will become operational prior to Venice's program, if it were to be approved. Although Memorial has the capacity to perform 1,000 open heart surgery procedures annually, Venice's expert, Eugene Nelson, projects that if the Venice program is approved, Memorial will experience only a 12% growth between 1988 to 1991, and will only perform 771 cases in 1991. Curiously, he then concludes that this represents no impact on Memorial. The proposed primary service area for the Venice program and Memorial's primary service area completely overlap, and they are, therefore, competing for the same open heart surgery patients. Venice has been referring 85%-87% of its patients who require open heart surgery to Memorial. If Venice had its own open heart surgery program, the need for transfer and referral would be obviated. In the second year of operation, Venice projects on its pro forma that it will perform 175 cases. Using its own projection of 85%, 149 to 150 of these cases would have been transferred to Memorial, but for the Venice program. If the more realistic number of 81 procedures in the second year of operation for the Venice program is used, 69 cases which would have otherwise been transferred to Memorial would stay at Venice. Rick Knapp, who was accepted as an expert in health care finance, provided a reasonable estimate of financial impact upon Memorial, given these projected losses in patient referrals. He concluded that Memorial would experience a net income reduction of approximately $1.4 million if Venice's projection of 175 cases in its second year is correct, and Memorial lost 149 to 150 referrals. Even Michael Rolph, who was called as an expert in health care finance by Venice, testified that Memorial would loose $2 million in net revenue if it lost 100 open heart surgery patients. If the more realistic figure of 81 cases in the second year were used, there would also be a net income loss for Memorial, but more importantly for purposes of this case, it was established through Knapp's testimony that Venice's program would lose $334,000, and not be financially feasible. It is, of course, recognized that Memorial would still experience a growth in its absolute number of open heart procedures due to population increases and increases in the use rate. However, any such increase in the absolute number of procedures performed at Memorial through growth does not obviate the fact that the total number of procedures it would have performed will be significantly reduced by the loss of referrals from Venice, if this application is approved. This is particularly noteworthy given its excess capacity. Memorial's most recent annual gross income was $160 million, with an operating margin (profit) of between $3.5 and $3.9 million. Therefore, losses which would result from the Venice program would not threaten the financial viability of Memorial, but would be significant in terms of its open heart surgery program. Jerry Sommerville, an expert in hospital finance, estimated that 9% of Medical Center's open heart surgery cases would come from the Venice area, which is included in Medical Center's secondary service area. If these cases are lost to Medical Center with the opening of the Venice program, Medical Center's projected 150 cases in 1990 would be reduced by 13.5, and in 1991 its projection of 200 cases would be reduced by 18. These reductions would result in a net revenue loss for Medical Center of $254,000 with a gross marginal loss of $62,800 in 1990, and a net revenue loss of $329,500 with a gross marginal loss of $95,200 in 1991. This represents a significant reduction in income for this open heart surgery program in its first years of operation. Medical Center's most recent annual profit margin was approximately $1 million.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order which: (l) Denies Memorial's Motion for Summary Adjudication; Dismisses Medical Center as a party due to a lack of standing; and Denies Venice's CON Application Number 5715. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NOS. 89-1412 & 89-1413) Rulings on the Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 6, 17. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Findings 6, 9. Rejected as a conclusion of law. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 15; Rejected in Finding 16. Adopted in Finding 17. Rejected in Finding 41, as otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 41, 42. Rejected as irrelevant. 15-18. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 42. 19. Adopted in Finding 43. 20-21. Rejected in Finding 43. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 53. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 55. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 55, 56. Adopted in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 57. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings 12, 20 and 39; Rejected in Findings 53, 55 and 56. Adopted in part in Finding 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 44. Adopted in Finding 44. Adopted in Finding 37; Rejected in Findings 38-47. Rejected in Finding 41. Rejected in Finding 25. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 43. Adopted in Finding 34, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 35. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 34, 35. 50-54. Adopted in Finding 48. 55-61. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 31. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 35. Adopted in Finding 36; Rejected in Finding 35 and otherwise as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 36; Rejected in Finding 33. Adopted in Finding 35. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Finding 31. Adopted in Finding 6. Rejected as unnecessary. 73-75. Rejected in Finding 27 and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 22. Rejected in Finding 27 and otherwise as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 51. 80-81. Rejected in Findings 28, 29. 82-85. Rejected in Finding 49 and otherwise as irrelevant. 86. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 87-94. Rejected in Finding 49 and otherwise as irrelevant. 95. Adopted in Finding 22. 96-97. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary, and simply a summation of and argument on the evidence. 98. Adopted in Finding 11; Rejected in Finding 24. Rulings on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 17. 7-9. Adopted in Finding 18. 10. Adopted in Findings 18, 22. 11-12. Adopted in Finding 22. 13-14. Rejected in Finding 20. 15-17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 18. Adopted in Finding 18. 19. Adopted in Finding 22; Rejected in Finding 20. 20. Adopted in Finding 30. 21. Adopted in part in Finding 13, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 22-23. Adopted in Findings 15, 16. 24. Adopted in Findings 4, 25. 25. Adopted in Findings 25, 39. 26. Adopted in Finding 26. 27-34. Adopted in Finding 27. 35. Adopted in Findings 22, 23 and 24. 36. Adopted in Findings 28, 29. 37. Rejected as unnecessary. 38-43. Adopted in Findings 28, 29. 44. Adopted in Findings 31, 32. 45. Rejected as unnecessary. 46-49. Adopted in Finding 34. 50. Adopted in Finding 24. 51. Adopted in Findings 24, 37. 52-55. Adopted in Finding 38. 56. Adopted in Finding 39. 57-61. Adopted in Finding 40. 62-64. Adopted in Finding 41. 65-66. Adopted in Findings 42, 43. 67. Adopted in Finding 44. 68-69. Adopted in Finding 46. 70. Adopted in Finding 47. 71. Rejected in Finding 48. 72. Adopted in Finding 40. 73. Adopted in Finding 47. 74-75. Adopted in Finding 49. 76. Adopted in Findings 55, 57. 77. Adopted in Findings 50, 52. 78. Adopted in Findings 31, 50 and 52. 79-82. Adopted in Finding 32. 83. Adopted in Findings 33, 50 and 52. 84. Adopted in Finding 33. 85. Adopted in Finding 32. 86-87. Adopted in Findings 33, 50 and 52. 88. Adopted in Findings 28, 29. 89. Adopted in Findings 24 through 27. 90. Adopted in Finding 6. 91-92. Rejected in Finding 7. 93. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 8. 94. Rejected in Finding 14 and otherwise as unnecessary. 95. Adopted in Findings 15, 16. 96. Rejected in Findings 14, 15. 97-99. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 12, 13. 100. Rejected in Finding 9. 101. Adopted in Findings 6, 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore C. Eastmoore, Esquire A. Lamar Matthews, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 3258 Sarasota, FL 33577 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Charles A. Stampelos, Esquire P. O. Box 2174 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's name and address are North Broward Hospital District d/b/a North Broward Medical Center, 201 E Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33604. The North Broward Hospital District is a Special Taxing District created by the Florida Legislature. It currently owns and operates three public, nonprofit hospitals in Broward County including Broward General Medical Center ("BGMC") and North Broward Medical Center Respondent, Department of Heath and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS"), is responsible for the administration of Section 381.493 through 381.499, Fla. Stat. ("the CON statute"), and Fla. Administrative Code Ch. 10-5 ("the CON rules"). Under the foregoing, authorities, HRS reviews applications for CONs to construct, purchase or otherwise implement certain new health care facilities and new institutional health care services, as defined by the CON statute. One of these new institutional health care services subject to HRS' review under the CON statute and CON rules is open-heart surgery service, as defined in Fla. Admin. Code Rule 10-5.11(16)(a). By formal application under the CON statute and CON rules which was deemed complete by HRS effective October 16, 1985, NBMC applied for a certificate of need ("CON") to institute an open-heart surgery service at 201 E. Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33604. Exhibit "A" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of NBMC's application for certificate of need for open-heart surgery. NBMC's application was denied by HRS by letter dated February 28, 1986, received by NBMC open March 10, 1986. Exhibit "B" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of said letter. Publication of the denial appears at Vol. 12; No. 11, Florida Administrative Weekly (March 14, 1986). HRS' basis for denying the application is contained in the "State Agency Action Report". Exhibit "C" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of HRS' State Agency Action Report pertaining to NBMC's application. NBMC has petitioned HRS for formal Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., administrative proceedings challenging the denial of its application for open- heart surgery. Exhibit "D" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of that petition. In its application, NBMC stated that one of its sister hospitals, BGMC, currently provided open-heart surgical services. NBMC proposed in its application to utilize the same open-heart surgical team at NBMC as was then practicing at BGMC. Applicants for CONs for open-heart surgery services must satisfy certain regulatory standards prescribed in CON Rule 10-5.11(16). These standards include: (k)1. There shall be no additional open- heart surgery programs established unless: The service volume of each existing and approved open-heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is and expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open-heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year; and The conditions specified in (e)4., above will be met by the proposed program. (E.S.) Rule 10-5.11(16)(e)4. provides in pertinent part as follows: There shall be a minimum of 200 adult open- heart procedures performed annually, within three years after initiation of service, an any institution in which open-heart surgery is performed for adults. (E.S.) Exhibit "E" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of CON Rule 10-5.11(16). 10. In 43 Fed. Reg. 13040, 13048 (March 28, 1978) (42 C.F.R. 121.207), the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") set forth the federal CON standards for open-heart surgery, as part of the National Guidelines for Health Planning. The National Guidelines for Health Planning are referenced in HRS's State Agency Action Report. Exhibit "F" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of that portion of the Nation Guidelines for Health Planning which pertain to the implementation of open-heart surgery services. The National Guidelines for Health Planning also provide that approval of new open-heart surgery services should be contingent upon existing units operating and continuing to operate at a level of at least 350 procedures per year. The National Guidelines for Health Planning further provide as follows: In some areas, open-heart surgical teams, including surgeons and specialized technologists, are utilizing more than one institution. For these institutions, the guidelines may be applied to the combined number of open-heart procedures performed by the surgical team where an adjustment is justifiable in line with Section 121.6(B) and promotes more cost effective use of available facilities and support personnel. In such cases, in order to maintain quality care a minimum of 75 open-heart procedures in any institution is advisable, which is consistent with recommendations of the American College of Surgeons. (E.S.) HRS' CON Rule 10-5.11(16); which contains the "350" standard, does not contain any comparable exception for institutions sharing open-heart surgical teams. NBMC's application for CON projects 200 open-heart surgeries by the end of the third year of operations and, when combined with BGMC's open-heart procedures satisfies the exception contained in the National Guidelines for Health Planning, as described above. There are no disputed issues of material fact that will require an evidentiary hearing in this matter. The parties therefore agree that the matter shall be submitted pursuant to legal memoranda and oral argument. The parties' legal memoranda will be due on June 17, 1986, and oral argument will be held on the scheduled hearing date of June 19, 1986. The parties agree to allow responses to the legal memoranda, which responses shall be submitted no later than June 26; 1986.
