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 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 At issue in these proceedings is whether there exists a need for a new open heart surgery program in HRS District IX and, if so, whether the applications of St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's), Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (Boca), and Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. (Martin), or any of them, for a certificate of need to establish such a program should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Case status In September 1989, Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (Boca), St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's), and Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. (Martin), filed timely applications with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department or HRS) for a certificate of need (CON) to establish a new open heart surgery program in HRS District IX. That district is comprised of Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties. Boca's and Martin's applications sought authorization to establish an adult open heart surgery program, whereas St. Mary's application sought authorization to establish an adult and pediatric open heart surgery program. On January 26, 1990, the Department published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to grant Boca's application, and to deny the applications of St. Mary's and Martin. St. Mary's and Martin filed timely protests to the Department's proposed action, and three existing providers of open heart surgery services in the district, NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Delray Community Hospital (Delray), JFK Medical Center, Inc. (JFK), and AMI/Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, Inc. (Palm Beach Gardens), timely protested the Department's intention to grant Boca's application or intervened to oppose the approval of any new open heart surgery program in the district. The applicants Boca, a 394-bed not-for-profit community hospital, is the southernmost hospital in Palm Beach County and HRS District IX, being located in Boca Raton, Florida, just two miles north of the Broward County/HRS District X line. It was established in the 1960's, and is a comprehensive hospital providing adult cardiac catheterization services, as well as most services available in an acute care facility, with the exception of a designated psychiatric unit, burn unit, and neonatal intensive care. During the period of April 1988 through March 1989, Boca performed 656 adult inpatient cardiac catheterizations, and referred 192 patients for open heart surgery between July 1988 and June 1989. By its application, Boca proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program to enhance its cardiology services. Boca's primary service area covers a radius of approximately ten miles around the hospital, and it routinely serves patients from Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, on the north to Pompano Beach, Broward County, on the south. Presently, three providers of open heart surgery services are located proximate to Boca: approximately 11 miles north of Boca, an average drive time of 17 minutes, is Delray, a current provider of open heart surgery services in District IX; approximately 21 miles north of Boca, an average drive time of 32 minutes, is JFK, a current provider of open heart surgery services in District IX; and approximately 15 miles south of Boca, an average drive time of 19 minutes, is North Ridge General Hospital (North Ridge), a current provider of open heart surgery services in District X and the recipient of the vast majority of referrals for open heart services from Boca. St. Mary's, a 378-bed not-for-profit community hospital located in West Palm Beach, Florida, is owned by the Franciscian Sisters of Allegheny, and has served the community for more than 50 years. In addition to the full range of medical surgical services, St. Mary's offers obstetrics, a Regional Perinatal Intensive Care Center (RPICC) -- levels II and III, blood bank, dialysis center, substance abuse center, hospice center, free-standing cancer clinic, adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, and children's medical services clinic. Upon the opening of its 40-bed psychiatric center, which is currently under construction, St. Mary's will be the largest hospital in District IX. During the period of April 1988 through March 1989, St. Mary's performed 254 adult inpatient cardiac catheterziations. By its application, St. Mary's proposes to enhance its existing services by establishing an adult and pediatric open heart surgery program. Currently, there are no pediatric open heart surgery programs in District IX. There are, however, two current providers of adult open heart surgery services located in Palm Beach County and proximate to St. Mary's: approximately 6 miles north of St. Mary's is Palm Beach Gardens, and approximately 11 miles south of St. Mary's is JFK. Martin, a 336-bed not-for-profit community hospital established in 1939, is located in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. As with the other applicants, Martin offers a full range of acute care services, as well as adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services, a non-invasive cardiology laboratory, and cardiac rehabilitation and support services for cardiac patients and their families. No significant data is, however, available on Martin's adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program since it is a new service. By its application, Martin proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program. Currently, there are no open heart surgery programs located in the four northern counties of District IX (Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties), and Martin is currently the only hospital located in those four counties that provides in-patient cardiac catheterization services. Accordingly, to access open heart surgery services within the district, residents of the northern four counties must avail themselves of the current programs existent in Palm Beach County. The protestants As heretofore noted, open heart surgery services are currently available at three facilities within District IX; Delray, JFK and Palm Beach Gardens, each of which is located in Palm Beach County. Delray is a 211-bed acute care hospital, sited in the southern portion of Palm Beach County, and located in Delray Beach, Florida. It is a comprehensive hospital providing all services normally available in an acute care facility, with the exception of obstetrics, pediatrics and radiation ontology, and is part of a larger medical campus, operated by the same parent company, that includes a 60-bed inpatient rehabilitation hospital that is physically attached to Delray, a 120-bed psychiatric hospital, and a 120-bed skilled nursing facility. In addition to its other services, Delray provides inpatient cardiac catheterization services and has, since 1986, provided adult open heart surgery services. With a recent addition, Delray has two dedicated open heart operating rooms (ORs) and one back up, as well as three separate intensive care units for coronary care, medical intensive care and surgical intensive care. For calendar year 1989 Delray reported to the local health counsel that it performed 338 open heart cases. Delray is located approximately 11 miles north of Boca, an average drive time of approximately 17 minutes. Between Delray and Boca, there is more than a 50 percent overlap in the medical staffs of the two hospitals, and almost 70 percent overlap in the areas of cardiology and internal medicine. Considering the overlap in the facilities' service areas, it is reasonable to conclude that if Boca's application is approved Delray would lose 122 open heart and 84 angioplasty cares in Boca's first year of operation and 130 open heart and 93 angioplasty cases in Boca's second year of operation. Such losses would translate into a after-tax income loss to Delray of approximately $645,000 in the first year of operation alone. Such loss of revenue and patients could adversely impact Delray's existing program. JFK is a 369-bed community hospital located in Atlantis, Florida; a small town just south of West Palm Beach. It provides a full range of medical- surgical services, with the exception of OB-GYN and nursery services, including cardiac, cancer, orthopedic, and medical/surgical intensive care and coronary care. It established its inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery program in February 1987, and currently has ten operating rooms, two of which are devoted exclusively to open heart surgery, and a 16-bed cardiac care unit (CCU), 10 beds of which are dedicated to open heart patients. For calendar year 1989, JFK reported to the local health council that it performed 262 open heart cases. As sited, JFK is located just south of West Palm Beach and within 10 miles of St. Mary's. Currently, there is an 83 percent overlap in the MDC-5 service areas (the service area closest to the open heart surgery program) of St. Mary's and JFK, and a substantial overlap between cardiologists on the staffs of both facilities. During the period of January 1988 - May 1990, 43 percent of the patients St. Mary's referred for open heart and angioplasty services were referred to JFK. Assuming St. Mary's could achieve the volumes it projected in its application, it is reasonable to assume that JFK would lose 75 open heart and 83 angioplasty cases in St. Mary's first year of operation, and 91 open heart and 100 angioplasty cases in St. Mary's second year of operation. Such lose in the first year of St. Mary's operation would translate into a net reduction of $1,200,000 in JFK's income. Such loss of revenue and patients could adversely impact JFK's existing program. Palm Beach Gardens is a 205-bed acute care hospital sited in north Palm Beach County. It provides inpatient cardiac catheterization services and has, since 1983, provided open heart surgery services. Currently, Palm Beach Gardens maintains two operating rooms dedicated to open heart surgery, and has a third operating room available for open heart surgery should the demand arise. For calendar year 1989, Palm Beach Gardens was the largest provider of open heart surgery services in the district, having reported to the local health council that it performed 491 open heart cases. Palm Beach Gardens is located approximately 10 miles south of the Palm Beach County/Martin County line or a straight line distance of approximately 25 miles south of Martin and approximately 10 miles north of St. Mary's. During the period of July 1988 - June 1989, 229 residents of St. Mary's primary service area had open heart surgery at Palm Beach Gardens, and 142 residents of Martin's primary service area obtained such services at that facility. If Martin's proposal is approved and its utilization projections realized, Palm Beach Gardens would lose approximately 84 cases in year one of Martin's operation and 101 cases in year two. Such losses in year two would translate into a $1,400,000 pretax reduction in Palm Beach Gardens' net revenues. Such reduction in revenues and patients was not, however, considering Palm Beach Garden's financial condition and open heart surgery volume, shown to have any significant adverse impact to Palm Beach Gardens, or any identifiable program within its facility. Likewise, should St. Mary's application be approved, volumes at Palm Beach Gardens would not be reduced below optimal levels, and it would not suffer any significant adverse impact to existing programs. The parties' stipulation The parties have agreed that the following facts are admitted: Boca, St. Mary's, and Martin Memorial timely filed their Letters of Intent and CON applications at issue in this proceeding. Further, the parties stipulate that the Letter of Intent complied with all statutory and rule requirements. The construction costs of $100,000 as set forth in Table 25 of St. Mary's application is a reasonable construction costs estimate for the renovation of one special procedures room to perform open heart surgery as proposed in St. Mary's schematic plans. The parties admit that adult open heart surgery services are currently available within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of HRS Service District IX's population. This stipulation is not meant to preclude other relevant evidence regarding travel times within or without District IX. All existing providers of open heart surgery in District IX are JCAHO accredited; all applicants in this proceeding are JCAHO accredited. Each of the applicants, if approved, have the ability to implement and apply circulatory assist devices such as intra-aortic balloon assist and prolonged cardiopulmonary partial bypass for adult open heart surgery. Each of the applicants, if approved, will be capable of fulfilling the requirements of an adult open heart surgery program to provide the following services: medicine, for example, cardiology, hematology, nephrology, pulmonary medicine and infectious diseases; pathology, for example, anatomical, clinical, blood bank and coagulation lab; anesthesiology, including respiratory therapy; radiology, for example, diagnostic nuclear medicine lab; neurology; adult cardiac catheterization laboratory services; non-invasive cardiographics lab, for example, electrocardiography including cardiographics lab, for example, electrocardiography including exercise stress testing, and echocardiography; intensive care; and emergency care available 24 hours per day for cardiac emergencies. This stipulation relates only to the provision of medical services, not that the applicants have sufficient capacity to provide those services in connection with an open heart surgery program. The redesignation of acute care beds from medical/surgical beds to any type of critical care unit beds, except for neonatal intensive care beds, does not require a certificate of need unless the hospital incurs a capital expenditure in excess of the capital expenditure threshold in accomplishing this redesignation. The Department's open heart surgery and methodology and the "fixed need" pool. On August 11, 1989, the Department, pursuant to Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, published notice of the fixed need pool for open heart surgery programs for the July 1992 planning horizon in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Pertinent to this case, such notice established a net need for zero new adult open heart surgery programs in District IX. There was, however, no publication of any fixed need pool for pediatric open heart surgery. Following publication of the fixed need pool, the Department received protests contending that its calculation of net need was erroneous. Upon review, the Department concluded that its initial calculation was in error, and on September 1, 1989, the Department published a notice of correction in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and established a new net need for one open heart surgery program in District IX. On September 5, 1989, St. Mary's challenged the Department's corrected need assessment, claiming the Department had underestimated the need in District IX for adult open heart surgery services, and on September 8, 1989, Palm Beach Gardens challenged the Department's assessment, claiming the Department had overestimated the need for open heart services in the district. These challenges were forwarded by the Department to the Division of Administrative Hearings, along with a request for the assignment of a hearing officer to conduct all necessary proceedings required under law. Pertinent to the derivation of the fixed need pool, the Department has established by rule an adult and pediatric open heart surgery methodology that must normally be satisfied before any new open heart surgery programs will be approved. That methodology, codified in Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, forms the premise for the Department's calculation of net need in the instant case. Pertinent to this case, Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, provides: 2. Departmental Goal. The Department will consider applications for open heart surgery programs in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in any service area unless the conditions of Sub-paragraphs 8. and 11., below are met. * * * 8. Need Determination. The need for open heart surgery programs in a service area shall be determined by computing the pro- jected number of open heart surgical pro- cedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination: Nx = Uc X Px Where: Nx = Number of open heart procedures projected for year X; Uc = Actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand popu- lation) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent deadline for the batching cycle; Px = Projected population in the service area in Year X; and Year X = The year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future. * * * 11.a. 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 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 Sub-paragraph 5.d., above, will be met by the proposed program. No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which would reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. Sub-subparagraph 5d, referenced in subparagraph 11a(II), provides: Minimum Service Volume. 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. There shall be a minimum of 100 pediatric heart operations annually, within 3 years of initiation of service, in any insti- tution in which pediatric open heart surgery is performed, of which at least 50 shall be open heart surgery. Essentially, the subject methodology contemplates that three conditions must be satisfied before an application for a new adult open heart surgery program in the district would normally be approved: (1) a calculated net numeric need under the Department's mathematical methodology; (2) a determination that "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 open heart surgery cases per year"; and (3) a demonstration that the applicant could perform "a minimum of 200 open heart procedures (cases) annually within 3 years after service is initiated." The first two conditions are utilized by the Department to initially establish the fixed need pool for open heart surgery services. The third condition is, by rule, related to an applicant's ability to provide quality care, and will be discussed infra. As a threshold for calculating need, and the fixed need pool, the Department's mathematical need methodology contains the formula for deriving the gross number of open heart surgical cases anticipated two years into the future. This methodology is based on the actual use rate in the district for the 12- month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the batching cycle. The number of cases is then divided by 350, which is consistent with the minimum service volume mandates of subparagraph 11 of the rule, to derive an actual gross need for open heart surgery programs at the horizon year. Existing and approved programs are then substracted to determine if there is a net need for a new open heart surgery program. While there was some dispute among the parties as to what the appropriate underlying data was to drive the Department's numerical need methodology, the parties agreed and the proof demonstrated a fractional need greater than .5, under the formula. 1/ The second step in establishing a need for open heart surgery programs, and the fixed need pool, is a determination, as required by subparagraph 11(2)I of the rule, of whether "each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service areas is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year." Here, based on the data available to the Department when it established the fixed need pool, the three existing providers had operated at the following case levels for the preceding year: Palm Beach Gardens - 494 cases; Delray - 328 cases; and JFK - 275 cases. Consequently two of the three existing providers were not operating at 350 cases per year. 2/ Based on the foregoing data, the Department initially published a net need for zero new open heart surgery programs in District IX. However, following the receipt of protests to the fixed need pool it had established, the Department, based on the same data, concluded its initial decision was erroneous, and published a notice of correction which established a net need for one new open heart surgery program in the district. This decision was timely challenged. The Department's ultimate decision to publish a need for one new program was based on two factors. First, the Department had historically rounded the numerical need up where fractional need, as calculated by its methodology, was .5 or higher. Second, although of questionable validity at the time, the Department had for several years "interpreted" the 350 case level, referred to in subparagraph (11) of the rule, to require that the average of the existing programs be at 350 before a new program would be approved, as opposed to the literal rule requirement that "each existing and approved open heart surgery program ... [be] ... operating at ... a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year." Accordingly, with differing views then pending in the Department, it elected to recalculate the utilization level by applying the averaging approach, as opposed to applying the rule as written which it had done in initially determining zero need, and therefore published a corrected need for one new program. On January 23, 1990, the Department issued final orders in three cases, each of which involved CON applications for open heart surgery services filed in the September 1988 batching cycle, Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 785 (1990), Humana of Florida, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 823 (1990), and Mease Health Care v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 853 (1990). In each final order the Department's Secretary stated, with regard to the Department's averaging interpretation, that: I conclude that the rule should be applied as written and that numeric need should be found only where each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service district is operating at a minimum level of 350 open heart cases per year .... I am not unmindful that the conclusion reached here departs from an established practice of interpreting subparagraph 11 of the need rule by averaging the number of cases done by the existing providers and finding subparagraph 11 to be satisfied if the average was 350 cases or more. As previously stated, I am now satisfied that application of the rule as written is more consistent with sound health planning .... Consequently, the averaging practice that resulted in the Department's corrected notice of need for the September 1989 batching cycle at issue in this case was specifically rejected by the Department as being contrary to the rule as written before it published its notice of intent to grant Boca's application. Even though the corrected need published by the Department was erroneous, as being derived contrary to the express language of the rule methodology, the Department and the applicants contend that such error is not subject to correction in this case because of the Department's fixed need pool rule and the Department's incipient policy regarding when it will correct errors in a fixed need pool that has already been published. Such contentions are, however, unpersuasive as a matter of law, discussed infra, and as not supported by any compelling proof. The Department's fixed need pool rule, codified at Rule 10- 5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides: Publication of Fixed Need Pools. The depart- ment shall publish in the Florida Administra- tive Weekly, at least 15 days prior to the letter of intent deadline for a particular batching cycle the fixed need pools for the applicable planning horizon specified for each service ... These batching cycle specific fixed need pools shall not be changed or adjusted in the future regardless of any future changes in need methodologies, popu- lation estimates, bed inventories, or other factors which would lead to different projections of need, if retroactively applied. In this case there has been no change in the Department's need methodology that leads to a different projection of need, as proscribed by the fixed need pool, but, rather, an identified failure of the Department to properly apply its rule when it assessed need. While the Department may have consistently misapplied its rule in the past, such consistency does not cloth it past action with any propriety where, as here, such action is properly challenged or, stated differently, because the rule was misapplied in the past does not lead to the conclusion that its proper application constitutes a change in need methodologies. Accordingly, it is found that the fixed need pool rule does not, under the circumstances of this case, preclude correction of the need established through the Department's publication of its notice of correction. 3/ The Department and the applicants also contend that the Department's policy on how it will treat corrections to a fixed need pool that has already been published, and errors in a published fixed need pool which are discovered after the cycle has begun, precludes any correction of the need published for this batching cycle. Pertinent to this point, the Department points to its policy, which was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly contemporaneously with its initial assessment of zero need, that provides: Any person who identifies any error in the fixed need pool numbers must advise the agency of the error within ten (10) days of publica- tion of the number. If the agency concurs in the error, the fixed need pool number will be adjusted prior to or during the grace period for this cycle. Failure to notify the agency of the error during this ten day period will result in no adjustment to the fixed need pool number for this cycle and a waiver of the person's right to raise the error at subsequent proceedings. Any other adjustments will be made in the first cycle subsequent to identification of the error including those errors identified through administrative hearings or final judicial review. Any person whose substantial interest is affected by this action and who timely advised the agency of any error in the action has a right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In order to request a proceeding under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, your request for an administrative hearing must state with specifi- city which issues of material fact or law are in dispute. All requests for hearings shall be made to the Department of Health and Rehab- ilitative Services and must be filed with the agency clerk at 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 407, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. All requests for hearings must be filed with the agency clerk within 30 days of this publication or the right to a hearing is waived. According to the Department, its policy is to correct computational errors in the fixed need pool only if they are brought to its attention during the grace period which is triggered by the filing of a letter of intent, and if there is sufficient time to publish a corrected fixed need pool prior to the CON application deadline so that all potential competing providers will have notice of the changes. Errors brought to the Department's attention after the grace period will only be considered in the development of the subsequent batching cycle's fixed need pool, regardless of the nature or magnitude of the error. Errors brought to the Department's attention during the grace period, but not reviewed by the Department until after the grace period would only be corrected for subsequent batches. Errors identified in administrative hearings or upon judicial review, even though predicated upon a timely notice of error to the Department, would be corrected in subsequent batches, but not for the batch in which the error occurred. The Department's enunciated rational for the foregoing policy is to instill "predictability" in the CON process, which it suggests promotes competition and affords the Department an opportunity to select from a broader field the best qualified applicants to "meet the need." Such rationale lacks, however, any reasonable basis in fact where, as here, there is no need to be met, and affronts sound health planning principles. The 350 minimum procedure level established for existing providers, before a new program can be approved, is an important threshold bearing on quality of care. In this regard, it has been demonstrated that there is a direct relationship between volume of procedures and mortality, with better results being obtained at facilities operating at a minimum level of 200-350 procedures annually. Accordingly, precision in assessing the need for new open heart surgery programs is crucial to assure that any new program could reasonably be expected to achieve a sufficient level of service, and to assure that the level of service provided by existing facilities would not fall below the optimum threshold. The Department's policy ignores this relationship, would recognize a need where none exists and thereby adversely impact existing programs, and would impinge on future planning horizons. As importantly, the Department's policy would supplant its own rule methodology for calculating need, and render illusory any decision based on a balanced review of statutory criteria. Accordingly, it is concluded that the Department has failed to explicate its policy choice in the instant case, and that numeric need under the Department's methodology is a viable issue in these proceedings. The need for the services being proposed in relationship to the district plan and state health plan. Applicable to this case is the 1989 Florida State Health Plan, which contains the following preferences to be considered in comparing applications for open heart surgery programs: Preference shall be given to applicants estab- lishing new open heart surgery programs in larger counties in which the percentage of elderly is higher than the statewide average and the total population exceeds 100,000. Preference for new open heart surgery programs shall be given to applicants clearly demonstra- ting an ability to perform more than 350 adult procedures annually within three years of initiating the program. Quality of care has been demonstrated to be directly related to volume; thus, facilities are expected to perform a minimum of 350 adult procedures annually. Preference shall be given to applicants who will improve access to open heart surgery for persons who are currently seeking the service outside of their HRS district. This will improve accessibility and reduce travel time for the residents in the district. Preference shall be given to an applicant with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share hospital criteria. Priority should be given to an applicant who provides services to all persons, regardless of their ability to pay. Preference shall be given to an applicant that can offer a service at the least expense yet maintain high quality of care standards. The physical plant of larger facilities can usually accommodate the required operating and recovery room specifications with lower capital expendi- tures than smaller facilities. Larger facilities also have a greater pool of the specialized personnel needed for open heart surgical procedures. Preference shall be given to an applicant that performs percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, streptokinase, or other innovative techniques as alternatives to surgery for low-risk patients. The applicant shall include in its application a protocol regarding the selection of patients for surgery or alternative non-surgical therapeutic cardiac procedures. All three applications are reasonably consistent with the state health plan's preference for establishing open heart surgery programs in counties in which the percentage of elderly is higher than the statewide average and the total population exceeds 100,000. In 1989, Palm Beach County had a population of 873,347, 23.4 percent of which were age 65 and over, which was higher than the statewide average of 17.9 percent. The next most populous counties in the district fell within Martin's primary service area, and were St. Lucie County, with a population of 142,440, 18.3 percent of which were age 65 and over, and Martin County, with a population of 96,336, 25.1 percent of which were age 65 and over. In all, the northern four counties had a population of 360,644, 21.2 percent of which were age 65 and over. The state health plan also accords a preference to applicants who clearly demonstrate an ability to perform more than 350 adult procedures within three years of initiating the program. Of the three applicants, Boca is in the best position to achieve the preference based on the number of diagnostic cardiac caths performed at this facility, and the number of patients it has referred for open heart surgery. Comparatively, Martin and St. Mary's are unlikely to achieve such level of service within three years of initiating a program. The third objective of the state health plan accords a preference for the applicant that will more clearly improve access to open heart surgery for persons who are currently seeking the service outside the district. Currently, while there is no access problem in the district, it is apparent that many district residents leave the district for open heart surgery. During the period of July 1988 - June 1989, open heart procedures were performed on 782 people residing in Boca's primary service area. Of those, 316 received treatment in a District IX facility, 383 received treatment in a District X (Broward County) facility, and the balance received treatment elsewhere, but predominately in Dade County (District XI). While there was a substantial outmigration from Boca's primary service area for open heart services, the vast majority of such outmigration, 325 people, was serviced at North Ridge, a mere fifteen mile/nineteen minute trip from the Boca area. With regard to St. Mary's primary service area, the proof demonstrated that during the same period 566 people sought open heart services, with 455 of those people receiving treatment within District IX. Of the 111 who sought service outside the district, 41 received treatment in Broward County and 61 received treatment in Dade County. Finally, with regard to Martin's primary service area, 316 people sought open heart services, with 148 of those people receiving treatment within the district. Of the 168 who sought service outside the district, 90 received treatment in Broward County, 29 in District VII hospitals, and 39 in Dade County. As heretofore noted, access is not a problem within District IX. However, to the extent this preference seeks to address the issue of outmigration, the proof demonstrates that Martin is the superior applicant. Clearly, the 15 mile/19 minute trip from the Boca area to North Ridge is not a barrier to access, and the number of people from St. Mary's primary service area seeking services outside the district are small in comparison to the other applicants. The residents of Martin's primary service area who seek treatment outside the district are, however, disproportionately large when one considers the aggregate travel time they incur when accessing services in the Orlando or Melbourn areas, or Dade and Broward Counties. The fourth objective of the state health plan accords a preference for the applicant with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the district. Among the applicants, St. Mary's is the only disproportionate share provider and provides the largest number of Medicaid patient days in the district. As between Boca and Martin, the proof demonstrates that Martin is more committed to, and has historically been a greater provider of, care to the medically indigent. The fifth objective of the state health plan accords a preference to the applicant that can offer a service at the least expense yet maintain high quality of care standards. Here, each of the applicants are large facilities, with demonstrated commitments to maintaining high quality of care standards. Martin has, however, demonstrated that it can offer the proposed service at the least expense. 4/ The last objective of the state health plan accords a preference to the applicant that will perform percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, strepokinase, or other innovative techniques as alternatives to surgery. Here, all applicants propose to offer such services. District IX's 1988 Health Plan was in effect at the time the CON applications were at issue in this case were filed; however, that plan had not been adopted as a rule. Accordingly, such plan is not pertinent to this proceeding. Venice Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case Nos. 90-2383R, et seg., (DOAH 1990). The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the district. Open heart surgery is a specialized, tertiary health care service. A tertiary health service is defined by Section 381.702(20), Florida Statutes, as: ... 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.... As a tertiary service, planning for open heart surgery services is done on a regional basis and concentrated in a limited number of hospitals to insure the quality, availability and cost effectiveness of the program. Essentially, the concept of regionalization creates a distinction between hospitals; some hospitals offer routine acute care services, while special high risk services are concentrated in a limited number of hospitals. Encompassed within such concept is the expectation that patients will be transferred from one facility to another to obtain tertiary care services. As a touchstone for assessing need within a service district, the Department has adopted the open heart surgery need methodology, discussed supra, that must normally be satisfied before a new open heart surgery program will be approved. Under that methodology, further need for adult open heart surgery programs is determined based on the projected increase in the number of open heart surgery procedures two years into the future and the open heart surgery volume of existing providers. The rule provides that, regardless of the projected growth in the number of open heart procedures, no additional adult open heart programs are granted unless each existing adult open heart program performs a minimum of 350 procedures annually. Application of the rule methodology to the facts of this case projects a growth in the projected number of open heart procedures sufficient to support a fractional need greater than .5, which the Department reasonably rounded to 1. However, two of the existing three providers were not performing a minimum of 350 procedures annually. Therefore, there is no need under the Department's methodology for a new open heart surgery program in District IX. While no need under the Department's methodology, the applicants have advanced several factors which they contend reflect negatively on the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization or adequacy of existing open heart programs in the district, and which they suggest warrant a finding of need based on special or not normal circumstances. Foremost among the factors pressed by the applicants as indicitive of an abnormal circumstance is the high number of District IX residents who seek open heart surgery services outside the district; referred to in this case as outmigration. Outmigration is, however, simply an observation of patient flow patterns and does not, in and of itself, constitute an abnormal circumstance that would demonstrate need in the district. Rather, to demonstrate a not normal circumstance, such outmigration must be demonstrated to be a consequence of some failing of existing programs, i.e., accessibility or quality of care, to be pertinent to any abnormal need assessment. 5/ In this case, there is no such failing in the existing programs. The three existing adult open heart surgery programs in the district are currently available to 90 percent of the population of the district within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours. Under such circumstances there is no geographic access problem within the district. Moreover, only Martin would actually enhance accessibility, were it a problem, because the residents of the four northern counties it proposes to serve must currently travel to Palm Beach County to access services within the district. In contrast, Boca is within approximately 30 minutes travel time of two existing providers in the district and an additional provider in District X. Likewise, St. Mary's is located less than 10 miles from two of the existing providers in the district. As with geographic access, there is likewise no economic access problem in the district. While the Medicaid use rate within the district for calendar year 1989 was .1 percent, well below the statewide average of approximately 2 percent, such raw statistic does not demonstrate that there is a Medicaid access problem in the district. To persuasively demonstrate such fact from use statistics would require a demonstration that Palm Beach County's use rate was significantly lower than counties with similar demographics. Here, there was no such showing. Moreover, St. Mary's, the largest provider of Medicaid services in the district, was only shown to have transferred three Medicaid patients for open heart or angioplasty services from January 1988, through May 1990. Finally, each of the existing providers have contracted with the Palm Beach County Health Care District to provide care to indigent patients, and have not refused service to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Accordingly, it is concluded that there is no economic access problem within the district. With two of the three existing providers operating below 350 procedures when this cycle commenced, there is clearly excess capacity within the district when one considers the fact that a single operating room has the capacity to handle at least 500 cases annually. In reaching this conclusion, the applicants' assertion that delays may have been encountered in gaining admission to some facilities during the season because of a lack of critical care beds has not been overlooked. However, any such delays were not reasonably quantified in terms of number or duration, and were not shown to be significant. As importantly, existing facilities have increased their critical care bed capacity, and can increase it further by merely redesignating acute care beds from medical/surgical beds to any type of critical care beds needed as the exigency arises. Although two of the three existing providers offer relatively new programs, the proof is compelling that each provides a quality surgical and post surgical open heart surgery program, appropriately staffed, and that there is no want of quality care within the district. The use of agency nurses, as suggested by one applicant, was not persuasively demonstrated to reflect adversely on quality of care. Succinctly, simply because one is an agency nurse does not suggest substandard performance, and the use of agency nurses, as needed, to staff a facility does not, of itself, aversely impact patient care. Here, the staffs of existing facilities are appropriately trained and supervised, and offer their patients a quality program. While there is certainly a significant outmigration from the district for open heart surgery services, such outmigration was not shown to be related to any infirmity in existing programs. Rather, such outmigration is most reasonably attributable to physicians' established referral patterns or patient preference. 6/ Finally, regarding special circumstances, St. Mary's suggests that its designation as a trauma center and the lack of pediatric open heart services to 90 percent of the population within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours warrant approval of its application. Such suggestions are, however, not supported by compelling proof. While it is true that St. Mary's has been selected by the Palm Beach County Health Care District, along with Delray, for designation as a Level II trauma center, such designation has not been contractually finalized and St. Mary's has not applied for such designation with the Department. As importantly, on October 1, 1990, a new law regarding trauma centers became effective which will reopen the county trauma center designation process, and require facilities to be designated by the state as trauma centers. Under such circumstances, it is speculative whether St. Mary's will become a trauma center, and until such event actually occurs such factor is not significant to these proceedings. St. Mary's quest for a pediatric open heart surgery program is premised on special circumstances, not numeric need, and finds it basis on the fact that no pediatric open heart surgery program exists in the district and that such pediatric services are not available to 90 percent of the population within two hours travel time. While such may be the case, St. Mary's application, on balance, fails to support such an award for a number of reasons. First, St. Mary's application projects that it will perform 10 pediatric open heart surgery cases in its first year of operation, and 20 in its second year of operation. It contains no projection for the third year of operation, but St. Mary's consultant, Michael Schwartz, opined that St. Mary's would perform 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases by the third year based on his belief that St. Mary's would capture 80 to 100 percent of the potential pediatric referrals from District IX and the northern portion of District X. Mr. Schwartz's opinions are not, however, credible. During the period July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989, there were 40 pediatric open heart surgery cases performed on patients residing throughout District IX, with 22 receiving treatment at Jackson Memorial (Dade County), 14 at Miami Children's Hospital, and 4 at Shands in Gainesville. During the same period, there were 24 open heart pediatric patients in northern District X, an area equi-distant in travel time from the Miami facilities and St. Mary's, with 15 receiving treatment at Jackson Memorial, 8 at Miami Children's Hospital and 1 at Shands. Each of these facilities are either teaching hospitals or specialty pediatric hospitals, are among the top four facilities in the state that perform over 100 pediatric open heart surgery cases each year, and each enjoys an excellent reputation for providing quality pediatric care. Given existent referral patterns and the quality of existing pediatric programs, it is improbable that St. Mary's could reach its projected utilization for years one and two, much less attain a level of 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases during its third year of operation. In 1994, the third year of St. Mary's program, there would be approximately 53 pediatric open heart surgery cases performed on patients residing throughout District IX. To attain a level of 50 cases in its third year, St. Mary's would have to attract almost 100 percent of all cases arising within the district, an improbable occurrence. Equally improbable is St. Mary's ability to penetrate the pediatric open heart surgery market in northern Broward County, an area defined by Mr. Schwartz as being equi-distant in travel time from the Miami facilities and St. Mary's, given existent referral patterns and physicians' satisfaction with existing programs. In sum, the proof demonstrates that St. Mary's could not reasonably be expected to perform 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases within three years of initiating service. In addition to its inability to generate sufficient volume to maintain service quality in a pediatric open heart surgery program, St. Mary's also lacks a pediatric cardiac cath program which is required of any facility proposing pediatric open heart surgery services. Notably, with regard to pediatric cardiac services, Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), which relates to cardiac catheterization services, and Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), which relates to open heart services, are mutually dependent. The cardiac catheterization rule, as it relates to pediatrics, provides: 6. Coordination of Services. * * * Pediatric cardiac catheterization programs must be located in a hospital in which pediatric open heart surgery is being performed. * * * 8. Need Determination. * * * f. Pediatric cardiac catheterization programs shall be established on a regional basis. A new pediatric cardiac catheterization program shall not normally be approved unless the numbers of live births in the service planning area, minus the number of existing and approved programs multiplied by 30,000, is at or exceeds 30,000. (Emphasis added) Also pertinent to this issue, the open heart surgery rule provides: 3. Service Availability. * * * c. The following services must be provided in the health care facility within which the open heart surgery program is located and must be capable of fulfilling the requirements of an open heart surgery program: * * * (VI) Cardiac catheterization laboratory.... The Department reasonably interprets the foregoing provisions as mandating that a pediatric cardiac catheterization program or pediatric open heart surgery program may not be approved independent of the other but, rather, they must coexist. Since the proof is clear that St. Mary's only operates and is only approved by the Department to operate an adult cardiac cath program, and it has not applied for a pediatric cardiac cath program, its proposal is deficient. 7/ In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that, while pediatric open heart services are not currently available within District IX and are not available to 90 percent of the population within two hours travel time, that St. Mary's application to initiate such services should be denied. It is further found that the provisions of the open heart surgery rule relating to the two- hour access standard, which does not specifically state whether such standard applies to adult, pediatric or both, is not applicable to pediatrics. Rather, the Department interprets such rule provision to apply only to adult programs, because such standard is not necessarily pertinent to pediatric open heart surgery since it is more specialized or tertiary in nature than adult open heart surgery programs. Given the close relationship between the cardiac cath rule and the open heart surgery rule, the Department's position is reasonable. In this regard, the cardiac cath rule establishes a travel standard for adult programs, but not pediatric. Rather, it provides for establishment of such programs on a "regional basis," and provides that a new pediatric cardiac cath program should not normally be approved unless the number of live births exceeds 30,000. Here, there were only 16,500 live births in District IX in 1988, a number that is insufficient to warrant a pediatric cardiac cath program. Given such fact, and the relationship between the two rules, the Department's interpretation is reasonable and the two-hour travel time standard does not apply to pediatric open heart surgery. Finally, as to adult open heart surgery services, it is concluded that there exist no special circumstances within the district that would warrant approval of a new open heart surgery program, and that existing facilities are providing appropriate quality care that is accessible to all residents of the district regardless of their ability to pay. The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Each of the applicants in this case has established an excellent record for providing quality care to their patients, and would be generally expected to provide high quality care for open heart surgery patients notwithstanding some failings in their applications. During the course of the proceeding, some protestants contended that because an applicant failed to detail some particular item of equipment essential to an open heart program, that such failing reflected adversely on their ability to provide quality care. While such could be the case in the abstract, it does not, where, as here, the applicants have sound records, with a demonstrated ability to attract quality personnel to staff their programs. Such failings are, however, germane to the feasibility of the applicant's proposals, discussed infra. Other failings pointed to by the protestants, included: St. Mary's proposal to utilize a call team composed of nurses who customarily assist at thoracic surgery and to recover its open heart patients in a mixed intensive care unit; St. Mary's inability to achieve a 200 and 350 case level per year; Martin's inability to achieve a 350 case level per year; and Martin's failure to document in its application the manner in which it could rapidly mobilize an open heart surgery team 24-hours a day, or how it would treat emergency patients within a two-hour period. Again, considering the quality of the applicants, and the quality personnel they will attract, as well as the parties' stipulation, these failings are minor and do not reflect adversely on their proposals with but one exception. 8/ The only significant factor presented that could bear on an applicant's ability to provide quality care is its ability to achieve optimal utilization levels. In this regard, it has been demonstrated that a relationship exists between the volume of open heart surgical procedures performed at a hospital and the quality of care rendered at those facilities, as measured by patient outcomes. Overall, facilities performing more than 350 cases per year experienced the lowest in-hospital death rate, with those performing more than 200 cases per year being next in line. Pertinent to this issue, the Department has adopted Rule 10-5.011(f)5, Florida Administrative Code, which addresses service quality for open heart surgery programs. That rule, as heretofore noted under the findings related to the Department's need methodology, requires that a minimum of 200 adult open heart surgery cases be performed annually within 3 years of initiating the service, and that at least 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases be performed within 3 years of initiating such service. Here, St. Mary's has failed to demonstrate that it can achieve such level of utilization, and its ability to offer a quality program is therefore suspect. As importantly, Rule 10- 5.011(f)11.a.(II) precludes the approval of St. Mary's application under such circumstances. Boca and Martin could reasonably expect to perform at least 200 cases within 3 years. The need in the service district of the applicant for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas, and the needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a substantial portion of their services or resources to individuals not residing in the service district in which the entities are located. As heretofore noted, North Ridge is located in northern Broward County, a mere 15 mile/19 minute drive time from Boca. North Ridge is a 395-bed hospital that provides all services with the exception of obstetric and radiation therapy, and has for 15 years provided open heart surgery services. It currently has two cardiac catheterization laboratories, and two dedicated and two backup open heart operating rooms. At an average of 750 cases per year, over the last few years, North Ridge has additional capacity, and could comfortably accommodate 1,000 cases per year. North Ridge's primary service area is, and has been for sometime, northern Broward County and southern Palm Beach County, although prior to the initiation of other services in Palm Beach County it serviced the entire area. North Ridge markets extensively in southern Palm Beach County, has follow-up activities for its Palm Beach County residents, and has strong ties with the physician community in southern Palm Beach County. Accordingly, North Ridge has an established presence in southern Palm Beach County, with approximately 30-40 percent of its patients coming from that area. North Ridge's mortality statistics, along with its utilization and reputation, mark it as an excellent facility with a quality open heart surgery program. Moreover, its charges for open heart surgery services are significantly below those of Palm Beach County facilities, as well as those proposed by Boca. North Ridge's location makes it easily accessible to the patients of southern Palm Beach County, and physicians have not experienced any significant problems gaining access to that facility. Moreover, Boca's patients have been accorded first priority at North Ridge. With new technology and the development of various drug therapies, it is extremely rare for a patient to have such an urgent need for open heart surgery that transportation becomes a significant issue. When urgently needed, North Ridge, as well as Delray, can adequately serve the needs of southern Palm Beach County. In sum, there is a viable alternative for residents of southern Palm Beach County to Boca's application, and that is their continued referral to North Ridge. That program is easily accessible, reasonably priced, and historically sound. On the other hand, to approve Boca's application would significantly adversely impact North Ridge, since their service areas in southern Palm Beach County and northern Broward County overlap in most material respects. The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operations. Each applicant has demonstrated that it either has or can obtain all resources, including health manpower, management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures. Boca and Martin each have the funds on hand for project accomplishment, and St. Mary's has demonstrated its ability to acquire such funds through donations, as needed, for project accomplishment. Each applicant is a quality provider of acute care services, and has demonstrated through its existing programs its ability to attract and retain appropriate management and health manpower for project accomplishment, notwithstanding the current nursing shortage being experienced locally and nationally. Accordingly, while the cost of skilled personnel to staff their open heart surgery programs may exceed their initial estimates in some cases, any of the applicants should be able to appropriately staff their program through the use of existing staff, national or local recruitment, or a combination thereof. While each applicant has adequate resources, the viability of Boca's application has been challenged based on its failure to provide a complete list of all capital projects in its application, as required by Section 381.707(2)(a), Florida Statutes. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the only item listed in its application was for an "expansion/upgrade" of the physical plant at a proposed cost of $6.2 million. That information was an accurate financial description of that project at the time, but did not include other items relating to other construction and equipment purchases to which Boca was committed. In this regard, as of September 1989, Boca had committed itself to an additional $1,261,400 for projects relating to its 1989 fiscal year and $1,380,039 for projects relating to its 1990 fiscal year, for a total of $2,641,439. All of these items will be capitalized by Boca, and it could have provided a list or summary of such projects at the time of filing its application in September 1989. Boca's failure to do so, failed to comply with section 381.707(2)(a), and prevented the Department from having a complete picture of Boca's financial resources to complete the project. The extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district, and the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care service to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Of the proposed programs, only those advanced by St. Mary's and Martin would be reasonably accessible to all residents of the service district. In this regard, the geography and population densities of the district demonstrate that Palm Beach County, at 1,993 square miles, is the single most populous county in the district, with a 1989 population of 873,347. The northern four counties are geographically larger than Palm Beach County, at 2,404 square miles, and contained a 1989 population of 360,664, nearly one-third of the total population of the district. The most dense population in the northern four counties is the Martin County/Port St. Lucie area. The district itself measures 100 miles in length, north to south, in a straight line. Martin is located approximately 60 miles from the southern boarder of the district, St. Mary's is approximately 30 miles, and Boca is 2.1 miles Considering Boca's geographic location, it would not be readily accessible to all residents of the district. Martin and St. Mary's are, on the other hand, sited such that they could, geographically, address the needs of the district as a whole. However, St. Mary's, like Boca, is proximate to a number of open heart surgery providers and would not improve geographic accessibility within the district, as would Martin. Further bearing on the issue of accessibility, is the applicants' commitment to service Medicaid and the medically indigent. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that Boca has not been an historic provider of Medicaid or indigent care, and for its fiscal 1989 dedicated less than 1 percent of its total admissions to Medicaid and indigent care. On the other hand, St. Mary's patient mix has included 15 percent Medicaid and 5 percent indigent, and it is the highest Medicaid provider in the district. Martin has, although to a lesser degree than St. Mary's, also demonstrated a commitment to the underserved by historically serving 5 1/2 percent Medicaid and indigent patients. In its application, Boca "committed" to provide at least 2 percent of gross revenue generated by the open heart surgery program for the provision of charity or indigent care on an annual basis. Considering Boca's nominal historic commitment to indigent care, its location in an affluent area of Palm Beach County, and its closed staff, Boca could not reasonably achieve such level of care, and would not increase accessibility for underserved groups. Comparatively, St. Mary's and, to a lesser extent, Martin, would increase accessibility for underserved groups should the need exist. Here, St. Mary's has projected that 7 percent of its total patient days will be devoted to Medicaid patients and 3 percent to indigent patients, and Martin has projected 5 percent Medicaid and indigent. The costs and methods of the proposed construction. In its application, Boca estimated a total project cost of $7,499,856 to construct and equip a new addition to house its open heart surgery program. That figure included a $6,147,900 construction fund and $783,056 for equipment costs to complete the two operating suites, recovery areas and ten-bed surgical intensive care unit proposed. Its estimates were, however, deficient. Boca's equipment budget, as it appeared in its application, was prepared by an individual who had no expertise in this area, and was deficient in terms of the actual equipment listed and its cost. To properly equip and furnish the two operating room suites, recovery room areas and a ten-bed surgical intensive care unit proposed by Boca would require an expenditure in excess of $1,690,000. Adding necessary instrumentation and a backup pump could add an additional $50-60,000. At hearing, Boca sought to minimize the significance of its underestimation by offering the testimony of an expert in medical equipment planning, cost estimating and procurement. That expert, Richard Drinkwine, was most credible and found, upon review of the Boca proposal that it was wanting in both equipment and cost. In his opinion a more reasonable cost to purchase moverable equipment would be $1,027,267, and a reasonable estimate for the furniture needs of Boca would be $92,257. This estimate was based on the assumption that Boca would not initially equip its second operating room, exam rooms or recovery rooms. To do so, would add an additional cost of $411,329 (movable and fixed equipment) for the second operating room and $160,000 to equip the recovery areas. Adding needed instrumentation and a back up pump would bring Boca's equipment costs to over $1,740,000. 9/ While Boca underestimated its equipment costs, the proof demonstrates that its construction estimate of $6,147,900 was overstated. The major factor which accounts for the overstatement by Boca in its application was an over estimate of the cost to construct the first floor of its addition, which is a covered parking area. In fact, Boca will be able to construct its proposed addition for approximately $5,226,397, or $921,503 less than it estimated in its application. Although Boca could realize a significant savings on construction costs, and those savings would be adequate to almost offset the deficiencies in its equipment budget, the restructuring of its application at this time is not appropriate under the Department's Rule 10-5.010(2)(b). Notably, while the total cost figures might be the same, the additional equipment that is needed to equip Boca's program, and that was omitted from its application, is significant. In addition to Boca's failure to demonstrate the reasonableness of its cost proposal, it is also found that Boca's proposal is oversized and overpriced to meet any demands Boca could reasonably expect to fulfill at any time in the foreseeable future. First, each of the two operating rooms proposed by Boca are over 1,100 square feet in size. Such size is more than twice the size reasonably needed to accommodate open heart surgery. Second, areas in the central core and lounges are also larger then needed. More significantly, Boca is proposing a four-bed recovery area and ten dedicated SICU beds. Even assuming there is a need for an additional open heart surgery program in the district, Boca could never reasonably expect to capture sufficient market share to justify the capital expenditure necessary to warrant a 10-bed SICU. Ten SICU beds could handle between 900 and 1400 open heart patients in a year. There are no programs anywhere in South Florida, no matter how mature or well respected, that have achieved utilization close to that level, and it is not reasonable for Boca to expect to achieve such volumes. Significantly, a portion of the capital cost for Boca's project would, under the present system, be passed along to the federal government by the capital cost pass through. By this mechanism, over $3,500,000 of Boca's project would ultimately be reimbursed to the hospital in the form of Medicare payments. Compared to Boca's cost proposal, St. Mary's is modest. Here, the schematics submitted by St. Mary's with its application and omissions response depict the existing surgical suites at St. Mary's and the minor renovations necessary to convert an existing room into the proposed open heart surgery suite. As proposed, St. Mary's program would have a dedicated open heart surgery suite, as well as a backup operating room. Recovery would be accommodated in its existing 16-bed ICU. In its application, St. Mary's estimated a maximum project cost of $850,000 to remodel its existing facility and equip its proposed open heart surgery program. That figure included up to $100,000 for remodeling costs, and up to $700,000 for equipment costs. St. Mary's estimates are reasonable and cost effective whether its program is dedicated to adult and pediatric open heart surgery service or simply adult services. Significantly, the equipment needed to perform open heart surgery on adults and pediatrics is the same except for some special instruments. That cost, at less than $25,000, is nominal and does not affect the reasonableness of St. Mary's estimates. As proposed in its application, Martin would construct 2,800 square feet of new space at its facility for the purpose of implementing an open heart surgery program. The location of the project is the hospital's first floor adjacent to both the cardiac catheterization laboratory and the existing surgical suites. This location will provide rapid access for cardiac catheterization emergencies requiring open heart intervention and will share common areas with the existing surgical suites, minimizing additional construction and project cost. It is also proximate to a 9-bed surgical intensive care unit. Of the eight existing operating rooms at Martin, two are large enough to serve as backup open heart operating rooms in the event of an emergency, but Martin has not proposed to establish, or budgeted the necessary equipment to establish, a backup operating room. Martin, like St. Mary's, proposes a modest expenditure, compared to Boca, for the initiation of its open heart surgery program. In this regard, Martin's application estimates its total project cost at $1,239,029. That figure includes a total construction cost budget of $796,669, and an equipment budget at $375,360. Martin's costs and methods of proposed construction are reasonable. While the proof demonstrates that approximately $411,000 is a reasonable cost to equip an open heart surgery suite, it also demonstrated that Martin currently has on hand some necessary equipment, such as cell-savers and heating-cooling machines. Under such circumstances, Martin could reasonably equip its program within its $375,360 budget. It could not, however, equip a backup operating room within such budget, and without a backup operating room could not reasonably expect to be able to handle 500 open heart cases a year, as required by rule 10-5.011(f)3d, given the need to back up its cardiac cath program. The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. To assess the financial feasibility of the project, Boca's pro forma of income and expense, contained within its application, projects 192 patients during the first year of operation of its open heart surgery program and 211 patients during the second year. Projected charges for both years are based on $55,430 for DRG 104 and $41,942 for DRG 106 with an average length of stay of 10 days. Payor class mix is estimated to be as follows: Medicare 70 percent, Medicaid 0 percent (nominal), insurance 25 percent, other 3 percent, and indigent 2 percent. Net revenue over expenses for year one is projected to be $1,303,312, and for year two to be $1,597,959. Boca's proposed charges, utilization levels, and payor mix are reasonable. However, its pro forma contained unreasonable assumptions regarding average length of stay, total deductions and expenses. 10/ At hearing, Boca made no effort to defend the unreasonable assumptions it had presented to the Department through the pro forma contained in its application. Rather, conceding the unreasonableness of its assumptions, it sought to minimize their import through the testimony of Rufus Harris, an expert in health care finance and accounting. Such objective was not, however, attained. Mr. Harris, employed during the course of these proceedings, actually prepared a completely new pro forma for the Boca program. That pro forma significantly changed Boca's average length of stay from 10 to 16 days; significantly reduced the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) in open heart surgery, recovery and the surgical intensive care unit (SIC) from 39.3 to 24.1; increased the number of support FTEs from 25 to 30 or 32; increased the cost per FTE in the open heart surgery program by $800; increased the cost for each support FTE by $14,000; included the indigent care assessment ($68,000), utility cost ($108,000) and malpractice insurance cost ($17,000) that had been omitted from the application; increased the supply cost by $618,000; and reduced deductions from revenue by $186,000. But for the charges, utilization levels, and payor mix, Mr. Harris' pro forma is a complete revision of Boca's application pro forma, and demonstrates that such pro forma was not based on reasonable assumptions. Although not based on reasonable assumptions, Mr. Harris opined that such failing is not material since Boca's pro forma, like his pro forma, calculated a profit. Mr. Harris' opinion is rejected. The bottom line profit he derived was based on a substantial change in Boca's proposed program. Such slight of hand does not address the financial feasibility of the program Boca proposed in its application. Boca's proposal, developed through the testimony of its construction, equipment and financial experts, bears little resemblance to its initial application, and must be rejected as an impermissible amendment. Boca's application proposed two operating rooms. As such, Boca could facially handle at least 500 open heart surgery cases per year. As amended, with one operating room, Boca could not reasonably expect to attain such level of operations, given the need to back up its cardiac catheterization program, contrary to Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)3d. As proposed, Boca's open heart surgery program would include recovery areas and a 10-bed SICU, fully staffed. As amended, the SICU would be staffed with one FTE and other staffing substantially reduced. Through downsizing, Boca would presume to significantly alter its proposal, and thereby demonstrate the reasonableness of its cost and financial feasibility projections. Such was not, however, the proposal submitted to the Department for review, and it cannot be permitted, at this stage of the proceedings, to amend its proposal in such material respects. Accordingly, based on the record, Boca has failed to demonstrate the financial feasibility of its proposal. 11/ St. Mary's pro forma of income and expenses projects 200 adult and 10 pediatric open heart surgery cases during its first year of operation, and 240 adult and 20 pediatric during its second year of operation. Separate pro formas describe the adult and pediatric parts of St. Mary's proposal. Actual charges proposed by St. Mary's will vary by DRG, as will average length of stay. The weighted average charges are, however, projected to be $38,000 for adult services and $43,025 for pediatric services during its first year of operation, and $39,900 for adult services and $45,176 for pediatric services during its second year of operation, based on a 10 day average length of stay. Payor class mix for adults is estimated as follows: Medicare 50 percent, Medicaid 7 percent, self pay/commercial 40 percent, and indigent 3 percent. Payor class mix for pediatrics is estimated to be as follows: Medicare 0 percent, Medicaid 50 percent, self pay/commercial 40 percent, and indigent 10 percent. Net revenue over expenses for its adult program is projected, on an incremental cost basis, to be $2,297,566 for year one, and $2,885,102 for year two. Net revenue for its pediatric program is projected, on an incremental cost basis, to be $62,326 for year one, and $224,797 for year two. St. Mary's proposed charges, average length of stay, utilization levels, payor mix, as well as its assumptions regarding total deductions and expenses are not reasonable. St. Mary's proposed charges were not shown to be reasonably achievable. Rather, where, as here, a facility's charge structure is based on consumption of services, the increased costs associated with an open heart program, discussed infra, would translate into significantly higher charges than those proposed by St. Mary's. St. Mary's application contains no data to reasonably support its conclusions that it will achieve 200 adult cases in year one and 240 adult cases in year two, nor did the proof it offered at hearing demonstrate such potential. Rather, the persuasive proof demonstrated that St. Mary's could not reasonably expect to attract more than 80 adult open heart cases in its first year of operation, and that it would not even be able to attract 200 open heart cases during its third year of operation. Notably, the area St. Mary's proposes to serve is currently adequately served by two open heart surgery programs. St. Mary's pro forma contains several other serious flaws. First, its gross patient revenues are driven by an average length of stay of 10 days. Such assumption is unreasonable, and St. Mary's could more reasonably expect an average length of stay of 15-17 days, with significantly higher expenses associated with the greater consumption of resources occasioned by such increased length of stay. Second, St. Mary's payor mix is significantly understated for Medicare. Here, the proof demonstrates that St. Mary's could reasonably expect to achieve a 68-70 percent Medicare utilization rate, as opposed to the 50 percent it projected. Such increase would significantly reduce its self pay/commercial, assuming its Medicaid and indigent utilization levels are to be accorded any credence, and significantly increase its deductions from revenue. Third, St. Mary's pro forma significantly understated expenses, primarily with regard to supplies and FTEs. Had St. Mary's reasonably calculated its average length of stay at 15-17 days, its expenses for supplies and FTEs would have been substantially higher. Additionally, St. Mary's application only addresses the need to tap incremental FTEs in the nursing area, whereas initation of an open heart program would have a tremendous impact on all services in the hospital, such as lab, pharmacy and social services, with attendant higher costs. Based on the opinion of Richard Cascio, an expert in health care finance, which is credited, St. Mary's proposal is not financially feasible in the long term. 12/ Regarding St. Mary's pediatric open heart program, the proof, as heretofore found, fails to support is utilization projection of 10 cases in year one and 20 cases in year two. Therefore, St. Mary's has failed to demonstrate the long term financial feasibility of that program operated, as proposed, concurrently with an adult program. As a stand alone program, neither St. Mary's application nor the proof at hearing reasonably address such a prospect. However, since the pediatric program was not shown to be financially feasible with the adult program bearing a significant portion of operating expenses, it must also be concluded that the pediatric program would not be financially feasible were it to carry all operating expenses. Martin's pro forma of income and expenses is predicated upon 148 adult open heart surgery cases during its first year of operation, and 195 cases during its second year of operation. Actual charges proposed by Martin will vary by DRG, as will average length of stay. Projected average charges are, however, projected to be $41,000 during its first year of operation and $43,080 during its second year of operation, based on a 15.7 day average length of stay. Payor class mix is estimated as follows: Medicare 63.0 percent, Medicaid 2.5 percent, private pay/commercial insurance 32.5 percent, and free care 2 percent. Net revenue over expenses is projected to be $260,000 for year one and $337,000 for year two. Martin's utilization levels, proposed charges, payor mix, and average length of stay are reasonable. Martin's pro forma did, however, contain some unreasonable assumptions regarding expenses, primarily staffing costs. 13/ Martin's pro forma estimates staffing costs based on the manpower requirements (FTEs) and salaries set forth in Table 11 of its application. It further calculates fringe benefits at 20 percent of salaries. Notably, however, the number of people needed to staff a program at a given FTE level is significantly higher than the raw FTE number. Accordingly, since Martin projected its salary expense and fringe benefits based on FTE's, its expenses associated with those items are understated. Further, the salaries Martin proposed in Table 11 for its operating room nurses are entry level salaries and Martin could not reasonably expect to recruit experienced open heart surgery personnel at such rates. Nor is its projected salary for a perfusionist, at $59,551 reasonable. A more reasonable figure would be in excess of $75,000. Even though the proof offered in opposition to Martin's application did demonstrate that Martin's assumptions regarding salary expenses were understated, it failed to demonstrate that Martin could not meet current market demands and still be profitable. Rather, Martin's proposal, while generating a lower bottom line, will still be profitable if such increased expenses are considered, and it is financially feasible in the long term. While each of the applicant's have demonstrated the immediate financial feasibility of their projects, by demonstrating the availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation, only Martin has demonstrated the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Other criteria bearing on capital expenditure proposals for the provision of new health services to inpatients. In cases of capital expenditure proposals for the provision of new health services to inpatients, Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department reference each of the following in its findings of fact: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. That existing inpatient facilities pro- viding inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the instant case, none of the foregoing criteria can be answered in the affirmative. Rather, the proof demonstrates that less costly, more efficient or more appropriate alternatives currently exist through increased utilization of existing facilities. It further demonstrates that two of the existing three providers have not yet attained a 350 case per year level of operation, and that their services are therefore not yet being used at an appropriate level. Existing utilization levels and capacity further demonstrate that patients will not experience any serious problems in accessing such services. Finally, the applicants further failed to demonstrate that they had considered alternatives to new construction and had implemented them to the maximum extent possible. In the case of all applicants' there is no proof of any effort to initiate sharing arrangements. On the matter of Boca's complaints regarding delays experienced in effecting patient transfers by ambulance, as well as the inadequacy of such ambulances and their breakdowns, it offered no proof that it had investigated other ambulance services or its ability to operate its own service and found them impractable. Notably, such services are an item over which Boca has significant control, and its failure to investigate alternatives in this regard evidences the insignificance of any such problem. The criteria on balance. In evaluating the applications at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, or Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, has been overlooked. The applicants' failure to demonstrate need, either numeric or not normal circumstances, as well as their failure to demonstrate compliance with Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes, is, however, dispositive of their applications, and such failure is not outweighed by any other or combination of any other criteria. Further, even were the fixed need pool accorded the deference suggested by the Department, the other indicators of need subsumed within other criteria would dispel such illusion, and again compel the conclusion that there is no need in this case. Had numeric need been demonstrated, and the need requirements encompassed within section 381.705(2) satisfied, the proof would still fail to support an award to Boca or St. Mary's. Rather, among the competing applicants, Martin was shown to best satisfy the pertinent review criteria on balance and would, under such circumstances, be the favored applicant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying the applications of Boca, St. Mary's and Martin for a certificate of need to establish an open heart surgery program in District IX. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws in Florida. On February 5, 1993, AHCA published a need for one additional adult open heart surgery program in District 9. AHCA defines open heart surgery as a "tertiary health service" which, due to complexity, cost, and the relationship between volume and quality of care should be concentrated in a limited number of hospitals. Rule 59C-1.002(66), Florida Administrative Code. District 9 is located generally along the southeast coast of Florida and includes Palm Beach, Indian River, Martin, St. Lucie, and Okeechobee Counties. Palm Beach is the county at the southern end of District 9. The parties have referred to the counties other than Palm Beach, as the four northern counties. Martin County is north of Palm Beach, and St. Lucie, Okeechobee, and Indian River are further north. The applicants in this proceeding, seeking to establish an additional District 9 adult open heart surgery program, are Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Lawnwood Regional Medical Center, Inc. ("Lawnwood"), St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. ("St. Mary's"), and Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. ("Martin Memorial"). Lawnwood Regional Medical Center Lawnwood is a 335-bed for-profit hospital located in Ft. Pierce, in St. Lucie County. Lawnwood has CON approval for the construction of an additional 18 skilled nursing beds and 10 level II NICU beds. In addition to the 335 licensed beds, Lawnwood has 16 unlicensed bassinets for a total of 351. Lawnwood's 335 licensed beds include 60 psychiatric beds, located one and a half blocks away from the main Lawnwood building, at a facility called Harbor Shores. Lawnwood has 260 general acute care beds. When Lawnwood filed its application, its parent corporation was HCA, Inc., a subsidiary of the Hospital Corporation of America. HCA was also the parent corporation of the Medical Center of Port St. Lucie, the only other hospital in St. Lucie County, and of Raulerson Hospital in Okeechobee County. After the application was filed and prior to hearing, a subsidiary of Columbia Health Care Corporation merged with HCA. As a result of the merger, the administrator of Lawnwood also serves as the market manager assigned to coordinate the services offered at the three hospitals. Lawnwood is classified by the State as a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid-reimbursed services for financially needy patients. In 1993, 21 percent of its total patient days were attributable to Medicaid and 4 percent to charity. Lawnwood operates an outpatient cardiac catheterization ("cath") laboratory and, in 1992, received CON approval to perform inpatient cardiac caths in a lab which was scheduled to open in October 1994. The outpatient lab opened in 1988 at Lawnwood. In 1989, 561 cardiac cath lab procedures were performed at Lawnwood, 494 in 1990, 362 in 1991, and 468 procedures in 1993. Although 602 procedures were reported to the local health council in 1993, these were performed on 468 patients, which is the number consistent with reporting methods of other cath labs. As a result of the diagnostic caths, 45 patients were referred for open heart surgery, and 98 for angioplasties. Of the 45 patients referred for open heart surgery, 26 were actually scheduled for the procedure. Lawnwood proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program for a total project cost of $4.99 million. The project includes construction of two dedicated operating rooms, renovations to provide a 4-bed dedicated recovery room, and conversion of 12 acute care beds to construct a 12-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU"). St. Mary's Hospital St. Mary's is a 430-bed not-for-profit hospital, which has been operated 55 years by the Franciscan Sisters, currently through a parent organization called the Allegheny Health System. St. Mary's is the largest hospital in District 9, and the largest provider of womens' and childrens' medical services in the district. St. Mary's is a designated regional perinatal intensive care center with level II and III neonatal intensive care units, and is the designated level II trauma center for the northern area of Palm Beach County. Like Lawnwood, St. Mary's is recognized by the State as a disproportionate share provider of services to Medicaid reimbursed and indigent patients. It is approximately sixth in the state in the provision of services to financially needy patients. St. Mary's cardiac cath lab began operation in February 1988. There were 267 inpatient and 116 outpatient cardiac caths at St. Mary's lab in 1991, 240 and 118 respectively in 1992, and 171 and 115 respectively from January to November 1993. St. Mary's operates a 10-bed coronary care unit. St. Mary's proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program for a total of $2,166,351, funded by private donors. The project will include renovations to two existing operating rooms and to a recovery room area. Martin Memorial Medical Center Martin Memorial is a 336-bed not-for-profit acute care hospital, with an additional 17 nursery/bassinets which are not required to be in the total licensed beds. The ultimate parent corporation for the Martin Memorial facilities and its foundation is Martin Memorial Health Systems, a not-for- profit corporation with a volunteer community board of directors. Martin Memorial's beds are divided between two campuses, with 236 beds in Stuart, and 100 in Port Salerno. The Port Salerno hospital opened in September, 1992 and is approximately 8 miles south of Stuart. Included in the 236 beds at Martin Memorial in Stuart are 5 level II neonatal intensive care beds, 23 intensive care unit beds, 45 ventilator, telemetry or other monitored beds, and 134 medical/surgical beds. Martin Memorial's existing cardiac services include a cardiac cath lab which opened in 1989 and, that year, reported 250 procedures. Caths at Martin reached the highest volume, 905 in 1991, followed by 799 in 1992, and 867 in 1993. Martin Memorial proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Stuart for a total project cost of $3,594,720. Martin's project includes a newly constructed open heart surgery suite adjacent to the cardiac cath lab and, as a back-up, renovation of an existing operating room. As a part of an approved, separate CON application, Martin proposes to renovate and expand to accommodate a 13-bed surgical intensive care unit ("SICU") with four private rooms dedicated as a cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU"). The expenses associated with the four CVICU rooms are included in the total open heart surgery project costs. Existing Open Heart Surgery Providers In Or Adjacent To District 9 All of the existing adult open heart surgery programs in District 9 are in Palm Beach County, at Delray Community Hospital ("Delray"), JFK Medical Center, Inc. ("JFK"), and AMI Palm Beach Gardens Community Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center ("Palm Beach Gardens"). The same services are also available in the adjacent districts to the north in District 7 at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County, and to the south in District 10 at AMI North Ridge General Hospital in Broward County. In addition, established referral patterns exist from District 9 to Miami Heart Institute in Dade County and Holy Cross Hospital in Broward County. All residents of District 9 have access to open heart surgery within two hours average drive time, which exceeds the geographic access standard of Rule 59C-1.033(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Delray is located in southern Palm Beach County and is a level II trauma center for that area. JFK is a 369-bed not-for-profit hospital located in Atlantis, Florida, approximately midway between Boca Raton and West Palm Beach, in north central Palm Beach County. The corporation which owns and operates JFK, also is the parent of a fund-raising foundation, and other subsidiaries, some of which are for-profit corporations. JFK has had an open heart surgery program since 1987. JFK's two operating rooms are equipped and sized identically, and located in close proximity to the two room cardiac cath lab and the intensive care unit. JFK has the capacity to perform up to 1000 cases annually, while actual annual volumes at JFK have ranged from 350 to 370 cases. Palm Beach Gardens is a 204-bed for-profit hospital located in the northern part of Palm Beach County. It operates the oldest open heart surgery program in the district, having started in 1982 or 1983. In fiscal year 1992- 1993, there were 477 open heart surgery patients at Palm Beach Gardens, of which 173 resided in the four northern counties of the District. Palm Beach Gardens has 11 operating suites, 7 capable of being used for open heart surgeries, and 4 dedicated solely to open heart surgeries. The current capacity of Palm Beach Gardens is 900 open heart procedures a year. By adding staff, Palm Beach Gardens could reach a volume of 1100 cases a year. While Palm Beach Gardens has excess capacity in its operating rooms, at the peak of its seasonal demand, delays occur in scheduling non-emergency surgeries due to inadequate capacity in its 24-bed intensive care unit. Occupancy levels in the 24 beds were 112.5 percent in 1993, according to Treasure Coast Health Council data. Although Palm Beach Gardens also suggested that an 8-bed overflow unit supplemented the 24 beds, accounting reports do not reflect billings for their use as intensive care services. Comparison of Applicants and Applications Subsection 408.035(1)(a) -- need in relation to state and local plans The 1989 state health plan, Healthy Floridians, includes six preferences for the review of open heart surgery applications. The first preference favors applicants establishing programs in counties with a population over 100,000 and a higher percentage than statewide average of 18.8 percent elderly persons. All the experts in health planning testified that the term "elderly" in this preference means persons 65 years of age and older, which is consistent with the age group with the greatest demand for open heart surgery. St. Mary, Lawnwood, and Martin meet the preference. The 1993 population of Palm Beach County was 900,000, St. Lucie's was 162, 598, and Martin's was 108,089. The population age 65 and over as a percentage of total population was 24 percent in Palm Beach, 21.2 percent in Lawnwood, and 27.5 percent in Martin County. The second state preference is for applicants who can demonstrate the ability to perform at least 350 annual procedures within 3 years of initiating an open heart program. Lawnwood reasonably projected a total of 314 open heart surgery procedures in year one, 350 in year two, and 386 in year three. Lawnwood's utilization projections are conservatively based on the assumption that, by the third year, 70 percent of its open heart patients will come from St. Lucie and Okeechobee Counties, which are already in its primary service area. Martin Memorial's expert questioned Lawnwood's projected open heart volumes from Martin and Indian River Counties, based on its acute care and cath lab patient origins. In addition, traditional referral patterns show Indian River patients going north to Brevard and Orange Counties, while Martin County patients go south to Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties. Considering the acute care and cath lab competition within the four northern counties, the absence in that area of any competition for an open heart surgery program, the relative success of Lawnwood's outpatient cath lab despite its limitations and competition, and its affiliation with Port St. Lucie and Raulerson hospitals, Lawnwood established the reasonableness of its projected utilization. Lawnwood also reasonably expects to reverse some of the 73.5 percent out-migration for open heart surgery by residents of the northern four counties. See, Findings of Fact 27, infra. Martin Memorial's projections of 249 cases in year one, 317 in year two, and over 350 in year three are also reasonable. Martin Memorial's underlying assumptions, that its open heart surgery market share will at least equal that of its acute care, that it will keep some patients previously referred from its cath lab, and that, it, like Lawnwood, would reverse some district out-migration, are also reasonable. Martin Memorial referred 172 patients from its cath lab for open heart surgery in 1993, in contrast to 45 from St. Mary's, and 41 from Lawnwood. Martin Memorial's projections are based on 1991-1992 use rates which declined in 1993. Despite the one year decline and some expert predictions of a continuing downward trend in use rates, Martin Memorial's projections are bolstered by the fact that its open heart surgery primary service area includes Port St. Lucie, which contains 40 percent of the population of St. Lucie County and is the fastest growing area of District 9. That area, which is closer to Stuart, but is located in the St. Lucie County community in which Lawnwood has an affiliate hospital, supports both the projections of Lawnwood and Martin Memorial, and could be served by an open heart surgery program at either facility. Although Martin Memorial's projected volumes are higher than and inconsistent with other projections made by Martin Memorial, the reasonableness of the projections was established. St. Mary's projected 171 open heart surgeries in year one, 265 in year two, and 363 in year three. The projections are based on the use of a gravity model designed to determine potential volume "attracted" to the program by using the size of the hospital and the proximity of patients as factors. The model used a zip code level analysis to take into consideration the fact that St. Mary's expects a sub-county primary service area, as a result of sharing the county with the three existing District 9 providers. The projected utilization was reduced, by St. Mary's expert, to take into consideration an expected start- up factor. There is, however, substantial expert testimony that the variables and/or the weight attributed to each variable included in this gravity model are inadequate to explain actual or potential volumes. There is substantial evidence that the size of a hospital is not reliable enough to be one of only two variables in a model. For example, JFK although larger than Palm Beach Gardens, only exceeded 350 cases in 1991-1992 by 16, when smaller Palm Beach Gardens with an older open heart surgery program reached 499 cases. The model also fails to consider actual physician referral patterns. St. Mary's projections and its ability to exceed 350 cases also depend on its ability to attract Medicaid patients over and above the patients projected by the gravity model. See, Findings of Fact 35, infra. The volume of diagnostic cardiac caths at St. Mary's is low and has declined over the past three years. In part, the volume is low because there is no open heart surgery back-up available in the event the diagnostic cardiac cath indicates that need. Cath patients suspected of needing more invasive procedures are diverted by referring physicians to hospitals with angioplasty and open heart programs. But that explanation of St. Mary's volumes apparently is incomplete, since, by contrast Boca Raton Community Hospital and Martin Memorial, which also have no open heart surgery back-up, have had more steadily increasing cardiac cath volumes. The fact that St. Mary's cath volumes are low and its open heart surgery projections unreliable is also attributable to the fact that St. Mary's is located 11 miles north of JFK and 5 1/2 miles south of Palm Beach Gardens, therefore, at a competitive disadvantage with these established programs. The third state health plan preference applies to proposals, for improving access for persons currently leaving the district. With almost half of Palm Beach County open heart surgery patients receiving the service outside the county, St. Mary's claims to be in the best location to reverse that trend if geographical access is the problem. St. Mary's also points to the convenience of access to its hospital, which is 2 miles from Interstate 95, the main north-south transportation corridor through the district. Approval of St. Mary's proposal will not, however, reverse out-migration to the extent that it is attributable to factors such as seasonal residency, established physician referral practices from northern areas of District 9 to providers in adjacent districts, and managed care contractual arrangements. Lawnwood is located in the largest, fastest growing, and most centrally located county of the northern four counties. St. Lucie County is adjacent to each of the other three northern counties, with Martin to the south, Okeechobee to the west, and Indian River to the north. The level of "out-migration," defined as those patients leaving the district to receive the service, increases dramatically from south to north in District 9, from 55 percent in Martin, 70 percent in St. Lucie, 80 percent in Okeechobee, to 100 percent in Indian River County. Considering growth in western St. Lucie County, the needs of St. Lucie and Okeechobee County residents, and the alternative to out-migration provided for both Indian River and Martin County residents, the Lawnwood location is superior to that of Martin Memorial in terms of the ability to improve access to the service. See, also Findings of Fact 23-24, supra. The fourth state preference for applicants with a history of providing disproportionate share Medicaid and charity care favors the applications of St. Mary's and Lawnwood, in that order. Martin Memorial argues that it also meets the disproportionate share criteria, which the preference requires, although it has not been designated by the State, which the preference does not require. Relying on the criteria in subsection 409.911(2), Florida Statutes, Martin claims to meet or exceed the disproportionate share requirements for 1990, despite the agency's reliance on 1989 data. Assuming, arguendo, that Martin is entitled to the preference, the comparative ranking of St. Mary's first, Lawnwood second, and Martin third remains the same. In addition, the preference looks at a history of disproportionate service, as does subsection 408.035(1)(n), in part, which Martin failed to establish. For 1991, St. Mary's provided 15.8 percent of total District 9 Medicaid, Lawnwood provided 11.7 percent, and Martin Memorial, 1.7 percent. Martin Memorial established that it treated a larger number of Medicaid patients with circulatory diseases as a proportion of Medicaid patients in Martin County, as compared to St. Lucie County residents treated at Lawnwood. However, the absolute number of circulatory disease Medicaid patients treated at Lawnwood was approximately two and half times the number treated at Martin Memorial. Statistical indicators, including per capita income and low income patients diagnosed with circulatory diseases, demonstrate that residents of St. Lucie and Okeechobee Counties are less affluent, and more medically needy than those in Palm Beach and Martin Counties. The fifth state preference favors the applicant offering a service with the highest quality of care at the least expense. The preference includes an explanation that larger facilities usually have more available resources to meet the preference. As the largest hospital with the lowest cost per case by the second year of the program, $22,659, St. Mary's best meets the preference. Martin's projected cost is $26,909 and Lawnwood's is $27,085. Martin Memorial's expert calculated total expenses per case at $23,221 for Martin Memorial, $22,615 for St. Mary's, and $23,645 for Lawnwood. St. Mary's projected charges of $50,600 in year one and $53,100 in year two. Lawnwood projected charges of $55,199 in year one, and $58,133 in year two. Martin Memorial projected charges of $55,594, in year one, $58,955 in year two. Total project costs were estimated at $2,166,351 for St. Mary's, $3,594,720 for Martin Memorial, and $4,995,039 for Lawnwood. Using either set of cost data or the projected charges, St. Mary's best meets this preference based on size, the lowest total project costs, and the lowest projected charges for open heart surgery services. Martin Memorial and Lawnwood have, as described by one expert, remarkably similar costs, and the same is true of projected average charges per case. The final state preference favors applicants who will include protocols for the use of innovative therapeutic alternatives to surgery for appropriate patients, including streptokinase and tissue plaminogen activator therapies. Lawnwood and Martin Memorial currently use streptokinase. St. Mary's performs emergency angioplasties, and uses streptokinase therapy. All three applicants meet the preference for providing and/or planning to provide alternative therapies to open heart surgery. The first District 9 local health plan allocation factor gives a priority for established cardiac cath programs. Based on expert testimony, a cardiac cath program exceeding 150 annual procedures is established. All the applicants exceed the minimum volume and, therefore, comply with the allocation factor. Martin Memorial has the highest volume in an operational inpatient and outpatient lab and, meets the allocation factor better than Lawnwood and St. Mary's. The other District 9 factor favors applicants with a documented commitment to provide services regardless of patient's ability to pay. Lawnwood projects 2.51 percent Medicaid and 1.5 percent charity care in year two. St. Mary's projects providing 5 percent Medicaid and 3.5 percent charity care in year two. Martin Memorial projects 2 percent Medicaid and 1.9 percent charity care in year two. St. Mary's best meets the factor, followed by Lawnwood, and then Martin Memorial. More Medicaid residents live in the primary service area of Lawnwood than that of Martin Memorial. Martin has filed CON compliance reports demonstrating difficulty in meeting prior CON Medicaid conditions due to the demographics of its service area. Subsections 408.035(1)(b) - availability, quality of care, efficiency, accessibility, extent of utilization of like and existing programs; 408.035(2)(b) - appropriate and efficient use of existing inpatient facilities; and 408.035(2)(d) - serious problems in obtaining care without proposed new program(s). With the exception of seasonal excess demand for Palm Beach Gardens' ICU beds, the evidence demonstrates there is excess capacity in existing District 9 providers. Geographic access to existing providers in or adjacent to the district is also reasonable. The quality of care at existing providers is excellent. St. Mary's asserts that its proposal will best assist in alleviating access barriers to open heart surgery for low income persons with limited geographic mobility. One expert estimated that 38 District 9 Medicaid patients needed, but did not receive, open heart surgeries in 1991, based on the use rates for commercially insured patients. In general, the highest density of population with a demand for invasive heart therapies and open heart surgeries is concentrated in southern and central Palm Beach County. However, expert testimony established that Medicaid patients are underserved for reasons, other than the policies of the existing providers. The evidence does not show that St. Mary's proposal can overcome these financial barriers. St. Mary's is a level II trauma center, and maintains that trauma patients in need of open heart surgery are at risk of death from having to wait for transfers. Transfers of patients from St. Mary's to Palm Beach Gardens or JFK for open heart surgery take from three hours to three days, averaging 8 to 12 hours, in approximately 30 percent of the cases. From May 1991 through January 1994, over 2600 trauma patients were treated at St. Mary's. Expert testimony, after review of medical records, indicates that from one to six patients needed open heart surgery, an insufficient number to constitute a not normal circumstance for the establishment of an open heart program at St. Mary's. Palm Beach Gardens' position that an additional adult open heart surgery program is not needed in District 9 is rejected. Open heart surgery use rates are not increasing nationally or in Florida. However, District 9 population is increasing, as is open heart surgery utilization for District 9 as a whole, and for Palm Beach, St. Lucie and Okeechobee Counites, while remaining static in Martin County and decreasing in Indian River. Palm Beach Gardens and JFK have demonstrated that in Palm Beach County, an additional open heart surgery program is not needed, and would be detrimental to existing programs. See, Findings of Fact 51-52. Subsection 408.035(1)(c) - quality of care The applicants, like the existing providers, are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. All of the applicants provide excellent quality care, as indicated by their accreditations and proposals, compromised only by their ability to achieve the projected volumes. See, Findings of Fact 23-26. Subsection 408.035(1)(d) - alternatives or outpatient facilities and 408.035(2)(a) - alternatives to inpatient services There are no alternatives or facilities other than acute care hospitals in which open heart surgeries can be performed. The criterion is inapplicable to this case. Subsections 408.035(1)(e) - economies of joint or shared facilities and 408.035(2(k) - modernization or sharing arrangements as alternatives to new construction. Martin Memorial is a part of a network of hospitals planning a more formalized affiliation to attract managed care contracts. Lawnwood is a part of a large corporate group, which can offer experience in establishing an open heart surgery program. Neither of these arrangements entitles the applicants to special consideration under the statutory criterion, as it has been construed by AHCA. In this case, each applicant is a separate acute care hospital. An alternative arrangement for a shared program was considered by Martin Memorial, but there is no showing that any proposal which improves access for the northern four counties could avoid the necessity for new construction. Subsection 408.035(1)(f) - needs for equipment and services not accessible in adjoining areas There is no evidence that any applicant proposes to provide a service not readily available in adjoining areas. On the contrary, each applicant proposes to offer an alternative within the district for residents who currently use providers in adjoining areas. See, Finding of Fact 27. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) - need for research and educational programs There is no evidence that any of the applicants will meet research or educational needs, or is a teaching hospital. AHCA has strictly construed the statutory criterion to apply to teaching hospitals. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - availability of resources, including staff, management, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, including personnel required in Rule 59C-1.033(5)(b). The Cleveland Clinic has expressed an interest in providing surgeons for Martin Memorial's program, but no agreement has been formalized. Martin Memorial was criticized for not having a full-time infectious disease specialist, inadequate pulmonary and nephrology specialists, and for being unable to perform transesophageal echocardiology, all of which are necessary to support an open heart surgery program. St. Mary's was criticized for not planning to have nurses assigned exclusively to its open heart surgery team. Lawnwood has been unable to attract full-time coverage in thoracic, orthopedic, and neurosurgery. Despite these specific criticisms, each applicant has successful recruitment mechanisms and affiliations which will be enhanced by the presence of an open heart surgery program. The applicants' staffing and equipment proposals are reasonable. Both St. Mary's and Lawnwood are subsidiaries of larger organizations which include hospitals with open heart surgery programs. Subsection 408.035(1)(i) - immediate and long term financial feasibility St. Mary's has the ability to establish an adult open heart surgery program for a total of $2,166,351, funded by private donors. St. Mary's provided a pro forma of expected revenues and expenses to establish financial feasibility based on two factors which were challenged, the average length of stay ("ALOS") and the mix of payer classifications for patients. St. Mary's projected 10.3 days as the ALOS. JFK's experts suggested that a 13-day ALOS is more reasonable, particularly for a new program. JFK's actual experience was an ALOS of 16.1 days in 1988, 14.5 days in 1992, and 12.6 days by the year ending June 1993. Mature programs generally have lower ALOS than newer ones. Currently, ALOS in the District are 10.9 for Palm Beach Gardens, 12.5 for Delray, and 14.5 for JFK. JFK's assertion that St. Mary's initial ALOS will more likely be 13 days not 10.3 is reasonable. The fact that the ALOS will be longer than that projected in the pro forma means that expenses for the care of each patient will be greater, while revenues will not increase proportionately. Revenues are limited in fixed Diagnostic Related Group ("DRG") reimbursement categories, such as Medicare and managed care, which are the dominant payer groups, in contrast to the more flexible per diem reimbursement of commercial insurers. St. Mary's failed to include revenues and expenses for the construction period, anticipating only capital expenditures and start-up costs for implementing a new service. St. Mary's pro forma was based on a first year payer mix which includes 12.4 percent managed care and 11.6 percent commercial insurance in 1995. At JFK, the open heart surgery payor mix was 33 percent managed care and 9 percent commercial in 1993. St. Mary's underestimated the proportion of patients in the DRG-based managed care category, as compared to the per diem arrangements typical of commercial insurance. Taking into consideration increased expenses of $251,000 in year one and $409,000 in year two, due to adjustments from 10.3 to 13 days in the ALOS, and reduced revenues of $350,000 in year two, St. Mary's proposal is not financially feasible. The conclusion is also compelled by St. Mary's failure to establish the reasonableness of its utilization projections for the program. See, Finding of Fact 25. Martin Memorial has the funds necessary to establish an open heart surgery program for $3,594,720. Its pro forma shows revenues and expenses for the construction period, which are identical with or without the open heart surgery program. Martin Memorial's pro forma is flawed by double counting revenues from patients currently spending some time and revenues at Martin Memorial prior to transfers for open heart surgery. Revenues associated with pre-transfer stays must be deducted from revenues for open heart surgeries of average total lengths of stay. The amounts of over-stated revenues were not calculated by Palm Beach Gardens expert, and other criticisms of Martin Memorial's pro forma are rejected. Lawnwood, like St. Mary's, failed to include any construction period revenues and expenses in its pro forma. Lawnwood, as a separate legal entity, does not have the funds to establish its open heart surgery program, without relying on its parent, Hospital Corporation of America. The commitment of funds, represented by a letter dated April 30, 1993, indicated the source as either internally generated cash or available lines of credit. Lawnwood demonstrated its financial feasibility, in part, by showing that its open heart program's break-even point, at which expenses and revenues would be equal is 182 cases, well below projected utilization. See, Findings of Fact 23. Subsection 408.035(1)(j) - special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations The applicants do not propose to provide any different or special services for health maintenance organizations, nor is any applicant in this batch itself a health maintenance organization, as required by AHCA's interpretation to the statutory criterion. NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a West Boca Medical Center v. HRS, DOAH Case Nos. 90-7037 and 91-1533 (F.O. 4/8/92). Subsection 408.035(1)(k) - substantial, specialty services to non-residents of the service district Although the applicants propose to provide open heart surgery, which is one of the specialty services listed in the statute, they do not project that they will serve residents of other districts. The applications are not distinguishable on the basis of Subsection 408.035(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - impact on costs and effects of competition with existing providers. If St. Mary's proposal is approved and, as St. Mary's projects, two- thirds of its patients come from existing district providers, the program at JFK will be adversely affected. As the result of JFK's loss of approximately 106 cases, its net income could also be reduced up to $2.6 million. By contrast, programs at Lawnwood or Martin Memorial would have a negligible impact on JFK. The existing program at Palm Beach Gardens would suffer an adverse impact from the approval of programs at either St. Mary's or Martin Memorial. The adverse impact of a program at Martin Memorial is greater. Palm Beach Gardens could lose from 128 to 142 cases in the first year and from 179 to 198 cases in the third year in the worst case scenarios, depending on whether the use rate declines or remains constant. In addition, the further development of the VHA Network proposed by some District 9 hospitals, including Martin Memorial, as a means to attract managed care contracts, would enhance referrals to an open heart surgery program at Martin Memorial. Reasonable estimates of the financial loss to Palm Beach Gardens range between $2.8 and $3.1 million, although Palm Beach Gardens, with $9 million in annual income, would still be profitable. While the numeric calculations required in Rule 59C-1.033(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code, indicate that there will be enough total open heart surgeries to allow each of the existing providers to continue to exceed 350 operations, Palm Beach Gardens would be disproportionately, adversely affected by a program at Martin Memorial, as would JFK by a program at a St. Mary's. As the lowest volume provider, JFK is also at greater risk of dropping below the 350 minimum level established as indicative of the quality of care. Subsection 408.035(1)(m) - costs and methods of construction With total project costs of $4.99 million, Lawnwood's proposal to construct two new, dedicated operating rooms is the most expensive. Martin Memorial's cost of $3.59 million includes new construction of one and renovation of another operating room. St. Mary's low project cost of $2.16 reflects the fact that renovations rather than new construction is planned. The advantages of new construction, however, are that the size of the operating rooms will exceed general state requirements, and comply with recommendations developed specifically for open heart surgery. See, Findings of Fact 58, infra. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed service to Medicaid and medically indigent patients Based on history and proposed service, the applicants rank, in order, St. Mary's, Lawnwood, and Martin Memorial in complying with the criterion. See, Findings of Fact 28 and 32, supra. Subsection 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care in multilevel system, including acute, skilled nursing, and home health care The applicants failed to distinguish their proposals on the basis of this statutory criterion. Other Criticisms of the Applications St. Mary's has a 16-bed intensive care unit, 4 of those beds will require no additional equipment to be used to provide post-operative care for open heart surgery patients. The 4 beds are located adjacent to the intended open heart surgery operating suite. The proposed 4-bed ICU was criticized for being too crowded, and inadequately designed to allow adequate patient observation and monitoring, and for not being dedicated solely to open heart surgery patients. The 16-bed unit has experienced over 90 percent occupancy rates, but some of those patients have required the staffing, but not the equipment available in the intensive care unit. St. Mary's acknowledged potential capacity problems, but has the ability to create additional step-down unit beds to relieve the ICU unit, when necessary. In addition, outpatient surgeries were scheduled to be performed in a separate facility beginning in July 1994. While some clinicians may prefer a separate ICU, there was no evidence of any requirements that open heart surgery patients receive post-operative care in a separate ICU, nor that the lack of a specialized unit means a lack of staff capable of caring for such patients. St. Mary's project involves the renovation of a total of 1731 square feet, 764 net square feet of that in the main operating room on the first floor. The back-up operating room at St. Mary's is 480 square feet, below the American College of Cardiologists' recommendation and 1992 Federal Guidelines of a minimum of 600 and up to 800 square feet. Despite the term "back-up," expert testimony established the need for regular use of both operating rooms, one for regularly scheduled procedures and one for emergencies which occur within the cardiac cath lab or the post-operative intensive care unit. The size of St. Mary's back-up operating room meets state requirements for operating rooms, which do not differentiate on the basis of the type of surgery. St. Mary's also demonstrated that open heart surgeries are performed in comparably sized or smaller operating rooms at JFK. The space allocated to Lawnwood's 4-bed open heart surgery recovery room was criticized as inadequate to accommodate the equipment and personnel required to monitor and, if necessary, to revive post-operative patients. The space allocated complies with state licensure requirements. Reconfiguration of the beds and equipment in the space is permissible, if necessary, in final construction documents which must be approved by AHCA. Lawnwood's proposal was also criticized because the CVICU will be located three stories above the surgical area and recovery rooms. There was no evidence that the location of the CVICU violated licensure requirements or compromised the quality of care. The use of restricted elevator access between the surgical/recovery area and the CVICU is reasonable. AHCA favored the applications of both Lawnwood and Martin over that of St. Mary's due to their locations outside Palm Beach County. Having been told by staff that it was then a "toss up" between the two, AHCA's Division Director selected Martin Memorial. The Division Director, Dr. James Howell, is a former Deputy District Administrator for AHCA District 9 and former County Health Director for Palm Beach County. In explaining his decision, Dr. Howell testified as follows: Q. Ultimately, sir, you recommended to Ms. Dudek that Martin be approved rather than Lawnwood; isn't that correct, sir? A. Yes, sir. In our mutual discussions we had a discussion about two. To be straightforward, the reason that I'd recommended Martin was that Martin is a long-term community hospital with local community responsiveness or local community board of directors, as far as I know, and that AHCA owned - now I believe, it's part of the Columbia system, was in St. Lucie County and was a newer hospital, and that, you know, I felt more comfortable with giving the first CON in the area to a group that had a long heritage and commitment to the area, even though I can tell you I can't say anything negative about AHCA in dealings with them. Q. Or Columbia? A. Or Columbia; right. I can't say anything. That's not meant to be prejudicial with them. They did a good job with us, with maternity/child health. Q. You did approach this batch, did you not, sir, with a bias towards Martin Memorial because you knew the institution had been there a long, long time and was a very stable institution; isn't that correct? A. That is quite correct, yes, sir. See, Transcript, p. 251. The court reporter's references to "AHCA" are corrected and understood, in this context, to refer to HCA or Hospital Corporation of America. The statutory and rule criteria, on balance, demonstrate that open heart surgery programs at Martin Memorial or Lawnwood are more likely to improve access, to meet projected volumes, and to be financially feasible. Of these two, however, Lawnwood is better situated to reverse district out-migration, and has to be preferred, under the state and local health plans and subsection 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, for its history of providing a disproportionate share of its services to Medicaid and charity patients. Finally, the most significant distinction between the applicants is that the quality of care at existing providers, as measured by their volumes of open heart surgeries, will not be adversely affected by the approval of a new program at Lawnwood. Application Content AHCA accepted Martin Memorial's application, although two different letters of intent for mutually exclusive open heart surgery programs were filed simultaneously by Martin Memorial, one for a program shared with Indian River Memorial, and one for a separate program. Martin Memorial's application also, arguably exceeds the scope of its Board approval by including renovation of a portion of the surgical intensive care unit ("SICU"). AHCA accepted Martin Memorial's proposal to allocate the cost of 4 of 13 SICU beds to the open heart surgery project. As a practical matter, Martin Memorial's witnesses concede, the 4 beds cannot be constructed independently. The Board separately authorized the filing of an expedited CON for the SICU construction and renovations. In an Additional Motion For Summary Recommended Order Palm Beach Gardens' submitted correspondence between AHCA and Martin Memorial attempting to establish that the separate SICU CON has expired. AHCA accepted Lawnwood's application without a construction period pro forma, and without identification of the ultimate parent corporation of the subsidiary, Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency For Health Care Administration enter a Final Order issuing Certificate of Need 7245 to Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., denying Certificate of Need 7244 to St. Mary's Hospital, Inc., and denying Certificate of Need 7243 to Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4908 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Lawnwood's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. 6-12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 14-20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 23-39. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 40-47. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 48-61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. 62-64. Accepted in relative terms or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 65-70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. 71-73. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 28. 74-86. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 2, 23 and 27. 87. Issue not reached. 88-94. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. 95. Rejected in part and accepted in part in Findings of Fact 24. 96-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. 101-105. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 24. 106-111. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 22-29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 120-122. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31. 123-131. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 43, and 48. 132-133. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 134-146. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 45, 48 and conclusions of law 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48. 139-141. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 142-147. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48. 148-152. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8 and 53. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 53. 155-164. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. 165-173. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 174. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 38 and 43. 175-176. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 38 and 43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 180-181. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38. 182-187. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 188. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61. Petitioner, Palm Beach Gardens' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13 and 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 16. 10-15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. Rejected in conclusions of law 69. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53. Rejected in Findings of Fact 2 and 27. 19-25. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 33. 26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 27-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 45-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18-19 and 27-28. 49-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51 and 52. 53. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 27. 54-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 33. 56-60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 61. Rejected "substantially" in Findings of Fact 52. 62-72. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16, 27, and 33. 73-76. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 77-84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 85-92. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27,28 and 34. 93-103. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. 104-105. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. 106. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 107-109. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 32. 110-111. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. 112-125. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. 126. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 127-141. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23 and 24. 142. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7 and 23. 143-145. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 23. 146-151. Issue not reached. 152-158. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 159-160. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. 161-162. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 165-167. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 168-169. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 170. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-30. 171-172. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 47. 173. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. 174-184. Rejected or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47. 185-187. Rejected or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43 and 47. 188-193. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. 194-199. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. 200. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 201-208. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 209. Rejected. 210-218. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 219. Rejected conclusion as to "substantial" in Findings of Fact 52. 220-229. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 230. Rejected conclusion as to "substantial" in Findings of Fact 52. Petitioner, St. Mary's, Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Facts 3 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 10-12. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 12. 13-14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. 15-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 18-24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 25-26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 44-46. 27-29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected in Findings of Facts 44-46. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 44. 33-35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 36. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. 37 Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 60. 41-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56 and 57. 45-54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. 55. Rejected in Findings of Fact 35. 56-57. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 58. Conclusion rejected, although access is limited by comparison to commercially insured patients, See, Findings of Fact 34. 59-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 67-73. Accepted in Findings of Facts 9, 28 and 32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Rejected as significant benefit in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted (as both interests can be better accomplished) in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 80-81. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. Rejected as valid in Findings of Fact 34. 86-88. Accepted in Findings of Facts 27 and 36. 89-91. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25-26. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 27. 97-98. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 35. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. 103-104. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. 105. Accepted in Findings of Fact 37. 106-107. Rejected in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. Rejected in Findings of Fact 47. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48. Rejected in Findings of Fact 24. Intervenor, JFK Medical Center, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. 4-6. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement. 7-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 16 and 27. 13-19. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18 Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. 23 Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 33. 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 36. 25-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 33. 28-31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 32-34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 34. 35-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. 45-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 49-50. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 52-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 44-46. 58. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 44-46. 59-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. 67-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. 76-78. Rejected in Findings of Fact 59. 79-80. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 81-82. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57. 83-84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 85. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. 86-89. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in general or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-8. 2. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9-12. 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13-15. 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 18. 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6 and 19. 6. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 2. 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 13,14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6, 28 and 32. 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, 28 and 32. 16,17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. 20,21. Accepted in part in Findings of Facts 23 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25, 26 and 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5, 9 and 13. Rejected conclusion in terms of other indicators in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 9, 13 and 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 30-33. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23-26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 34-37. 36-37. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 32 and 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted conclusion in Findings of Fact 52. 46-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23-26 and 38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 14 and 24. Accepted if last line changed from "St. Mary's" to "Lawnwood" in Findings of Fact 27, 36 and 37. 51-52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40 and 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 44-46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29 and 51. Respondent, Martin Memorial's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. 5-6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7, 11 and 14. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23 and 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 14-15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 49. 20-21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 62. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Conclusions of Law 74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38. 27-28. Rejected conclusion that program is superior in terms of quality of care in Findings of Fact 38. 29-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in general or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. 33-34.. Accepted conclusion in Findings of Fact 43. 35-37. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23-26. 38-40. Conclusion rejected in substantial part in Findings of Fact 23. 41-43. Accepted in substantial part in Findings of Fact 24. 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. 45-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48. 49-50. Rejected in Findings of Fact 66 and 67. 51-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Rejected conclusion in part in Findings of Fact 23 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. 55-59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 34. 60. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 32. 61-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. 63. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 23 and 27. 64-65. Rejected as to alternatives for "residents most likely" to the extent that is inconsistent with need in relation to state plan, in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51 and 52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Rejected in Findings of Fact 52. 69-70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22 and 30. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 23 and 24. Accepted except last sentence in Findings of Fact 27. 74-75. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 76-77. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Rejected conclusion or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 80-82. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 (Counsel for St. Mary's Hospital) Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire David C. Ashburn, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, et al. Suite 2000 111 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (Counsel for Palm Beach Gardens Community Hospital) Elizabeth McArthur, Esquire 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (Counsel for Lawnwood Medical Center) Leslie Mendelson, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Byron B. Mathews, Jr., Esquire 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire John M. Knight, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
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 the adult open heart surgery rule in effect at the time the applications were filed until January 24, 2002, or the rule as amended on that date applies to this case. Whether either or both, Lifemark Hospital of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Palmetto General Hospital ("Palmetto General") and Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Aventura Hospital and Medical Center ("Aventura Hospital") demonstrated the existence of not normal circumstances for the issuance of certificates of need ("CONs") to establish adult open heart surgery programs in Dade County.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") administers the certificate of need ("CON") program for health care facilities and services in Florida. Section 408.034, Florida Statutes. Aventura Hospital Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Aventura Hospital and Medical Center ("Aventura Hospital") is the applicant for CON No. 9395 to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Dade County, in AHCA District 11. Aventura Hospital is a 407-bed community hospital located in the recently incorporated City of Aventura in northeast Dade County. It is approximately one mile west of the Atlantic Ocean on U.S. Highway 1, three-tenths of a mile south of the Broward/Dade County line. It is halfway between Fort Lauderdale and downtown Miami. Aventura Hospital is owned by the Hospital Corporation of America ("HCA"), which operates hospitals in 30 states and 3 countries, including 40 hospitals in Florida. The 407 beds at Aventura Hospital include 327 acute care beds, 32 adult psychiatric beds, 24 adult substance abuse beds, and 24 obstetrics beds. Services, in addition to those provided in the specialty beds, include general medical/surgical services, oncology, a breast diagnostic center, children's after-hours walk in clinic, comprehensive cancer center, dialysis, intensive care, orthopedics, inpatient and outpatient surgery, and physical, speech and occupational therapies. It is a Baker Act facility. The Aventura Hospital staff has from 700 to 750 medical doctors, and 1,200 to 1,300 employees. The emergency room ("ER") has approximately 34,000 annual visits. According to one ER physician on the staff, the average age of patients presenting at the Aventura Hospital ER is 84 years old. That results in a higher than average hospital admission rate from the ER, 35 to 40 percent, as compared to 15 percent nationally. The staff includes 52 clinical cardiologists, 27 invasive cardiologists and five cardiovascular thoracic surgeons. They currently perform, at Aventura Hospital, inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations ("caths"), pacemaker implants, echocardiograms, cardiac stress and cardiac nuclear testing, diagnostic and transesophageal echocardiograms, diagnostic and interventional vascular surgeries. For the 12 months ending June 30, 2001, 422 open heart patients left the Aventura Hospital's primary service area for their surgeries, and 1,132 received cardiac cath procedures. At Aventura Hospital, from April 1999 through March 2000, 178 diagnostic cardiac caths were performed. In terms of total cardiology services, Aventura Hospital is the largest non-open heart provider in the District, ranking second to Mount Sinai Medical Center ("Mount Sinai"). In calendar year 2001, there were 3,489 cardiovascular disease discharges from Aventura Hospital. The boundaries of the primary service area, from which Aventura Hospital draws most of its patients, are Hollywood Boulevard to the north, U.S. Highway 441 to the west, the Bal Harbour/Miami Shores communities near 125 Street to the south and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Parkway Regional Medical Center ("Parkway Regional") in Dade County, and Memorial Regional Medical Center ("Memorial Regional") in Hollywood, in Broward County, are the closest hospitals to Aventura Hospital. The primary service area has a population of approximately 250,000 residents and includes growing retirement communities such as Sunny Isles Beach, Hallandale Beach, Southeast Hollywood, North Miami Beach, part of Miami Shores, and Bal Harbour. Parkway Regional and Aventura reported a combined total of 1,721 ischemic heart diseases (IHD) discharges in calendar year 2000. IHD is the diagnostic category for patients experiencing a narrowing of the arteries who are most likely ultimately to require open heart surgery. An international patient services department at Aventura Hospital assists patients, particularly from Canada, and Central and South America. Aventura Hospital is a member of the Miami Medical Alliance, also known as Salud Miami, which has promoted Miami as a destination for health care. Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart), Mount Sinai, Baptist Hospital (Baptist), South Miami Hospital (South Miami), Miami Children's Hospital and Jackson Memorial Hospital (Jackson Memorial) are among the members of the Alliance. At the time the CON application was filed, Aventura Hospital was scheduled for expansion with the addition of a three-story tower and other capital projects costing an estimated $50 million. Subsequently, in December 2001, Aventura Hospital received approval from HCA for the expenditure of an additional $80 million to build the tower up to nine stories immediately, with the structure capable of ultimately being increased to 12 stories. It is expected to be able to withstand a direct hit from a Class V hurricane. In the past, Aventura Hospital has been entirely evacuated twice due to hurricane warnings. When construction is complete, the ER will be approximately three times larger, relocated to the first floor of the new tower, and projected to receive 50,000 visits annually. Ten new operating rooms on the second floor will include two that are properly-sized for cardiovascular surgeries. Because of higher ceilings in the new tower, the second floor of the new building will connect to the third floor of the existing building, on which the cardiac cath lab and related diagnostic equipment is located. If the open heart program is approved, a ten-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU") will be added to the second floor of the new building, and a second cardiac cath lab will be constructed. A dedicated elevator will connect the surgery suites to a 42-bed intensive care unit ("ICU") on the third floor. The remaining floors will consist of single patient rooms equipped or capable of being equipped for telemetry monitoring. The projected building cost for the portion of the construction related to the open heart surgery program is $3 million. Mount Sinai which purchased Miami Heart from HCA, has agreed to close one of its two open heart surgery programs within one year following the issuance of an adult open heart surgery CON to Aventura Hospital. Otherwise, Mount Sinai is committed to operate both programs for five years from June 30, 2000. Jeffrey Gregg, the head of the CON program at AHCA testified that he believes that it is "unprecedented" for an applicant to submit a letter from an existing provider committing to close a program. (Tr. 3061). Aventura Hospital has also offered to commit to providing 2.5 percent of the patient days generated by the adult open heart surgery program to Medicaid and charity patients. Palmetto General Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Palmetto General Hospital ("Palmetto General") is an applicant for CON No. 9394 to establish an adult open heart surgery program, also in Dade County, AHCA District 11. Palmetto General is a 360-bed acute care hospital located in the City of Hialeah in northwest Dade County at the intersection of 122nd Street, Northwest, and the Palmetto Expressway. Palmetto General is an affiliate of the Tenet Health Care Corporation ("Tenet"), which operates 16 hospitals in Florida, five in Dade County. They are, in addition to Palmetto General, Hialeah Hospital, North Shore Medical Center, Parkway Regional in northern communities, and Coral Gables Hospital in the south. Tenet owns Florida Medical Center, which has an adult open heart surgery program in Broward County. Tenet also operates the open heart program at the Cleveland Clinic in Broward County. The 360 beds at Palmetto General are divided into 253 acute care beds (excluding obstetrics and pediatrics), 48 adult psychiatric beds, and 10 neonatal intensive care beds. Services available on the Palmetto General campus include outpatient imaging and surgery, psychiatry, oncology, rehabilitative therapies, and intensive care. Palmetto General has a staff of 600 physicians, 350 of whom are on the active staff, and 1,500 employees. Palmetto General has approximately 40 cardiologists on staff, 19 of whom are invasive cardiologists. The services available include ultrasound, exercise testing, arrhythmia studies, including halter monitoring and electrophysiology, surgical insertions of pacemakers and defibrillators, and diagnostic cardiac caths. For the 12 months ending June 30, 2001, 1,658 cardiac caths and 668 open heart procedures were performed on patients from the Palmetto General primary service area. At Palmetto General, there were 528 diagnostic cardiac caths performed from April 1999 through March 2000, making it the largest cardiac cath provider in Dade County, which does not also have an open heart program. In calendar year 2001, there were 3,089 cardiovascular disease discharges from Palmetto General. The primary service area for Palmetto General includes the communities of Hialeah, Hialeah Springs, Miami Lakes, and portions of Opa Locka. Approximately 450,000, or 22 percent of the 2.2 million people living in District 11, live in the Hialeah area, over 50,000 are over 65 years old. The 65 and older population in the Palmetto General primary service area is projected to increase by 10 percent by 2005. Seventy to 80 percent of the residents of Palmetto General's primary service area are Hispanic, many first-generation. Most of the staff and employees of Palmetto General are Hispanic or speak Spanish. In addition to Palmetto General, the primary service area includes two other hospitals, Hialeah Hospital and Palm Springs General Hospital ("Palm Springs General"). Of the three, only Palmetto General has a cardiac cath lab. About 400 suspected heart attack patients are treated in the ER at Palmetto General each year. The ER has approximately 60,000 annual visits. It is the third busiest ER in the county. Although the use rate for open heart surgery has been flat or declining throughout the district, it has increased in the Palmetto General service area. While District 11 had an absolute increase of 51 open heart cases from 1999 to 2000, there was a 91-case increase in the Palmetto General service area. Together Palmetto General, Hialeah Hospital, and Palm Springs reported 2,206 IHD discharges, 982 of those from Palmetto General. Subsequent to filing the open heart CON application, Palmetto General developed a $23 million master facility plan of capital expenditures to upgrade the facility in response to operational deficiencies and capacity constraints. Tenet approved the expenditure of $6 million in the first year. When entirely implemented, the plan will result in doubling the size of the ER, expanding maternity labor and delivery areas, building a new 18-bed intensive care unit with space to add ten more beds later, and refurnishing existing operating rooms and adding three more. Palmetto General also, in 2002, experienced significant discord among the medical staff which apparently has been resolved with a change in the hospital's senior management. Palmetto General maintains that its master facility plan is independent of its plans for an open heart surgery program, although the master plan supports and facilitates that proposal. Mount Sinai and Aventura Hospital contend that Palmetto General has impermissibly amended the architectural plans for the open heart surgery program. The plans, as submitted in the CON, showed the addition of two open heart operating rooms on the ground floor, with an area of shelled-in space, and mechanical/electrical space, and part of the roof, above that on the first floor, and an elevator and corridor on the second floor within the same area designated as being within the scope of work. A separate area of work, on the schematic drawing of the second floor, showed a four-bed CVICU. On the master facility plan, the two open heart surgery operating rooms are in the same location but reconfigured. The space above is still shown as shelled-in and it may have columns. On the second floor, the four-bed CVICU for open heart patients is no longer a separate unit but is included in an existing ten- bed CVICU. The CVICU is adjacent to the existing cardiac cath lab and to an area shown for cath lab expansion, previously a part of the roof on the CON drawing. As a result of the use of the existing space for the CVICU, the total area devoted to the open heart program is reduced in size. Although the two open heart operating rooms are reconfigured and the four-bed open heart CVICU will not be an entirely separate unit, the concept for the open heart surgery program is essentially unchanged. Construction detailed drawings of the master plan were expected to be completed in January 2003. If the open heart surgery program CON is approved, Palmetto General will commit to providing 7.5 percent of open heart and angioplasty services to Medicaid and charity care patients. Existing District 11 Providers Baptist, Cedars Medical Center ("Cedars"), Jackson Memorial, Mount Sinai, Miami Heart, Mercy Hospital ("Mercy"), South Miami, and Kendall Medical Center ("Kendall") are the eight hospitals in Dade County which have open heart surgery programs. Mount Sinai and Miami Heart are, as previously noted, both owned by Mount Sinai. They are located within two miles of each other on Miami Beach, near the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Jackson Memorial which, like Mount Sinai, is a University of Miami Medical School teaching hospital is located in downtown Miami, across the street from Cedars and near Mercy. Kendall is further south and west. South Miami and Baptist are in South Central Dade County. In the summer and fall of 2000, when AHCA published the fixed need pool, and Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General filed their applications, four of the eight open heart programs in Dade County were operating at volumes below 350 cases a year. In 1999, those programs and volumes were Cedars, with 340 surgeries, Jackson Memorial with 332, South Miami at 211, and Kendall with 187. In 2001, Cedars increased to 361 open heart cases and Jackson Memorial reported 513. The programs at Kendall and South Miami have continued to operate below 350 cases a year. The volume at Kendall was 184 in 2000, and 295 in 2001. South Miami reported 175 and 148 in calendar years 2000 and 2001, respectively. Like Aventura Hospital, Cedars, and Kendall are owned by HCA. South Miami and Baptist Hospital, which are 3.5 miles apart, are both affiliated with the Baptist health care system. Because volumes were below 350 at existing programs, AHCA published a numeric need for zero additional programs in District 11 for the January 2003 planning horizon. The rule on numeric need, as revised on January 24, 2002, reduced the minimum volume for existing providers to 300 open heart surgeries for the 12-month period specified in the rule, although it implicitly increased the expected size of each existing program to 500 cases by increasing the divisor in the numeric need formula. Under either rule, the applicants must demonstrate the existence of not normal circumstances for the approval of any additional open heart surgery programs in the district. Under the old rule, with 350 as the divisor in the formula, the numeric calculation, before being reduced to zero because of low volume programs, resulted in a need for 2.1 additional programs. That number is a negative one under the new rule. Aventura Hospital projected that its open heart surgery volumes would be 240, 312, and 347 during the first three years of operations, anticipating these to be the years ending in September of 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively. Palmetto General projected volumes of 148, 210, and 250 open heart surgeries and 225, 230, and 310 angioplasties, in the first three years. From 1996 to 2001, the total annual volume of open heart surgeries in District 11 declined by 346, from 3,821 in 1996, to 3,421 in 2000, then increased slightly to 3,475 in 2001. Therefore, if Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General achieve projected volumes, it will result largely from redirecting cases from existing providers including one that would close if Aventura's CON is approved. The declining open heart volumes also reflects a technological improvements and a shift to less invasive angioplasty procedures. The number of angioplasties performed in District 11 increased from 6,384 in 2000, to 7,682 in 2001. Mount Sinai and Miami Heart Mount Sinai is one of six statutory teaching hospitals in Florida, with 19 accredited training programs, including residencies and fellowships. The cardiovascular and thoracic surgery residency program is shared with Jackson Memorial. In addition to the University of Miami, Mount Sinai is affiliated with the medical schools at Nova Southeastern University, Barry University, and the University of South Florida. Mount Sinai has the largest open heart volume in District 11, with over 40 percent of the total volume. It also has the broadest geographical draw for patients, with only 60 percent of the cases originating from the District. In the year from April 1999 to March 2000, Mount Sinai reported performing 1,034 adult open heart surgeries and 4,318 adult inpatient cardiac caths. In calendar years 2000 and 2001, the volume of open heart surgeries at Mount Sinai remained virtually constant at 980 and 976, respectively. Angioplasties increased during that same period of time from 1,037 to 1,067. At Miami Heart, from April 1999 through March 2000, 483 open heart surgeries and 4,179 cardiac caths were performed. The combined total of therapeutic cardiac caths or angioplasties performed at Mount Sinai and Miami Heart is approximately 2,500 a year. There is evidence that Mount Sinai has begun to phase-out open heart cases at Miami Heart where the volume dropped to 390 surgeries in 2000, and to 296 in 2001. In a travel time study commissioned by Mount Sinai, the drive time from Palmetto General ER to Mount Sinai ER was 28 minutes to travel the 15.5 miles. From various zip codes within the Palmetto General service area to the Mount Sinai ER, travel times ranged from 14 minutes to 36 minutes. Driving times from Aventura to Mount Sinai ranged from 18 to 37 minutes. Due to its close proximity, to Mount Sinai, it reasonably should take approximately the same driving time to reach Miami Heart. In an Aventura Hospital survey of transfers of high- risk cardiac patients, the average times were estimated to range from 59 minutes from Aventura Hospital to Mount Sinai and 1 hour and 26 minutes from Aventura Hospital to Miami Heart Institute. Those times must include more than actual drive time, otherwise the differences between Mount Sinai and Miami Heart would not be so significant. One would also anticipate that, while under common ownership, transfers from Aventura Hospital to Miami Heart would have been less cumbersome. The accompanying narrative in the CON suggests that time frames may have been counted from the time the decision to transfer is made to the time the patient arrives at the receiving facility. The testimony regarding the data compilation process was vague and inadequate and, therefore, the conclusions are unreliable. The Mount Sinai study showed travel times of 27 minutes to Miami Heart and 28 minutes to Mount Sinai from Palmetto General. That difference of one minute is confirmed in data underlying Aventura Hospital time travel study. Based on projected volumes, prior transfers, referral patterns and market shares, an open heart program at Palmetto General will reduce the volumes at Mount Sinai and Miami Heart by 92 to 107 open heart surgeries a year, for a financial loss of $1.6 million. An open heart program at Aventura is expected to reduce the combined volume at Mount Sinai and Miami Heart by 196 cases. A combined reduction of approximately 300 cases and the closure of one of the programs would leave the remaining Mount Sinai program at approximately 900 open heart cases, with a loss of $4.7 million. Mount Sinai was projected to experience a net loss from operations of $32 million in 2002. There was testimony that overall financial management and the potential for profitable operations have improved. Despite the fact that an Aventura program will have almost double the adverse impact of one at Palmetto General, Mount Sinai, in the asset purchase agreement resulting in its acquisition of Miami Heart from HCA, agreed not to contest the application filed by Aventura Hospital. Jackson Memorial Jackson Memorial is the hospital designated to provide indigent care in Dade County, through a public health trust funded by a portion of sales taxes. In the 12 months ending March 2000, 334 open heart surgeries and 3,644 cardiac caths were performed at Jackson Memorial. In 2000 and 2001, the open heart volume increased to 438 and 513 surgeries, respectively. The Mount Sinai travel time study, showed that the distance from Palmetto General to Jackson Memorial was 10.7 miles and that the average drive took 22 minutes. Jackson Memorial will lose an estimated 46 cases to Palmetto General, in the third year of an open heart program in 2004, and 12 cases to an Aventura Hospital program, or a combined total of approximately 60 cases a year. Mercy Mercy had a volume of 412 open heart surgeries and 2,704 cardiac caths, from April 1999 through March 2000. In calendar year 2000 and 2001, the open heart volumes at Mercy were 492 and 478, respectively. The average driving time from Palmetto General to Mercy ranged from 24 minutes to 38 minutes, averaging 27 minutes in Mount Sinai's expert's study. If Palmetto General is approved, a reduction of 44 open heart cases is expected at Mercy. An Aventura Hospital program is expected to result in a five-case reduction at Mercy. Cedars The volume at Cedars was 316 open heart cases from April 1999 through March 2000. In calendar years 2000 and 2001, the volume increased to 334 and 361 open heart surgeries, and to 1,323 and 1,468 angioplasties, respectively. The average driving time to Cedars, from Palmetto General, was 23 minutes, in the Mount Sinai travel time study, with a range of drive times from 17 minutes (starting at 4:19 a.m.) to 30 minutes (starting at 7:06 a.m.). If Palmetto General is approved to become an open heart provider, Cedars' volume is expected to be reduced by 20 surgeries. If Aventura Hospital becomes an open heart provider, Cedars' volume will be reduced by an estimated 14 cases. Kendall Kendall had a volume of 180 open heart cases for the year ending March 2000. Kendall has consistently been a low volume open heart provider, increasing from 136 surgeries in 1989, to 295 in 2001. Kendall is located in southwestern Dade County, well beyond the primary service areas of Palmetto General and Aventura Hospital. The common feature shared with Palmetto General is that Kendall is also considered an Hispanic or Spanish-speaking hospital, although every hospital in Dade County is staffed to serve Spanish-speaking patients. Mount Sinai's study found the average drive time from Palmetto General to Kendall to be 23 minutes, covering 14.6 miles. Estimates of case reductions at Kendall are six if Palmetto General is approved and one if Aventura Hospital is approved. South Miami and Baptist South Miami reported a volume of 199 open heart cases for the year ending March 2000. The volume of open heart surgeries has been low, over the years, from 132 in 1989, to 148 in 2001, never exceeding 215 cases in any one year. South Miami has become a referral center for complex, multi-vessel angioplasties. Angioplasties increased, at South Miami, from 723 in 2000, to 837 in 2001. Like Kendall, South Miami and Baptist have no overlap with the primary service areas of Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General. If Palmetto General offers open heart services, then South Miami would lose approximately nine cases in the third year of operations. If Aventura Hospital's CON is approved, then South Miami would lose an estimated two cases that year. The volumes at Baptist, from April 1999 through March 2000, were 472 open heart surgeries and 4,730 cardiac caths. The Baptist volume of open heart cases declined to 428 in 2000, and 408 in 2001. Baptist's volume is expected to decline by 14 cases lost to Palmetto General, and two to Aventura Hospital. Existing District 10 Providers Mount Sinai, in its proposed recommended order, suggested that Memorial Regional, the Cleveland Clinic, and Florida Medical Center all in Broward County, are available open heart providers for northern Dade County residents. Tenet operates the open heart program at the Cleveland Clinic, which is 17 miles north of Palmetto General. The average travel time to the Cleveland Clinic, in the Mount Sinai study, was 26 minutes, but that is unreliable because it includes one run where the driver obviously had to speed, at 4:42 a.m., to average over 60 miles per hour. The staff at Cleveland Clinic is not predominantly Spanish-speaking. The medical staff is also closed so that only Cleveland Clinic doctors practice at that hospital. Patients have interruptions in their continuity of care when referred to an entirely different medical staff. In addition, the Cleveland Clinic is a referral hospital drawing patients from outside the area. It does not function as a community hospital. The Cleveland Clinic is not, therefore, an alternative provider for Dade County residents. At Memorial Regional, six miles north of Aventura Hospital, there were 766 open heart surgeries performed in one 12-month period in 1999 and 2000 and 641 in calendar year 2000. Twenty-six percent of the Aventura Hospital primary service area open heart surgeries were performed at Memorial Regional in 2001, as compared to 5 percent from the Palmetto General Area. Over 30 percent of the angioplasties performed on Aventura Hospital service area residents were performed at Memorial Regional in 2001, and less than 4 percent for Palmetto General service area residents. If Aventura Hospital is approved, the loss in volume from Memorial Regional would be approximately 103 cases a year. Aventura Hospital noted that Memorial Regional has experienced capacity problems. In Columbia Hospital Corporation of South Broward vs. AHCA, the administrative law judge found that the proposal to establish a new hospital in Miramar was intended to " . . . allow Memorial Regional and Memorial West the opportunity to decompress and operate at reasonable and efficient occupancies into the foreseeable future without the operational problems caused by the current over-utilization." There is evidence that the relief resulting from the construction of the Miramar Hospital, will not alter the difficulties that Aventura Hospital-based doctors experience in gaining access to the cardiac cath lab at Memorial Regional. Florida Medical Center has approximately 450 open heart surgery cases a year. It is a Tenet facility in Western Broward County. The financial data from Florida Medical Center was used in Palmetto General's projections of income and expenses, but there was no evidence that Florida Medical Center's open heart program is a viable alternative to programs at either Aventura Hospital or Palmetto General. Review Criteria Subsection 408.035(1) - need in relation to applicable district health plan; 59C-1.030(2)(a)-(e) - need that the population has, particularly low income, ethnic minorities, elderly, etc.; relocation of a service; needs of medically underserved, Medicare, Medicaid and indigent persons; and Subsection 408.035(11) - past and proposed Medicaid and indigent care. The District 11 health plan includes preferences for applicants seeking to provide tertiary services who have provided the highest Medicaid and charity care, and who have demonstrated the highest ongoing commitment to Medicaid and indigent patients. Aventura Hospital provided approximately 1 percent charity, 6 to 7 percent Medicaid and 17 percent Medicare in 2001. It qualified as a disproportionate share Medicare hospital. Aventura Hospital's proposed CON commitment is to provide a minimum of 2.5 percent of open heart surgery and angioplasty patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Palmetto General is and, for at least the last ten years, has been a disproportionate share Medicaid and Medicare provider. Over 20 percent of the total care at Palmetto General has been given to Medicaid patients in recent fiscal years. The care to indigent patients was approximately $8 million in one year. In this regard, Palmetto serves as a "safety net" hospital for poor people, like Jackson Memorial and Mount Sinai. Palmetto General will meet the needs of ethnic minorities, and more Medicaid, low income and indigent patients. Aventura Hospital is serving an older population and, in effect, would be relocating an open heart program from Miami Heart. In a service like open heart surgery, Medicare is the dominant payor. Subsection 408.035(2) - availability, quality of care, accessibility, extent of utilization of existing facilities in the district; Rule 59C-1.033(4)(a) - two-hour travel time; and Subsection 408.035(7) - enhanced access for residents of the district. The applicants contend that the existing programs in the district are geographically maldistributed to the detriment of the residents of northeast and northwest Dade County. They also contend that those access issues outweigh the fact that district residents can reach open heart providers within the two- hour travel time standard in the open heart rule. In its proposed recommended order, Mount Sinai noted that if Dade County is divided in half using " . . . State Road 836 (also known as the Palmetto Expressway), which runs east-west in the center of the County, near Miami International Airport . . . ," there are four existing open heart providers in the north and four in the south. This statement must be inaccurate because Palmetto General's location was described as being on the Palmetto Expressway with no existing open heart providers in the same service area. The existing programs in District 11 are inappropriately dispersed geographically to serve the population, as it is distributed throughout Dade County. The Hialeah area, with 22 percent of the population, is larger than 14 counties in Florida which have at least one open heart surgery program. The population in the Aventura Hospital primary service area, 250,000 residents, is roughly half that of Hialeah, but is equal to or larger than five counties in Florida which have open heart surgery programs. If the applicants' patients are not transferred to other hospitals, then the volume of open heart procedures at those hospitals will decline. The medical literature and experts in the field demonstrate a relationship between volume and quality. In Florida, the old rule and new rule set the minimums for existing providers at 350 and 300, respectively. If Aventura Hospital's open heart CON is approved, almost 200 surgeries will be lost from Miami Heart and Mount Sinai, approximately half of that from the program that will be closed, and just over 100 from Memorial Regional. The effect on the low volume providers will be negligible, one lost case to Kendall and two from South Miami. Based on its projections, Aventura Hospital expects to reach 347 open heart surgeries in its third year of operation. Even assuming that most of the cases would be redirected from other providers, the projection is aggressively based on the assumption that Aventura Hospital will have a market share of 87 percent of its primary service area. If Palmetto General's open heart CON is approved, the greatest impact will also be on Mount Sinai and Miami Heart, a loss of approximately 100 surgeries a year, and on Jackson Memorial, a loss of 46 surgeries a year. Palmetto General projected that it would reach a volume of 250 open heart surgeries by the end of the third year of operations. South Miami would lose nine and Kendall would lose six open heart cases. Neither an Aventura nor a Palmetto area program will keep the existing low volume providers below 300 or 350 open heart surgeries. With or without them, South Miami and Kendall are expected to continue to operate below the objective set by the open heart rule. The absence of a material adverse impact on low volume providers is the result of the absence of any overlap in the service areas of the applicants and South Miami and Kendall. In District 11, only Cedars is likely to end up having open heart surgery volumes in a range between 300 and 350 cases as a result of the approval of both programs. Difficulties and delays in patient transfers for open heart or angioplasty services were raised as possible not normal circumstances in Dade County. Aventura Hospital witnesses presented anecdotal evidence of patients who could have benefited from the availability of angioplasty and open heart case without transfers. The evidence was inadequate to demonstrate that access to existing facilities is not available within a reasonable time. Palmetto General provided a review of medical charts to show patients whose outcomes would have been improved if it had an open heart program. Physicians who testified about those patients differed in their conclusions concerning the urgency of transfers, the need for primary angioplasty or thrombolytics, and the causes of delays. No medical records indicated patient outcomes after they were transferred. Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General also contend that the residents of their primary service area are at a disadvantage by not having timely access to primary angioplasty for patients who are having heart attacks. Treatment in their ERs is limited to administering thrombolytic or clot-busting drugs in an effort to save heart muscle. Increasingly, research has shown the benefits of primary angioplasty over thrombolytics as the most effective treatment to restore blood flow to heart muscle. The benefits include lower mortality rates and few complications, and are enhanced if the "door-to-balloon" time is less than 90 minutes. In Dade County, transfer times typically range from two to five hours, including the time to contact a receiving facility, to find a receiving physician, to receive insurance authorization, to summon an ambulance, and to prepare the patient medically for transfer, as well as the actual travel time. Research also shows that the quality of an open heart surgery program continues to be linked to its volume. In Florida, AHCA has not revised its rules either to provide for angioplasty services without open heart surgery back-up, or to reduce the tertiary designation of open heart surgery programs. Therefore, the need for more timely access to angioplasty is rejected as a not normal access issue. Palmetto General, due to operational difficulties is unlikely to meet the 90-minute reperfusion goal. In fact, most hospitals with open heart programs do not. Palmetto General does not plan to construct a second cardiac cath lab for use at the time it establishes an open heart program. Mount Sinai witnesses questioned the ability of a hospital with one cath lab to provide emergency primary angioplasty services. An additional cath lab is not required in the open heart rule and, while difficulties in scheduling are likely to occur, successful open heart programs have been operated with one cath lab initially, including Tenet-operated Delray Medical Center. Palmetto General can, when needed, construct a second cardiac cath lab in approximately six months without CON review. AHCA has not revised the open heart surgery rule to respond to the development of primary angioplasty as a preferred treatment. By its adoption of a new rule maintaining the link between angioplasty and open heart surgery, and maintaining the tertiary nature of open heart surgery, AHCA has placed the State of Florida on the side of the debate which is more concerned about the link between volumes and quality in open heart programs. Palmetto General also attempted to demonstrate the existence of access constraints at Jackson Memorial. The evidence showed discrepancies in lengths of stay, with indigent patients generally hospitalized longer. But those discrepancies were subject to other interpretations, including the possibility that indigent patients are more sick because lengths of stay were longer before and after indigent patients are transferred to and from Jackson Memorial. The maldistribution of open heart programs in Dade County as compared to the areas of significant population growth is a not normal circumstance affecting the availability, access, extent of utilization, and quality of care of existing facilities in the district. The commitment to the closure of an existing program is also a not normal circumstance in favor of the Aventura Hospital proposal. Subsection 408.035(3) - applicant's quality of care; Rule 59C- 1.030(2)(f) - accessibility of facility as a whole; Subsection 408.035(10) - costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated that both Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General have a record of providing quality care with regard to the scope and intensity of services provided historically, and that both are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. The parties also stipulated that both applicants can establish quality perfusion services and recruit qualified perfusionists at the costs identified in their applications. Palmetto General failed to identify any surgeons who would staff their proposed open heart program. Two cardiac surgeons in a group which submitted a letter of interest included in the Palmetto General CON application were killed in a car accident a month before the final hearing. While the absence of named surgeons affects the certainty of referrals, there is no requirement, in AHCA rules, that surgeons be named in CON applications. One board-certified and a second at least board-eligible surgeon must be on the hospital staff if it starts an open heart program. Tenet has the resources and the senior management at Palmetto General has the experience to recruit qualified medical and nursing staff. The plan for a four-bed CVICU at Palmetto General was criticized as allocating too few beds for open heart surgery patients. Using the normile statistical methodology, one expert witness testified that a six-bed CVICU is required to accommodate the expected patient census in the third year of an open heart program. Using an average daily census of 1.43 patients and a target occupancy rate of 70 percent in the four-bed CVICU, however, only two beds are needed in the first year. Subsequently, as needed, acute care beds may be converted to ICU beds without CON review. Subsection 408.035(4) - needs that are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Mount Sinai contends that the residents of the Aventura and Hialeah areas reasonably and economically receive open heart services in Broward County. The statistical data and evidence of capacity constraints, even after the Miramar hospital is constructed, and the closure of one of the programs that residents of the Aventura Hospital primary service area have relied on and its relocation to their area, is more appropriate than increasing their reliance on Memorial Regional. The evidence does not demonstrate that the residents of the Palmetto General service area have reasonable access to Cleveland Clinic, Memorial Regional or any other Broward County hospital with an open heart surgery program. Subsection 408.035(5) - needs of research and educational facilities. Aventura Hospital is not a statutory teaching hospital. It does have podiatry, nursing, and occupational and physical therapy students training at the hospital. Residents and interns from the primary care program at Nova Southeastern University, from the Barry University School of Podiatry, and area nursing and technical schools receive some of their training at Palmetto General. Although one rating service places Palmetto General in the category of a teaching hospital, it is not a statutory teaching hospital. A program at Aventura Hospital will have a greater adverse effect on Mount Sinai, while one at Palmetto General will have a greater adverse effect on Jackson Memorial. Both Mount Sinai and Jackson Memorial are statutory teaching hospitals. Subsection 408.035(6) - management personnel and funds for project accomplishment; Subsection 408.035(8) - immediate and long term financial feasibility. Both Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General have adequate funds and experienced management to establish open heart surgery programs. In the pre-hearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the applicants have sufficient available funds for capital and operating expenses to initiate open heart surgery programs and to operate the programs, in the short term, until financially self- sufficient. Aventura Hospital reasonably projected net profits of approximately $543,000 from an open heart program in the first year of operation, and $1 million in the second year. Aventura Hospital reasonably relied on the experiences of other HCA open heart providers in the area, particularly Miami Heart and JFK Medical Center in Palm Beach County. Mount Sinai questioned the reasonableness of Palmetto General's projection that it will generate higher profits than Aventura Hospital with lower case volumes. It also questioned Palmetto General's ability to attain the volumes projected. Palmetto General projected a net profit of just over $700,000 in the first year, $1.18 million in the second year, and $1.5 million in the third year, with 148 open heart cases in the first year, 210 in the second year, and 250 in the third year. By comparison, Aventura Hospital's first three-year projections for open hearts were 240, 312, and 347. Aventura's projected volume was potentially overstated in view of the experience at HCA facility Columbia Westside in Broward County which has achieved approximately half the open hearts projected. But the differences in projections reasonably reflect Aventura's draw from a smaller but older population and Palmetto General's draw from a larger, poorer but younger population. Palmetto General's projected volumes are reasonable considerating the number of actual open heart surgeries, 668, originating from its primary service area in the 12-months ending in June 2001. Palmetto General reasonably and conservatively based its reimbursement rates on those received at Florida Medical Center in Broward County, which actually has a lower reimbursement rate than Dade County. Mount Sinai also demonstrated that charges at three South Florida Tenet facilities, Delray Medical Center, North Ridge Medical Center, and Florida Medical Center were significantly higher than those at Mount Sinai. But those facilities operate successfully in competitive markets in Districts 9 and 10, which supports the testimony that, for open heart surgery, charges are not very relevant. Most compensation is derived from fixed-rate reimbursement from Medicare. Subsection 408.035(9) - extent to which proposal fosters competition that promotes quality and cost effectiveness. In the District, HCA, the parent of Aventura Hospital, after the sale of Miami Heart, continues to operate Cedars, which has exceeded 350 cases for the first time in 2001, and Kendall, which at 295 cases in 2001, has been a chronically low volume open heart provider. That would raise doubts about the projected volumes at Aventura Hospital, but for the demographics of its location and the closure and, in effect, proposed relocation of the Miami Heart program to a more geographically appropriate area of the District. The relocation, therefore, makes the proposal a "wash" resulting in no net increase in programs or competition in the District. By contrast, the approval of a program operated by Tenet which has five Dade County hospitals, none with an open heart program, does introduce a new provider into the market in a location with special needs due to the larger critical mass of people, their ethnicity, relative poverty and fewer, more distant alternate open heart providers. Subsection 408.035(12) - nursing home beds. The criterion related to nursing home beds, by stipulation of the parties, is inapplicable to this case. Summary of Findings On balance, Palmetto General is preferable as the hospital with the larger critical mass of population, the status as a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid and Medicare, the improved geographical access for a large ethnic group with relatively high IHD and heavy demands for services, including cardiac care services in its ER and in the ERs of other hospitals within its primary service area. In addition, the detriment to existing providers, predominantly Mount Sinai and Jackson Memorial will not reduce the volumes below 350 open heart cases. On balance, the Aventura Hospital proposal, while less compelling, because it is not a Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, is not a new entrant to the market, and has a population which is half that in the Palmetto General primary service is also entirely approvable. The hospital has facilities superior to those at Palmetto General. It is better prepared to implement an open heart program, with plans to open a second cardiac cath lab immediately and with the cardiothoracic surgeons identified for the program. Within its service area population, Aventura Hospital has a large population of elderly people, who present to its hospital with symptoms of heart attacks. The troubling adverse impact on Memorial Regional is offset by the evidence of crowding and scheduling difficulties specifically in the Memorial Regional cardiac cath lab. The troubling adverse impact on the combined Miami Heart and Mount Sinai programs is offset by the Asset Purchase Agreement which contemplated the relocation of at least a portion of the Miami Heart cases to Aventura Hospital. Even with the additional loss of 100 open heart cases to Palmetto General, Mount Sinai will remain the largest Dade County provider, retaining from 900 to 1,000 annual open heart cases. The approval of both applications will improve access to open heart surgery and angioplasty care in District 11.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered issuing CON Application No. 9394 to Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Palmetto General Hospital, and CON Application No. 9395 to Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Aventura Hospital and Medical Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Sandra L. Schoonover, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's applications for certificates of need to institute cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert M. Eisenberg District IV Legal Counsel Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Charles Collette Art Forehand, Administrator Assistant General Counsel Office of Community Medical Department of HRS Facilities 1317 Winewood Boulevard Department of HRS Tallahassee, Florida 32301 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
