The Issue The ultimate issue in these cases is whether the Petitioners are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Health Care Cost Containment Board pursuant to Chapter 407, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact La Amistad. Standing. By letter dated April 27, 1990, to the Executive Director of the Board, the managing director of La Amistad requested "exemption from HCCCB reporting requirements due to its considerable likeness to Daniel Memorial Hospital, which was exempted in October, 1989." La Amistad's request for exemption was premised on the Board's Final Order in Daniel Memorial Hospital v. Health Care Cost Containment Board, DOAH Case No. 89-1839H, in which Daniel Memorial Hospital was determined by the Board to not be subject to the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. By letter dated July 25, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed La Amistad that La Amistad's "request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied." The Board informed La Amistad that it could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if La Amistad wished to contest the Board's denial of its request. La Amistad filed a Petition for Formal Hearing dated August 15, 1990, challenging the Board's notice that La Amistad was subject to the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. La Amistad's Petition for Formal Hearing alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact in this matter. Therefore, the Board filed La Amistad's Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 1990, for a formal administrative hearing. There is no provision in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, which allows persons to request an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, or authorizes the Board to declare any person to be "exempt" from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board had taken or planned to take any immediate action against La Amistad prior to its request for exemption. La Amistad has failed to prove that it has standing to institute the instant proceeding. Certificate of Need. La Amistad Foundation, Inc., the predecessor of La Amistad, was issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), certificate of need number 3064 to operate a 27-bed intensive residential treatment facility for children and adolescents in Maitland, Florida. In agreeing to issue certificate of need number 3064, the Department required La Amistad Foundation, Inc., to apply for licensure of its facility pursuant to the requirements of Rule 10D-28.100, et seq., Florida Administrative Code. A certificate of need is a prerequisite to licensure as a health care facility in Florida. The certificate of need issued to La Amistad and the stipulation upon which it was based do not expressly provide that the facility is a "specialty hospital" or otherwise state that it is a "hospital" under Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes. Licensure. On August 17, 1988, La Amistad Foundation, Inc., d/b/a La Amistad Psychiatric Treatment Center, was issued a license by the Department to "operate a SPECIAL PSYCHIATRIC hospital with 27 beds." On September 30, 1988, the license issued on August 17, 1988, was replaced by a license to La Amistad to "operate a INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT hospital with 27 beds." On August 17, 1990, the license issued on September 30, 1988, was replaced by a license to La Amistad to "operate a INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT-SPECIALTY hospital with 27 INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY beds." La Amistad operates and is surveyed by the Department, the agency responsible for licensing health care facilities in Florida, pursuant to Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. La Amistad's Location and Facilities. La Amistad's facility is located in a residential neighborhood at 201 Alpine Drive, Maitland, Florida. The facility provides a noninstitutional, residential setting and environment. Residents at La Amistad live in one of three small single-story buildings in a family-style atmosphere. The grounds of the facility include a play area and a multipurpose building which is used for recreational activities and therapy. Residents live in individual rooms which do not contain standard hospital equipment. La Amistad's facility does not include any seclusion rooms, restraints, treatment or procedure rooms that are required of general acute care or specialty psychiatric hospitals. There are no locked doors at La Amistad but residents are prohibited from leaving the facility without permission. La Amistad's facility does not have designated areas for diagnostic x- ray, clinical laboratory, surgery or obstetrical services. La Amistad's Residents. Residents at La Amistad are six to eighteen years of age. Residents suffer from a full range of psychiatric illnesses and disorders. The average length of stay at La Amistad is 221 days to one year. Ninety-five percent of the residents of La Amistad are referred from acute care specialty psychiatric or general hospitals. The payer mix at La Amistad is approximately 55% CHAMPUS (a government payer program), 25% from the Department and 25% nongovernment or private insurance. CHAMPUS payments to La Amistad include payments for all services whether provided by La Amistad or by referral. La Amistad's Staff. The full-time staff of La Amistad consists of mental health workers or psychiatric assistants, mental health counselors, registered nurses, marriage and family therapists, occupational therapists and recreational therapists. There is no physician "directly" employed on La Amistad's payroll. La Amistad has four psychiatrists, including a medical director, on its staff. They are independent contractors. Services Provided Directly to Residents. La Amistad provides diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illnesses and disorders to children and adolescents. Treatment of La Amistad residents is definitive psychiatric medical treatment. Psychiatry is a medical specialty and psychiatric treatment is a form of medical treatment. La Amistad is an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents. All residents at La Amistad are admitted only with a psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis of a psychiatric illness or disorder by a psychiatrist. Admitting diagnoses, which are determined by the admitting psychiatrists, run the full range of psychiatric illnesses and disorders. La Amistad does not treat "acutely or extremely suicidal" persons. Although direct psychiatric therapy is not regularly provided by a physician, psychiatric therapy is in fact provided by physicians and through a multi-disciplinary treatment team, which includes the psychiatrist. A psychiatrist is available to provide services twenty-four hours a day. A psychiatrist is ultimately responsible for each resident's care and treatment. Only a psychiatrist may admit or diagnose a resident, prescribe medication, monitor medication and determine when to discharge a resident. The only psychiatrists who can admit to La Amistad are the four independent contractor psychiatrists on La Amistad's staff. Psychiatrists regularly review medical and clinical records of residents at La Amistad to insure proper treatment. Treatment of residents may include the prescription of psychotropic medications, group therapy, recreational therapy and/or occupational therapy. Medications prescribed for residents are dispensed by a nurse, normally at the nurses' station. La Amistad complies with the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. La Amistad residents attend public schools. The Orange County public school system provides a fully-accredited educational program on-site. La Amistad provides the services referenced in Section 395.002(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Other Services. La Amistad does not provide clinical laboratory services on its premises. Although clinical laboratory services are not actually needed on a frequent basis, such services are ordered when necessary by an attending physician and are available through an agreement with an outside provider which provides such services pursuant to an agreement bid on a national basis by La Amistad's parent organization. Samples for clinical laboratory analysis, including blood samples, are collected on the premises. La Amistad does not provide x-ray services on its premises. Although x-ray services are not actually needed on a frequent basis, diagnostic x-ray services are available through a letter of agreement with Florida Hospital, an acute care hospital. La Amistad does not provide treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care. No person in need of obstetric services or in need of acute care services normally provided at a general or special acute care hospital, or having a primary diagnosis of drug or chemical dependency or suffering from an acute psychiatric disorder is eligible for residency at La Amistad. La Amistad does not have a pharmacy on its premises or a license to fill prescriptions. La Amistad provides pharmacy services through a "working relationship" with a local pharmacy in Winter Park, Florida, to fill residents' prescriptions. La Amistad provides dental treatment and routine and emergency medical treatment to residents through agreements with outside providers. Emergency medical services for residents are available pursuant to a letter agreement with Florida Hospital. Ultimate responsibility for deciding where a resident of La Amistad receives clinical laboratory services, x-ray services or pharmacy services remains with the parents of residents. If a parent does not exercise his or her right and the services are necessary, La Amistad will insure that the services are provided. Payment for such services are made directly from parents or insurance companies for some residents. The referral agreements between La Amistad and providers do not require that La Amistad make referrals exclusively to that provider. Pediatric diagnostic and treatment services are not regularly made available by La Amistad. Referrals for such services are made by the residents' attending physicians or parents. Accreditation. La Amistad is accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (hereinafter referred to as "JCAHO"). La Amistad is accredited and surveyed under JCAHO's consolidated standards. JCAHO's consolidated standards are "designed for use by organizations that provide mental health services, alcohol and drug abuse services, and services to mentally retarded/developmentally disabled persons, and in a variety of settings, including forensic facilities and community mental health centers. " Among the eligibility criteria for survey under the consolidation standards is the following: [t]he organization is not eligible for survey as a hospital under the Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, what constitutes a "hospital" for JCAHO purposes. Additionally, the eligibility criteria under the consolidated standards indicate that an entity which qualifies under the consolidation standards may still constitute a hospital even for JCAHO purposes. The standards provide, in pertinent part, that "the accreditation process is intended primarily for the following types of organizations . . . : . . . Hospitals not eligible for survey under the Accreditation Manual for Hospitals . . . ." [Emphasis added]. Manatee Palms. Standing. By letter dated March 29, 1990, to the Executive Director of the Board, counsel for Manatee Palms requested that a determination be made by the Board that Manatee Palms was "not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the HCCCB except for those reporting requirements found in Sections 407.07(1)(b) and 407.13, Florida Statutes, and therefore need not file any budget or actual reports from this point forwards." Manatee Palms' request for exemption was premised on the Board's Final Order in Daniel Memorial. By letter dated July 25, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed Manatee Palms that its "request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied." The Board informed Manatee Palms that it could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if Manatee Palms wished to contest the Board's denial of its request. Manatee Palms filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing dated August 15, 1990, challenging the Board's notice that Manatee Palms was subject to the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. Manatee Palms' Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact in this matter. Therefore, the Board filed Manatee Palms' Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 1990, for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. There is no provision in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, which allows persons to request an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, or authorizes the Board to declare any person to be "exempt" from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board had taken or planned to take any immediate action against Manatee Palms prior to its request for exemption. Manatee Palms has failed to prove that it has standing to institute the instant proceeding. Certificate of Need. Manatee Palms was built in 1986. It opened on or about January 12, 1987, as a 60-bed residential treatment facility for children and adolescents. Manatee Palms was built and opened without obtaining a certificate of need from the Department. Subsequent to its opening, Manatee Palms filed an application for a certificate of need which was issued by the Department on November 29, 1988, for "licensure as a specialty hospital under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, for a 60-bed intensive residential treatment center for children and adolescents, currently operating as Manatee Palms Residential Treatment Center " Licensure. Manatee Palms was initially licensed by the Department as a "residential child caring" facility and by the Department's Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program office to provide services. In January 1989, Manatee Palms filed an application for licensure with the Department. There was not a category for intensive residential treatment program under the column titled "hospital bed utilization" on the application. Therefore, the initials "IRTF" were hand written on the application with a notation that all 60 beds are used in an intensive residential treatment program. On October 25, 1989, a license was issued by the Department to Manatee Palms "to operate a Intensive Residential Treatment Facility - Specialty hospital with 60 IRTF beds." Manatee Palms is currently operating under this license. Manatee Palms operates and is surveyed by the Department pursuant to Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. Manatee Palms' Location and Facilities. Manatee Palms is located at 1324 37th Avenue, East, Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida. The Manatee Palms facility consists of a single building. Patients at Manatee Palms reside in semiprivate rooms. Manatee Palms' facility is a locked facility. Patients at Manatee Palms cannot leave the facility without permission because of the locked doors. Manatee Palms has seclusion and restraint capabilities because of the type of patients cared for at the facility: "some very, very severely emotionally disturbed children, some of which have come even from the state hospitals." Transcript page 181, lines 20-21. Detoxification facilities for the treatment of substance abuse patients are available at the facility. Manatee Palms' Patients. Patients are six to eighteen years of age. Patients suffer from chemical dependencies and a wide range of psychiatric disorders. Some patients have failed at other facilities and are very aggressive. The average length of stay at Manatee Palms is 97 days. Most of Manatee Palms' patients are referred from other facilities: "[w]e get some kids from other hospitals, acute care hospitals. We get some from therapists in the communities . . . ." Transcript page 180, lines 5-6. Manatee Palms' patients are physically healthy. Manatee Palms' Staff. Manatee Palms' staff consists of psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. There are six psychiatrists who provide treatment planning and care at Manatee Palms. Services Provided Directly to Patients. Manatee Palms provides diagnosis and twenty-four hour a day treatment of psychiatric illnesses and disorders to children and adolescents. Manatee Palms is an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents. A psychiatrist must approve every admission to Manatee Palms. Patients are admitted only upon an order of a medical doctor and upon a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. Although the facility administrator must ultimately decide whether a patient is admitted, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the facility administrator may veto or modify the medical decision of a psychiatrist to admit a patient. Within twenty-four hours of admission, a psychiatrist completes a psychiatric evaluation of each patient. Psychiatric care is provided to patients through an interdisciplinary team composed of a psychiatrist, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. The team identifies each patient's problems and develops a treatment plan for each patient. A psychiatrist meets with each patient for approximately one-half to one hour a week; more if required by a patient. The psychiatrist also meets with the treatment team once a week to evaluate a patient's progress and adjust treatment as needed. The multi-disciplinary team provides care and nurturing in a group setting designed to enhance the patient's experiences in the areas in which he or she is not successful. Treatment includes counseling, psychotropic medications, adjunctive therapies and schooling. Most patients attend school at the facility. School is conducted by teachers from the Manatee County School Board. Patients at Manatee Palms are considered to be in treatment from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed at night. A psychiatrist prescribes and monitors the use of psychotropic medications. Such medications are administered at the facility by a nurse. Registered nurses are at the facility twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A psychiatrist is always on call to deal with emergencies. Manatee Palms is able to provide detoxification treatment for patients. Manatee Palms complies with the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. Manatee Palms provides the services referenced in Section 395.002(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Other Services. Manatee Palms does not provide clinical laboratory services on its premises. Blood and urine samples are, however, taken by Manatee Palms personnel upon admission and from time to time after admission upon a physician's orders. Clinical laboratory services are available through an agreement with a non- affiliated laboratory. Manatee Palms provides diagnostic x-ray services through an agreement with Quality X-Ray of Sarasota, Inc., a non-affiliated provider. X-ray services are typically provided off-site but are also provided at Manatee Palms' facility through portable equipment. Manatee Palms does not provide treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care at its facility. Manatee Palms has a contract with a pharmacist. The pharmacist fills prescriptions at the facility. Emergency medical services are provided off-site to patients through Manatee Memorial Hospital, a non-affiliated hospital. Manatee Palms has a referral agreement with the hospital. Manatee Palms has an agreement with a group of family practice physicians. These physicians conduct physicals upon admission of a patient and when medically indicated. Manatee Palms projected in a 1990 budget filed with the Board that it would have the following approximate revenues: a. $108,000.00 from laboratory services; b. $350,000.00 from drug sales; and c. $17,000.00 from diagnostic radiology services. Manatee Palms also projected in the 1990 budget the following approximate expenditures: a. $50,000.00 for laboratory services; b. $61,000.00 for drug sales; and c. $16,000.00 from diagnostic radiology services. I. Accreditation. Manatee Palms is accredited by JCAHO. Manatee Palms is accredited and surveyed under JCAHO's consolidated standards. RTCPB. Standing. By letter dated March 29, 1990, to the Executive Director of the Board, counsel for RTCPB requested that a determination be made by the Board that RTCPB was "not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the HCCCB except for those reporting requirements found in Sections 407.07(1)(b) and 407.13, Florida Statutes, and therefore need not file any budget or actual reports from this point forwards." RTCPB's request for exemption was premised on the Board's Final Order in Daniel Memorial. By letter dated July 25, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed RTCPB that its "request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied." The Board informed RTCPB that it could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if RTCPB wished to contest the Board's denial of its request. RTCPB filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing dated August 15, 1990, challenging the Board's notice that RTCPB was subject to the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. RTCPB's Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing alleged that there were disputed issues of material facts in this matter. Therefore, the Board filed RTCPB's Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 1990, for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. There is no provision in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, which allows persons to request an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, or authorizes the Board to declare any person to be "exempt" from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board had taken or planned to take any immediate action against RTCPB prior to its request for exemption. RTCPB has failed to prove that it has standing to institute the instant proceeding. Certificate of Need. RTCPB was built in 1986-1987. It opened on or about June 1, 1987, as a 40-bed residential treatment facility for adolescents. RTCPB was built and opened without obtaining a certificate of need from the Department. Subsequent to its opening, RTCPB filed an application for a certificate of need which was issued by the Department on November 29, 1988, for "establishment of a licensed 40-bed intensive residential treatment facility in Palm Beach County . . . . Licensure. RTCPB was initially licensed by the Department as a "residential child care agency" and by the Department's Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program office to provide services. In May 1989, RTCPB filed an application for licensure with the Department. There was not a category for intensive residential treatment program under the column titled "hospital bed utilization" on the application. Therefore, the initials "IRTF" were hand written on the application with a notation that all 40 beds are used in an intensive residential treatment program. On May 29, 1990, a license was issued by the Department to RTCPB "to operate a Specialty Intensive Residential Treatment Facility hospital with 40 Intensive Residential Treatment Facility beds." RTCPB is currently operating under this license. RTCPB operates and is surveyed by the Department pursuant to Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. RTCPB's Location and Facilities. RTCPB is located at 1720 Fourth Avenue, North, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. The RTCPB facility consists of a single building. The facility is divided into two 20-bed wings. Boys reside on one wing and girls reside on the other wing. Patients at RTCPB reside in semiprivate rooms. There are no private rooms. RTCPB is a locked facility. Patients are not allowed to leave the facility without permission. RTCPB has seclusion and restraint capabilities because of the type of patients cared for at the facility. Detoxification facilities for the treatment of substance abuse patients are available at the facility. RTCPB's Patients. Patients are six to eighteen years of age. RTCPB patients suffer from chemical dependencies and a wide range or psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, conduct disorders and attention deficit disorders. For the fiscal year ending May 31, 1990, the average length of stay at RTCPB was 218 days. RTCPB routinely treats patients referred by the Department. For the fiscal year ending May 31, 1990, 24% of total patient days were provided to patients referred by the Department. Ninety-five percent of all patients admitted to RTCPB are patients who were previously treated in an acute psychiatric care setting. RTCPB patients are physically healthy. RTCPB's Staff. RTCPB's staff consists of psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. Services Provided Directly to Patients. RTCPB provides diagnosis and twenty-four hour a day treatment of psychiatric illnesses and disorders to children and adolescents. RTCPB is an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents. Patients are admitted to the facility by a director of admissions and an admissions committee. A psychiatrist provides a diagnosis justifying admission. Psychiatric care is provided to patients through an interdisciplinary team composed of a psychiatrist, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. The team reviews the background, psychiatric and psychological assessment, and social history of each patient and develops a treatment plan for each patient. A psychiatrist meets with each patient for a few minutes each day, five days a week. The psychiatrist also meets with the treatment team for approximately one and one-half hours a day, four days a week. The multi-disciplinary treatment team provides care and nurturing in a variety of therapies provided in a highly structured setting. Treatment includes counseling, psychotropic medications, adjunctive therapies and schooling. School is conducted at the facility by teachers from the Palm Beach County School Board. A psychiatrist prescribes and monitors the use of psychotropic medications. Such medications are administered at the facility by a nurse. Registered nurses are at the facility twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A psychiatrist is always on call to deal with emergencies. Detoxification treatment is available at the facility. RTCPB complies with the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D- 28.111, Florida Administrative Code. RTCPB provides the services referenced in Section 395.002(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Other Services. RTCPB does not provide clinical laboratory services on its premises. Blood and urine samples are, however, taken by RTCPB personnel upon admission and from time to time after admission upon a physician's orders. Clinical laboratory services are available through an agreement with a non- affiliated laboratory. RTCPB provides diagnostic x-ray services and dental services by referring the patient to an off-site provider. RTCPB does not provide treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care at its facility. Emergency medical services are provided off-site to patients through non-affiliated hospitals. RTCPB has a referral agreement with Bethesda Memorial Hospital. RTCPB has an agreement with a group of family practice physicians. These physicians conduct physicals upon admission of a patient and when medically indicated. RTCPB projected in a 1990 budget filed with the Board that it would have the following approximate revenues: a. $131,000.00 from laboratory services; b. $176,000.00 from drug sales; c. $6,000.00 from diagnostic radiology services; d. $11,000.00 for CT scanner services; and e. $3,600.00 for electrocardiography services. RTCPB also projected in the 1990 budget the following approximate expenditures: a. $46,000.00 for laboratory services; b. $22,000.00 for drug sales; c. $2,500.00 for diagnostic radiology services; d. $400.00 for CT scanner services; and e. $1,600.00 for electrocardiography services. I. Accreditation. RTCPB is accredited by JCAHO. RTCPB is accredited and surveyed under JCAHO's consolidated standards. Daniel Memorial. On October 26, 1989, a Recommended Order was issued in Daniel Memorial. In the Conclusions of Law in Daniel Memorial, the Hearing Officer concluded that a medical facility is subject to most of the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, only if it is a "hospital" as defined in Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes, which in turn incorporates the definition of "hospital" contained in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer also concluded that Daniel Memorial Hospital was not a "hospital" as defined in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes, and, therefore, was not subject to most of the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer in Daniel Memorial made the following conclusion of law: To meet the provisions of Subsection 396.002(6) [sic], supra, Daniel Memorial would have to provide the services set forth in both Subparagraphs (a) and (b), above. Because Daniel Memorial does not regularly provide the services defined in Subparagraph (b), above, it is not a hospital with[in] the scope of Subsection 396.002(6) [sic], supra. However, Subsection 395.002(8), supra, defines Intensive Residential Treatment Programs (IRTP's) as specialty hospitals without reference to the provisions of Subsection 395.002(6), supra. It is under Subsection 395.002(8), supra, that Daniel Memorial specifically is licensed. Its beds are excluded specifically from consideration under Subsections (6) and (14) of Section 395.002, supra. It is concluded that IRTP's are not specialty hospitals defined by Subsection 395.002(14), supra. The staff of the Board filed exceptions to the Recommended Order in Daniel Memorial. The exceptions filed by the staff of the Board were rejected by the Board in a Final Order issued on March 1, 1990. In the Final Order issued in Daniel Memorial, the Board adopted the Recommended Order issued by the Hearing Officer in its entirety. The Final Order issued in Daniel Memorial has not been appealed or overturned. All of the Petitioners in these cases requested that the Board declare them exempt from most of the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, because of their similarity to Daniel Memorial Hospital. Counsel for Manatee Palms and RTCPB also suggested that those facilities were exempt under the holding in Daniel Memorial simply because they are "intensive residential treatment programs." In a memorandum to the Board dated July 11, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed the Board of his action with regard to requests from entities like the Petitioners which had suggested that they were similarly situated to Daniel Memorial Hospital. In pertinent part, the Executive Director stated that "we are responding negatively to requests for exemption from these facilities for the reasons outlined." The reasons referred to by the Executive Director were set out in a memorandum dated June 25, 1990, from the Senior Attorney of the Board to the Executive Director. In essence, the Senior Attorney concluded that the "operation and licensure" of each entity seeking treatment similar to the treatment afforded Daniel Memorial Hospital should be reviewed to determine whether that entity constituted a "hospital" under Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The Senior Attorney recommended the following: Accordingly, I recommend that this agency deny any specialty hospital IRTP's request to be relieved of Chapter 407 requirements and recommend that administrative complaints be filed against those which fail to comply with Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The Board has not, however, taken any action against the Petitioners. In denying the Petitioners' request for exemption, the Executive Director of the Board indicated the following: The information you have provided is insufficient to establish that your facility falls within the narrow exception from reporting requirements afforded Daniel Memorial Hospital. Accordingly, your facility's request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied. The Board has failed to enunciate how, if at all, the Petitioners differ in their operation from Daniel Memorial Hospital. The Board did not take any action against the Petitioners inconsistently applying its Final Order in Daniel Memorial. The Board took the position during these proceedings that any medical facility which is licensed by the Department pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, is a "hospital" under Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes. The Board's Position. The Department's Interpretation of Relevant Sections of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The Department is charged with the responsibility of licensing "hospitals" pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The term "hospital" is defined by Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The terms "specialty hospital" are defined by Section 395.002(14), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). This definition incorporates by reference the definition of "hospital" contained in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The terms "intensive residential treatment program" are defined by Section 395.002(8), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The Department interprets the terms "specialty hospital" as used in Section 395.002(8), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), to mean "specialty hospital" as used in Section 395.002(14), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The Department interprets Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, to allow an intensive residential treatment program to be licensed as a "specialty hospital" if it meets the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. It is the Department's position that Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D- 28.111, Florida Administrative Code, require as a condition of licensure that intensive residential treatment programs provide services consistent with the services required to be provided by a "hospital" pursuant to Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). It is the Department's position that all intensive residential treatment programs licensed pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, are "hospital's" as defined in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). It is the Department's position that the Petitioners must continue to meet the definition of a "hospital" pursuant to Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), to be entitled to continued licensure by the Department. The Board's Reliance on the Department's Licensure of a Facility. It has been the position of the Board that the fact that a facility is licensed by the Department pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, constitutes the best evidence of whether the facility constitutes a "hospital" as defined in Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes. The Board did not adequately explicate its policy of relying upon the Department's licensure action under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Petitions in these cases because of the failure of the Petitioners to prove that they have been substantially affected by any action of the Board; or That the Board, if it rejects recommendation number 1, issue a Final Order dismissing the Petitions in these cases because the Petitioners have failed to prove they are not "hospitals" under the definition of Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. La Amistad's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 I.B.1. 2 I.B.2. 3 I.B.1. 4 I.B.3. 5 I.B.4. I.C.1. The Department's action was consistent with the stipulation between the Department and La Amistad. Not relevant. 8 I.C.2. 9 I.A.1. 10 I.A.1-2. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. IV.7. and hereby accepted. The Executive Director's memorandum was sent in July instead of June. 14 I.A.3. 15 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. 16 I.A.3. 17-18 Hereby accepted. 19 See V.B.1. 20-22 Hereby accepted. 23 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. 24 I.G.1. 25 I.D.1. 26 I.D.2. 27 I.E.3. 28 I.D.4. 29 I.E.4. See I.D.5. See I.F.1. See I.G.2. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 33 I.E.5. 34 Not relevant. 35 I.G.9. 36 I.H.10. 37 I.H.6. 38 I.H.4. 39 I.H.3. Not relevant. See I.H.1. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that La Amistad "does not regularly make available clinical laboratory services to its residents." Hereby accepted. 43 I.H.8. 44 I.H.9. The last sentence is not relevant. 45 I.H.8. 46-47 I.H.5. 48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49 I.I.2. 50-51 See I.I.3. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See I.H.1-10. Hereby accepted. Conclusion of law. Not relevant. Conclusion of law. La Amistad failed to prove exactly what the agreement with Florida Hospital was. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. The failure of the Board to provide such evidence does not preclude a proper application of unambiguous statutory law. Manatee Palms' and RTCPB's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2 III.B.1. 3 III.C.1. 4 III.B.2. 5-6 III.B.3. 7 III.C.2. 8 III.C.3. and D.1. 9 III.G.1. 10 III.I.1. and I.I.2-3. 11 III.G.3. 12 III.E.5. 13 III.E.6. 14 III.G.5. 15-16 III.G.6. III.G.8. III.H.6. III.G.2. and 9. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The suggestion that "individual psychiatric treatment is not routinely provided" is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20 III.H.1-2. III.H.3. and 5. III.H.3. III.H.4. The suggestion that "other definitive medical treatment of similar extent" is not provided is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant. 25-27 III.E.4. 28-30 Hereby accepted. The last sentence of 30 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. III.A.1. III.A.3. Not supported by the weight of the evidence; too speculative. II.B.1. and II.D.1. 35 II.B.1. 36 II.C.1. 37 II.B.2. 38-39 II.B.3. 40 II.C.2. 41 II.C.3. 42 II.G.1. 43 II.I.1. and I.I.2-3. 44 II.G.4. 45 II.E.4. 46 II.E.5. 47 II.G.6. 48-49 II.G.7. 50 II.G.10. II.H.7. The last sentence is not relevant. II.G.2. and 11. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The suggestion that "individual psychiatric treatment is not routinely provided" is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 53 II.H.1-2. II.H.6. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See II.H.3. II.H.4. The suggestion that "other definitive medical treatment of similar extent" is not provided is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. 59 II.E.3. 60-62 Hereby accepted. 63 Not relevant. 64 II.A.1. 65 II.A.3. Not supported by the weight of the evidence; too speculative. IV.1. See IV.2. The Hearing Officers' comment concerning whether all intensive residential treatment programs are not hospitals is dicta. IV.3. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 69 IV.4. 70 IV.5. 71-72 Hereby accepted. Not relevant. Cumulative. 75-81 Hereby accepted. 82-83 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. 84 V.A.3. 85 Not relevant. 86-87 Hereby accepted. 88 Not relevant. The Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 I.C.1. 2 I.G.1. 3 I.G.2. 4-5 I.G.3. 6 I.E.3. 7 I.E.4. 8 I.G.1. 9 I.H.1-9. 10 I.G.7. 11 I.G.8. 12 I.I.1. III.C.3. III.G.1. III.G.2. III.E.2. See III.D.5. III.G.3. III.G.4. and 7. III.D.6-7. and III.G.6. III.E.3. III.E.5. See III.H.1-5. III.H.7. 25 III.H.11. 26 III.I.1. 27 II.C.3. 28 II.G.1. 29 II.G.2. 30 II.D.5. and II.E.2. 31 II.D.4-5. 32 II.D.6. 33 II.F.1. and II.G.2. and 4. 34 II.G.2. and 4-5. 35 II.G.9. 36 II.E.3. 37 See II.H.1-6. 38 II.H.8. 39 II.G.13. 40 II.I.1. 41 V.A.1. and 6. 42 V.A.5. 43 V.A.7. 44 V.B.1. The Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Not supported by the weight of the evidence or a correct conclusion of law. Not relevant. 3 I.C.1., II.C.3. and III.C.3. 4 V.A.5. 5-6 Law. 7 I.A.1., II.A.1. and III.A.1. 8 IV.7-8. 9, 11, 16, 18, 30, 32-33, 41, 43, 46-47, 51 and 64 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They are only relevant, however, as they relate to one or more of the Petitioners. 10-11 I.G.1. 13 I.G.3. I.G.3, II.G.2. and III.G.3. I.G.6, II.G.7. and III.G.6. 17 Hereby accepted. 19 I.D.2., II.D.2-3. and III.D.2-3. Hereby accepted. II.D.4. and III.D.5. III.D.4. III.D.3. Hereby accepted. 25 I.D.4. II.D.5. and III.D.6. Hereby accepted. II.D.6. and III.D.7. 29 I.C.2. 31 II.D.4. and III.D.5. 34 I.G.3. 35 II.G.8. 36 I.G.7. 37 I.G.7. and I.H.6. 38-39 I.F.3. 40 I.G.2., II.G.2. and III.G.2. 42 Law. 44 I.G.2-5. 45 I.G.1. 48-50 Law. 52 I.G.2-5. 53 Law. 54 I.E.5. 55 I.G.5. 56-61 Hereby accepted. 62-63 V.A.5. 65 Not relevant. 66 V.A.8. 67 V.A.1. 68 V.A.9. See V.A.9. Hereby accepted. See V.A.9. 72 I.C.1., II.C.3. and III.C.3. 73 Not relevant. 74 I.A.4., II.A.4. and III.A.4. 75 Not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Julia P. Forrester General Counsel Health Care Cost Containment Board 301 The Atrium 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Stephen M. Presnell Associate Public Counsel Peter Schwarz Associate Public Counsel c/o The Florida Legislature 111 West Madison Street Room 812 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400
The Issue Whether there is need for a new 60-bed general acute care hospital in Seminole County? If so, to which of two applicants should a CON be awarded to construct and operate the hospital: Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. (CON 9496), or Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital (CON 9497)?
Findings Of Fact The Battleground: District 7 At the heart of the conflict in this proceeding is that the two corporate combatants are the dominant providers of hospital services in major metropolitan Orlando and both are providers of very high quality acute care hospital services. Each seeks authority to construct and operate a 60-bed general acute care hospital in the fast-growing community of Oviedo, Florida. The Agency for Health Care Administration, arbiter of the conflict, has introduced a quarrel of its own by its determination that there is no need for the hospital in Oviedo, a determination with which the hospitals decidedly take issue. Oviedo is an incorporated area in east Seminole County. Seminole County, in turn, is a county that with two other counties makes a contribution by suburb or city center to the conurbation in and around Orlando, Florida's largest non-coastal city. Seminole County is also one of four counties that comprise District 7, one of eleven health service planning districts into which the Legislature has partitioned the state. See Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. The other three counties in the District are Orange, Osceola and, removed from the controversy in this case, Brevard. The four counties are each considered by rule of AHCA to constitute a sub-district of District 7. Brevard is Sub-district 1; Orange, sub-district 2; Seminole, sub-district 3; and, Osceola, sub-district 4. The parties consider parts of Seminole and Osceola Counties to constitute the major metropolitan area of the City of Orlando together with, of course, parts of Orange County, the county that contains incorporated Orlando. As indicated above and by its irrelevance to this proceeding, no part of Brevard County is considered by the parties to make up any of metropolitan Orlando. There is also one county outside District 7 about which the parties introduced evidence, Lake County in District 3. Nonetheless, District 7 remains the primary battleground with a focus on sub-district 3 as the site of the CON sought by the parties. The Parties AHCA The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. ORHS One of the two dominant health care providers in the Orlando area, Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates eight facilities in the four-county area of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Lake Counties, "the only market" (tr. 22) that it serves. Half of ORHS's facilities are in Orange County. These four facilities are: Orlando Regional Medical Center, a 517-bed general acute care hospital that provides tertiary services in addition to routine acute care hospital services and that is the site of a trauma center; Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children and Women, a 281-bed specialty hospital that provides women's and children's services including neonatal services; Orlando Regional Sand Lake Hospital, a 153-bed general acute care facility that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation services; and Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital, a 267-bed general acute care hospital that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation and skilled nursing unit services. In Seminole County, ORHS wholly owns and operates Orlando Regional South Seminole Hospital ("South Seminole"), a 206-bed general acute care facility that provides adult/child psychiatric and adult substance abuse services as well as general acute care services. In Osceola County, ORHS owns Orlando Regional St. Cloud Hospital, an 84-bed general acute care facility. In Lake County, ORHS jointly owns and operates two health care facilities under joint venture business arrangements: South Lake Hospital, a 68-bed general acute care facility and Leesburg Regional Medical Center, a 294-bed general acute care facility. The wholly owned facilities operate under a single license and are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations ("JCAHO"). One of six statutory teaching hospitals in the state, ORHS has been in continuous existence since 1918. Its mission is to be a local, unaffiliated health care provider, providing health care services to the citizens of Central Florida. Recognized as one of the top 100 hospitals in the United States by US News and World Report, ORHS has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions. As but one example, it was the winner of a Consumer Choice Award from the National Research Corporation for the years 1999 through 2001. Orlando Regional Healthcare System provides outstanding health care of the highest quality to patients at its eight facilities in three of the four counties in AHCA's Health Care Planning District 7. Florida Hospital The other dominant health care provider in the Orlando area is Florida Hospital. Founded as a sanitarium, Florida Hospital has been in existence and a presence in the Orlando medical community since 1908. Florida Hospital is part of the Adventist Health System, a not-for-profit hospital organization that operates hospitals throughout the country. In the Orlando area, Florida Hospital has seven acute care campus systems operated under a single license in a three- county area: Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties. The original and main campus is located in downtown Orlando. A second campus is in East Orlando. The five other facilities are in Altamonte Springs, to the northwest of Orlando; Apopka, further northwest; Winter Park, just north of Orlando; and Celebration and Kissimmee, both southwest of the city. Florida Hospital also operates Florida Hospital Waterman under a separate license in Lake County in District 3. The seven campuses in District 7 are unified by more than just licensure. Consistent with their operation under a single license, all seven operate under a single provider number with Medicare/Medicaid. They have a single medical staff and a single accreditation with JCAHO. The seven Florida Hospital campuses operate under a single leadership structure; all policies, procedures and matters that pertain to the operation of the hospital are part of the single body of operational guidelines and procedures that are provided by the organization. The seven campuses also operate under a single price structure, a single charge master that runs across the entire organization. The goal of operating the seven campuses in a unified manner is to maintain continuity and promote one standard of care so that when a patient enters any of the facilities, the patient can rely on receiving the same high standard of care as would be received at any other Florida Hospital facility. Operation under a single structure also provides a patient with the coverage of physicians and staff throughout the system to cover any and all needs of the patient. From its inception, the mission of Florida Hospital has been to extend a religious ministry of healing to the community consistent with Adventist principles. Among these principles are awareness of the eternal nature of the moment at which care is extended to the patient as well as recognition of each patient as a child of God, entitled to the highest possible quality of care embodied in "whole person health" (tr. 876) composed of physical, mental and spiritual well-being. Florida Hospital carries out its mission with "a strong sense of stewardship for providing care in the communities that [the hospital] serve[s] . . . ." (Tr. 875). The success of Florida Hospital's philosophy of care is evident in recognition bestowed by others. For example, Florida Hospital was recognized as being among the top 50 hospitals in the country for nine specialties in the July 2002 edition of U.S. News & World Report's "America's Best Hospitals." To take but one of the nine, "Heart & Heart Surgery," Florida Hospital is ranked 12th in the nation in the company of those ranked just above: Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic (Rochester), Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Duke University Medical Center, Johns Hopkins, Texas Heart Institute-St. Luke's in Houston, Emory University Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and the UCLA Medical Center. Well-Matched Applicants In its state agency action report ("SAAR"), AHCA noted that ORHS and Florida Hospital are two large, well-matched hospital systems. Both operate over 1,500 beds in the Orlando area. Both generate approximately two billion dollars of gross charges annually. Both deliver over 300,000 patient days of patient care. Together, they are the overwhelmingly dominant providers of health care in the major metropolitan Orlando area. In the SAAR, the Agency discussed distinctions between the two applicants. Had AHCA determined that there was need for the facility, it would have had a difficult time deciding which corporation should be awarded the CON. None of the distinctions between the two were found by AHCA to be substantial enough to serve as a basis for choosing either applicant over the other. Other District 7 Hospitals Besides the two applicants, the dominant providers of hospital services in District 7 by virtue of number of facilities (13 hospitals in the District and three hospitals in Lake County immediately adjacent to the District), among other reasons, there are three other hospitals in the District. Health Central is a hospital operated by a statutorily created tax district in the City of Ocoee, in Orange County. Central Florida Regional Hospital is owned and operated by Hospital Corporation of America ("HCA") located in the City of Sanford in Seminole County. It is approximately 14 miles from the proposed locations of the applicant's facilities. Osceola Regional Medical Center, another HCA facility, is located in Kissimmee in Osceola County, not far from Florida Hospital's Kissimmee and Celebration facilities. Stipulation The parties stipulated to the following: The applicable fixed-need is zero. Both applications complied with the requirements of Sections 408.037, 408.038 and Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 408.039, Florida Statutes, and the requirements of Rules 59C-1.008 and 59C-1.010, Florida Administrative Code. Both applications meet the review criteria contained in Subsections 408.035 (3),(6),(8),(10) and (11), Florida Statutes and the review criteria in Subsections 408.035(4),(5) and (12), Florida Statutes, are not applicable in this case. The statutory review criteria at issue in this case are Subsections 408.035(1), (2), (7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need Numeric need for general acute care beds is determined pursuant to Agency rule, Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code. The rule's methodology for the calculation of numeric need for general acute care beds is by sub-district. Since "there really is no longer a future projection methodology in the rule . . . it was stricken out two or three years ago," Gene Nelson, one of ORHS' experts in health planning, refers to the rule as containing a "retrospective occupancy model." (Tr. 619). Under the methodology, additional beds are not normally approved in any sub-district where historic occupancy is less than 75%. If occupancy exceeds 75%, beds will be awarded to bring occupancy down to 75%. In other words, instead of projecting forward as it once did to determine need, the rule looks back to occupancy. If occupancy in the sub- district has met the threshold, then positive numeric need is established. Criticism has been leveled at the methodology. Not taking into account future population growth or occupancy rates at times other than midnight, are but two examples. Criticism, however, of the rule is of little moment in this case since the case is a challenge to agency action not to the rule that contains the methodology. Whatever the appropriateness or validity of the criticism, the calculations pursuant to the methodology have not yielded a fixed-need pool above zero for any of the many sub- districts in the eleven districts of the state for some years now. Nor is numeric need for general acute care beds expected by the Agency to exceed zero anywhere in the state for the foreseeable future. During this time of numeric need "drought," AHCA, nonetheless has awarded CONs for new general acute care beds and even new hospitals on a number of occasions. For example, "[d]espite the fact that there was an applicant proposing to relocate beds within the subdistrict, which wouldn't have affected the bed inventory at all, the state elected to approve [another] applicant . . . that applied for a brand-new 60 bed hospital" (tr. 635) in the community of Lady Lake in District 3. The application in that instance had been filed in the fall of 1998. In a second example, in the fall of 2001, a few years later, Osceola Regional and Florida Hospital Celebration were each approved to add beds to existing facilities despite the fact that there was no numeric need and the hospitals did not meet the statutory occupancy levels for additional beds. Mr. Nelson also testified about a third recent example where a new hospital was built when the subdistrict occupancy was low, the facts of which compare favorably, in his view, with the facts in this case. As he tells it, these three cases, compared to this case, produce inconsistency: In the fall of 1999, Sacred Heart Hospital applied to build a new 60-bed hospital in the southern portion of Walton County. That particular subdistrict is actually a two-county subdistrict consisting of Okaloosa and Walton counties, has some existing hospitals, current subdistrict occupancy in that area is 56.3 percent. Despite . . . the low occupancy . . . the state recognized the validity of the arguments about a growing population, about accessibility, many of the same issues that you have here and approved Sacred Heart to build a new 60-bed hospital in that location. * * * I am not criticizing any of these approvals. I . . . am criticizing [that the state was] presented with a similar set of circumstances in this case [and] the applications were all denied. And I think there is an inconsistency here. (Tr. 637-8). During the same period, moreover, beds have been added to existing hospitals without CON review, accomplished by way of Section 408.036(n), Florida Statutes. The statute allows 10 beds or 10% of licensed bed capacity to be added to a hospital's acute bed inventory upon certification "that the prior 12-month average occupancy rate for the category of licensed beds being expanded at the facility meets or exceeds 80% . . . ." Section 408.036(n)(1)a., Florida Statutes. See also Rule 59C-1.038(5), Florida Administrative Code. The bed additions made with and without CON review contribute to current numeric need determinations of "zero" and the continued reasonable expectation that AHCA's methodology for determining acute care bed numeric need will not yield numeric need in excess of zero for years to come. Most pertinently to this case, these additions erode AHCA's position advanced in hearing in this case for a preference to keep open the option for a future competitor, a competitor other than one of the two dominant providers, presumably when numeric need has been determined to exist, a condition not likely to come into play for the foreseeable future. However the future plays itself out and the effect on AHCA's current methodology, there remains one point central to consideration in this case. In light of a numeric need of "zero" for the applicable batching cycle, for a CON to be awarded as a result of this proceeding, as a first step, the applicants must demonstrate the existence of "not normal" circumstances that support an award. The two applicants attempt that step in tandem. Both ORHS and Florida Hospital contend that rapid population growth, problems of access to acute care and emergency services in the Oveido area, and mal-distribution of beds in the sub-district and district constitute circumstances that justify need for their proposed facilities. In other words, they are "not normal" circumstances. Not Normal Circumstances - Population Growth A rural farm community not long ago with a population of about 7,500, the City of Oviedo, in the last 15 years, has grown into an Orlando bedroom community. The population increase within the city limits is proof of the city's metamorphosis from countryside to suburb. During this period of time, the municipal population has nearly quadrupled to 28,000 with no end in sight to continued growth in the area as explained by ORHS' expert, Dr. Rond: The special circumstances . . . that drive this application are, first, the unprecedented population growth. As we have seen, we are experiencing population growth in excess of a hundred percent in the east Seminole area. In the adjacent Winter Springs area, we are experiencing a rate in excess of 51 percent. We are talking about a population that is going to reach almost 200,000 people by the year 2006. (Tr. 377-8). The area is projected for an additional 18.2% growth by 2006, when as testified to by Dr. Rond, the population will reach nearly 200,000. The municipal population is not the only population of a political entity in the area to quadruple in modern memory. Over the past three decades Seminole County has grown fourfold - from 83,692 in 1970 to 365,196 in 2000. As a result, the county is the third most densely populated of the state's 67 counties. Until the mid-1990's, population growth was concentrated in the western half of the county as Orlando area development spread north into Seminole County along the I-4 and U.S. Highway 17/92 corridors. Since then the rate of population growth has been dramatic in east Seminole County in part because of the opening of another major transportation corridor, the "Greenway," Highway 417. Between 1990 and 2001, east Seminole County more than doubled in size (24,840 to 51,287; a 107% increase) while West Seminole grew by only 22%. East Seminole County is expected to remain the fastest growing portion of the county into the foreseeable future. With approximately 43% of the total land area of the county but only about 16% of the population, it remains much less densely populated than the remainder of the county, affording greater opportunities for future growth. Seminole County is unique in the state from the perspective of bed-to-population ratios. The three hospitals in Seminole County with a combined total of 575 licensed beds, yield a ratio of 1.55 beds per 1,000 population; tied for lowest bed to population ratio of the sub-districts in the state. The only area with a comparable ratio is Sub-district 8-4, comprised of Glades and Hendry Counties, located southwest of Lake Okeechobee, "a very rural area." (Tr. 625). While these two sub-districts are similar in bed to population ratio, they are at opposite extremes in terms of population density. The population of Seminole County, at 371,000 is nearly nine times the combined populations of Glades and Hendry Counties at slightly more than 42,000. Sub-district 8-4 is "totally unlike Seminole County from the standpoint of population demographics; and yet in terms of resource availability, . . . it has a comparable amount of resources per thousand population." (Id.) Thus, Seminole County occupies a unique place in the state for its low bed-to- population ratio considering its overall population. Population forecasts for the next five-year period support the expectation of continued strong growth in east Seminole County. For example, the downtown area of Oviedo plans a residential area with a density up to 50 dwellings per acre, at least one of the highest in the County. In the City of Oviedo vicinity, median densities are increasing from 4 homes per acre to 10, to allow for townhouses. East Seminole County is reasonably expected to have 60,597 residents by the year 2006, an 18.2% increase over 2001. By comparison, West Seminole County is expected to experience only a 6.3% rate of growth. Projected growth in the City of Oviedo, moreover, is in all likelihood understated due to significant residential developments currently underway that alone are expected to add up to 6,238 new residents to the city's population. One need only look to actual growth in the area for support for such a prediction. Actual growth has consistently outpaced projected growth governed by methodologies that have repeatedly failed to reflect the reality of population growth in Oviedo. Related to population growth are utilization projections by the applicants' health planning experts for an Oviedo hospital. Judy Horowitz, Florida Hospital's expert health care planner, explained Florida Hospital's: [W]e looked at historically what had come out of the service area as we defined it. We projected that that volume would grow in proportion to population growth. We looked at a subset of services, those that were likely to be provided at a community hospital as was being proposed by Florida Hospital Oviedo. We looked at what we thought a reasonable market share would be; and our overall forecast is that within two years of opening this facility, that we would reach 77 percent occupancy at a 60-bed facility. So our year two, which is the 12 months ending June of 2007, . . . . we would already be at 77 percent occupancy. Then our first year we would be at approximately 68 percent occupancy. * * * [T]here is clearly sufficient demand to support the hospital as proposed; and the fact that we are projecting a relatively high utilization very quickly shows the magnitude of that demand. (Tr. 1352, 1353). With the high level of population growth and the demand for hospital services that such growth generates, the citizens of Oviedo expect access to hospital care within the community. In keeping with citizen expectation, the City of Oviedo has adopted a resolution that urges AHCA to approve a new hospital in the Oviedo community. It has been joined in its resolve by the Board of County Commissioners for Seminole County through a resolution of its own. To underscore the force of the two resolutions, the corporate parties presented the testimony of representatives of both the City Council and the County Commission. Grant Malloy, the County Commissioner for County District I who grew up in the area with fond childhood memories of "being overcome by the orange blossom smells, they were so intense," (tr. 802) described the growth observed first-hand by him during his lifetime as "phenomenal." (Tr. 806). In answer to the question whether his constituents would benefit by a new 60-bed hospital, Commissioner Malloy testified I do believe so. There is . . . the growth that's occurring there. And I heard . . . discussion about getting to some of the other hospitals. And once you get out of Seminole County . . . the roads are very, very difficult to travel on especially getting into Orlando. Especially rush hour . . . . . . . [T]he growth . . . would support such a facility. I know our board passed a resolution, along with the City of Oviedo[.] [O]ur board, and all the commissioners are unanimously supportive of a hospital in the area. I haven't heard from any residents or constituents that have said it was a bad idea. . . . [P]eople are pretty excited about it. (Tr. 807-8). Tom O'Hanlon, Chairman of the City Council, in the company of three other members of the council, unequivocally backed up Commissioner Malloy's appeal for a new hospital. The changes he has seen in Oviedo, he described as: Dramatic changes. When I moved there, [Oviedo] was a very rural area, and it is no longer . . .; it’s a highly compacted urban area. [W]e are working on a new master plan for downtown, which will have higher densities than we have in our city today. (Tr. 812). Chairman O'Hanlon went on to describe how the pace of the growth continuously outstrips population projections that are the product of the City's best efforts to follow appropriate methodologies for making such projections: [T]he city continually makes population projections. I have always been involved with them[.] [T]here are guidelines . . .; and everytime we make them, the city grows far in excess of th[e] projections. The area is such a dynamic area because we have got the University of Central Florida there, which is just growing as fast as the city is, maybe even faster. You have the Research Park there and you have got excellent schools. And for that combination . . . everybody wants to move there. (Tr. 812-3). The university is just south of the city limits. It has minimal dormitory facilities on campus. The result is that "a vast majority [of students] live off campus in housing and apartments [and they are impacting all the services that must be provided in Oviedo.]" (Tr. 814). Following this testimony of Chairman O'Hanlon, the following colloquy ensued between him and counsel for ORHS: Q Is it fair to say, Councilman O'Hanlon, that the City of Oviedo and surrounding area is in growing urban area that has everything but a hospital? A That is a true statement. Q Are you familiar, Councilman O'Hanlon, with the proposals of Orlando Regional Healthcare System and Florida Hospital to locate a 60-bed hospital in the City of Oviedo? A Yes. Q Do you support that effort? A A hundred percent. Q Do you believe, Councilman O'Hanlon, it would be of benefit to your constituents to have that [hospital] in the city of Oviedo? A Absolutely. People approach me every week wanting to know where our hospital is. Q Can't understand why it's not there already?A Well what they understand is that there is a tremendous need for a hospital and they don't understand why it's not in the process. (Tr 816-7). Residents of Oviedo also do not understand why they have to drive for such a long time to reach a hospital particularly when their goal is the emergency department. This concern about which Councilman O'Hanlon hears from a constituent "at least once a month" (tr. 819) also made its way into the resolutions of the two political bodies in the form of an identical introductory clause, as follows: "WHEREAS, there are increasing problems with timely access to care especially for emergencies," (Joint ORHS/Florida Hospital Nos. 8 and 10). It is, moreover, a concern that takes up the second prong of the applicants' case for "not normal" circumstances: issues of access. - Access The Oviedo Service Area Although similarities exist between the two, the Oviedo Service Areas defined by the two applicants are somewhat different. The service area selected by ORHS is larger than the service area selected by Florida Hospital. The Primary Service Area ("PSA") for ORHS' proposed hospital is composed of four zip codes: 32765, 32732, 32766, and 32708. Of the four, the first three are in eastern Seminole County, that is, east of Highway 417, the Greenway, and south of Lake Jessup. The fourth, 32708 in the Winter Springs area, is just west of the Greenway. The Winter Springs zip code was included in ORHS' PSA in part because it is adjacent to the Greenway. It has also experienced tremendous population growth and is very close to the proposed site for ORHS' hospital. A secondary service area proposed by ORHS is composed of a zip code in Seminole County north of Lake Jessup, 32773, and three zip codes in Orange County, 32817, 32820, and 32826. Located in the midst of the three Orange County zip codes is zip code 32816. It appears on ORHS exhibits as part of the secondary service area. As the zip code for the University of Central Florida, it has a very low residential population so that there are only a few students who might live in a dorm that would list it as their residence when receiving hospital services. There are actually "very few" (tr. 302) discharges from zip code 32816. If one does not include zip code 32816 then ORHS' service area is a comprised of eight zip codes. The April 1, 2001, population for the primary and secondary service areas or the service area designated by ORHS is 170,774. This service area has more than doubled in population over the last decade. Over the next five years, the service area is expected to reach 193,408 residents, of which 45% will be of prime child bearing age (15-44), "a dominant position for that age cohort within the population." (Tr. 315). The Oviedo service area is defined by Florida Hospital as four zip codes in Seminole County, 32708, 32732, 32765, and 32766 and one in Orange County: 32826 (all zip codes in ORHS' service area) with a population of more than 100,000. Florida Hospital's service area does not include Zip Code 32773 (the zip code north of Lake Jessup) that is in ORHS' service area nor, with the exception of 32826, does it include any of the Orange County zip codes that are in ORHS' service area. Thus, there are five zip codes in what Florida Hospital regards as the Oviedo Service Area and eight in what ORHS regards as the Oviedo Service Area if zip code 32816 is excluded. Although somewhat different, for purposes of examining travel distance and time between Oviedo and area hospitals, the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants are similar enough to be considered to be the same. Or, as William E. Tipton, an expert in traffic transportation and civil engineering, testified at hearing, the results of his study entitled "Travel Time Analysis Proposed ORHS Oviedo Campus, Oviedo, Florida" (ORHS Ex. 14) would not be substantially different if he had focused on the Florida Hospital site instead of the ORHS site. Travel Time Analysis Mr. Tipton prepared a travel time analysis to evaluate the differences in travel time that could be anticipated with the development of a hospital campus in Oviedo. Mr. Tipton's study concluded that there would be a reduction of average daily travel time from the ORHS PSA to a hospital by 64% or 18 minutes. The maximum reduction will be 75% of the time or 21 minutes. In the critical peak afternoon hour, there will be a maximum reduction of 79% or 22 minutes in time from that which exists today. The reductions in drive distance for Oviedo area residents if a hospital were in Oviedo would be significant especially in the arena of emergency services. Emergency Services Access to emergency services at a hospital emergency department ("ED") is one of the most important factors in making sure people have reasonable access to community hospitals. "[Y]ou really need . . . immediate care for emergencies, and so it's important to be able to get to the emergency department quickly and to receive care rapidly once you get there." (Tr. 336). Between 1997 and 2001, the hospitals experiencing the highest percentage of ED visit increase, other than Health Central, were Florida Hospital East in Orange County and South Seminole Hospital in Seminole County. During the period between 1997 and 2001, although the population of Seminole County grew less than Orange County, Seminole County had a larger percentage of ED visits. Specifically, the population of Seminole County grew 12% but its ED visits increased 23%, twice its population growth. During the same period, the population of Orange County grew by 15% but its ED visits only increased by 17%. Closer examination of these statistics reveals that ED visits in the downtown area of Orlando, to include Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, were below the county average. However, suburban hospitals, or those in outlying areas, particularly near Oviedo, had much greater ED visit growth: ED visits grew 27% at Florida Hospital Apopka and 37% at Florida Hospital East. Florida Hospital East is the closest hospital in Orange County to the Oviedo area. Of the hospitals in Seminole County, South Seminole was the most severely affected by ED visit increase with a 38% increase of ED visits between 1997 and 2001. (ED visits in excess of 27,000 by area residents are projected in 2006.) In the Oviedo area there are unfortunate but not uncommon delays in emergency transport. More than 20% of emergency transports involve delays of in excess of 45 minutes after arrival at the hospital. These delays are serious because patient outcomes decline dramatically if definitive care is not delivered within the "golden hour," a concept that: reflects the fact that patient outcomes decline [dra]matically in terms of . . . mortality rates if definitive care is not delivered within one hour of the traumatic injury that has been sustained. In cardiology, they tend to . . . say "time is muscle," * * * the longer it takes for a patient to get definitive care following a major cardiovascular event, the more muscle mass is likely to be damaged. . . . [Y]ou can go on and talk about stroke victims, cerebral vascular patients and just a whole array of patients who [fare] much better in terms of morbidity and mortality if they receive definitive care within an hour of the episode. (Tr. 336). Part of the delay for patients in need of prompt emergency services is due to ambulance standing time. Standing time is the time a patient waits in the ambulance or hallway of the emergency department before the patient is seen by medical staff. This standing time does not include the time it takes the ambulance to respond to the call or the time the EMS personnel spend at the scene to stabilize the patient. Nor does it include the travel time to the hospital from the scene. Ambulance standing time for patients from the Oviedo area on average is between 42 and 47 minutes. When average travel times established in Mr. Tipton's study are combined with the standing times, there is not one existing provider of emergency services that can provide a patient from Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area or ORHS' PSA with emergency care within the "golden hour." This combination, moreover, as stated above, does not take into account the dispatch time and time of the ambulance at the scene. The typical types of emergency calls EMS personnel see in Oviedo include difficulty breathing, auto accidents, kids falling off bicycles, heart attacks, and drug overdoses. The largest majority of calls would go to a local community hospital as opposed to trauma center in downtown Orlando. Jeffrey M. Gregg, Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, which includes the Certificate of Need Program for the Agency for Health Care Administration, testified that emergency room access is a problem that has gotten worse over time. Mr. Gregg also stated that a new hospital in the area will improve emergency access for people in the immediate area. A new hospital in Oviedo service area would also benefit and improve emergency access for patients in Orange County emergency rooms by lessening the emergency patient loads they experience. Wayne Martin, Fire Chief, Emergency Management Director, City of Oviedo, testified that the standing times and delays at the area hospital emergency rooms tie up Oviedo area ambulance services for an extended period of time. Emergency Medical Service ("EMS") staff must stay with their patient until the patient is taken into the emergency room and given medical care by emergency department staff. Because of these delays, EMS staff are out of their service area for extended periods of time. This decreases the level of service for the residents of the Oviedo area. One aspect of the problem influences another so as to create a compounding effect. Dr. Robert A. Schamberger, a family practitioner in Oviedo, testified that recently a patient went to the emergency room at an area hospital and it took 16 hours from the times she arrived until she was seen by the emergency room personnel. Dr. Schamberger tried to admit another patient of his in an area hospital on a recent Friday and was informed there were no beds. The hospital said they would call when they had an available bed. The patient was finally admitted on Monday. Emergency room waiting times across the entire community are several hours, which is an unacceptable care standard. Dr. Zulma Cintron practices internal medicine in Oviedo. Dr. Cintron testified that there is a "huge need" for a hospital in the Oviedo area. "We definitely need the beds." Dr. Cintron has had patients with chest pains who ended up waiting in the emergency room for four, five, and six hours before receiving care. Patients with less imminent needs have waited 12, 16 even 24 hours. Dr. Cintron's testimony for Florida Hospital was confirmed by the testimony produced by ORHS of Scott Greenwood, M.D., a cardiologist who heads a cardiology group. The evidence provided by Drs. Schamberger, Cintron And Greenwood, anecdotal though it may be, supports the existence of a problem with emergency services access in the Oviedo area that is shown by the analysis provided by the combination of Mr. Tipton's traffic study and ambulance standing time. So does projected volume for ED visits. Projected volume at Florida Hospital Oviedo in year two would be in excess of 27,000 visits. The Oviedo area has a population that "is adequate to support a hospital at high utilization levels within [a] short period of time and also will generate a significant number of emergency visits." (Tr. 1355). A new hospital facility in the Oviedo service area would help to alleviate the delays currently being experienced in the area hospital emergency departments. The Agency is not unaware of the problem and the solution that an Oviedo hospital would provide. The issue for AHCA is "[w]ould the improvement that would result for some people justify the construction of an new hospital?" (Tr. 726). The applicants claim that the three existing Seminole County hospitals are not appropriately located to provide emergency services required by the growing population of Oviedo. Put another way, within the sub-district and District 7, ORHS and Florida Hospital assert there is a mal-distribution of beds. Mal-distribution of Beds While population growth has increased dramatically in east Seminole the opening of health care facilities in the east part of the county has lagged behind; the area has more than 100,000 people but no hospital. The three acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 7-4 are all located in the western portion of Seminole County. People tend to use hospitals closest to them especially for emergency services. Because of the north/south nature of the road corridors in Seminole County and the congestion and distances involved in east/west travel in the county, the Oviedo area population's access to existing hospital service in the district is problematic. The population has better access to resources in Orange County, a different subdistrict, and, in fact, 66% of the Oviedo population take advantage of that better access. Consistent with the pattern of transportation development in Seminole County, all three hospitals in Seminole County are located between I-4 and U.S. Highway 17-92. Florida Hospital Altamonte is situated along the 436 corridor, whereas South Seminole Hospital is located further to the north on State Road 434, while Central Florida Regional Hospital is situated at the northern border of the county along the U.S. Highway 17-92 corridor. Dr. Rond had this to say about the locations of the three Seminole County hospitals in relation to the population in east Seminole County: The resources in the western part of the county are not situated in such a way that they are being utilized effectively by residents of [ORHS'] service area. Instead, they seek to move along the north/south corridor, primarily the Greenway, to utilize the services located in Orange County or … they take other routes of access to reach Winter Park Hospital, which is . . . in Orange County. (Tr. 319). The problem of distribution of hospitals is not restricted simply to inside the county. There is a mal- distribution in District 7 as well. Overall in the district, there are 2.3 beds per thousand. Orange County enjoys a ratio that is very high when compared to Seminole County's. Orange County's bed to population ratio is 2.7 beds per thousand, whereas Seminole County's is only 1.55 beds per thousand. The average bed ratio in Florida is 2.85 per thousand. Whether measured against the state ratio or the Orange County ratio, general acute care hospital beds per thousand population in Seminole County is low. The ratio comparison between Orange County and Seminole County will improve with an Oviedo Hospital although it makes the overall ratio only "a little closer; so that Orange County has beds per thousand and Seminole County would have 1.6 beds per thousand." (Tr. 316). The applicants intend to make that improvement with their proposed projects. The Proposed Projects ORHS' Orlando Regional proposes to construct a new 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. The location was described at hearing by Karl W. Hodges, ORHS vice president of Business Development: [T]he hospital [will be built] within a two- mile radius of . . . Highway 426, also called Loma and Mitchell Hammock Road which is also called Red Bug Road. [The CON Application] further stipulates we'll be east of 417. (Tr. 20). Within that area, ORHS proposes to build a three-story 155,000 square foot facility on approximately 35 acres of land. Although a site has not yet been purchased, there is at least one parcel of 35 acres of land available in the area that can be acquired by ORHS at a price of $7,000,000 or less, as indicated in its application. The bed complement of the proposed facility will be eight ICU beds, ten labor-delivery-recovery and post-partum ("LDRP") beds serving the obstetrics department, 15 telemetry monitored beds, and 27 medical/surgical acute care beds. The proposal will add 30 beds to the inventory of beds in the sub-district but it will not add beds to the inventory of District 7. The 60 beds will be transferred by ORHS from two facilities. Thirty of the beds will come from South Seminole Hospital (in Seminole County). By itself, moving the 30 beds within the sub-district "for the stated goal of enhancing access . . . is a non-controversial project" (tr. 627) that is not subject to a certificate of need methodology but that still requires CON review and approval. The other thirty beds will come from Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital in Orange County. However attractive for its minimization of controversy, all 60 beds could not have been transferred from South Seminole because to do so would have raised its occupancy above 80%, "an untenable result." (Tr. 630). For the additional 30 beds, "Lucerne seemed like a logical choice, given its bed size and its utilization." (Tr. 628). The design of the proposed hospital is based on another ORHS facility: South Lake Hospital, a replacement facility that opened in January of 2000. Florida Hospital's Florida Hospital also proposes to construct a 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital owns the site, 15 acres at 8000 Red Bug Lake Road near an intersection with the Greenway. The site currently includes a two-story, 41,000 square foot medical office building and a one- story, 6,000 square foot urgent care center. A two-story, 161,000 square foot facility is proposed to be constructed on the remaining vacant space at the site that has been approved under the Development of Regional Impact process for a 120-bed hospital. Ownership of a DRI-approved site will save Florida Hospital time and expense entailed by permitting requirements. All 60 beds will be part of an innovative design referred to as a "universal room and universal care delivery model." For the present, Florida Hospital does not intend to provide obstetrics at the Oviedo facility but "all of the universal patient rooms are capable of being LDRP rooms" (tr. 1181) should Florida Hospital decide in the future to provide obstetric services at the hospital. Florida Hospital will transfer 60 beds from Orange County facilities so that Florida Hospital's proposal will increase the sub-district's bed inventory by 60 beds, 30 more than the increase that will be affected by ORHS' proposal. Just as with ORHS, Florida Hospital's proposal will not increase the bed inventory in District 7. Fifty beds will be transferred from Florida Hospital's Winter Park facility and 10 beds will transferred from Florida Hospital's Apopka facility. AHCA's View of the Proposals The Agency's conclusion that the applications did not demonstrate "not normal" circumstances was reached with difficulty. Review of the applications taxed the agency's decision-making process because of the challenging circumstances presented by the applicants. As Jeffrey Gregg testified for the Agency, when there is "no fixed-need pool," AHCA look[s] at applicants in terms of a unique set of circumstances that they present . . . and in this instance, The circumstances . . . in this case challenge the system, make it more difficult for [the Agency] to make a sound decision in the tradition of the CON program. (Tr. 723). However much in keeping or not with the tradition of the CON program, the determination that there were no "not normal" circumstances to justify need afforded a benefit to the Agency; it would not have to make the difficult choice between the applications. While it could have granted both applications, an option considered by the Agency (see tr. 729), no party contended in this proceeding that circumstances justify two new 60-bed hospitals in Oviedo. If need is proven for but one hospital, then a selection must be made. Yet, at every turn, AHCA has found one advantage held by an applicant to be defeated by another held by its opponent or one set of circumstances that would normally be an advantage neutralized by other considerations. For example, in view of the nature of the Orlando market, AHCA reasonably did not give much weight to ORHS' proposal to add fewer beds than Florida Hospital to the sub- district despite the fact that usually there would be advantage to a mere intra-sub-district move. In the absence of fixed need, for example, such a move would not have to be supported by "not normal" circumstances. To the contrary, however, from the point of view of practicality, it makes more sense "to take beds from a more urban setting [in Orange County, a different sub-district] where they are not being used [as proposed by Florida Hospital] and move them to a new rapidly growing area where there are not hospital beds." (Tr. 739). A sense of practicality guided AHCA throughout its CON review in this case. The Agency, in fact, approached the applications by "trying to be as practical as possible." (Id.) As explained by Mr. Gregg, again on behalf of AHCA: [The Agency] do[es] not give much weight to the fact that [the applicants] would be crossing subdistrict lines here and that one of them [ORHS] is in a position to . . . add fewer beds to the planning area. That's noted in the SAAR, but practically speaking, we are talking about a metropolitan area here. We are talking about in both cases large systems wanting to move beds from one part of their system to another part. So in many ways, . . . once again, [ORHS and Florida Hospital] are really well-matched and difficult to distinguish. (Tr. 724, emphasis supplied). The difficulty inherent in distinguishing between the applicants was repeatedly emphasized by the Agency. The point was brought home once more in questioning of Mr. Gregg by counsel at hearing: Q [W]ith regard to the minute distinctions between the applicants, at your deposition, some of the statements you made in that regard included [that ORHS and Florida Hospital] are both good citizens. All of these things in this case, coming up so close and so equal, that . . . in terms of CON analysis, it becomes very difficult . . . to make a distinction between the two of them. They are both just that good. And then also [the Agency] think[s] they compare very favorably, and very evenly, noting again and again and again that they are very, very close, very, very comparable. Is that still your position here today? A Yes. (Tr. 766-7). However close the Agency regards the two, there are differences in the applications. While some may not be of great benefit to a decision, others may serve to sustain a principled choice. Differences in the Applications Obstetrics The leading reason for hospitalization among area residents is the need for obstetrical services with births running at more than 2,000 per year. During the 12-month period ending June 2000, for example, childbirths accounted for 2,041 discharges. Of the top ten DRGs for discharges among area residents, uncomplicated vaginal delivery accounts for the most discharges, cesarean section ranks third and vaginal delivery with complications is seventh. In keeping with the demand for obstetrical services, the utilization patterns of the population in the Oviedo Service Area and the area's age composition, upon the opening of its facility, ORHS proposes to provide obstetrical services. The proposal is also due, in part, in response to the closing of the obstetric program at Florida Hospital East in May of 2001. There is physician support for ORHS' proposed obstetric services. Robert Bowles, M.D., testified by deposition that his group practice, Physician Associates of Florida, comprised of 14 obstetricians and gynecologists would cover obstetrics at an Oviedo hospital. While Dr. Bowles would not personally admit obstetrics patients at the new hospital, three of his partners would. Florida Hospital does not propose to provide obstetrics upon opening although it has designed its physical plant to provide an OB unit so that Florida Hospital would have the capability of initiating that service without a problem. In other words, Florida Hospital's proposed facility would be "OB- ready." (Tr. 725). Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital does not have physician support for providing obstetric services at its proposed facility, a part of the reason for not offering OB. The basis for Florida Hospital's lack of physician support is a malpractice insurance crisis for obstetricians. Florida Hospital's proposed facility is not projected to open for another three years. If, during that time, the malpractice crisis eases and there is greater physician coverage availability, Florida Hospital could open obstetric services at the same the hospital opens since it will be OB-ready. Another reason that Florida Hospital has decided against offering obstetrics upon opening is that most maternity patients are more comfortable delivering babies in a setting that has neonatal intensive care services available. Two such settings are ORHS-Arnold Palmer and Florida Hospital's main campus. Indeed, a significant number of maternity patients from Oviedo are choosing to travel past multiple hospitals that offer obstetric services to have their babies delivered at one or the other of these two hospitals. Arnold Palmer, in fact, is the leading provider of obstetrical services to the residents of the Oviedo area's two most populous zip codes: 32708 and 32765, both more than 30 minutes driving time away from the hospital. Medicaid and Charity Care Conditions Approval of ORHS' CON is conditioned on a minimum of 7% of total annual patient days for Medicaid patients and 1% for charity care. Florida Hospital's application offers no conditions with regard to Medicaid or charity care. Like ORHS, Florida Hospital is one of the top ten providers in the State of indigent care, and a disproportionate share Medicaid provider. The Agency's view of the difference between ORHS' provision of indigent care conditions and Florida Hospital's decision to not condition its application was explained by Mr. Gregg: Conditions [such as those for indigent care] are important when it allows us to distinguish between applicants. They are less important when we have competing applicants, both of whom has such strong track records as these two do. . . . [W]e look at evidence of past performance relative to indigent care . . . . [I]n a case like this . . . both of these applicants have such good records in th[e] area [of indigent care]. They are both in the top ten statewide. . . . [A] promise of this condition or that condition [does not] give us particular concern one way or the other. They are both very good in that area [of Medicaid and charity care] and very tough to distinguish between. (Tr. 735-6). Architectural Design and Site The architectural plans of both applicants meet all codes that apply to a new hospital in the state of Florida. The ORHS design is tried and proven at ORHS' South Lake facility and will work on a 35-acre site. The size of Florida Hospital's site, 15 acres much smaller than ORHS', led to criticism of the site from ORHS experts. But the site is large enough to incorporate growth in the future. It can accommodate 320 beds and ancillary services. The design, moreover, takes these expansion capabilities into account. Related to the size of the site, the site's conservation area, comprised of wetlands and a forested upland buffer that will remain undeveloped indefinitely also produced criticism that the site is too cramped for a new hospital. But the conservation area, with its mature tree canopy, presents advantages. The hospital was designed to incorporate the view of the conservation area from hospital rooms because such a view is beneficial to the healing process. Furthermore, the conservation area can be used to satisfy water retention requirements. Florida Hospital's site is DRI-approved and part of a DRI master storm water plan that connects many ponds and wetlands. Surrounded by three roads, it has excellent access from existing roadways. Vehicular circulation is split to provide different public, service and emergency entrances. Innovation by Florida Hospital Unlike traditional hospital care models where the patient is moved from room to room depending on type and intensity of care, all care and services are provided to the patient in one "universal" room under the "universal delivery of care model." The model was developed by Florida Hospital. "The nursing leadership of the universal room design . . . was under the direction of Connie Hamilton." (Tr. 1080). Ms. Hamilton, accepted as an expert in nursing and nursing administration, explained at hearing that under the model, the room is designed to provide any type of care the patient might need. Whether the patient is admitted in acute care and then moves to intermediate care or med-surg, all care is provided within one "universal" room. Not only does the patient stay in one place, but as Ms. Hamilton testified, "[t]he nurses stay in one place in providing that care to [the patient] and the families know where the patient is and the physician knows where the patient is [at all times]." (Tr. 933). The universal care model streamlines the interactive processes of care of a patient. The care and attention of physicians, nursing staff and families devoted to moving the patient from room to room and keeping track of the patient as type and intensity of care changes is reduced to nearly zero if not eliminated entirely. The time, energy and resources formerly devoted to all that is entailed with changes in the patient's room is then free to be re-directed to care and attention paid to the patient. The result is enhancement of Florida Hospital's ability to provide "whole person" care consistent with Adventist principles of health care. The universal care delivery model is an innovative approach to the delivery of healthcare. Pioneered by Florida Hospital at Celebration Health, the universal care delivery model has been shown there to reduce medical error, reduce length of stay, reduce pharmacy costs, reduce nursing workload, reduce housekeeping work, and probably to reduce infection rates. Following the universal care model employed at Celebration Health, Florida Hospital has designed its proposed Oviedo hospital facility with universal rooms. Consistent with the universal care delivery model, the rooms are designed to improve the healing experience during hospitalization and minimize the patient's feeling of being in a hospital setting. Another benefit of the universal care model is high physician satisfaction due to continuity of nursing care and other factors. The physicians know where the patient is, that is, in the same location every day. Physicians, moreover, are not called at all hours of the day and night to effectuate patient transfers to other rooms. Kathleen Mitchell has studied the universal care model and published and submitted articles on the model to nursing journals. She has consulted with hospitals around the country interested in the model as well as the "health care arm of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Army, Navy, Veteran's Administration." (Tr. 1084). Ms. Mitchell, accepted as an expert in nursing amplified the testimony of Ms. Hamilton. With regard to the problem the universal care delivery model is designed to address, Ms. Mitchell testified: [T]ransferring patients for different levels of care . . . fractures continuum of care. It is . . . disruptive to everyone . . . involved . . . to the patient and their families . . ., to nursing, pharmacy, the physicians . . . . It creates a great deal of anxiety for patient and the families . . . even [those] who are getting better and moving to a lower acuity of care. One of the most significant things about transferring patients for different levels of care is it involves a great deal of work. Not only bundling the patient up, but the documentation and all the communication that goes along with securing a new location for the patient and expediting a transfer. And moving patients around creates a risk of medical error. The length of stay in hospitals has gotten so short and everybody is focused on reducing the length of stay that in the traditional model of care, nurses are turning over more than half their patient assignment daily . . . . [T]here is the confusion and risk that goes along with that. (Tr. 1086-1088). The benefits of the reduction and elimination of transfers produced by the universal care model were listed by Ms. Mitchell: increase in the continuity of care, reduction in nurse workload, high physician satisfaction, reduction in emergency room waiting time, family satisfaction, connectivity between patient, family and staff. Others were elaborated on by Ms. Mitchell. For example, reduction in pharmacy costs, probable reduction in infection and reduction in housekeeping costs: When you are meeting the needs of the patient in one location, you are not leaving medications behind or sending them to the wrong place, and there is work that nurses and pharmacists do with calling each other with ['] where is it, I can't find it, I sent it[',] all that goes away. We are demonstrating a low incidence of nosocomial infections because we expose our patients to one environment of organisms. This is a very difficult one to prove; even though we have a low incidence of nosocomial infections, we also have a fairly new facility [at Celebration], but it makes common sense that if you are reducing the transfer of the patient and the exposure . . . to different environments, you are reducing their exposure to organisms and will have a lower . . . infection rate. . . . [W]e don't strip linens off the beds and clean the beds where the bed was just made three hours ago, with all the patient transfers that are involved. So there is a reduction in . . . housekeeping work and . . . linen expense. (Tr. 1089-1090). Like the housekeeping efficiencies, the nursing staff benefits from the efficiencies associated with supplies. All of the supplies the nurse needs to care for the patient are close by, so the nurse saves time otherwise retrieving supplies from down the hall or in other areas of a hospital wing. Another benefit of the design is "connectivity to the outside world. The rooms have large windows . . . patients feel connected to the outside world . . . . " (Tr. 1091). This design feature will make use of the conservation area on the Florida Hospital site and the soothing vista it will provide to the patient, and assist in the healing process. Other Design Features Design drawings are a living and continually evolving process. The planning process of Florida Hospital for the design of its new Oviedo hospital involved specialty department experts and ancillary representatives discussing delivery of quality care for a patient throughout the system. The specialty experts and ancillary representative include radiology, emergency department, lab, pharmacy, and respiratory. The involvement of these people assures optimal patient flow throughout the system. In Florida Hospital's design plans, the patient flow and interaction between departments are well designed and well laid out so as to minimize the opportunity for confusion. In order to maximize efficiency, a larger number of beds in one nursing unit works better than smaller pockets. Florida Hospital's design plans have one 40-bed unit and one 38- bed unit. This design gives more flexibility and can expand or shrink more easily as needed. You don't have to open up another unit and staff it so often, when adding only one or two patients. Florida Hospital designed its facility specifically to take advantage of the economies of scale that being a satellite hospital in a larger system provide. For example, Florida Hospital's general storage, central lab, and other areas were purposely designed smaller than one would typically find because Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central warehouse, thus greatly reducing the need for central storage areas. Likewise, Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central clinical lab, thus minimizing the space necessary within a hospital like Oviedo for lab space. ORHS did not design its facility to take advantage of the economies scale of being part of a system. Presence in Oviedo Florida Hospital has had a presence in the Oviedo community since the 1970's, when it purchased land in the Red Bug corridor area. In the 1980's, Florida Hospital built a medical office facility in Oviedo and began to recruit and encourage physicians to practice in the area. When Florida Hospital acquired Winter Park Hospital, its commitment to the community of Oviedo increased by virtue of the fact that the Winter Park Hospital organization already had property and outpatient facilities in Oviedo. The result of Florida Hospital's early presence in Oviedo is that it has a high degree of physician support in place in the Oviedo community. Many of the primary care physicians in Oviedo refer their surgical cases to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital purchased Winter Park Hospital on or about July 1, 2000. With that purchase, Florida Hospital acquired the hospital site in Oviedo. With the purchase of Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital also "purchased" Winter Park's plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. The Florida Hospital site has long been recognized as the "Hospital Site" in Oviedo. Immediately after purchasing Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital went to work on developing a plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. Florida Hospital began meeting with Oviedo city leaders in the fall of 2000 and early 2001; Florida Hospital also assembled a team of people from all areas of Florida Hospital including radiology, clinical services, marketing, finance, facilities, and engineering to work toward the development of a Certificate of Need application for a hospital on its site in Oviedo. Florida Hospital's two existing medical office buildings in Oviedo contain over 60,000 square feet of medical office space, in which are housed physicians practicing in a wide range of areas including Family Practice, Internal Medicine, General Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, Urology, Radiology, Gastroenterology, Ear, Nose and Throat, OB/GYN, and Dental and Psychological Practitioners as well. These physicians are all currently on the staff of Florida Hospital. Also included in these facilities are a Florida Hospital owned and operated radiology center, outpatient rehabilitation center, and outpatient lab. The radiology center offers general radiology services, including CT scanning and ultrasound. The larger of the two medical facilities that Florida Hospital owns in Oviedo is located on the site where the new hospital will be located. This is the facility that includes the outpatient radiology, rehabilitation and laboratory services. An urgent care center is also located on the site. As a result, residents of Oviedo are used to coming to Florida Hospital's site for medical services and already recognize it as a medical facility site. The fact that Florida Hospital has such a significant presence in the Oviedo Community, and that a large number of staff physicians are already in place in Oviedo, is a great benefit because of the existing referral patterns in place between the physicians at the existing Florida Hospital facilities in Oviedo and specialists and sub-specialists on Florida Hospital's staff. In contrast, ORHS had an outpatient surgery center in Oviedo; however, it has been closed due to lack of physician support. Likewise, ORHS originally offered radiology diagnostics at its Oviedo office building, but has since sold that business to the radiologists. Finally, ORHS does not own the medical office building in Oviedo anymore, having sold it two weeks before this final hearing commenced. Dr. Joseph Portoghese, a Board Certified Surgeon, practicing in the Orlando area for over 13 years and president- elect of the Florida Hospital medical staff, testified that his group, Surgical Associates, which is made up of six surgeons, derives approximately 20% of their patients from the Oviedo area. In his opinion, Florida Hospital knows the Oviedo population best as evidenced by its "major presence" in Oviedo with its two facilities. Dr. Portoghese also testified that his group knows most of the primary care physicians in the Oviedo area and that a good many of them send their surgical cases to his group. Dr. Portoghese is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger, a family practitioner who has practiced in Oviedo for 16 years and whose patients come primarily from the Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs and East Orlando area testified that Florida Hospital has the best infrastructure for the provision of medical care in the Oviedo area. "The physicians who provide a great bulk of the care for that Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs area practice at Florida Hospital. Their referral patterns are to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital provides us with all the specialty and sub- specialty care we need for our patients." Dr. Schamberger is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but he is not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger further testified to the disruption in continuity of care that would occur for many Oviedo area patients whose physicians are on the staff at Florida Hospital if Orlando Regional were to be the only applicant approved to build a hospital in Oviedo: "[I]ts a negative impact for continuity of care. If I have been attending a patient for many years, the first thing that happens to a patient when they get in the hospital is that they have a history and physical examination done to establish what their underlying medical conditions are. I know a lot more about that from my patients than someone who doesn't see them and doesn't know them." (Tr. 1318) Dr. Cintron, a physician practicing in the area of Internal Medicine, whose main office is in Oviedo at the Florida Hospital site, testified that she has approximately 3,000 active files and 75% to 80% of those are in the Oviedo area. She has been practicing in Oviedo since 1994. Dr. Cintron testified that approximately 85% of her patients that get admitted to a hospital are admitted to one of Florida Hospital's facilities. Also, when she makes a referral to a specialist or a sub-specialist, approximately 85% of those patients go to a Florida Hospital facility. Competition "[T]he U.S. health care system is a competitively driven market . . . with some regulatory components and based on a managed care model." (Tr. 485). Rather than every insurance plan having a contract with every provider, the managed care model uses selective contracting. Competing health insurance plans select providers with which to contract for the provision of health care services to their subscribers. The ability of the competing insurance plans to engage in selective contracting requires providers such as the two hospitals in this case to compete along a number of dimensions including price. When successful, this competitive price model holds down price and maintains quality. The State of Florida has a "fairly well developed and active managed care sector." (Tr. 507). "[M]anaged care in and of itself [however] is not really able to save much money for consumers. . . . [T]he key ingredient in the ability of managed care plans to control health care cost increases is the competitiveness of the hospital market, the structure of the market in which they are negotiating on behalf of their health plan subscribers." (Tr. 500). The parties define the "market" differently. Florida Hospital uses the Elzinga-Hogarty ("EH") Test. The test, along with appropriate supplemental information, indicates that the market is all of Orange and Seminole Counties or the tri-county area that also includes Osceola County. Whether a two county or tri-county market, Florida Hospital refers to its market as the metropolitan Orlando market or the "overall Orlando market." Orlando Regional identified a smaller area as the relevant market, one that is more local to Oviedo. The reason for this more local market was explained by Glenn Alan Melnick, Ph.D., and an expert in health care economics who testified for ORHS: [I]n order for [managed care plans] to attract subscribers, they have to have a health plan that's attractive to people. And one of the features that people look for in their health plans is the availability of local hospital services. . . . [I]n order to make their products marketable, they have to include reasonably accessible hospitals . . . [I]f there is limited local competition, then the opportunities for them to generate price competition by leveraging competitive conditions . . . are very limited and [the managed care] model will not be successful. (Tr. 489). Dr. Melnick used the five and eight zip code Oviedo Service Areas as defined by the applicants as the market. He calculated Herfandahl-Hershman Index ("HHI") valuations for each zip code in the two Oviedo Service Areas. He also calculated HHI valuations for another seven zip codes in Orange County "to provide background to [his] understanding of the allocations in [the] area . . . . ." (Tr. 516). Dr. Melnick's calculations showed that Florida Hospital has a market share between 60 and 69% for the five zip codes in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area and it showed a market share of between 25% and 59% for the three zip codes in ORHS' Oviedo Service Area that were not included in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area. In each of the seven zip codes in the area outside the Oviedo Service Area, Florida Hospital's market share was higher: in excess of 70%. The analysis led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market is highly concentrated in favor of Florida Hospital. Using the zip codes in the Oviedo Service (and it appears from the record the seven not in either applicant's Oviedo Service Area that Dr. Melnick had analyzed for background purposes), Dr. Melnick concluded that if the CON is awarded to Florida Hospital "[i]t would make an already concentrated market much more concentrated." (Tr. 524). Florida Hospital's relative market share would rise from 65.8% to 85.7%. Orlando Regional's would drop from 27.4% to 11.5%. The award of the CON to Florida Hospital would, moreover, "seal its already existing market power into the future." (Id.) Conversely, awarding the CON to ORHS led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market as he defined it would be more competitive; Florida Hospital relative market share would drop to 51% and ORHS' would rise to 44%. What Dr. Melnick's relative market shares would have been had he not used the seven zip codes he selected outside the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants does not appear to have been shown by ORHS. Including the seven zip codes outside the Oviedo Service Areas for determining the relative market share that led to Dr. Melnick's conclusions runs counter to his premise that the market should be a local one, that is, an Oviedo market. It is not clear what relevance these seven zip codes had to his analysis since their inclusion runs counter to the underpinnings of his approach to the issue. If the overall Orlando market used by Florida Hospital is considered the market, the conclusion is that, whether a CON for an Oviedo hospital is awarded to ORHS or Florida Hospital, the impact on relative market share is minimal. As for pricing, there has been no significant pricing difference between Florida Hospital and ORHS for Oviedo residents. Furthermore, both Florida Hospital and ORHS contract with managed care companies on a system-wide basis; Florida Hospital, moreover, uses a single master charge structure for all of its Orlando area campuses. It is not likely that the presence of a hospital in Oviedo would enable either Florida Hospital or ORHS to control pricing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order on the basis of the facts found in this order concluding that "not normal" circumstances exist for the construction and operation of a new 60-bed hospital in Oviedo and that Florida Hospital's CON application be approved and ORHS' be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 James M. Barclay, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer & Harbert, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone, Hines & Koda, P.A. 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Suite 310G St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Presbyterian Retirement Communities, Inc., d/b/a Westminster Towers: (1) should be given a "conditional" or "standard" license effective June 17, 2002; and whether Petitioner is subject to an administrative fine of $2,500.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a long-term, skilled nursing facility located in Orlando, Florida. Respondent is a State of Florida agency responsible for surveying nursing homes to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal requirements. An annual survey was conducted by Respondent on Petitioner during June 17 through 20, 2002. As a result of the survey, Respondent asserted that Petitioner failed to adequately notify the attending physician of Resident No. 13's urinary tract infection, resulting in a delay in treatment of the infection. This resulted in citing Petitioner for a Class II deficiency, Tag F309, as follows: "Respondent failed to ensure that each resident received the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychological well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care." A federal scope and severity rating of level "G" was assigned to this deficiency. "Scope and severity" levels are identified by letters A through L. A level "G" rating requires that "harm or pain has come to the resident," more specifically, the resident must "have more than minimal harm with discomfort." If a level "G" scope and severity is assigned, a Class II deficiency is cited. Resident No. 13 was a 108-year-old female with a history of urinary tract infections. She was alert, oriented and articulate. She was capable of advising caregivers of her wants, needs, and physical condition. On May 27, 2002 Resident No. 13 complained of "some burning upon urinating." Petitioner's staff called Resident No. 13's attending physician by calling the "on-call" physician. The "on call" physician ordered a urinalysis and culture; a urine sample was obtained by Petitioner's staff noting that the urine was "cloudy." The laboratory that performs the testing is at a remote location. On May 28, 2002, the urinalysis results were received by Petitioner and transmitted by facsimile to the attending physician's office on the same day. The culture results were received by Petitioner on May 30, 2002, a Thursday, but were not faxed to the attending physician's office until June 1, 2002, a Saturday. On May 29, 2002, the attending physician performed a routine assessment and evaluation of Resident No. 13. His notes of the examination read as follows: No complaints. Feels well. Appetite is adequate. Otherwise, non-ROS. An extremely elderly lady doing quite well. Will continue to monitor and keep close tabs on her. On June 5, 2002, the nurses notes reflect that Resident No. 13 stated, "it hurts when I urinate." Her urine was discolored and was odiferous. Petitioner's staff notified the attending physician's office. The attending physician ordered the antibiotic, oxacillin, on June 6th. This antibiotic was inappropriate for Resident No. 13. On June 7, 2002, the attending physician ordered a second antibiotic, dioxicillin; this was also inappropriate, as there is no such antibiotic. Again, the physician was notified, and on June 8, 2002, he ordered an antibiotic, dicloxicillin, which was administered to Resident No. 13 during the early morning hours of the following day, June 9, 2002. Notwithstanding the administration of dicloxicillin, a broad spectrum antibiotic, the urinalysis and culture reports of the specimen taken on May 28, 2002, indicated colonized, saprophytic organisms and did not indicate pathologic organisms. The administration of an antibiotic is an optional treatment. The symptoms exhibited by Resident No. 13, burning sensation on urination, odiferous urine and a change in urine color can be caused by conditions other than urinary tract infections. Burning sensations can be caused by atrophic vaginitis and other non-pathogenic causes. Typical symptoms of a geriatric patient suspected of having a urinary tract infection are: fever, abdominal and flank pain, change in mental status, and fatigue. There is no indication in the records of Resident No. 13, during the relevant period, of the presence of these symptoms; the examination of the attending physician on May 28, 2002, does not indicate any symptoms typical of a urinary tract infection; in fact, he reports that Resident No. 13 is "doing quite well." Individuals familiar with Resident No. 13 observed no changes in her physical or mental status during the period from May 27 through June 8, 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that Respondent enter a final order determining that the deficiency described under Tag F309 in the June 17 through 20, 2002, survey did not occur, issue a Standard licensure rating to Petitioner, and that the Administrative Complaint seeking a fine be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 15th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanna Daniels, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alex Finch, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building III, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue to be presented is whether Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, John Lee, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 50043. Dr. Lee specializes in obstetrics and gynecology, but is not board certified at this time. He has a solo practice. Dr. Lee has had one prior final order imposing discipline against him. On November 7, 1996, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order approving an amended Consent Agreement entered between the Agency for Health Care Administration (the Department's predecessor with respect to regulation of health care professionals) and Dr. Lee. The Final Order imposed a letter of concern, a fine of $2,000, and 20 hours of continuing medical education. On or about November 2, 2005, patient R.R. first saw Respondent with a complaint of chronic pelvic pain and an inability to function. Based upon his examination of R.R., Respondent recommended that R.R. undergo a bilateral salpingo- oophorectomy (removal of both ovaries and fallopian tubes). R.R. decided to have the recommended surgery and on December 13, 2005, Respondent performed a bilateral salpingo- oophorectomy, as well as an appendectomy, lysis of adhesions and partial omentectomy. There are three layers to the bowel: the serosa is the thin outer protective layer; under the serosa is the muscularis; a third layer below the muscularis called the mucosa. Dr. Lee's surgical notes indicate that there was some serosal denuding of the sigmoid colon, but with no luminal extravasion (no leakage from the bowel). Dr. Lee described the serosal denuding as an irritation of the serosa from removal of adhesions, and not a complication of the surgery. In any event, there are no allegations in the Administrative Complaint claiming that either Dr. Lee's decision to perform the surgery or the performance of the surgery itself deviated from the appropriate standard-of- care, and no findings to that effect are found. R.R. was discharged from the hospital on December 15, 2005. At that time, she was ambulatory, tolerating liquids, had passed flatus and had a small bowel movement. At that time she had no documented fever and a normal white count. The next day, Friday, December 16, 2005, R.R.'s husband called Dr. Lee's office at approximately 3:00 p.m. According to R.R., she spoke to Brandi Melvin, now known as Brandi Harper (Ms. Harper), the medical assistant for Dr. Lee, and told her that she was running a fever of 101.8 degrees, did not feel well and wanted Dr. Lee to call her. She testified that at that time, she did not feel well, was achy all over, had pain in her abdomen and had chills. R.R. testified that Ms. Harper told her to increase her Dilaudid in accordance with her prescription and to continue rotating Tylenol and Motrin. She denies being told to go to the emergency room if her fever did not go down, and denies being instructed to pick up a prescription for an antibiotic. Brandi Harper is a medical assistant in Dr. Lee's office, and has been since 2004. She is a certified nurse's assistant and has completed a year and a half toward her registered nursing degree. Part of Ms. Harper's duties include screening calls that come in from patients post-surgery. In doing so, she follows a set protocol that has been established in that office. In accordance with Dr. Lee's preferences, she inquires not only about the symptoms the patients report having, but also about symptoms they may not be having. Consistent with that protocol, she testified that, with respect to the call from R.R. and her husband, she asked whether R.R. was having any drainage from the incision; any abdominal pain; or was experiencing any other symptoms. Ms. Harper testified that R.R. did not report having any abdominal pain above expected soreness, and did not report difficulty breathing or shortness of breath; drainage from the incision; vomiting; bloating or distension of the abdomen. Ms. Harper's testimony is credited. After receiving the telephone call from R.R., Ms. Harper wrote a note to Dr. Lee which referenced R.R. and stated, "[t]aking the cephalexin you gave her on discharge. Is running 102 temp, just sore. She has been rotating Tylenol and nothing has brought it down. Informed her to drink plenty of fluids. Do you want to add anything?" Neither Ms. Harper's notes nor her testimony reflect that she told the patient to increase pain medication. Nor does the note reflect that R.R. wanted to speak with Dr. Lee. Because Dr. Lee was seeing patients, Ms. Harper placed the note on his desk for his review. After reviewing the note, Dr. Lee wrote "Levaquin 500mg, #10, 1 a day." Ms. Harper then called the patient to tell her that a prescription was being called in for her and confirmed the pharmacy the patient used. At that time, consistent with the protocol established by Dr. Lee, she told R.R. or her husband that if the fever did not go down after two hours, to go to the emergency room at West Florida Hospital. She did not tell her to call the office back because, at the time of the return phone call, it was approximately 3:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, and in two hours the office would be closed. Ms. Harper then called the prescription in to Burklow's Pharmacy, as identified by the patient, and noted the prescription in patient's medication log. She noted the time of the call and the name of the pharmacist with whom she spoke. Ms. Harper did not note in the medical record that she advised the patient to go to the emergency room if her fever did not go down, and did not specifically note the return call to the patient. However, she plausibly explained that she could not call in the prescription to Burklow's without speaking to the patient, because there were two different pharmacies noted in her file previously. She also credibly testified that she always calls the patient back in conjunction with the call to the pharmacy, and gives standard instructions to post-operative patients regarding further action (in this case, going to the West Florida Hospital emergency room) should their condition not change. She does not necessarily document the return call because she does it so many times daily. Dr. Lee also testified that instructions to call back if the office is open or go to the emergency room if symptoms do not improve in a few hours is part of the standard protocol. Ms. Harper's and Dr. Lee's testimony is credited. R.R. did not go to the emergency room over the weekend and there was no evidence that she ever called Dr. Lee's office back after the 3:00 Friday afternoon call. She continued to not feel well, however, and on Monday morning, December 19, 2005, at approximately 5:00 a.m., she woke up in intense pain between her shoulder blades. She went by ambulance to Santa Rosa Medical Center (SRMC). R.R. went to SRMC as opposed to West Florida Hospital because it was much closer to her home. Dr. Lee does not have privileges at SRMC. Although R.R. went to the emergency room early December 19, 2005, there was no determination that first day that she had a bowel perforation, and she was not admitted to the hospital until approximately 8:30 that evening. At the time of admission, she had a white blood count of 3.3, with a differential count of 12 neutrophil bands. The history and physical taken at the hospital and signed by Dr. Michael Barber, M.D., states in part: HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: [R.R.] is a 33- year-old, . . . who underwent abdominal surgery six days ago by Dr. John Lee at West Florida Hospital. She had bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, partial omentectomy, appendectomy, and extensive adhesiolysis. . . . She states that although this surgery was prolonged and reportedly difficulty (sic), she tolerated the surgery well and by the second postoperative day was ambulating and voiding freely, tolerating a regular diet with a bowel movement and positive flatus. She stated her pain was well managed with 4 mg of Dilaudid q4h as needed. She was sent home on Cephalexin 500 mg q6h, Phenergan 25 mg q6h and Dilaudid 4 mg q6h. She was also on Hydrochlorothiazide for chronic hypertension, Klonopin and Effexor for anxiety and depression. She states that after going home she had some anorexia that was doing well until the morning of admission. She was awakened from her sleep at approximately 6 a.m. with remarkable abdominal distention and severe diffuse abdominal pain. She developed nausea as the pain progressed but has had no vomiting. She states that other than the bowel movement immediately post surgery, she had not had any bowel activity since discharge in six days. After several hours and worsening of pain, she presented to the emergency room at Santa Rosa Medical Center. On admission, a CT scan of the abdomen was accomplished and revealed a moderate volume loss infiltrate in the left lung base, apparent present to a lesser extent on the right. There was free air noted within the abdomen and also noted to be some free fluid. This was felt to be due to the patient's prior surgery, however, a more acute process could not be ruled out. There were also some distended loops of small bowel with apparent decompression of the distal small bowel which suggested at least a partial small bowel obstruction, although again, the diagnosis included ileus. A CT of the pelvis was unremarkable except as noted on the CT scan. There was some free fluid and free air within the pelvis. Since transfer to West Florida Hospital and the patient's attending physician could not be arranged, decision was made to admit to Dr. Barber on GYN service. * * * IMPRESSION: Severe abdominal pain 6 days post exploratory surgery with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, partial omentectomy, appendectomy and adhesiolysis. No signs at this time of active infection or perforation. The most likely diagnosis is a severe postoperative ileus, however, the patient warrants close observation. An ileus occurs when the bowel is "asleep" and not moving. Dr. Barber transferred R.R. to the Intensive Care Unit overnight for close observation. R.R.'s temperature at the time of admission was 96.8. The History of Present Illness taken from R.R. does not mention the rise in temperature following discharge from West Florida Hospital, or the phone call to Dr. Lee's office. On December 20, 2005, Dr. Althar saw R.R. in consultation. At that time, her white count was 8.4 with 48 bands, indicating overwhelming sepsis. Dr. Althar took her immediately to surgery. Surgery revealed a bowel perforation of the sigmoid colon, and Dr. Althar performed a sigmoid colectomy, end colostomy, and Hartmann procedure. R.R. suffered some complications after surgery, which were not unexpected, and remained in the hospital until her discharge January 16, 2006. The Department presented the expert testimony of Robert W. Holloway, M.D. Dr. Holloway graduated from Vanderbilt University Medical School; completed his residency in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; and completed a fellowship in gynecology oncology at Georgetown University Hospital. Dr. Holloway has been licensed as a medical doctor in Florida since 1990, and is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and gynecologic oncology. He is currently the co-Medical Director of the Gynecologic Oncology program at the Florida Hospital Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, and a clinical instructor for the Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Program at Orlando Regional Medical Center. Dr. Holloway is in an office on the Florida Hospital campus, where there are four attending physicians and three follows in training. Fifty to 60 percent of his patients are oncology patients, with the remainder having benign issues. Dr. Holloway opined that in this case, the bowel perforated most likely late Sunday evening or early Monday morning, probably 6-12 hours before R.R. woke up in extreme pain. He found no violation of the standard-of-care regarding the denuding of the serosa in the original surgery, viewing it as an anticipated outcome with a difficult case of endometriosis. However, he opined that Dr. Lee fell below the appropriate standard-of-care when he failed to evaluate the patient on Friday afternoon when she had a temperature of 102 degrees. Dr. Holloway indicated that the most common indications of bowel perforation in post-operative patients are abdominal pain and fever. He knew of no cases where a perforation occurred with the patient presenting with fever alone. He also agreed that it is common for physicians to rely on their staff to triage patients, and to relay information back to patients. It is common, according to Dr. Holloway, for doctors to train staff to tell the patient to call back or go to the emergency room if a problem does not resolve itself, and staff normally does the majority of charting. With respect to the directions to the patient to call back or go to the emergency room, Dr. Holloway could not say that those directions are always noted in the chart for patients in his office, although they frequently are. Most importantly, Dr. Holloway could not conclude that Ms. Harper did not give the instructions to R.R. because it was not specifically noted in the chart, and he would be apt to give the staff the benefit of the doubt. He could not conclude from the absence of the note that proper instructions were not given. Dr. Holloway also indicated that he did not believe the bowel had perforated as of Friday afternoon when the call was made to Dr. Lee's office. Respondent presented the testimony of John Douglas Davis, M.D., who serves as the Director of Gynecology and Associate Residency Director of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine. Dr. Davis graduated from medical school at Wake Forest University and received his post-doctoral training at the University of Florida. Dr. Davis is licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida, and has been board certified in obstetrics and gynecology since 1992. Ninety-five percent of his patients are gynecological patients. Dr. Davis did not believe that Respondent violated the appropriate standard-of-care in his treatment of R.R. He opined that it is reasonable to rely on staff to perform triage functions with respect to calls from patients, and would interpret the note from Ms. Harper as not being indicative of bowel perforation. He testified that it was more likely to assume that the fever was caused by a pulmonary source, and the prescription for Levaquin was consistent with that assumption. In addition, the CT scan upon admission to SRMC was consistent with findings of pneumonia, and in Dr. Davis' view, the eventual determination that the bowel perforated does not mean that pneumonia was not also present. Like Dr. Holloway, Dr. Davis testified that bowel perforation does not present without severe abdominal pain, which was not reported to Dr. Lee. Dr. Davis opined that R.R.'s fever of 102 degrees must be interpreted in light of the patient's situation at discharge from the hospital, which Dr. Lee already knew. Most importantly, Dr. Davis testified that not seeing R.R. on Friday afternoon did not have an impact on her subsequent clinical course. His testimony is credited. In summary, it is found that Ms. Harper did instruct the patient to go to the emergency room at West Florida Hospital should her symptoms not improve after a couple of hours with the new medication. Dr. Lee's reliance on her to give that instruction is within the standard-of-care for a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 23rd day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Elana J. Jones, Esquire Ian Brown, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Nicholas W. Romanello, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-170 Joy A. Tootle, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact On July 30, 1981, Petitioner filed an application with the Health Systems Agency of Northeast Florida, Area III, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct an enclosure on the fifth floor of the south wing of Petitioner's hospital. The purpose of that enclosure was in contemplation of future available bed space at a time when need for those beds had been documented and approved by the local health system's agency. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2) In response to a request for further information which was made by the Executive Director of the local health system's agency, Rudolph Nudo, Director of Engineering for the Petitioner, answered that inquiry in writing by correspondence dated September 24, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3) Through the course of that correspondence Nudo indicated that the temporary use of the fifth floor would be for storage, and the fifth floor would be used in a permanent way for storage and expansion of the hospital's wellness and physical fitness programs should a determination be made in the future that additional beds are not needed in the review area of the local HSA. On November 23, 1981 the local HSA wrote to advise Herbert E. Straughn, Medical Facilities Consultant, Community Medical Facilities for Respondent, that the Northeast Florida Area III Health Systems Agency was recommending the denial of the proposed Certificate of Need. That correspondence had as an attachment the legal notices publicizing the public hearing related to the project, staff briefing memoranda and papers involved in the review process. (Respondent's Exhibits 4 through 4d) On January 27, 1982, Thomas J. Conrad, Administrator, Community Medical Facilities of the Office of Health Planning and Development, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, wrote to Charles Vadakin, President-General Manager of Petitioner, to advise Petitioner that the request for a Certificate of Need was being denied. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) This indication of denial had as an attachment the State agency action report. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) On February 5, 1982, in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to consider its entitlement to be granted a Certificate of Need to "shell-in" the fifth floor at its facility. On February 17, 1982, the Division of Administrative Hearings received Respondent's request that the Division conduct the formal hearing. That hearing de novo was held on April 8 and 9, 1982. The evidence presented in the course of the hearing addressed the question of whether the proposal for construction by the applicant meets the criteria established in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes and Rule 10- 5.11, Florida Administrative Code, in particular Rule 10-5.11(1),(3),(4),(6) and (12), Florida Administrative Code. (Those other criteria set forth in Rule 10- 5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have satisfactorily been addressed by the application process or are inapplicable in terms of the subject matter of the given criteria.) Evidence presented also dealt with the subject of whether this Certificate of Need could be granted due to extenuating and mitigating circumstances which exist, notwithstanding the applicant's failure to successfully meet the criteria discussed above. Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville is an acute general care hospital with a 309 bed capacity. The hospital is located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Petitioner has been granted Certificates of Need allowing the construction of an educational floor, perinatal center on a second floor and the third and fourth floors above those. The third and fourth floors would house an additional thirty-four beds, bringing the total bed count in the hospital to 343 beds. The construction is referred to as the south wing and is depicted at a certain point in the construction through Petitioner's Exhibit 1, a photograph of the area of construction. Memorial's present request for a Certificate of Need would allow the construction of an additional floor, or fifth floor, above the, four floors that have been granted. Memorial Hospital provides critical care, to include trauma cases treated in its emergency room and open heart surgery. In addition, there is a cardiac catheterization laboratory and other general cardiac care, an intensive care unit, a perinatal (birthing) center and other hospital services. The fifth floor, if constructed, would not immediately contain additional beds and would be left with interior partition walls and would be used for storage space in the interim period prior to the grant of any further beds to the Petitioner. The construction on the south wing which had been approved has its origins in Certificates of Need which were the topic of separate applications filed in 1979 and 1980. Specifically, in November, 1979, Memorial filed separate applications for its educational floor, first floor, in the amount of $2,991,000.00 and at the same time, an application for a perinatal unit, second floor, in the amount of $4,352,000.00. The applications were granted in 1980 in the amounts requested. At a later date in 1980, Petitioner filed a separate application for three additional stories; floors three, four and five, and for 106 additional beds, all in the cost amount of $10,656,000.00. This request came about at approximately the same time as a request by St. Luke's Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, to move its hospital operations to an area in the vicinity of Memorial Hospital. Memorial and St. Luke's, together with the local HSA, resolved the problem of the competing certificate requests by entering into a stipulation and agreement in 1981. By the terms of that agreement, Memorial limited its expansion to two floors instead of three, leaving floors three and four intact. It reduced its bed request from 106 to 34 additional new beds to be installed on one of the two additional floors, with the second additional floor receiving 34 beds from another part of the hospital which was not subject to the Certificate of Need. The second set of beds would be gained by the process of converting existing semi-private rooms to private rooms. Petitioner also agreed not to apply for additional beds until at least six months after the perinatal unit and 34 new medical/surgical beds had been opened. St. Luke's reduced its number of obstetric beds by 20 and it agreed that it would not "shell-in" space for additional beds in its proposed facility. The results of the agreement caused the abandonment by Memorial of its fifth floor request and the reduction of bed requests by 72 beds. The new terms are set out in Certificate of Need No. 1488 pertaining to floors three and four. The project costs were left as originally requested, and that monetary amount was granted. The agreement reached between the local HSA, Petitioner and St. Luke's was premised upon extenuating and mitigating circumstances, especially the possibility of the cost of protracted litigation had the parties not come to an agreement. Following the stipulation and agreement with the local HSA and St. Luke's Hospital, the Petitioner filed the present request for Certificate. The general purpose of that project has been discussed before. The rationalization on the subject of consistency of the project with the local Health Systems' plan and the local annual implementation plan was as follows: The proposed enclosure project is consistent with Health Systems' plan and annual implementation plan for 1980, in that it provides a mechanism for assuring available health care resources at the lowest possible cost consistent with quality service delivery. The proposal guarantees no additional beds will be added until approved by the Health Systems Agency and yet safeguards the most effective option of maximizing current capital investment dollars. This project will allow Memorial Hospital to continue to meet the area's acute health care needs for the next ten years. The project contemplates the expenditure of $1,200,000.00 for cost of construction of "shell-in" space. Need for the subject project was discussed in terms of a reference to "Certificate of Need #1488" which is that Certificate relating to floors three and four of the south wing. The Certificate of Need No. 1488 was based upon an application which included a study concluded in August, 1980, which set forth primary and secondary service areas, census tracts and preliminary 1980 Federal census figures for Duval County gathered by the "Research Department, Florida Publishing Company" and a document to the effect that Memorial had a firm market position, and that health care consumerism was emerging and that there was a strong consumer loyalty-to Memorial. The present application was reviewed by the local Health Agency and the Health Needs and Priorities Committee voted to recommend denial of the proposed project; its Executive Committee also recommended denial of the project. During this review cycle, concerns were expressed about the application in view of the 1981 agreement with St. Luke's and the local HSA in which Memorial agreed not to apply for additional beds for at least six months after the 34 beds which had been approved were in operation. While the present application does not violate the terms of that agreement, it does allow for a large portion of the capital expenditure, i.e., that part devoted to the construction of the "shell-in" of the floor to be achieved and thereby allows for a portion of the capital expenditure related to future beds to be approved. With St. Luke's relocation to south Jacksonville, some time in late 1984 or early 1985, and with the addition of Memorial's construction program that has been approved, 323 beds will be added to the south side area of Duval County in the next few years. In the local HSA staff's opinion, which opinion is accurate, from a community planning basis, there will not be a demonstrated community need for additional beds in the south side any sooner than 1985 and it is more likely that there would be no further bed need before 1990. The local HSA is also concerned that the project would set a precedent for future "shell-in" applications. This concern is borne out by interviews conducted through staff members of that HSA which revealed that seven hospital administrators planned major construction projects in the HSA area, and six administrators indicated that they would ask for "shell-in" space if they thought it would be approved. In specific terms, the local HSA recommended disapproval of the project and did so by written findings alluded to before. In summary, those findings indicated: The Health System's Plan did not address expansion projects which do not directly result in an increase in licensed beds or service but the primary purpose of the fifth floor would be for bed spaces. The Health System's Plan called for a regional rate of 4.3 beds per 1,000 population. Excluding Nemour's Children and St. Johns River Hospital, there were approximately 4.1 beds on the south side and beaches area of Jacksonville. When St. Luke's Hospital (289 beds) relocates to the south side and Memorial opens its 34 new beds, the rate will be approximately 5.2 beds per 1,000 population in 1985. In 1990 the estimated rate would be 5.0 beds per 1,000 population. It was HSA's staff's opinion that there will not be a need on a community planning basis to approve more beds for the south side until the 1990s. The local HSA also indicated that Memorial could be more effective in its specialization. Its recommendation in that regard was that after the current construction of four stories had been completed, Memorial could still have the capability to add additional licensed beds within its presently approved structures, even though it would mean reducing the ratio of private beds to semi-private beds. Specifically, it was recommended by the HSA that: Petitioner reconvert the 34 rooms previously used for semi-private back to semi-private --34 beds Modify the 34 private rooms on the third floor of the new building to semi-private, and --34 beds Modify the 34 private rooms on the fourth floor of the new building to semi-private. --34 beds TOTAL 102 beds These observations and findings are correct, except as they relate to modification of rooms on the third and fourth floors of the new construction. The above-stated suggestion by the local HSA related to the modification to semi-private rooms on the third and fourth floors of the south wing would not comport with the design specifications of those beds as now contemplated by Memorial, in that the private rooms contemplated on those floors did not provide sufficient space to be modified into semi-private rooms. Analysis by HRS adopted and confirmed the majority of the analysis by the local Health Planning Agency. HRS also pointed out in its analysis, and the HRS analysis is accurate, that in view of the fact of excess bed capacity in the planning area through 1985, the adding of potential beds would give Petitioner an undue advantage over facilities should the fifth floor be constructed as "shell-in" space. Furthermore, according to Respondent, construction economies to be realized by Memorial Hospital can only be recognized as legitimate, if there is a community need for the project. Based upon the analysis conducted by Respondent, the project from a community-wide standpoint, under the terms of Section 381.493, Florida Statutes, there is an excess of 238 hospital beds in Duval County through 1985, and possibly into early 1990. Respondent having in mind the bed need situation, concluded that the proposed project was not consistent with bed need standards at the time of review or in the planning future and that the community need to add "shell-in" bed space did not exist absent a recognized bed need, which would not occur before 1985. All of these comments by HRS are correct accounts. It was also concluded by Respondent that there were alternatives for converting private bedrooms to semi-private rooms, increasing capacity without major construction. This is a true understanding of the circumstances except as it relates to the third and fourth floors in the new construction. Based upon the overall analysis, the project application was denied. The conditions at Memorial Hospital are such that it would benefit from an expansion to add a fifth floor at the south wing. Those benefits pertain to the availability of storage and administrative space. The occupancy rate for patients in the hospital during the last year have averaged approximately 90 percent (Petitioner's Exhibit 16), causing both emergency and planned health care services to be delayed due to overcrowding. Federal, State and HSA guidelines call for 80 percent occupancy of nonfederal, short-term care beds, such as provided by Petitioner. There is a need for administrative office space. At the present time some administrative offices are placed in lobbies and hallways and the files for those offices are located in hallways. Intravenous solutions are stored in hallways at present. Testimony by the hospital engineer established a need of 15,000 square feet of space to accommodate storage problems more comfortably. The application seeks 17,500 square feet of space. The alternatives to the construction of the fifth floor related to future bed need and short and long-term storage space would be to forego the expansion, construct the project at a future date, or construct a new building. Construction at a later date could cost as much as an additional $7,000,000.00, constituted of approximately $813,000.00 in construction cost and $6,000,000.00 in loss of gross revenue. These costs are related to completion of the "shell-in" structure after the initial four floors had been completed and assumes loss of revenue related to beds in the third and fourth floors of the hospital, which floors would have to be closed during the construction of the fifth floor at a subsequent time. Construction costs at the present, as set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, at the last sentence of the first page, is estimated to be $.31 per-patient day. There is precedent for granting the "shell-in" space as may be found in Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 8, 9, and 10, related to projects in the Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency, Inc. area of responsibility. Respectively, those projects refer to Women's Hospital in Tampa, Florida; St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Florida; and L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital in Bradenton, Florida. In the situation of Women's Hospital, Respondent allowed the construction by installation of necessary structural equipment and fixtures needed to establish 34 single occupancy rooms as double occupancy rooms as a hedge against construction costs for any additional beds approved at a future date. St. Joseph's Hospital was allowed to construct two floors in which 45 beds had been requested, but only 36 beds were granted per floor, leaving additional "shell-in" space which would accommodate nine additional beds per floor, for a total of 18 beds. In the situation at Blake Memorial Hospital in Bradenton, Florida, that hospital was allowed to "shell-in" a fifth floor on condition that the structural framework would be completed and that the floor would be left in an unfinished state, that is to say, that the improvements necessary for the utilization of that fifth floor for patient rooms were not allowed to be added. In each instance in which some form of "shell-in" space was granted, the HSA area was overbeded at the time of the grant of certificate. The project is not consistent with the local health systems plan, annual implementation plan, and Florida State Health Systems Plan. (Petitioner's Exhibits 11 through 14 respectively)
Findings Of Fact By application dated September 28, 1988 respondent/applicant, Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. (SFRMC), filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), seeking the issuance of a certificate of need (CON) authorizing the expenditure of approximately $19.98 million to construct a new three story clinical and ancillary services building at its facility located in Fort Myers, Florida. After the application was filed, and certain additional information was provided by SFRMC, HRS issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter on January 13, 1989 advising that it intended to issue SFRMC a CON. On February 3, 1989, HRS published in the Florida Administrative Weekly a notice of its intent to grant the CON. After learning of this action, petitioner, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee), filed a petition for formal administrative hearing seeking to contest the proposed agency action. That prompted this proceeding. The state agency action report, which is a part of this record, reflects that the applicant proposes to: ... add 4 additional operating rooms to the existing 11; 16 new cardiac surgery recovery beds to the existing 16; and 8 new CCU beds to the existing 8 (by conversion of med/surg beds) in a new three story building that will be a replacement/expansion to the existing facility. The requested project will not constitute an increase in the licensed beds of the applicant's facility. The proposal does not request approval of any new services or change in the total number of beds that are licensed for the applicant's facility, but it does include redesignation of 8 existing medical/surgical beds to add to the 8 additional CCU beds requested. New space for Central Supply Services, as well (as) new and additional administrative, staff support areas, land public areas have been planned. (Emphasis added) These changes were sought by SFRMC to meet "(t)he need and demand for Cardiac services (that have) increased dramatically over the last seven years due to the community's growth, technological advancements and changing clinical practices." According to the allegations in the petition, Lee operates a health care facility in Fort Myers, Florida, which is in the same health planning district as SFRMC. The petition goes on to aver that Lee provides a wide range of medical services and programs, including cardiac surgery and recovery, cardiac catheterization laboratories, CCU, and non-invasive diagnostic cardiology services as proposed in SFRMC's application. The petition alleges further that, due to the sheer size of the project and the "substantial change" in services that will occur, Lee is entitled to a hearing. Based upon these considerations, Lee alleges that its open heart surgery program will be substantially affected if the CON is issued. HRS has authorized Lee to operate an open heart surgery program. However, by stipulation dated March 28, 1988 in DOAH Case No. 87-4755, it has agreed not to begin this program until at least April 1, 1990. If approved, SFRMC's building addition would not be completed until May 1, 1990, or one month after Lee's program begins. The application reflects that SFRMC will increase its total square footage by 25%, operating room capacity by 57%, and SICU capacity by 64%. In all, the project will add approximately 68,000 square feet to the facility complex. In addition, operating expenses associated with the project will total in excess of $28 million per year. Finally, utilization of existing facilities will be enhanced by the new addition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center's motion to dismiss the petition of Lee Memorial Hospital be GRANTED and that Lee's petition for formal administrative hearing be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1989.
The Issue BAMI and VENICE filed competing applications for a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood, Florida. The sole issue is which application should be granted, and which should be denied.
Findings Of Fact DHRS is the state agency empowered to review, issue, deny, and revoke certificates of need for health care projects. 381.494(8), Fla. Stat. (1981). In January, 1982, VENICE and BAMI separately applied to DHRS for a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood, Florida. When the applications were filed, Florida law required the appropriate health systems agency to initially review applications for certificates of need. On March 10, 1982, the Project Review Committee of the South Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc.--the appropriate health systems agency--considered the competing applications, then voted to approve the proposal submitted by VENICE, and deny the proposals submitted by BAMI and a third applicant (not involved in this proceeding). On March 27, 1982, the Board of Directors of the South Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc. disagreed with the Project Review Committee's recommendation and voted to recommend (to DHRS) approval of the BAMI proposal and disapproval of the VENICE proposal. DHRS then independently reviewed the two competing applications. On April 30, 1982, it issued a (free-form) certificate of need to BAMI to construct a 75,000 square foot, 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood. Conversely, it denied VENICE's application, asserting: (1) that the interest and depreciation expense per projected patient day for the first two years of operation of the BAMI proposal was less than that projected for the VENICE proposal; (2) that the estimated labor and materials cost per square foot for the BAMI proposal was lower than the amount estimated for the VENICE proposal; (3) and that the provision for 30 semiprivate rooms in the BAMI proposal offered patients an alternative unavailable in the all-private room hospital proposed by VENICE. VENICE thereafter requested a formal hearing to contest DHRS's action, which request resulted in this proceeding. Bami BAMI seeks a certificate of need to construct a new 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood, Florida, to be known as Englewood Community Hospital. BAMI proposes to relocate and merge its existing Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center into the proposed Englewood Community Hospital. The service area for the BAMI proposal includes the following communities in Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee counties: Englewood, North Port, Warm Mineral Springs, El Jobean, Grove City, Rotunda West, Placida, Cape Haze, and Boca Grande. The proposed hospital contains 92 medical/surgical beds and 8 intensive care unit (ICU) beds. The 92 medical/surgical beds contain a mix of 32 private be and 60 semiprivate beds. The hospital will provide ambulatory surgical services, diagnostic and special procedures, radiology services, nuclear medicine, ultrasonography, cardio-pulmonary, emergency room, and clinical laboratory services. The following services would be shared with its affiliate, Fawcett memorial Hospital in Port St. Charlotte, Florida: business office, medical records, data processing, materials management, personnel, education, public relations, administration, dietary, bio-medical engineering, laboratory, sterile processing, vascular laboratory, and occupational therapy. The proposed hospital will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAMI, and will have its own board of directors, board of trustees, and medical staff. BAMI is an experienced health care provider. Its principals have been in the health care business since 1964, and have built and operated 25 health care facilities in the mid-western United States. BAMI owns and operates several health care facilities in Florida: the 400-bed Fort Myers Community Hospital in Fort Myers, Florida; the 254-bed Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, Florida; the 120-bed Kissimmee Memorial Hospital in Kissimmee, Florida; the Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center in Englewood, Florida; the Ambulatory Surgical Center in Tampa, Florida; and the Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center in Bonita Springs, Florida. BAMI also owns two smaller hospitals, one in Georgia and the other in Alabama. It is experienced in building and opening new hospitals, having built both the Fort Myers Community Hospital and the Kissimmee Memorial Hospital. It also expanded Fawcett Memorial Hospital from 96 beds to 254 beds. BAMI has financial assets of approximately $63,842,400 and a net worth exceeding $13.5 million. Venice VENICE seeks a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed satellite acute care hospital in Englewood, to be known as the Englewood-North Port Hospital. The service area for this proposed hospital consists of Englewood, North Port, Rotunda West, Placida, Warm Mineral Springs, Boca Grande, and Cape Haze. VENICE's proposed hospital contains 96 medical/surgical beds and four ICU beds. No semiprivate rooms will be available. All of the 96 medical/surgical beds will be placed in private rooms. The proposed satellite hospital will share the following services with VENICE's existing 300-bed "mother" hospital in Venice, Florida: specialized laboratory services, physical therapy, nuclear medicine, pulmonary functions, and specialized radiology services. For specialized and more sophisticated services, patients will be transported from the Englewood hospital to the larger hospital in Venice. The following support services will also be shared with the "mother" hospital: purchasing, bulk storage, laundry, dietary management, data processing, financial management, personnel recruitment, and educational services. In order to share these services, the existing Venice Hospital will be required to operate a transportation system. For many years, VENICE has owned and operated Venice Hospital, a fully licensed and accredited 300-bed general acute care hospital at 540 The Rialto, Venice, Florida. Venice neither owns nor operates any other hospital, although it has applied for a certificate of need to construct a 50-bed psychiatric hospital. The present management of Venice Hospital is inexperienced in the construction and opening of new hospitals. II. COSTS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION Construction costs for the competing BAMI and VENICE proposals are broken down into categories and depicted in the following table: COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS CATEGORY BAMI VENICE Total Project Cost $13,355,000 $18,170,000 Total Project Per Bed Cost 135,500 181,700 Total Direct Construction Equipment Cost for and Fixed 11,670,190 13,874,516 Gross Square Feet 75,327 75,000 Construction Costs 155 173 Per Square Foot Number of Stories One Two Expansion Potential 100 additional 200 additional EQUIPMENT Movable 3,500,000 2,272,444 Bami Construction of the BAMI hospital can begin by September 1, 1983, and be completed by December 31, 1984. The new hospital can be opened by January 1, 1985. The BAMI hospital will be a one-story building, a design which is efficient for a hospital of this size. It will consist of a steel structure with curtain walls. The building is functional and economical, and can be expanded horizontally to 200 beds with minimum disruption to existing services and staff. The design of this hospital is similar to the 120-bed Kissimmee Memorial Hospital built by BAMI in 1979. BAMI's cost estimates are based on the actual costs of constructing the Kissimmee Memorial Hospital. BAMI proposes to construct the hospital by using an affiliate, F & E Community Developers of Florida, Inc. The use of an in-house contractor will allow BAMI to build the hospital in a short time period, at less cost and with higher quality. BAMI's proposal contains both active and passive energy conservation elements. The passive elements include overhangs, shaded glass, and movable windows. Active elements include the selection of quality equipment and a computerized control system for the electric reheat heating/ventilation/air conditioning ("HVAC") system. The architectural and construction plans for BAMI's proposed hospital are virtually complete. Schematic drawings were submitted and approved by DHRS in August, 1981. Preliminary plans have also been approved by DHRS. DHRS approval entailed a review of architectural, electrical, and mechanical preliminary drawings. Venice If the VENICE proposal is approved, construction could begin between April and July, 1984. The hospital could open for occupancy on January 1, 1986, a year later than BAMI's proposal. VENICE's architectural and construction plans are at an early stage, consisting only of a program summary and block design. Architectural, electrical, and mechanical preliminary drawings have not yet been submitted to DHRS and approved. The construction cost estimates submitted by VENICE are less reliable than those submitted by BAMI, since they were derived from less developed plans and were based on assumptions presented by persons who did not testify at hearing. VENICE's proposed hospital consists of a reinforced concrete structure with a modular precast concrete exterior. Although it will consist of two stories, the building will be stressed for the subsequent addition of two stories. When and if it is expanded to four stories, it would be a 300-bed hospital. The planned vertical expansion increases the initial cost of the building by approximately ten percent. Because of the extensive sharing of medical and support services between the proposed satellite hospital and the "mother" hospital in Venice, the ancillary medical and support facilities of the satellite have been down-sized. The VENICE proposal will also require horizontal expansion in the future. Areas such as radiology, laboratory, and emergency rooms will require immediate expansion as beds are added to the facility. It has not been shown at what point, in the planned expansion, VENICE's proposed hospital would become a free-standing hospital--when it would no longer be required to rely on its "mother" hospital in Venice. VENICE proposes an energy efficient facility. The multiple-story design minimizes site use and roof coverage. The relatively narrow wings provide for optimum use of daylight. VENICE contends that its HVAC system is more cost effective than the system proposed by BAMI. This contention is not substantiated by convincing evidence. The VENICE witness who testified on this question was an architect, not a mechanical engineer. He was unfamiliar with the computerized energy control system proposed by BAMI and used assumptions made by others who did not testify at the hearing. Bami III. HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT BAMI's proposed movable hospital equipment will cost approximately $3,500,000. Included are three radiology rooms: one general radiographic room, one standard R and F room, and one R and F room with angiographic capability. Also included are 8 ICU beds, four operating "rooms--two major and two minor-- nuclear medicine, and ultrasound capability. Venice The equipment cost for the VENICE proposal is $2,272,444. Included are 3 operating rooms, one with cystographic capability; four ICU beds and two radiology rooms--one R and F, and one general radiographic. More sophisticated diagnostic procedures, such as nuclear medicine and specialized radiology, will be provided at the "mother" hospital in Venice, not at the proposed Englewood satellite. To utilize these procedures, patients will be transported from Englewood to Venice. VENICE acknowledges that its proposed hospital will utilize less sophisticated diagnostic equipment than BAMI's. VENICE's equipment cost would have to be increased approximately $700,000 if it were to provide eight ICU beds and specialized radiology and nuclear-medicine to match BAMI's proposal. The equipment cost differential indicates the different levels of care proposed by the two hospitals. The VENICE proposal requires the development of a transportation "shuttle" system between the "mother" hospital in Venice and the satellite in Englewood. The system would consist of two trucks in addition to vans or ambulances. The plans for this essential transportation system are, however, not fully developed. The need for van or ambulance transportation between the two facilities has not been fully considered. Further, the transportation plan estimates a 25-minute one-way driving time between Englewood and Venice year- round. During the busy winter months, it is likely that the driving time will increase. Although VENICE proposes to lease the necessary trucks, neither the leasing costs nor associated costs have been fully taken into account. IV. FUNDS FOR OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Bami BAMI will finance the $13,555,000 required to open its proposed hospital with bond proceeds, an equipment lease, and an equity contribution. It will obtain $7,905,000 from taxable bonds with a maturity of 25 years, and an interest rate of 12.5 percent. There will be a 2-year holiday on principal payments. BAMI will finance the $3,500,000 equipment cost pursuant to a lease agreement with Financial and Insurance Services, Inc., with an eight-year term and an interest rate of 15 percent. BAMI will make an equity contribution of $2,150,000. This will be in the nature of a contribution of capital from a parent corporation to a subsidiary corporation. As of September 30, 1982, BAMI had a net worth exceeding $13,500,000. BAMI will provide up to $1,000,000 in operating capital to cover initial start-up costs of the proposed hospital. In addition, BAMI has obtained a $5,000,000 line of credit which will be available to cover any potential cash shortages occurring during the start-up phase of the hospital. Venice VENICE will obtain the $18,170,000 required for its proposal from tax- free bond financing and an equity contribution. The bonds, which will have a maturity of 30 years and an interest rate of 10.52 percent, will be an obligation of the Venice Hospital. A debt service reserve fund of $1,900,750 will be required in order for the bonds to obtain an "A" rating. In unrelated applications, VENICE has proposed a major renovation of its existing hospital and the construction of a new free-standing 50-bed psychiatric hospital. These projects, if undertaken, will require additional equity contributions of $1,221,000 and additional bond financing in the amount of $10,370,000. To obtain the bond financing, VENICE will be required to maintain a one-to-one historical debt coverage ratio. VENICE has not convincingly established that it will be able to carry out all three projects and still maintain the required one-to-one debt coverage ratio. VENICE proposes to locate its proposed hospital on 15 acres of land costing $135,000. But the land sales contract provides only for the sale of 250 acres at a cost of $2,250,000. (The present owners wish to sell the entire 250- acre parcel and not lesser amounts.) The source of the $2,250,000 needed to acquire the property has not been identified. The bond proceeds could not be used. To purchase the 250 acres and fund the equity for its three proposed health care projects, VENICE will require $4,311,000. The source of these funds has not been identified. VENICE contends that one possible source would be Board Designated Funds. However, VENICE's audited financial statements for the period ending September 30, 1982, suggest otherwise. PROPOSED SITES Bami BAMI, through a subsidiary, has contracted to purchase approximately 12 acres as a site for its proposed Englewood hospital. The 12-acre site is part of a 60-acre parcel of land that is zoned OPI, a zoning classification which will permit the construction of a hospital. The 12-acre site is located on Morningside Drive, an access road to Pine Street. Although Morningside Drive is a dirt road, it will be paved. Under the contract, the current owner will pay all paving costs in excess of $65,000. The initial $65,000 in paving costs will be borne by BAMI and has been included in BAMI's estimated construction costs. Pine Street, a major north- south transportation artery in the Englewood area, is currently being resurfaced in both Sarasota and Charlotte counties. A second access to Pine Street has been acquired by the current owner. A watermain is available at the BAMI site. The current owner of the property will construct a sewage treatment plant and provide sewer service to the proposed hospital at prevailing rates. The sewage treatment plant will be located on a 7.5-acre portion of the 48 contiguous acres retained by the current owner. The BAMI site is located in an A-11 flood zone with an elevation of ten feet. Fill dirt will be used to raise it to an acceptable elevation of twelve feet. A current owner of the BAMI site envisions the entire 60 acres as an Englewood medical center. If necessary he will allow BAMI to purchase an additional 12 acres contiguous to the site. BAMI has not yet, however, obtained a legally enforceable right to purchase additional property adjoining its 12- acre site. Although the 12-ace site will permit the planned 100-bed future expansion, the site would be crowded with little space remaining for future improvements. Venice The VENICE site is an undesignated 15-acre portion of a 250-acre parcel of land located off State Road 777, also known as South River Road. It is uncertain whether the hospital will have one or two access roads to State Road 777. A watermain is available at the VENICE site. Sewage treatment will be provided by a nearby privately owned sewage treatment plant until the hospital, eventually, constructs its own. The zoning classification of the VENICE site will not permit construction of a hospital. Before the hospital could be built, Sarasota County would be required to rezone the property to OPI. Use of the property for a hospital is also inconsistent with Sarasota County's comprehensive land use plan, adopted October 31, 1981. Such a rezoning process would take a minimum of three or four months, and perhaps longer. Approximately 100 individual steps are involved. Hearings would be held by the Sarasota Planning Commission and the Sarasota County Commission. VENICE has not yet filed an application to rezone either the 15 acres or the entire 250-acre parcel. Neither has it shown that it is likely to succeed in having the property rezoned to a classification permitting hospital use. Bami VI. EFFICIENT AND ALTERNATIVE USES OF HEALTH CARE RESOURCES As part of its application, BAMI proposes to merge its existing Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center into its proposed Englewood hospital. If the BAMI application is denied and VENICE's granted, BAMI will continue to operate the Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center. As a result, the Emergency Clinic and VENICE's Englewood hospital would be providing duplicative emergency services. The costs resulting from this duplication would be approximately $894,800 in 1985; $975,300 in 1986; and $1,063,100 in 1987. For cost effectiveness, BAMI's proposed hospital will share some ancillary and support services with Fawcett Memorial Hospital in nearby Port Charlotte. Fawcett Memorial will also provide tertiary level services, such as renal dialysis and CAT scans to patients of the proposed Englewood hospital. BAMI operates a multi-hospital system, with subsidiaries which provide ancillary and specialized support services. These services include physical therapy, inhalation therapy, cardiopulmonary function, speech therapy, data processing, and collection services. Corporate level expertise in accounting, property management, pharmacy management, personnel, and marketing, is also available. The multi-hospital system allows BAMI to obtain favorable purchasing contracts and capital for future expansion. Venice Venice Hospital, the only hospital in south Sarasota County, has a high rate of occupancy. Although presently a 300-bed facility, it has an ultimate capacity of 400 beds. It recently applied for a certificate of need to add 24 ICU/PCU beds and additional beds, beyond that, are needed. It has a shelled-in fourth floor that will accommodate an additional 45-bed nursing unit. Completing the fourth floor at Venice Hospital would be a more cost-effective alternative way to add beds than constructing a new hospital in Englewood. As already mentioned, the "mother" hospital in Venice will share numerous ancillary and support services with the proposed satellite hospital in Englewood. VENICE proposes to share, among other things, its present laboratory with the proposed Englewood satellite. As a result, the laboratory in the satellite hospital has been reduced to a minimal size. It has not been convincingly established that the Venice Hospital laboratory, even if expanded as proposed, can process the additional laboratory work-load arising from an Englewood satellite. The laboratory at the existing Venice Hospital presently operates 24-hours per day, seven days a week. Even if its application to expand its laboratory is granted, the total area of the laboratory would be less than the accepted space guidelines required for a 324-bed hospital. VII. AVAILABILITY, APPROPRIATENESS, AND ACCESSIBILITY OF PROPOSED HEALTH CARE SERVICES Scope of Services Although both proposed hospitals would share services with affiliated hospitals, BAMI proposes more of an autonomous, full-service and free-standing hospital than that proposed by VENICE. BAMI will equip its hospital with a more complete and sophisticated range of diagnostic services and, unlike VENICE, has not down-sized its ancillary and support services. For the VENICE proposal to become a free-standing facility comparable to BAMI's, the space devoted to ancillary medical services and support services would have to be expanded by 30 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The costs of such an expansion have not been determined. Economic Access Both parties will enter Medicaid contracts covering their proposed hospitals. BAMI projects that .1 percent of its patients will be Medicaid; VENICE projects .2 percent. BAMI hospitals treat all emergency patients, regardless of ability to pay. Third party payment is accepted. On elective admissions, self-pay patients are requested to make reasonable deposits and sign promissory notes. In specific instances, patients can be admitted without making financial arrangements in advance. Patients are not referred to other hospitals because of inability to pay. If an indigent is defined as "one who cannot pay," Fawcett Memorial Hospital provided between $600,000 and $700,000 in indigent care during 1982. This figure represents approximately 3.9 percent of gross revenue. Similarly, Venice Hospital treats emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Promissory notes are obtained from self-pay patients if necessary. The credit policies of Venice Hospital are similar to BAMI's. Venice Hospital had a bad debt or charity to gross receipts ratio of between 2.5 percent and 3.0 percent in 1982. Venice Hospital also has a Hill-Burton requirement to provide indigent care in the amount of approximately $125,000 per year. This requirement stems from a federal grant awarded in 1970. Access to Osteopathic Physicians BAMI's proposed hospital will have an open medical staff, including licensed medical doctors and osteopathic physicians. BAMI has a practice of allowing osteopathic physicians on its medical staff. For several years, osteopathic physicians have been included on the staff of all BAMI hospitals. Fort Myers Community Hospital, a BAMI hospital, is one of two hospitals in the Fort Myers area with osteopathic physicians on its staff. Kissimmee Memorial Hospital, also owned by BAMI, has the only two osteopathic physicians in Kissimmee on its staff. Fawcett Memorial Hospital has the only osteopathic physician in Port Charlotte on its staff. In contrast, VENICE has not added osteopathic physicians to its staff with similar enthusiasm. It granted staff privileges to its first osteopathic physician six to nine months prior to hearing. Two months before the hearing, staff privileges were granted to a second. Venice Hospital has, however, changed its bylaws to comply with the law prohibiting discrimination against osteopathic physicians. Geographic Access The geographic locations of the sites for the two proposed hospitals, as described above, provide equal access to the service area. The BAMI site is closest to the existing population concentrations of the Englewood area, while the VENICE site is closer to Interstate 75. Both sites will require the paving of an access road to major traffic arteries. No significant advantage in access is afforded to either. VIII. COMPETITION The existing Venice Hospital currently serves the hospital needs of approximately 64 percent of the people in the greater Englewood area. These patients comprise approximately 26.8 percent of Venice Hospital's total patient days. BAMI's existing Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte currently serves between ten and twelve percent of the hospital needs of the people in the greater Englewood area. These patients account for approximately 11.3 percent of Fawcett Memorial's total patient load. In addition, BAMI's Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center has treated over 20,000 patients since it opened in February, 1980. The existing Venice Hospital holds a dominant market share in the greater Englewood area. It is only twelve miles north of Englewood and is the only hospital in south Sarasota County. The closest competitor in Sarasota County is Sarasota Memorial Hospital, approximately 20 miles north of the Venice Hospital. Venice Hospital has been in operation for approximately 30 years. In contrast, Fawcett Memorial Hospital is approximately 21 miles east of Englewood. In the mid-1970s, it was converted from a nursing home to a 96-bed hospital, and in 1976, it was expanded to 254 beds. Approval of BAMI's proposal will enhance competition among hospitals serving the greater Englewood area. The competition will not, however, adversely affect Venice Hospital's long-term viability. The construction of either hospital in the Englewood area will change existing hospital utilization and physician referral patterns. New referral patterns will form and an increasingly autonomous group of physicians will develop. Local physicians will utilize the Englewood hospital, whether it is owned by BAMI or VENICE. Bami IX. PROJECTED COSTS OF PROVIDING HEALTH CARE SERVICES BAMI forecasts an occupancy rate of 60 percent at its proposed Englewood hospital in 1985; 75 percent in 1986; and 80 percent in 1987, with an average length of stay of 8.5 days. These figures are credible in view of the population growth in the Englewood area, the undisputed need for a new hospital, and the elderly population. To project total cost and gross revenue per patient day, various calculations are made. BAMI's employee salary expenses are based on its experience at nearby Fawcett Memorial Hospital, adjusted by an inflation factor. Non-salary expenses are derived from its experience at Kissimmee Memorial Hospital, a hospital of similar size with a utilization rate similar to that projected for the Englewood hospital. Depreciation of plant and equipment is calculated using the straight-line method. Revenue projections are derived using the American Hospital Association's Monitrend median inpatient revenue, inflated at 9 percent per year. An indigent/bad debt deduction of four percent of total patient revenue is used. These assumptions provide a credible basis from which total cost and gross revenue per patient day can be calculated. Using these assumptions, total costs per patient day is forecast to be $482.00 in 1975; $479.60 in 1986, and $510.32 in 1987. Gross revenue per patient day is forecast to be $552.00 in 1985; $601.68 in 1986; and $655.83 in 1987. These forecasts are credible and accepted as reasonably reliable. Venice VENICE's primary contention is that its proposed hospital, although costing more to build, will--in the long run--result in lower costs to patients and increased savings to the community. This contention was not substantiated by convincing evidence. In forecasting its costs and revenues, VENICE projected an occupancy rate of 65 percent in 1986; 80 percent in 1987; and 80 percent in 1988. The 1986 projection is unreasonably high; it envisions a 70.4 percent utilization rate during the opening month. VENICE's projected salary expenses are derived from its current experience at Venice Hospital, adjusted for inflation. Although this figure is reliable, the projected non-salary expense per patient day is not. The nonsalary expense is not based on Venice Hospital's most recent 1982 expenses, and is not adjusted by the requisite inflation factor. The depreciation schedule and assumptions used by VENICE in forecasting its revenues and costs are also questionable. Discrepancies went unexplained. The testimony of Deborah Kolb, Ph.D., an expert in health care financial and need analysis, is considered more credible. She concluded that VENICE understated 1986 depreciation expense for its proposed hospital by approximately $300,000, an error which would have increased its projected patient costs per day by $13.70. VENICE also projects room charges at its proposed hospital which are significantly lower than those projected for its "mother" hospital in Venice. This difference in room charges was not adequately explained or justified. Although VENICE's controller attributed the difference to cost savings resulting from the satellite hospital concept, these savings were not meaningfully itemized or identified in VENICE's revenue and cost projections. VENICE also failed to identify, and reflect in its projections, increased costs resulting from use of its satellite concept. For example, in 1986, 532 Englewood patient are projected as requiring sophisticated nuclear medicine tests at the "mother" hospital in Venice; 141 Englewood patient are projected as requiring special radiology tests at Venice Hospital. When asked who would absorb the costs of transporting patients between the satellite hospital in Englewood and the "mother" hospital in Venice, VENICE's controller responded that Venice Hospital would. However, those costs have not been quantified. Moreover Venice Hospital does not currently pay for ambulance transportation of its patients and does not have vans which transport patients on 24-mile round trips. This amounts to a significant and additional cost of operation, which has not been fully considered in the financial forecasts. Moreover, VENICE utilized cost per patient day based on Venice Hospital's 1981 costs rather than the higher 1982 costs. (Revenue per patient day increased 23.8 percent, in 1982.) In addition, projected revenues at VENICE's proposed Englewood satellite were not adjusted downward to take into account the less-sophisticated medical services which would be provided. As a result, VENICE's projected revenues per patient day are questionable and lack credibility. Venice Hospital received funds from three philanthropic organizations: Venice Hospital Blood Bank, Venice Hospital Auxiliary Volunteers, and Venice Health Facilities Foundation. Without the infusion of these funds, charges to Venice Hospital's patients would be higher. Venice Hospital's own fund raising literature states that patient charges, alone, do not cover the full costs of providing medical services. These community-raised funds, then, pay part of the costs of providing medical care. But in calculating cost savings to the community from its proposed Englewood hospital, VENICE has not identified or taken into account these additional funds raised from the community. VENICE's comparison of its projected patient charges with those of BAMI's is, accorded little weight. The two proposed hospitals are significantly different, one providing more extensive and sophisticated medical care than the other. This difference was not adequately taken into account in the financial comparison. Additional costs to Venice Hospital resulting from the Englewood satellite hospital were not fully considered. Comparisons based on historical charges by Venice Hospital and Fawcett Memorial Hospital are also misleading since these hospitals are different in size and occupancy rate--and the proposed Englewood hospital will duplicate neither. Moreover, Venice Hospital historical room rates used for the comparison were selectively chosen. VENICE also relies on projected HVAC life cycle savings, which, as already mentioned, were not convincingly established. Finally, the costs of acquiring VENICE's site-- necessitating a 250-acre purchase--were not fully reflected in the comparison. X QUALITY OF CARE The parties stipulated that both proposals will provide high quality medical care. The only question is whether bed-configuration will affect the quality of care provided. BAMI proposes a mix of 32 private and 60 semiprivate medical/surgical beds, with an additional 8 ICU beds. In contrast, VENICE proposes 96 private medical/surgical beds and 4 ICU beds. BAMI's mix of private and semiprivate rooms will allow consumers a choice and is preferable to VENICE's all private-room proposal. Private and semiprivate rooms confer various benefits. BAMI's proposed 32 private rooms will be adequate to serve those patients requiring private rooms while, at the same time, affording patients a choice between private and semiprivate. The VENICE proposal will not allow such a choice. It has not been shown, however, that bed configuration will affect the quality of medical care rendered patients. XI. COMPARISON: BAMI'S PROPOSED HOSPITAL IS PREFERABLE TO VENICE'S Both proposed hospitals would provide necessary and quality medical care to people in the Englewood area. On balance, however, BAMI's proposal is preferable. BAMI's free-standing hospital will provide more complete and sophisticated medical care, with less need to transport patients between "mother" and satellite hospitals. VENICE's satellite hospital will require extensive transporting of patients, food, linens, equipment, lab samples, and medications between the "mother" hospital in Venice and the satellite hospital in Englewood. BAMI, a multi-hospital system, is more experienced in constructing and operating new hospitals. The BAMI proposal will cost approximately $2,000,000 less to build, yet be of comparable quality and equipped with more sophisticated diagnostic equipment. While VENICE's construction plans are preliminary, BAMI's are detailed and virtually complete. VENICE's site requires rezoning, BAMI's does not. If BAMI's application is approved, its hospital could be opened by January 1, 1985,a year earlier than VENICE's. BAMI is financially able to begin construction immediately while VENICE--because of other projects simultaneously undertaken--may not be. Apart from zoning, both hospital sites are equally acceptable, although BAMI's 12-acre site is minimally sufficient for the anticipated future expansion to 200 beds. BAMI's financial ability to purchase is assured, while VENICE's is not. BAMI's proposal would avoid a duplication of emergency medical services in Englewood, while VENICE's would cause it. For patients preferring osteopathic physicians, BAMI's hospital would, most likely, be preferable. For patients preferring semiprivate rooms, BAMI's proposal would be preferable. Competition between hospitals serving the Englewood area would be enhanced with the BAMI proposal and decreased with VENICE's. Although VENICE argued that the costs to its patients would, over the long run, be less than BAMI's, this proposition was not convincingly proved.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Manatee Palms is an existing 60 bed residential treatment center located in Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida, which opened on January 12, 1987. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of PIA Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc., which owns or operates 51 psychiatric hospitals and three residential treatment centers throughout the United States. The Department is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications. MMH is an existing acute care hospital with a 25 bed short-term psychiatric unit which consists of approximately ten adolescent beds. It is the Manatee County contract provider of in-patient psychiatric services to the medically indigent, and provides approximately 91% of the indigent care in manatee County. MMH does not have, and has never sought, a CON as an IRTP, but does have earlier batched applications pending for additional short an d long term psychiatric beds. Its average length of stay is 35-40 days, and its utilization rate is approaching 100%. MMH provides services similar or identical to those offered or proposed by Manatee Palms and FRTC, and its program also utilizes a "Levels System", as does the program at Manatee Palms and the one to be offered at FRTC. FRTC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation, which received a CON through Final Order of the Department on February 15, 1988, for a 60 bed intensive residential treatment facility located in Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida. The facility is currently under construction, and is projected to begin operations in March, 1990. The Application and the Project Manatee Palms is licensed as a child caring facility and holds a license entitling it to various services relating to alcohol and substance abuse to adolescents between the ages of 8 and 18. The facility is JCAH accredited as a residential treatment center. In April, 1987, Manatee Palms filed CON application number 5148 with the Department. It seeks to obtain specialty hospital licensure as an IRTP for its existing facility, and must receive a CON before it can be so licensed. The Department reviewed Manatee Palms' application and preliminarily denied CON 5148. Manatee Palms timely sought review of the Department's preliminary decision, and requested this formal hearing. By Order entered on May 3, 1988. leave to intervene was granted to MMH and FRTC. At hearing, relevant information that updates a CON application, and is the result of extrinsic circumstances beyond the applicant's control, is admissible, according to the Department's expert in CON review, Liz Dudek. The existing facility which is the subject of these proceedings is divided into two 30-bed wings based upon two separate clinical programs provided at the facility. One 30-bed unit is the psychiatric unit where a program for patients suffering only from psychiatric illnesses reside and are treated. The other unit is for dual diagnosis patients suffering from both psychiatric and substance abuse disorders. The primary service area for Manatee Palms includes Manatee, Sarasota, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Polk, Hardee, Highlands, Charlotte, Lee, Collier and Orange Counties, with the secondary service area covering all eleven service districts of the Department, as well as out-of-state. Approximately 25% of the patients at Manatee Palms are from District VI. The facility encompasses 23,500 gross square feet, and contains classrooms, bedrooms, activity rooms, a dining facility and fully equipped kitchen, pharmacy, offices, a medical examining room, timeout rooms, and a service wing. The outside area covers 15 acres and consists of a swimming pool, ball field and a ROPES course, which is also available for non-residents in the community. A fully accredited school is operated at the facility, and some of the residents also attend a public high school which is located across the street. Classes are taught by EH and SED instructors provided by the Manatee County School Board. The facility supplies an aide for each class. The treatment program at Manatee Palms includes: comprehensive and individualized treatment; individualized, group and family therapy; the fully accredited school program; psychological testing and evaluation; creative and expressive arts; occupational and recreational therapy; alcohol and substance abuse education and counseling; vocational counseling; language, speech and hearing therapy; and structured after care. Therapy is provided in both a group and individualized setting, in accordance with an individual treatment plan for the resident which is developed by his treatment team. Additional services are provided to residents through contracts with outside physicians. A Levels System is followed which allows each resident to move up the Levels and gain increased privileges as the resident improves his behavior. Manatee Palms is extensively involved with the community through clinical workshops, the District VI Severely Emotionally Disturbed Network, Advisory Councils, counseling sessions for adolescents who are not in need of psychiatric care but are in need of counseling, and drug screening services which are provided at no charge. The facility's stated goal is to provide services that will enable program participants to return to their communities under less restrictive treatment requirements as soon as possible. The average length of stay is approximately 61 days in the dual diagnosis unit, and approximately 147 days in the psychiatric unit. Combining both units, the average length of stay at the facility is approximately 120 days. Admissions are accepted from mental health and social service agencies, schools, hospitals, and private practitioners. Patients are admitted upon the order of a psychiatrist/physician. Manatee Palms has three psychiatrists on staff and other non-psychiatric physicians providing services at the facility, include family physicians, a podiatrist, gynecologist, optometrist, podiatrist, as well as several dentists. The clinical staff to patient ration is approximately 1.25 to 1.0, and the overall staff to patient ratio is 1.8 to 1.0. The facility experienced an 86.8% occupancy from its opening in January, 1987, through April 30, 1988. At the time of its omissions response in June, 1987, its occupancy was 85.5%. Occupancy for 1989 is projected to be 89- 90%. Approximately 25% of the patients treated at Manatee Palms reside within District VI, while the rest reside in other Districts, or out of state. Manatee Palms has a contract with the Department to treat "chronically disturbed" adolescents, who have long term problems and have been treated in multiple settings before their admission to Manatee Palms. These patients generally require a longer average length of stay, and although they comprises half of all admissions in 1987, they now represent about 35% of the patients at Manatee Palms. The facility is committed to serving the same number of patients under its contract with the Department for the next two year, even with a CON. The gross charge per patient day at Manatee Palms is $255.00, which includes room, board and nursing, and ancillary charges are about $12.00 per day. The average gross patient charge per admission is $45,000. Rates for patients admitted under the contract for services with the Department are reduced to $185.00 per day, including ancillary charges, and this is below actual costs. Payor classes include insurance patients, private pay patients, and patients admitted under the contract with the Department. The number of insurance companies providing reimbursement for private pay patients has substantially increased since 1987, and there are approximately 40 insurance companies that have provided coverage for patients at Manatee Palms. Non-Rule Policy for IRTP The Department has no rule governing the approval of IRTP applications for a CON. Since February, 1987, the Department followed a non-rule policy which presumed there is a need for at least one licensed IRTP of reasonable size in each Departmental service district, and which did not consider the existence of unlicensed residential treatment beds in a district in determining if the presumed need had been met. Nothing in the record of this proceeding serves to explicate any rational basis for this non-rule policy based upon health planning concerns, considerations, or any other factors. The stated non-rule policy, therefore, provides no guidance for review of the application at issue in this case. FRTC received a Final Order of the Department in February, 1988, granting it a CON for a new IRTP to be located in Manatee County. Therefore, Manatee Palms is seeking licensure for the second IRTP in District VI. It is, however, an existing facility which does not seek to add new beds or provide new services at its facility, but seeks to change the status of its existing beds to "hospital" beds through licensure. In order to be licensed as a "specialty hospital", a facility must first receive a CON. The stated non-rule policy of the Department provides no guidance for review of the application at issue in this case, since even had it been explicated on the record of this proceeding, it does not apply to the review of a second IRTP application in a service district. Need and Consistency with State and Local Health Plans The Florida State Health Plan sets forth several relevant goals, including: encouraging the availability of the least restrictive treatment setting for all residents in need of mental health services; developing a continuum of services for mental health and substance abuse treatment, and a complete range of public mental health services in each service district; promoting third party reimbursement for non-hospital settings; and developing a network of residential treatment settings for severely emotionally disturbed children. The District VI Local Health Plan also encourages the use of the least restrictive and most cost effective treatment settings. No specific goals are identified in the Local Plan for residential treatment programs. The Manatee Palms application is consistent with these relevant portions of the State and Local Health Plans. It would increase access for patients with a dual diagnosis of both psychiatric and substance abuse problems, and would thereby encourage treatment in a facility with a shorter average length of stay than an acute inpatient hospital. It provides a less costly alternative to hospitalization. Manatee Palms accepts patients through a service contract with the Department, and thereby assists the development of a complete range of public mental health services. Insofar as approval of this application will increase the level of commercial insurance reimbursement for services at Manatee Palms, it will thereby improve the financial viability of the facility, and allow it to continue to serve patients under its contract with the Department, which currently does not allow for the recovery of actual costs associated with those services. Approval of this application will insure that Manatee Palms, which accepts publicly financed patients, will be able to compete on an equal basis with FRTC, which has made no commitment to serve patients under a service agreement with the Department. A numeric need methodology for IRTPs is not set forth by rule or incipient policy of the Department. For this reason, Manatee Palms presented three analyses to establish the need for this facility. First, competent substantial evidence was presented that referral sources and other knowledgeable individuals in the community believe that Manatee Palms does fill an existing gap in services by providing long-term psychiatric and substance abuse services locally to adolescents who require this level of treatment, and that the facility has a very good reputation in the community, with extensive involvement in the community. Second, a bed-to-population ratio analysis was performed, and established that if Manatee Palms' application is approved, the ratio of beds to population would be .32 beds per thousand for the 0-17 age group in District VI, even allowing for the already approved FRTC beds. This ratio analysis was adopted by the Department in its Final Order issued in February, 1988, granting FRTC a CON for an IRTP in Manatee County, and in that case 1991 population projections were used by the Department. Since this application was filed later than the FRTC application, 1992 population projections have been used to arrive at the .32 beds per population ratio. Thus, the same five year population projection has been used in this case, for purposes of this bed-to-population ratio analysis, as was applied by the Department in the FRTC case. This would be well within the range of bed-to-population ratios for areas with the existing IRTPs which is from .07 to 1.33 beds per thousand population for ages 0-17. This ratio analysis was adopted by the Department as a method to establish need in IRTP cases subsequent to the Manatee Palms application being deemed complete. The utilization and adoption of this methodology in the FRTC case was not within the control of Manatee Palms, and there was no way this could have been foreseen when it filed this application. It is, therefore, appropriate and necessary for Manatee Palms to address, and rely upon, this subsequently adopted methodology at hearing, although it was not addressed in its application. Third, the services which are offered at Manatee Palms were distinguished from those to be offered at FRTC to establish that a different type of patient would be treated FRTC than is currently treated at Manatee Palms, and that, therefore, existing occupancy rates would not be reduced at Manatee Palms due to the FRTC facility. Specifically, it was shown that the proposed average length of stay at FRTC would be three times longer than the actual average length of stay at Manatee Palms, and FRTC does not propose to serve substance abuse patients or provide services to publicly financed patients under a contract with the Department, both of which comprise a significant portion of Manatee Palms' patient census. Manatee Palms could not have addressed the FRTC facility when its application was filed since the FRTC CON was not issued until February, 1988. It is, therefore, appropriate for this to be addressed for the first time at hearing since it is a fact not under the control of Manatee Palms which has developed subsequent to this application being deemed complete. The need for this facility is also evidenced by the rapid increase in actual utilization rates since it opened in January, 1987, and by testimony from local support witnesses from the school system and local law enforcement. Since the primary and secondary service areas of Manatee Palms extend beyond District VI to include the entire state, as well as service to out-of- state residents, the fact that FRTC will serve primarily the residents of Manatee County will not substantially reduce the need which Manatee Palms is meeting in its existing services area. Accessibility to All Residents The clear purpose of this application is to enable Manatee Palms, an existing facility, to become licensed as a hospital under Section 395.002, Florida Statutes, and thereby enable it to be called a "hospital". If a facility is licensed as a hospital, it has a significant advantage for reimbursement from third parties who more readily reimburse for care in a licensed facility than in an unlicensed residential treatment center. Therefore, accessibility is increased for those children and adolescents in need of treatment whose families have insurance coverage, since it is more likely that payments under such third party coverage will be made at an IRTP licensed as a "hospital" than otherwise. Since it has already been in operation for a year and a half, and has developed an excellent reputation in the community and among insurance carriers, the number of insurance companies willing to reimburse for services at Manatee Palms has increased over that time to approximately 40, and by early 1988, almost 52% of Manatee Palms' patients had commercial insurance coverage. There is evidence, however, that additional carriers would be willing to reimburse for services at this facility if it were to be licensed. An increase in the number of third party carriers willing to reimburse for treatment at Manatee Palms will promote and improve the financial viability and stability of the facility, and result in an increased number of Florida residents receiving treatment at the facility, with a similar reduction in out- of-state patients being treated at Manatee Palms. This, in turn, will inure to the benefit of publicly financed patients served at this facility under its contract with the Department by assuring the continued operation of the facility. As a result, this application increases accessibility to treatment for such patients, particularly since the facility has committed to serve the same number of these patients for the next two years, even with a CON. Quality of Care The applicant has clearly demonstrated that it has been providing quality care in its existing facility, and that it will continue to do so if it receives the CON, and is licensed as a "specialty hospital". In fact, licensure will require the applicant to meet more stringent standards than those under which it is currently operating. Manatee Palms performs extensive pre-admission screenings, and develops treatment plans for each patient early in their course of treatment. The patient's treatment team continues to monitor progress under the treatment plan, and to make revisions in the plan, when necessary. Treatment is provided seven days a week, and includes an extensive educational component. Family involvement in treatment is maximized, and discharge planning begins upon admission. The goal of treatment is return of the resident to the community as quickly as possible. Availability and Adequacy of Alternatives The approval of this application would increase the availability and accessibility of residential treatment services to patients with dual diagnoses, publicly financed patients, and those who may be treated in a shorter period of time. Although a CON for FRTC has already been approved, that facility will not serve the same types of patients as are presently served at Manatee Palms, as previously noted above. The average length of stay at FRTC will be one year, while at Manatee Palms it is 120 days. Additionally, the service area of FRTC will comprise District VI, while Manatee Palms has a far broader service area. Manatee Palms is an existing facility serving patients in need of the treatment rendered. It is meeting an existing need which cannot be met through other existing or approved facilities. Availability of Resources Since Manatee Palms is an existing facility which has been in operation since January, 1987, and has achieved an excellent reputation in the community, as well as almost 87% occupancy, there is no question that it has sufficient available resources, including health manpower and management personnel, to continue its operation. The applicant proposes no additional beds or services with this application. Services Accessible In Adjoining Areas There are no licensed IRTPs in adjoining Districts V or VIII. Manatee Palms has served patients from these adjoining areas, as well as from throughout the state. There are no viable options in adjoining districts for District VI residents in need of the types of services Manatee Palms renders. The granting of this CON, and subsequent licensure, will improve Manatee Palms' ability to continue to render these services. Financial Feasibility David J. Rabb, an expert in the financial feasibility of medical facilities, prepared pro formas for 1989 and 1990 based upon the issuance of this CON, which show net revenues of $80,000 in 1989 and $106,000 in 1990. This represents a fair after tax profit each year, and establishes the financial feasibility of the project. These pro formas represent updates of pro formas contained in the application, and are admissible in this de novo hearing since they are based upon actual operating experience which was not available when this application was filed, and reflect economic conditions and rates of inflation not within the control of the applicant. Reasonable assumptions were used by Rabb in preparing his pro formas. He assumed 89.6% occupancy in 1989 and 90% in 1990. Patient revenues were reasonably projected at $286 in 1989 and $303 in 1990. Utilization by payor class was projected for 1989 to be: 52% commercial payor, 34% HRS patients, 7% Blue Cross, 4% Champus, 2% out-of-state, and 1% self pay. For 1990, it was assumed the facility would no longer serve out-of-state patients, and therefore the commercial pay patients were increased to 54% in 1990, out-of-state patients were eliminated, and all other payor classes remained the same. Rabb's expense projections for 1989 and 1990 were also reasonable. Based upon a study performed by Rabb of the impact of licensure upon the financial position of Manatee Palms, it is established that hospital licensure would improve the financial position of the facility. Jay Cushman, who was presented by MMH and was accepted as an expert in health planning and financial feasibility, concurred that licensure will enhance commercial pay patients beyond the level possible without licensure, and that this in turn will improve the financial viability of the facility. Liz Dudek, the Department's health facilities consultants' supervisor and an expert in health planning, confirmed that it is the Department's position that licensure as an IRTP increases accessibility to patients because of the increased likelihood of insurance reimbursement. Impact on Costs and Competition Competition among health care facilities serves to enhance quality of care and to assure cost effectiveness in the delivery of services. Since FRTC has already received a CON as the first IRTP to seek licensure in District VI, granting this application will allow Manatee Palms to compete equally with FRTC by also being able to obtain a licensure as a "specialty hospital". This should have a positive effect on the quality of care and cost effectiveness of both facilities. Since no new construction or services are to be offered at Manatee Palms as a result of this application, and since it has an established room rate structure which is already in place, and which was used for projections in the pro formas, the approval of this application will have a minimal, if any, impact on any increased costs for the delivery of health care. It was not established by competent substantial evidence that either MMH and FRTC would be injured or negatively impacted by the approval of this application. Actual patient days and average daily census at MMH's adolescent unit have gone up since Manatee Palms opened. MMH maintains, however, that since its patient mix has changed during this time to reflect a decrease in commercial pay patients and an increase in Medicaid patients, it is being adversely affected, despite the increase in gross patient numbers. However, the increase in Medicaid patients which MMH has experienced cannot be attributed to Manatee Palms. MMH is the only Medicaid approved hospital in the area, and Manatee Palms will not be able to accept Medicaid patients, with or without a CON and licensure. Therefore, approval of this CON will have no effect upon the level of Medicaid admissions experienced at MMH. There is evidence that the decrease in commercial pay patients at MMH is due to physician admitting practices, rather than the opening of Manatee Palms. Specifically, Dr. Howard Goldman, is on staff of both MMH and Sarasota Palms, but not Manatee Palms. Dr. Goldman has been admitting most of his commercial pay patients to Sarasota Palms and Medicaid patients to MMH. MMH presented the testimony of Jay Cushman, who was accepted as an expert in health planning and financial feasibility, concerning the impact which approval of this application would have on MMH. Cushman estimated that MMH will loose a total of ten patients, or 1.2 patients per day, if Manatee Palms receives a CON, and he further stated that other patients would not be available to fill this gap. At the same time, however, he testified that MMH is presently seeking a CON for additional psychiatric beds, even though it was fully aware of FRTC and Manatee Palms' applications when its application was filed. MMH's application is for six short term adolescent beds, ten long term, and eleven substance abuse beds. Despite being fully aware of FRTC and Manatee Palms, Cushman supported MMH's application for 27 new beds, and yet testified in this proceeding that no patients would be available to make up for patients MMH might lose to Manatee Palms. Due to this obvious and unexplained contradiction, Cushman's testimony is discredited, and his credibility impaired. Accordingly, this testimony has been given little weight. On the basis of Cushman's analysis, Eric Long, an expert in hospital finance, estimated the financial impact to MMH of this patient loss projected by Cushman. Since the Cushman testimony has been given little weight, Long's impact analysis is also discredited. Long simply took Cushman's figures of patient loss and translated them into a dollar impact, but made no independent analysis of patient loss. Since his starting point was faulty, his analysis is faulty. FRTC did not show any adverse impact on its facility as a result of CON approval and licensure of Manatee Palms. Because of the difference in the services to be provided, the average length of stay, and service areas of the two facilities, FRTC and Manatee Palms are not in direct competition for every patient. To the extent there is competition, however, this should have a positive effect on the delivery services in District VI. Services To Indigents Manatee Palms is not eligible to accept Medicaid patients, but it does serve the medically indigent through a service contract with the Department. Licensure will enhance the applicant's ability to continue to serve the medically indigent under this contract with the Department. Although the percentage of HRS patients at Manatee Palms has decreased in 1988, there is no evidence that Manatee Palms has every turned an HRS patient away in favor of a commercial pay patient. While occupancy has been almost 87%, there are still beds available at Manatee Palms, and therefore, there has been no need to turn any patients away since beds are available. The facility is dedicated to continue its current level of commitment to serve publicly financed patients under a service contract with the Department for the next two years if this CON is approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order approving Manatee Palms' application for CON 5148. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case Number 87-4731) For purposes of this Appendix, the following abbreviations shall be used: "A" means Adopted, "R" means Rejected, and "fof" means finding of fact contained in this recommended order. Rulings 1. on R Manatee Palms' Proposed Findings of Fact: as a statement of position rather than a fof. 2. A fof 1. 3. A fof 2. 4. A fof 4. 5. A fof 3. 6. A fof 6,7. 7-8. R as unnecessary, and as simply a statement of position. 9. A fof 8. 10. A fof 9. 11. A fof 5. 12. A fof 10. 13. A fof 11. 14. R as irrelevant. 15-16. A fof 14. 17-18. A fof 15. 19. A fof 12. 20. A fof 13. 21. A fof 15. 22. A fof 17. 23. A fof 17, 29, 30. 24. A fof 18, 19. 25. A fof 28, 30, 39. 26-28. A fof 20. 29-30. A fof 21. 31. A fof 25. 32. R as a conclusion of law rather than a fof. 33. A fof 22, 23. 34. A fof 24. 35-39. A fof 22, 24. 40. A fof 23, 24. 41. A fof 24. 42. A fof 25. 43-44. A fof 28. 45-46. A fof 25. 47-48. A fof 26. 49. A fof 28, 29, 30. 50. R as simply a statement of position and argument on the evidence rather than a fof. 51. A fof 30, 39. 52-53. R as unnecessary. 54-56. A fof 33, 34. R as a conclusion of law and not a fof. A fof 31. R as not based upon competent substantial evidence. 60. A fof 31. 61. A fof 32. 62. A fof 31, 32. 63-64. A fof 31. 65-66. A fof 33, 34. 67-68. A fof 36. 69-70. A fof 35. 71-72. A fof 37. 73. A fof 38. 74. A fof 39. 75. A fof 28, 39. 76-77. A fof 9, 27, 33. 78-81. A fof 40, 41. 82-25. A fof 48-50. 86-88. R as irrelevant and unnecessary. 89. A fof 42. 90-92. A fof 43. 93. R as unnecessary. 94. A fof 44. 95-97. A fof 45. 98-100. A fof 46. 101. A fof 47. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. A fof 1. 2. A fof 6. 3. A fof 5. 4-6. A fof 17, 18. 7-8. R fof 38. 9. A fof 29. 10. A fof 17. 11. A fof 16. 12. A fof 30. 13. A fof 4. 14. A fof 3, but otherwise R as speculative. 15-18. R fof 25, 33, 34, and as irrelevant and not based upon competent substantial evidence. 19. A in part fof 20, but otherwise R as a conclusion of law rather than a fof. 20. R fof 24, 25, 30, 39, 48. A fof 20. R as unnecessary and irrelevant. R fof 25. R as unnecessary and irrelevant. 25. A fof 9, 16. A in part in fof 4, but otherwise R as irrelevant. R fof 7. A fof 7. R as a conclusion of law rather than a fof. Rulings on MMH's Proposed Findings of Fact: A fof 1. A fof 4. A fof 3. A fof 2. A fof 1. A fof 5. 7-8. A fof 6. A fof 16. R as unnecessary and irrelevant. A fof 7. R as unnecessary and irrelevant. A fof 7. A fof 8. A fof 10. 16. A fof 11, 12. 17. A fof 12. 18. A fof 15. 19. A fof 11. 20. A fof 14. 21. A fof 14, 16. 22-23. A fof 16. 24-26. A fof 17. 27. A fof 19. 28. A fof 18. 29. R fof 17, 30, 38. 30. A fof 17, but also R in part fof 17, 30, 50. 31. A fof 20. 32-34. R as a conclusion of law rather than a fof. 35. R as simply a statement of position and not a fof. 36-37. A fof 20. A and R in part fof 21. R fof 21. R fof 25. A in part fof 17, but otherwise R fof 17, 30, 50. R as simply a statement of position and not a fof. A fof 25. 44. R fof 25, 26. R fof 20. A fof 25. A fof 27. R as a conclusion of law and not a fof, and otherwise without citation to the record. R fof 25, and as argument on the evidence without citation to the record rather than a fof. R as simply an excerpt of testimony and not a fof. 51-52. A and R in part in fof 25. 53. R as argument on the evidence without citation to the record rather than a fof. 54-55. R fof 28, 29, and otherwise as irrelevant. 56. A fof 22, 24. A fof 22. R fof 22. 59-60. R fof 24. 61. R fof 23, 24. 62-63. A in part fof 16, but otherwise R fof 25, 26, 28, 29. 64. R fof 30, 48, 50. 65. R as simply a statement of position and not a fof. 66. R fofo 30, 50. R as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. A and R fof 27. R as simply a statement of position and not a fof. 70. R fof 30, 50. 71. A fof 18, 30, but R fof 30, 50. A and R fof 30, 48. R as a conclusion of law and not a fof. A fof 9, 16, but R fof 25-29. 75-80. R fof 31, 32, 35, and otherwise as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. A fof 37. R as simply a statement of procedural matters and not a fof. 83-85. A and R fof 37, and otherwise R as irrelevant. R fof 37. R as irrelevant. R as simply a statement of position and not a fof. A fof 3. R fof 45. R fof 44. R fof 46. 93-94. R as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on FRTC's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. R as unnecessary preliminary matters. 5. A fof 1, 5. 6. A fof 8. 7-9. A fof 9, 16. 10. A fof 17, 48. 11. R as irrelevant and unnecessary. 12. A fof 16. 13. A fof 14. 14. A fof 6. 15. A fof 28. 16. A fof 26, 28, but R fof 25. 17. A fof 7. 18. A fof 3, 7. 19. A fof 4, 7. 20-23. R as unnecessary and not a fof. 24. A fof 30. 25. R fof 28, 30, 48. 26. A fof 19, 29. 27-28. A fof 38. A fof 29. R as irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a fof. R fof 49 and as not based on competent substantial evidence. A in part fof 29, but otherwise R fof 28, 39. R as irrelevant and unnecessary. R fof 28, 39, and otherwise as irrelevant and unnecessary. R fof 49. A fof 38. 37-38. R fof 33, 34. 39-40. R fof 25, 27, 33. 41. R fof 25, 27, 33, 34. A in part fof 20, but otherwise R as simply an argument on the evidence and not a fof. R fof 20, 21, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. 44-45. A in part fof 33, but R fof 34 and as irrelevant and unnecesasary. 46. A fof 25, 33. A in part fof 25, 33, but otherwise R as argument on the evidence and not a fof. R as speculative and not based on competent substantial evidence. A fof 17, 30, but otherwise R as unsupported argument on the evidence and not a fof. R as speculative and not based on competent substantial evidence. 51. R fof 40, 47. 52. R as unnecessary and cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire P. O. Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire R. Stan Peeler, Esquire P. O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire 900-17th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D. C. 20006 Jean Laramore, Esquire P. O. Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen M. Presnell, Esquire O. Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Bouelvard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME0040318. Respondent completed a residency in internal medicine and later was a nephrology fellow at Mayo Clinic. He was recruited to Florida in 1952 by Humana. In 1984 he became associated with a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in an administrative position but took over treating patients when the owner became ill. This HMO was affiliated with IMC who assimilated it when the HMO had financial difficulties. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was a salaried employee of IMC and served as Assistant Medical DIRECTOR in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic. On October 17, 1985, Alexander Stroganow, an 84 year old Russian immigrant and former cossack, who spoke and understood only what English he wanted to, suffered a fall and was taken to the emergency Room at a nearby hospital. He was examined and released without being admitted for inpatient treatment. Later that evening his landlady thought Stroganow needed medical attention and again called the Emergency Medical Service. When the ambulance with EMS personnel arrived they examined Stroganow, and concluded Stroganow was no worse than earlier when he was transported to the emergency Room, and refused to again take Stroganow to the emergency Room. The landlady then called the HRS hotline to report abuse of the elderly. The following morning, October 18, 1985, an HRS case worker was dispatched to check on Stroganow. Upon arrival, she was admitted by the landlady and found an 84 year old man who was incontinent, incoherent, and apparently paralyzed from the waist down, with whom she could not engage in conversation to determine his condition. She called for a Cares Unit team to come and evaluate Stroganow. An HRS Cares Unit is a two person team consisting of a social worker and nurse whose primary function is to screen clients for admission to nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLF). The nurse on the team carries no medical equipment such as stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, or thermometer, but makes her evaluation on visual examination. Upon arrival of the Cares Unit, and, after examining Stroganow, both members of the team agreed he needed to be placed where he could be attended. A review of his personal effects produced by his landlady revealed his income to be above that for which he could qualify for medicaid placement in a nursing home; that he was a member of IMC's Gold-Plus HMO; his social security card; and several medications, some of which had been prescribed by Dr. Dayton, Respondent, a physician employed by IMC at the South Pasadena Clinic. The Cares team ruled out ACLF placement because Stroganow was not ambulatory, but felt he needed to be placed in a hospital or nursing home and not left alone with the weekend approaching. To accomplish this, they proceeded to the South Pasadena HMO clinic of IMC to lay the problem on Dr. Dayton, who was in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic, and, they thought, was Stroganow's doctor. Stroganow had been a client of the South Pasadena HMO for some time and was well known at the clinic as well as by EMS personnel. There were always two, and occasionally three, doctors on duty at South Pasadena Clinic between 8:00 and 5:00 daily and, unless the patient requested a specific doctor he was treated by the first available doctor. Stroganow had not specifically requested to be treated by Respondent. When the Cares unit met with Respondent they advised him that Stroganow had been taken to Metropolitan General Hospital Emergency Room the previous evening but did not advise Respondent that the EMS squad had refused to return Stroganow to the emergency Room when they were recalled for Stroganow the same evening. Respondent telephoned the Metropolitan General Emergency Room and had the emergency Room medical report on Stroganow read to him. With the information provided by the Cares unit and the hospital report, Respondent concluded that Stroganow needed emergency medical treatment and the quickest way to obtain such treatment would be to call the EMS and have Stroganow taken to an emergency Room for evaluation. When the Cares unit arrived, Respondent was treating patients at the clinic. A clinic, or doctors office, is not a desirable or practical place to have an incontinent, incoherent, and non-ambulatory patient brought to wait with other patients until a doctor is free to see him. Nor is the clinic equipped to perform certain procedures that may be required for emergency evaluation of an ill patient. At a hospital emergency Room such equipment is available. EMS squads usually arrive within minutes of a call being placed to 911 for emergency medical treatment and it was necessary that someone be with Stroganow when the EMS squad arrived. Accordingly, Respondent suggested that the Cares team return to Stroganow and call 911 to transport Stroganow to an emergency Room for an evaluation. Upon leaving the South Pasadena clinic the Cares team returned to Stroganow. Enroute they stopped to call a supervisor at HRS to report that the HMO had not solved their problem with Stroganow. The supervisor then called the Administrator at IMC Tampa Office to tell them that one of their Gold-Plus HMO patients had an emergency situation which was not being property handled. Respondent left the South Pasadena Clinic around noon and went to IMC's Tampa Office where he was available for the balance of the afternoon. There he spoke with Dr. Sanchez, the INC Regional Medical Director, but Stroganow was not deemed to be a continuing problem. By 2:00 p.m. when no ambulance had arrived the Cares Unit called 911 for EMS to take Stroganow to an emergency Room. Upon arrival shortly thereafter the EMS squad again refused to transport Stroganow. The Cares team communicated this to their supervisor who contacted IMC Regional Office to so advise. At this time Dr. Sanchez authorized the transportation of Stroganow to Lake Seminole Hospital for admission. Although neither Respondent nor Sanchez had privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital, IMC had contracted with Lake Seminole Hospital to have IMC patients admitted by a staff doctor at Lake Seminole Hospital. Subsequent to his meeting with the Cares team Respondent received no further information regarding Stroganow until well after Stroganow was admitted to Lake Seminole Hospital. No entry was made on Stroganow's medical record at IMC of the meeting between Respondent and the Cares Unit. Respondent was a salaried employee whose compensation was not affected by whether or not he admitted an IMC Gold-Plus patient to a hospital.
