The Issue [Case No. 79-2407] Whether the Department is entitled to reimbursement of certain Medicaid funds previously paid to a nursing home owner in the amount of $118,061.00, based upon a recommendation by the Department and subsequent determination by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, under Section 1122, Social Security Act, that Federal reimbursement of expenses attributable to the purchase of the nursing home should be withheld due to the Owner's lack of timely notice of intent to acquire the nursing home; [Case No. 80-467] Whether, based on the Section 1122 determination, the Department wrongfully disallowed and withheld payment to the nursing home owner, certain medicaid reimbursement funds in the amount of $101,348.00. Conclusions and Recommendation: Conclusions: Here, each party has the burden of presenting a preponderance of evidence in support of its affirmative claim. Each claim rests on the propriety or impropriety of imposition of Section 1122 penalties against the nursing home. Since the Department failed to present sufficient evidence justifying the imposition of Section 1122 penalties and the nursing home failed to establish the Section 1122 penalties were erroneously imposed, neither party sustained its burden of establishing entitlement to the relief requested. Recommendation: That the Department's Medicaid overpayment claim against the nursing home owner, in the amount of $118,061.00 be DENIED, and the nursing home owner's claim against the Department for $101.348.00 in Medicaid underpayments be DENIED. Background: On April 26, 1979, and May 2, 1979, Petitioner/Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("Department") notified Respondent/Petitioners, Lakeview Nursing Home, Robert Becht and R. B. Care, Inc., d/b/a Lakeview Manor and d/b/a Intercoastal Nursing Manor ("Owner") that a desk review of the annual cost report for the Lakeview Nursing Home (a/k/a Lakeview Manor) indicated that the nursing home had been overpaid $18,900.00 by the Department's Medicaid Program during the eight months, ending June 30, 1978, and that such overpayment should be returned to the Department. On October 8, 1979, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that, pursuant to a "Notice of Determination Under Section 1122" issued by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW") the Department had recalculated the nursing home's historic per diem rates and determined that the Owner had been overpaid $61,155.00 in Medicaid funds during the period ending June 30, 1978. On November 19, 1979, the nursing home Owner requested a formal hearing, under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the validity of the Department's overpayment claim. On November 30, 1979, the Department forwarded the Owner's request for a hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. [DOAH Case No. 79-2407] On January 10, 1980, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that an additional $56,906.00 should be repaid to the State of Florida--based upon alleged overpayment to the nursing home during the period ending June 30, 1979. On February 14, 1980, the nursing home Owner filed a Petition with the Department alleging numerous wrongful and negligent Department actions resulting in the withholding and underpayment of Medicaid funds to which the nursing home was entitled, demanding full payment, and requesting a formal Section 120.57 hearing. On March 12, 1980, the Department forwarded the nursing home Owner's Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. [DOAH Case No. 80-467] By Notice of Hearing, dated April 11, 1980, Case No. 80-467 was set for final hearing on May 29, 1980. By agreement of the parties, the two cases were subsequently consolidated for final hearing. At final hearing, the Department called John T. Donaldson, and offered Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9, into evidence, each of which was received. The nursing home Owner called as its witnesses, William McCaulley, Leonard Cordes, and Linda Zarecki, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 5, (Composite) and 6, each of which was received. At the request of the nursing home, and without objection by the Department, official recognition was taken of Rule 10C-7.48(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The nursing home further stipulated that the only allegations which it would pursue in the administrative hearing concerned whether the Department wrongfully withheld from the nursing home certain Medicaid funds to which its was entitled. Neither party submitted post-hearing proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an agreement with HEW, the Department administers the Medicaid Program within Florida which includes allocation and payment of Medicaid funds to nursing homes which provide health care to patients qualifying for Medicaid benefits. (Testimony of Donaldson, Petitioners Exhibit 5; Respondent's Exhibit 9) On November 1, 1977, Robert Becht, on behalf of R. B. Care, Inc. ("Owner") purchased a nursing care facility located at 208 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida, known as Intercoastal Nursing Manor. No evidence was presented to establish the purchase price paid for the facility. Subsequent to its purchase, the name of the nursing home was changed to Lakeview Manor, although Department correspondence frequently refers to it as Lakeview Nursing Home. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 9 [Composite]) On January 9, 1978, a representative of the Regional Health Care Planning Agency--Health Planning Council, Inc.--advised the Department's Bureau of Community Medical Facilities of an apparent change in ownership of the Intercoastal Nursing Home, noted that the new owner had not "sought, applied for, or received the necessary Certificate of Need for this change of ownership transaction," and asked for Department assistance in determining the present status of the nursing facility. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In response to the Health Planning Council's letter, the Department's Office of Medical Facilities sent a letter to the Nursing Home Owner, dated January 26, 1978. That letter enclosed Department rules which provided that, when certain expenditures have been incurred by a health care facility without prior notice of such expenditure being given to the designated planning agency (Office of Medical Facilities), that agency should notify the health care facility that such obligation was subject to review, that timely notice of the proposed expenditure was not given, and that the Agency proposed to recommend to the Secretary of HEW that the expenditure be disapproved. The nursing home was given 30 days to reply, or file the necessary application for approval of the expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home). The letter closed with the following: "You should understand that we must report the purchase of Intercoastal Nursing Manor to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on a no timely notice and that it may affect depreciation, interest, and fair returns on the project and reimbursement on the project." (Respondent's Exhibit 2) By letter dated March 22, 1978 (with copy to the nursing home Owner), the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities subsequently informed the regional office of HEW that notice had been given the nursing home Owner concerning the need to file an application for review of the November 1, 1977, acquisition of and change in ownership of the nursing home, but that it had failed to respond. The recommendation of the Office of Community Medical Facilities was attached to the transmittal letter; however, that recommendation was not offered into evidence by the Department. The letter of transmittal concluded that, because no application for approval was submitted by the nursing home Owner, there was "no indication on the HRA-45 of the amount of capital expended for the acquisition." (Respondent's Exhibit 3) During April, 1978, the Regional Health Administrator of HEW issued a "Notice of Determination under Section 1122--Reimbursement to be Excluded." The Notice was addressed to the nursing home Owner and concluded that reimbursement for expenses related to the capital expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home facility) would be excluded from payment for services provided under the Social Security Act based upon the finding that (1) the expenditure was subject to Section 1122, and (2) Notice of Intent to make the expenditure had not timely been given. By way of explanation, the regional administrator added that reimbursement would be "withheld for an indefinite period" because the State had been unable to make a finding that the expenditure conformed to applicable plans, standards, and criteria due to the failure to submit an application. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) By separate agreements entered into by the Department and the nursing home Owner on November 2, 1977, October 30, 1978, and September 5, 1979 (which enabled the nursing home to participate in Florida's Medicaid Program) the nursing home Owner expressly agreed to comply with state and federal laws and rules applicable to the Medicaid Program. The Owner also agreed that Medicaid cost reporting would be governed by the procedures and methods contained in the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15). The agreements relieve the nursing home from responsibility in "those instances of overpayment due to Agency [Department] errors in eligibility investigation and determination. . ." (Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) Section 2422 of HIM-15 describes the requirements concerning approval of capital expenditures imposed by Section 1122 of the Social Security Act. The Manual cautions providers desiring to make or having made expenditures subject to Section 1122 to familiarize themselves with the regulations and direct questions concerning its implementation to the designated planning agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 8) Notwithstanding having been sent repeated notices by the Department and HEW concerning the requirements of Section 1122, the nursing home Owner has not filed an application for approval of the capital expenditure associated with acquisition of the nursing home; neither has it contended that such capital expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Section 1122 and implementing HEW and Department rules. (Testimony of McCaulley, Donaldson) Despite the Department's withholding and disallowal of payment to the nursing home of expenses relating to the acquisition of the facility (due to the federal Section 1122 determination), the nursing home continued to qualify for and participate in the Medicaid Program. The nursing home provided efficient and satisfactory medical care to Medicaid patients during 1978, and 1979, and the Department does not assert otherwise. The three Medicaid participation agreements entered into during 1977, 1978, and 1979, do not directly address or purport to relieve health care facilities from compliance with Department rules and Section 1122. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) It is probable that the nursing home received actual notice of the requirement that certain capital expenditures by health care facilities must receive Section 1122 approval. Although the nursing home Owner's secretary since June, 1978, does not recall receiving the HEW Section 1122 Notice, she was not employed by the nursing home during the time the notice was issued, and she admitted that she could not testify that the owner had not received the HEW Notice. Moreover, her testimony did not address the earlier Department correspondence to the Owner concerning the need to obtain State and Federal Section 1122 approval, including the Department's Section 1122 recommendation to HEW. (Testimony of Zarecki, Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Between 1977 and 1979, the Department overpaid the nursing home $118,061.00 (which includes the $18,900.00 claimed by the Department in its May 2, 1979, letter) in per diem patient reimbursements which the nursing home was not entitled to under the Section 1122 Notice and Penalty. This overpayment was caused by the Department's failure to exclude that portion of per diem patient reimbursements attributable to the Owner's acquisition of the nursing home property. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 7) If the Section 1122 penalty was incorrectly recommended by the Department, and imposed by the HEW, the Department has withheld between November 1, 1977, and December 31, 1979, $101,348.00 which is now due and owing to the nursing home Owner. (Testimony of McCaulley, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Since January 2, 1979, the Owner has no longer owned or operated the nursing home in question. (Testimony of McCaulley, Cordes)
The Issue In their Prehearing Stipulation the original parties described the background and general nature of the controversy as follows: In January, 1985, HCR filed an application for certificate of need to develop a new 120 bed nursing home in Collier County, Florida. By notice dated June 28, 1985, HRS stated its intention to deny HCR's application. HCR timely filed a request for formal administrative proceeding, and the proceeding was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By application supplement dated May 15, 1986, HCR has reduced this application to a 90-bed new nursing home. The nursing home will provide skilled nursing care to Alzheimer's patients and to patients discharged from hospitals in need of additional intensive nursing care, in addition to the typical nursing home patient. HRS has denied HCR's application because, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code there is insufficient need for the additional nursing home beds proposed by HCR. In the Prehearing Statement the Petitioner described its position as follows: HCR contends that there is an identifiable need for a nursing home in Collier County, Florida, to serve the needs of patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and similar disorders and patients who are discharged from hospitals with a continuing need for a high level of intensive care, often provided through sophisticated technical or mechanical means. Existing nursing homes in Collier County do not offer adequate facilities for such patients and refuse admission to such patients. These patients have experienced an inability to obtain such care in Collier County. HCR's proposed nursing home will provide needed care which is otherwise unavailable and inaccessible in Collier County. The application meets all criteria relevant to approval of a certificate of need. HCR further contends that the nursing home formula shows a need for additional nursing home beds in Collier County. Previously, in circumstances where a need for additional nursing home services has been identified, HRS has approved certificates of need even though the nursing home formula showed a need for zero additional beds or a small number of additional beds. In the Prehearing Statement the Respondent described its position as follows: HRS contends, pursuant to the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, that there is insufficient need in the January, 1988 planning horizon demonstrated for additional nursing home beds in Collier County to warrant approval of a-new nursing home. Therefore, HRS contends that the HCR application should be denied. Further in its original application, HCR did not identify services proposed specially for Alzheimer's disease patients or "sub-acute" patients. HCR did not and has not complied with provision of Chapter 10-5.11(21)(b 10., Florida Administrative Code, regarding mitigated circumstances. The Respondent also identified the following as an issue of fact to be litigated. "HRS contends that it should be determined whether HCR's supplement dated May 15, 1986, is a significant change in scope for which the application was originally submitted." Because of its late intervention into this case, the Intervenor's position is not described in the Prehearing Statement. In general, the Intervenor urges denial of the application on the same grounds as those advanced by the Respondent. The Intervenor did not attempt to become a party to this case until the morning of the second day of the formal hearing. Respondent had no objection to the Petition To Intervene. The original Petitioner objected on the grounds that the effort at intervention was untimely and that the Intervenor was without standing. The objection to intervention was overruled and the Intervenor was granted party status subject to taking the case as it found it. Accordingly, intervention having been granted at the conclusion of the evidentiary presentation of the other parties, the Intervenor was not permitted to call any witnesses or offer any exhibits. Intervenor's participation before the Division of Administrative Hearings was limited to an opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following the hearing a transcript of proceedings was filed on July 8, 1986. Thereafter, all parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders containing proposed findings of fact. Careful consideration has been given to all of the Proposed Recommended Orders in the formulation of this Recommended Order. A specific ruling on all proposed findings of fact proposed by all parties is contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order. The Petitioner also filed an unopposed post-hearing motion requesting that its name be corrected in the style of this case. The motion is granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on admitted facts The parties agree that HCR properly filed a letter of intent and application for certificate of need for a new nursing home to be located in Collier County. The application was reviewed by HRS in the ordinary course of its activities, and HRS initially denied the application. HRS continues to oppose issuance of a CON because (a) there is an insufficient need, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for additional nursing home beds to warrant approval of a new nursing home [Section 381.494(6)(c)1., Florida Statutes]; (b) the long term financial feasibility and economic impact of the proposal is questionable because of low occupancy being experienced by existing nursing homes "Section 381.494(6)(c)9., Florida Statutes]. HRS proposes no other basis for denial of the application. The parties agree that HCR meets all criteria for a certificate of need, with the exception of those two criteria listed in the immediately foregoing paragraph relating to need and financial feasibility/economic impact (relevant to low occupancy), which HRS contends have not been met. The parties agree that HCR would provide good quality care to patients, that the project would be financially feasible if the occupancy projections asserted by HCR were obtained, that the costs and methods of proposed construction are appropriate and reasonable, and that the proposed facility would be adequately available to underserved population groups. The rest of the findings In January 1985, HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to develop a new 120-bed nursing home facility in Collier County, Florida. The original application described a traditional approach to nursing home care. By notice dated June 28, 1985, HRS stated its intention to deny HCR's application. HCR timely filed a request for formal administrative proceedings and this proceeding ensued. By application supplement dated May 15, 1986, HCR made certain changes to its original application. These changes included reducing the size of the proposed nursing home from 120 to go beds and changing the-concept of the nursing home from a traditional nursing home to one specifically designed to address the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients and sub-acute care patients. The supplement specifically provided that 30 of the 90 proposed beds would be "set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alzheimer's or similar disorders." The project description in the original application contained no such provision. HCR's proposed facility would consist of 90 nursing home beds, 30 assisted living beds, and an adult day care facility located adjacent to the nursing home portion of the facility. Those portions of the facility relating to assisted living and adult day care do not require certificate of need review. The estimated cost of the portion of the project which requires certificate of need review is $3.5 million. HCR estimates that approximately 33 1/3 per cent of the patients in the facility will be Medicaid reimbursed. It is proposed that 30 of the 90 nursing home beds be designed and staffed specifically to provide care and treatment necessary to meet the special needs of certain patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and dementia and exhibit need for care different from that found in the typical nursing home. It is proposed that another 30-bed wing be staffed and equipped to provide sub-acute, high-tech services such as ventilator, I.V. therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation and other forms of care more intensive than those commonly found in a nursing home and necessary for the care of patients discharged from hospitals and patients in the last stages of Alzheimer's disease. The remaining 30-bed wing would be devoted to traditional nursing home care. HRS has adopted a rule which establishes a methodology for estimating the numeric need for additional nursing home beds within the Department's districts or subdistricts. This methodology is set out in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. This rule determines historic bed rates and projects those bed rates to a three-year planning horizon. Allocation to a subdistrict such as Collier County is adjusted by existing occupancy in the subdistrict and the subdistrict's percentage of beds in relationship to the total number of beds in the district. Additional beds normally are not authorized if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. HRS calculated need utilizing current population estimates for January 1986 and projected need for the population estimated for January 1988, arriving at a need of approximately 16 additional nursing home beds for the January 1988 planning horizon. HCR projected need to the January 1989 planning horizon and projected a numeric need of approximately 38 additional nursing home beds. There are no applicants for additional nursing home beds in the January 1989 planning horizon (batching cycle). Alzheimer's disease is a primary degenerative disease of the central nervous system which results in a breakdown of the nerve cells in the brain. The disease is progressive, in that it begins subtly, often with forgetfulness or simple personality changes, and ultimately results in death following a phase in which the patient is bedridden and totally dependent upon others for survival. The cause of the disease is not known. The disease is much more common in the older age groups and is very common in the southwest Florida area. (However, nothing in the evidence in this case suggests that Alzheimer's disease is more common in southwest Florida than in other parts of the state.) There is no known cure for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's disease patients are characterized by such symptoms as memory loss, communication problems, difficulty understanding, confusion, disorientation, inability to recognize care givers, waking at night, wandering, inability to socialize appropriately, and incontinence. The progress of the disease can be divided into stages. During the initial stage, the patients will display forgetfulness and subtle personality changes. As the disease progresses, the patients encounter increasing difficulty performing more than simple tasks, tend to be more emotional, become more confused, encounter difficulty with concentration and retaining thoughts, and often display poor judgment and a denial of the significance of their actions. In the next stage, the patients begin to require assistance to survive. Forgetfulness and disorientation increase and wandering patients are often unable to find their way. The patients become incontinent, experience sleep disturbances, become restless at night, and wander during the day, leading to considerable family distraction and difficulties for the care givers. The patients encounter difficulty recognizing family members and often become paranoid and fearful of those family members within the house. violence and aggressive outbursts may occur. Finally, the patients progress to a stage in which they are totally inattentive to their features physical needs, requiring total care. These Patients are totally incontinent, experience frequent falls, develop seizures, and eventually become bedridden, going into a fetal position and becoming totally unable to provide any care for themselves. Traditionally, most nursing homes offer no special programs for patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and mix these patients with other patients in the nursing home. There is no nursing home in Collier County which provides program specifically designed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients. The nearest nursing home where such care can be found is in Venice, some 92 miles from Naples. The total facility proposed by HCR is designed to provide a continum of care for Alzheimer's disease patients and their family care givers. The adult day care portion of the facility would enable family members to place Alzheimer's disease patients in day care for a portion of the day in order for the family care givers to maintain employment, perform normal household chores, and find relief from the extremely demanding task of constantly supervising and caring for an Alzheimer's disease victim. The adult day care portion of the facility would be designed and staffed to provide a therapeutic program for the Alzheimer's disease patient and the patient's family. The assisted living portion of the facility would allow an Alzheimer's disease patient in the early stages of the disease to live in an environment, with his or her spouse if desired, where immediate care and routine supervision at a level lower than that required by a nursing home patient would be provided. Thirty nursing home patient and who do not display those characteristics which are disruptive to non-Alzheimer's patients, such as wandering, combativeness, and incontinence. For those Alzheimer's patients who should not be mixed with other nursing home patients because of their disruptive routines and who require unique programs and facility design features to meet their specific needs, a 30-bed wing would be set aside. Finally, for Alzheimer's patients in the final stages of the disease who require total care and are bedridden, and for patients discharged from local hospitals who require high-tech services, a 30-bed wing designed, staffed and equipped to provide such services would be set aside. The facility would provide a high level of staffing to meet the demanding, personal care needs of Alzheimer's patients and would provide 24-hour nursing supervision in that portion of the facility dedicated to intensive services for the bedridden and high-tech patient. The design and equipment of the proposed facility are particularly addressed to the needs of Alzheimer's disease patients. Physically, the facility would allow patients freedom of movement both inside the facility and in an outside courtyard with porches, but the facility would be sufficiently secure to prevent the patient from wandering away from the facility. There would be amenities such as therapeutic kitchens which would allow patients still able to cook to do so. Fixtures in the facility would be designed so that the Alzheimer's disease patients could easily identify the functions of fixtures such as wastebaskets, toilets, and sinks. Features such as low frequency sound systems, lever door knobs, square instead of round tables, barrier-free doorways, special floor coverings, appropriate labeling, automatic bathroom lighting, and provisions for seating small groups of patients together would all provide the special care required by the Alzheimer's patient. The concept of a separate unit for Alzheimer's disease patients is a new one, growing out of increased medical awareness of the disease. The proposed unit would be a prototype for the Petitioner. There are four nursing homes in Collier County and 413 licensed nursing home beds. There are no approved but unlicensed nursing home beds in Collier County. At the time that HRS initially reviewed the HCR application, Collier County nursing homes were reporting an average occupancy of approximately 70 percent. At the time of the hearing, average occupancy of existing nursing home beds in Collier County was 83.5 per cent. Existing nursing home beds in Collier County are underutilized and there are a number of nursing home beds available to the public. Also there are available alternatives to nursing homes in Collier County. HCR has projected reaching 95 per cent occupancy within one year of opening. This projection seems overly optimistic and unwarranted by prior history, as only one existing facility has an occupancy rate that high. HCR's occupancy projections are based on assumptions that the future growth will be similar to that experienced between 7/1/85 and 12/1/85. But more recent data shows that growth has been decreasing and that there was no growth for the most recent period prior to the hearing. If projected occupancy is not met, projected revenues will not be realized, and projections of financial feasibility will not materialize. The record in this case does not contain evidence of patients' need for nursing home care documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by the staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. The local health plan (Policy 1, priority 4) requires an occupancy level of at least 90 per cent before new nursing homes can be approved. The local health plan (Policy 1, priority 6) also provides, "No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility."
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a Final Order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a certificate of need to construct either its original proposal or its supplemented proposal. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1986.
Findings Of Fact At the outset, it should be noted that the record in this proceeding is much less remarkable for its content than for what it fails to contain. The dispute between Petitioner and Respondent appears to revolve around Petitioner's objections to Respondent's disallowance of certain claimed items of operational costs and expense in the operation of Petitioner's nursing home. Respondent's disallowance was apparently based upon an audit of Petitioner's books, none of which were introduced into evidence, conducted by a private accounting firm, no representative of which was called to testify at the final hearing, which accounting firm submitted to Respondent a report, which was neither offered nor received into evidence. The only "pleading" on file in this cause is a letter dated March 20, 1978, from the office of Petitioner's certified public accountant, which letter is not signed by any individual, but simply bears the imprimatur of that firm. This letter details certain "specific areas of disagreement" and requests a formal administrative hearing thereon. Nowhere in this letter are the specific reasons for disagreement detailed. Respondent chose not to file any pleadings in response to the aforementioned letter. Because of the lack of detail in the "pleadings", the Hearing Officer, by Order dated April 25, 1979, required counsel for Petitioner and Respondent to meet together no later than fifteen days prior to the date of final hearing in this cause, which at that time had been set for July 10, 1979, to prepare a prehearing stipulation. The Order required the prehearing stipulation to be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the date set for final hearing, and further required that the prehearing stipulation contain: a concise statement of the nature of the controversy; a brief, general statement of each party's position; a list of all exhibits, which shall be prenumbered, to be offered at the hearing, noting any objections thereto, and the grounds for each objection; a list of the names and addresses of all witnesses intended to be called at the hearing by each party. Expert witnesses shall be so designated. a concise statement of those facts which are admitted and will require no proof at hearing, together with any reservations directed to such admission; a concise statement of those issues of law on which there is agreement; a concise statement of those issues of fact which remain to be litigated; a concise statement of those issues of law which remain for determination by the Hearing Officer; a concise statement of any disagreement as to the application of the rules of evidence; a list of all motions or other matters which require action by the Hearing Officer; the signature of counsel for all parties. At the time of convening the final hearing in this proceeding on July 10, 1979, counsel for Petitioner and Respondent had failed to confer and prepare the prehearing stipulation required by the Hearing Officer's Order of April 25, 1979. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed to proceed with the taking of testimony, subject to counsel for Petitioner and Respondent complying with the requirements of the prehearing order within seven (7) days from conclusion of the final hearing. On July 19, 1979, counsel for Petitioner and Respondent filed a Joint Stipulation, in two parts, which contained, in part, the following pertinent information: The nature of the controversy concerns itself with the claim of the [Petitioner] for the year ending March 31, 1976, as more fully set forth in the "adjustments to Statement of Cost of Operations" audit by Elmer Fox, Westheimer & Co., dated June 17, 1977, with particular reference to the following items: (1) Excess depreciation claimed on building through providers' use of original cost before adjustment for reduced basis from forgiveness of indebtedness ($ 6,912) (2) Excess depreciation erroneously calculated ($ 6,619) (3) The return on equity erroneously calculated ($30,873) (4) Owner/Administrator compensation ($ 5,287) In the prehearing stipulation, counsel for Petitioner and Respondent also agreed that a total of $13,513, covering insurance expense, housekeeping services and expenses for unallocatable income should be allowable to Petitioner for operational expenses. In addition, the following facts were stipulated to by counsel for Petitioner and Respondent: 3. (a) Petitioner, Sweeting Nursing Home is a facility located in Broward County, Florida, accepting Medicaid Nursing Home patients. Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is a department of the State of Florida charged by law with administrating [sic] the Medicaid program which includes auditing all nursing homes accepting Medicaid patients. At the request of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Elmer fox, Westheimer, & Co., an accounting firm in Broward County, did a fiscal year end audit of Sweeting Nursing Home for the period of March 31, 1975 to March 31, 1976. The audit report dated June 17, 1977, was forwarded to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services with certain recommended disallowances which included the following items: Depreciation $13,531.00 Return on Equity 30,873.00 Owner's compensation disallowance 5,287.00 After reviewing the Fox, Westheimer audit, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Audit, Evaluation and Review Unit initially notified the Sweeting Nursing Home that it had been overpaid the sum of $97,324.00, which sum was later reduced by stipulations between the parties. The nursing home requested certain adjustments and a reduction of the amount of overpayment. However, the Department disallowed the adjustments requested by letter addressed to Irving Lambert [sic] dated March 13, 1978, and Sweeting Nursing Home requested an Administrative Hearing. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services approved the FYE Audit Report, with disallowances, and takes the position that Sweeting Nursing Home is not entitled to the adjustments claimed by the nursing home in the areas enumerated in Paragraph (a). No exhibits to be offered. * * * Both parties admit that the audit was made by Elmer Fox, Westheimer, and Co. Both parties agree that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services had a legal right to audit Sweeting Nursing Home for Medicaid purposes. Further, that Fox, Westheimer, & Co., performed the audit in a manner perscribed [sic] by law. There are two issues of fact which remain to be litigated: Depreciation - "Did the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' validly disallow the Nursing Home's class depreciation on certain equipment, i.e., was the method used by Sweeting in depreciating certain equipment acceptable and consistent with the Medicaid HIM Manual?" "Was the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services correct in disallowing the owner's compensation claimed by Sweeting Nursing Home?" The principal issue of law involved herein is the determination of "What is historical cost?" Historical cost touches on both item (1) of Paragraph (a), Depreciation and item (2) of Paragraph (a), Return on Equity. "May a Nursing Home, for Medicaid purposes, use an amount as historical costs of a facility, when such amount, subsequent to the original purchase, was reduced substantially by a forgiveness of an indebtedness agreement?" The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services takes the position that the historical cost was $817,654.00 minus the $276,577.00 forgiveness of the indebtedness or actual historical cost of $541,077.00 Despite the above-mentioned provisions of the prehearing stipulation that no exhibits were to be offered, counsel for Petitioner in another section of the prehearing stipulation, which, as previously noted, was filed seven (7) days after the conclusion of the final hearing, indicated that: Petitioner relies upon as its principal exhibit the Medicare Provider Manual, HIM-15, together with all reports submitted to the Florida Department of Helath [sic] and Rehabilitative Services heretofore and objects to the introduction of the Elmer Fox audit dated June 17, 1977, since no testimony was presented with respect to said audit. Petitioner's objection in the prehearing stipulation to the introduction of the audit report was, in fact, moot, since the report was not offered into evidence at the final hearing by counsel for Respondent. In addition, neither counsel for Petitioner nor counsel for Respondent requested that the Hearing Officer take official notice of, nor did they attempt to introduce into evidence, either the Medicare Provider Manual, HIM-15; any rules or regulations of the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; any applicable depreciation guidelines adopted by the American Hospital Association; or any depreciation guidelines promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, no documents of any kind were offered for inclusion in the record in this proceeding by either Petitioner or Respondent. As indicated in the prehearing stipulation, there are four areas of disagreement between Petitioner and Respondent: the amount claimed as depreciation on Petitioner's building; the amount of depreciation claimed on certain items of equipment; the amount claimed as return on equity; and owner/administrator compensation. Although the record reflects that Petitioner used an original cost figure of $817,654.00 in calculating depreciation on its building, and that Respondent's auditors apparently used $541,077.00, there are no facts of record to substantiate the use of either amount. These same figures were apparently also used in calculating Petitioner's "return on equity", again with no factual justification for their use. Likewise, there is no competent evidence to demonstrate the manner in which Petitioner calculated depreciation on its equipment, or even the specific items of equipment on which such depreciation is claimed. Finally, although the record demonstrates that Petitioner's owner/administrator was paid $10,000 as salary for the fiscal year in question, and that he spent 25 percent to 30 percent of his time involved in the administrative functioning of the facility, there are no facts in this record on which to base a determination of the reasonableness of that salary or the owner's entitlement thereto. There is, in short, neither any competent evidence in this record concerning the methodology employed by Petitioner in computing the allowances to which it deems itself entitled, nor any reliable explanation of Respondent's rationale for disallowing those claims. To further complicate matters, the failure of both Petitioner and Respondent to introduce into evidence, or to request official notice of applicable governmental rules, regulations and guidelines against which to measure their respective claims, renders any meaningful resolution of their dispute impossible on this record.
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) of any one or more of five applicants for community nursing home beds in Lee County for the July 1989 planning horizon.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants Applications for certificates of need (CON) for nursing homes are accepted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) in batching cycles and are subject to competitive review. The Department comparatively reviewed and analyzed 13 individual applications for proposed nursing services for District VIII, Lee County, in the July, 1986 nursing home batching cycle. Five of those applications are at issue for purposes of this proceeding. Pertinent to this proceeding, petitioner, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America (HCR filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4746), petitioner Forum Group, Inc. (Forum), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4755), petitioner, Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4747), petitioner, Hillhaven, Inc., d/b/a Hillhaven Health Care Center Lee County (Hillhaven) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4756), and respondent, Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center (Careage) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4748). Each of these applications was timely filed. The Department's "preliminary" action The Department is the state agency charged with implementing and regulating the CON program for medical facilities and services in Florida. Within the Department, the Office of Community Medical Facilities is responsible for the review of CON applications and provides a recommendation for approval or disapproval after its analysis is concluded. The Department assigned the subject District VIII applications for the July, 1986 hatching cycle to Medical Facilities Consultant Robert May for review. Mr. May was supervised in his work by Elizabeth Dudek, an experienced Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, who has reviewed or supervised the review of approximately 1200 CON applications. Robert Nay and Elizabeth Dudek concurred in their evaluations of the applications and recommended that Hillhaven's application be approved for 60 beds in Lee County. This recommendation was forwarded to the Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, Robert E. Naryanski, who also occurred with the recommendation on or about December 20, 1986, and forwarded the recommendation to Marta Hardy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Planning and Development, for final approval. An unusual set of circumstances evolved from that approximate point in time with respect to the applications at issue. Sometime in late November 1986 Marta Hardy talked to Robert Sharpe, Administrator of the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, concerning the applications in this batching cycle and stated that she intended to involve him in the review procedure. In late December, she asked Mr. Sharpe to review the applications for four of the counties in the cycle, including Lee County. Mr. Sharpe is in a separate and distinct part of the Department, which reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary but does not, in the ordinary course of operations, review certificate of need applications. Mr. Sharpe's involvement with reviewing nursing home applications had never occurred before and has not occurred since. However, Mr. Sharpe has been involved on limited occasions with reviewing hospital CON applications in preparation for administrative hearings. Careage had a CON application in each of the four districts that Mr. Sharpe was asked to review. Mr. Sharpe was not asked to review any other districts other than the four districts in which Careage had applications pending. In Mr. Sharpe's conversation with Ms. Hardy, Ms. Hardy specifically mentioned Careage while expressing her concern about the Department's ability to discriminate the best applicants on the basis of quality of care. Ms. Hardy mentioned no other applicant by name. Mr. Sharpe, in all circumstances, recommended Careage for approval. Mr. Sharpe did not attempt to do a complete re-review the applications, and did not redo any part of the review that had been performed by the Office of Community Medical Facilities specifically the need calculations and comparing the applications to the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe did not apply statutory review criteria in his review of the applications because it had been determined that all the applicants were minimally qualified and met the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe felt that the responsibility of his office was simply to do a comparative review to determine the best applicant. Mr. Sharpe placed information in the applications into what has been termed a "matrix." The purpose of the matrix was to present the information in the applications in a format which would facilitate a comparative analysis based on a greater number of factors than had previously been considered. Traditionally, the predominant factors utilized by the Department in reviewing applications were construction costs, Medicaid participation percentages, proposed sites, and charges. The matrix developed by Mr. Sharpe included additional factors which he felt would better address the quality of care to be provided, such as the size of facility, the size of the patient rooms, the amenities available to the patients and their families, the type and level of staffing, availability of special programs, and operating costs. By including a greater number of factors in the matrix, more information was considered in selecting the best applicant. As a result, the factors that traditionally had been considered by the Department were given relatively less weight. There was no notice to the applicants of this change in practice. Further, although all the information considered by Mr. Sharpe was taken from the applications and generally required to be in the application, the applicants reported the information differently, making a direct "apples-to-apples" comparison difficult. Mr. Sharpe's review of the applications spanned approximately five to eight days. Mr. Sharpe's staff in the information on the matrix from the applications, and, although Mr. Sharpe had personally reviewed all the applications, Mr. Sharpe did not personally check the information placed on matrix for accuracy. The Office of Community Medical Facilities' initial review covered a period of approximately six months. There was no evidence that the duties and responsibilities of the Office of Community Medical Facilities were not carried out in a thorough and appropriate manner. Ms. Dudek has more experience in reviewing CON applications than Mr. Sharpe, and she took into account, among other review criteria requirements, the type programs offered by the applicant and the quality of care the applicant had demonstrated and was capable of providing. Mr. Sharpe never talked to Ms. Dudek to find out the basis for her recommendation because he felt his responsibility was to do an independent review. Robert Sharpe reported his findings with regard to Lee County to Marta Hardy who apparently accepted Mr. Sharpe's recommendation on or about January 7, 1987, approving Careage's application for 60 beds and denying all others. On or about January 23, 1987, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, it was published that Careage was approved fob a 120-bed facility in Lee County. Actually HRS approved Careage for a 60-bed facility; the 120-bed figure in the Florida Administrative Weekly was erroneous. As a result of a new administration and Bob Griffin succeeding Ms. Hardy as Deputy Secretary in the Office of Health Planning, and due to his concerns about the unique manner in which these applications were reviewed and a decision made, another review of the applications for Lee County was conducted. The Office of Community Medical Facilities, the office originally responsible for reviewing the applications, was asked to do this review. This third review was conducted during the summer of 1987 by Bob May while this case was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. In this third review, a matrix was also used, but not the identical matrix previously used by Mr. Sharpe. Indeed, the Office of Community Medical Facilities was instructed not to look at what Mr. Sharpe's office had done. The review resulted in a decision that HRS would maintain its position of supporting partial approval of the Careage application for 60 beds. By letter dated September 4, 1987, the parties were formally notified of the HRS decision and a Correction Notice was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly indicating that the notice published in January, 1987, stating that Careage had received a CON for 120 beds, should have shown a partial approval of 60 beds, and a denial of 60 beds. HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Hillhaven timely contested initial approval of the Careage application and their own respective denials. Careage and HRS are the respondents. Hillhaven, prior to final hearing, dismissed its case contesting the Careage approval for 60 beds, and in this proceeding contends that Hillhaven should be awarded a certificate of need because there is a bed need in excess of 60 beds in Lee County. Careage did not timely contest the denial of the 120 beds requested in its original application. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America HCR, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lee County, Florida. At the time its application was submitted, HCR had not selected a site on the proposed facility, but at hearing proposed to locate it in the Ft. Myers area. Currently, HCR owns and operates 92 nursing homes in 19 different states, including seven within the State of Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are Pasadena Manor Nursing Home (South Pasadena, Florida), Community Convalescent Center (Plant City Florida), Kensington Manor (Sarasota, Florida), Jacaranda Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida) Wakulla Manor (Crawfordville, Florida, Heartland of St. Petersburg (St. Petersburg, Florida, and Rosedale Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida). Each of these facilities received superior ratings on their latest licensure and certification survey with the exception of Heartland and Rosedale, which received a standard and conditional rating respectively. Significantly, the conditional rating assigned to the Rosedale facility occurred less than six months after that facility was acquired by HCR, and all deficiencies were corrected within 19 days of the survey. HCR's current proposal for a 120-bed facility will be a one-story structure containing 40,000 gross square feet, including 2,000 square feet for an ancillary adult day care center. It will have 58 semi-private rooms with half-bath (toilet and sink) and four private rooms with full bath (toilet, sink and shower) located within four patient wings, two nursing stations, two dining rooms, central bathing facilities, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, multi-purpose rooms, outdoor patio areas and the other standard functional elements required to meet licensure standards. In all, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. HCR proposes to dedicate one wing (14 semi-private and 1 private room) of its facility to the care of patients suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that results in gradual memory loss and, as such loss progresses, a need for increased personal care. Historically, Alzheimer's patients have been mixed with other patients in nursing homes, often disrupting other patients and presenting problems of control for staff separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the patient without restraint or sedation, and provides the patient with a smaller, safer and specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the needs of such patients. However, absent fill-up, HCR does not propose to limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. HCR's Alzheimer's unit is reasonably designed, equipped and minimally staffed for its intended purpose. HCR also proposes to provide, as needed, subacute care at its facility. Due to the impacts of the federal DRG (diagnostically related group) system which encourages hospitals to discharge patients earlier, there has been an increased demand for subacute services in nursing homes. Included within the subacute services HCR proposes to offer are ventilator care, IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation, and percentage and long term rehabilitation. HCR currently provides a wide variety of such subacute services at its existing facilities, and it may reasonably be expected to continue such practice at the proposed facility. As an adjunct to the proposed nursing home, HCR proposes to operate an adult day care unit for 12 Alzheimer's Disease patients. Additionally, HCR will offer respite care within the nursing home when beds available. Adult care and respite care provide alternatives to institutional long-term care in nursing homes, aid in preventing premature rising home admissions, and promote cost containment. As initially reviewed by the Department, HCR's activity would be a single story building containing 40,000 gross square feet, including the day care area, with an estimated total project cost of $3,894,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $32,450 per bed, and as designed provides 127 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 166 square feet for semi- private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $2,200,000; costs per square foot $55.00; construct cost per bed 17,417; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's estimate of project costs is reasonable. At hearing HCR updated its project costs to account for changes that arose during the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the total project cost was $4,375,500, or $36,462 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated were as follows: construction costs $2,400,000; cost per square foot $60.00; construction cost per bed $19,000, equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's updated estimate of cost is reasonable. Staffing at the proposed 120-bed facility is designed to accommodate the needs of the skilled and intermediate care patients, as well as the special needs of the Alzheimer's and subacute patients. HCR will provide 24-hour registered nurse coverage for subacute patients and a higher staffing level in the Alzheimer's unit. The nursing home will provide 3.59 hours per patient in the Alzheimer's unit and 2.73 nursing hours overall, based on the assumption that 50 percent of the Alzheimer's patients will wanderers and that 50 percent of all patients will require skilled care. Precise staffing for subacute patients will be determined by the nature of the subacute services needed. HCR's staffing levels, as originally proposed and as updated, meet or exceed state standards. The salary and benefit estimates provided by HCR in its original application reflect salary and benefit levels current at the time of application, and the salary and benefit projections provided by HCR at bearing reflect current (1987) salaries and benefits inflated to the date of opening. Both estimates are reasonable. HCR's projection of utilization by class of pay as initially proposed was as follows: Private pay 51 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Due to its experience over the intervening 17 months since submittal of its application, HCR updated its assessment of utilization as follows: Private pay 50 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 4 percent. The current Lee County Medicaid experience level is 46 percent, and HCR provides an average 71 percent Medicaid occupancy in its Florida facilities. HCR's projections for payor mix are reasonable. HCR's initial application contained estimates of expenses and revenues current as of the date of application (July 1986) but failed to include an inflation factor to accommodate anticipated increases in expenses and revenues. Initially, T. projected its per diem room charges to be $60 to $85. At hearing, HCR projected its per diem room charges in the year opening (1990) to be $90 for a private room, $75 for a semiprivate room, $76.00 for Medicare patients, and $72 for Medicaid patients. The private, semi-private and Medicare charges were determined by inflating current (1987) Lee County charges forward to the year of opening. The Medicaid charges were based on a calculation of the Medicaid reimbursement formula. These charges, when multiplied by patient days, are a reasonable estimate of the projected revenues of the facility. HCR's estimate of expenses in its initial application was based on its current experience. Intervening events have lent new insight to its evaluation of expenses, as have intervening inflationary factors. While HCR's estimate of expenses and revenues was reasonable in its initial application, its current estimates comport with the reality of a 1990 opening and are reasonable. HCR has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility. Since HCR does not propose to initially limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, its pro formas are premised on reasonable assumptions, and it has demonstrated the financial feasibility project in both the short term and long term. The proof demonstrates that HCR provides and Bill continue to provide quality care. HCR's corporate standards and guidelines regulate such areas as patient rights, staff development and orientation, physician and nurse services, pharmacy services and medication administration, social services, and infection control. HCR's manager of quality assurance, house professional services consultants, and quality assurance consultants regularly visit each HCR nursing home to implement the quality assurance standards and guidelines. Each HRC nursing home provides a staff development director who is responsible for the orientation of new employees, training new employees, and continuing training for all employees. Forum Group Inc. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Currently Forum operates 22 Lang facilities and an additional 11 retirement living centers with attached nursing facilities, including one nursing facility in Florida. Its Florida facility holds a standard rating. Other facilities owned by Forum in Texas, Kentucky and Illinois do, however, hold superior ratings. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Lee County that would consist of its proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, an adult congregate living facility, and apartments or Independent living. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen, laundry, administrative area and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum will be a single story building of wood frame and brick veneer construction containing 27,000 gross square feet. It will include 20 semi- private rooms with half bath, 16 private rooms with half bath, 3 private rooms with full bath, and one isolation room with full bath. Also included are a beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and exam-treatment room. But for the length of the corridors in the patient wings, discussed infra, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. Forum's proposal, as initially reviewed by the Department, would have a total project cost of $2,314,800. This equates to $38,580 per bed, and as designed provides 150 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 228 net square feet for semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,377,000; cost per square foot $51.00; construction cost per bed $22,950; equipment costs $200,000; and equipment costs per bed $3,333. Forum's estimate of project cost is reasonable. Forum provided a single-line drawing indicating the general arrangement of spaces for its proposed facility. As proposed, the facility would consist of two patient wings, and a central nurse's station. The corridor lengths in the patient wings exceed state standards by 40 feet. They could, however, be modified to conform to State standards without significantly affecting the cost of construction. The project would have energy conservation features such as heavy duty roof and side insulation, double-glazed windows, and high efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment. The forum facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, ventilator care, hyperalimentation, pulmonary aids, and short and long term rehabilitation. Forum would contract out for physical therapy, speech therapy, pharmacy consultation and a registered dietician. If needed, Forum would offer respite care when beds are available. The proposed staffing levels and salaries proposed by Forum in its application are reasonable and meet or exceed state standards. Forum has a staff training program, with pre-service and in-service training, and utilizes a prescreening procedure to assure it hires competent staff. Twenty-four hour coverage by registered nurses will be provided, and a staffing ratio of 2.9 will be maintained. The staffing level at the proposed facility is consistent with that experienced at Forum's existing Florida Facility. Forum provides, and will continue to provide, quality care. Forum's application projected its utilization by class of pay as follows: private pay 58.47 percent, Medicaid 37.16 percent, and Medicare 4.37 percent. Currently, Forum experiences a 48 percent Medicaid occupancy rate system-wide, although it only has 2 of 35 beds dedicated to Medicaid care in its present Florida facility. Forum estimated its revenues based on patient charges ranging from $50.64 per day for Medicaid/semi-private room to $75.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Based on such revenues, its pro forma, utilizing a conservative 86.25 percent occupancy rate at the end of the second year of operation, demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of the project as initially reviewed by the Department notwithstanding the fact that it had underestimated its Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. At hearing, Forum sought to demonstrate that its project was currently feasible by offering proof that intervening events had not significantly impacted the financial feasibility of its project. To this end, Forum offered proof that the contingencies and inflation factors it had built into the construction of its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction. Additionally, Forum sought to update its proposal at hearing by offering testimony that included an increase in the administrator's salary from $27,000 to $39,000, a decrease in interest in year one to $187,803, an increase in interest in year two to $250,790, and an increase in revenues based on patient charges ranging from $69.19 per day for Medicaid/semi private room to $90.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Some of the applicants objected to Forum's proof directed at the current financial feasibility of its project because it had not previously provided them with a written update of its application as ordered by the Hearing Officer. The applicants' objection was well founded. Further, the proof was not persuasive that any contingencies and inflation factors it had built into its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction, nor that salaries, benefits and other expenses that would be currently experienced were appropriately considered in addressing the present financial feasibility of Forum's project. While Forum has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for initial capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishments and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility, it has failed to demonstrate that its proposal, as updated, is financially feasible in the long term. Health Quest Corporation Health Quest is a privately held corporation which owns, develops and operates health care facilities and retirement centers on a national basis. Health Quest has been in business for approximately 20 years, and currently operates 11 long-term care facilities and three retirement centers in Indiana, Illinois, and Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are located in Jacksonville, Boca Raton, and Sarasota. It also has facilities under construction in Winter Park and Sunrise, Florida. Health Quest also held a number of other certificates of need to construct nursing facilities in Florida. Recently, however, it decided to transfer or sell 3-4 of those certificates because its initial decision to develop nine new projects simultaneously would have, in its opinion, strained its management staff and commitment to high quality standards. HCR is, however, currently proceeding with several projects in Florida, and anticipates that the proposed Lee County facility will be brought on line thereafter. Pertinent to this case, Health Quest proposes to develop a retirement center in Lee County that would consist of a 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, and 124 assisted living studio apartments (an ACLF). 4/ The two components which comprise Health Quest's retirement center are physically connected and share some operational functions such as a common kitchen, laundry, therapy areas, maintenance areas, and administrative areas. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. In addition to providing an economical distribution of costs, the two components of the retirement center are mutually supportive. The nursing care unit supports the ACLF by making sure that health care services are available to the assisted living people. The ACLF supports the nursing unit as a source of referral and as an alternative to nursing home placement. The nursing facility proposed by Health Quest will be a single story building of masonry and concrete construction. It will include 6 private rooms and 27 semi-private rooms with half-bath attached, central nurse's station, central bathing facilities, beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, central dining area, physical and occupational therapy room and outdoor patio The center, itself, will provide patios, walkways and other outdoor features to render the facility pleasant and attractive, and will provide multi-purpose areas to be used for religious services and other activities, an ice cream parlor and gift shop. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility contained 25,269 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $2,244,505. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $37,408 per bed, and as designed provides 240 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,470,333; cost per square foot $58.19; construction cost per bed $24,506; equipment costs $298,200; and equipment cost per bed $4,970. While the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable, its equipment costs are not. These costs are substantially the same as those projected in its original application for a 120-bed facility, which at an equipment cost of $300,000 derived an equipment cost per bed of $2,500. Why the same cost should prevail at this 60-bed facility was not explained by Health Quest, and its equipment cost per bed of $4,970 was not shown to be reasonable. As with most applicants, Health Quest updated its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the estimated project cost is $2,290.331, $38,172 per bed. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,507,043; cost per square foot $59.64; construction cost per bed $25,117; equipment costs $302,700; and equipment costs per bed $5,045. Again, while the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable its equipment costs are, for the reasons heretofore expressed, not shown to be reasonable. The Health Quest facility will offer skilled and intermediate nursing care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, chemotherapy, TPN therapy and tracheostomy care. Also to be offered are respite care as beds are available and, within the complex, adult day care. Health Quest will maintain a nursing staffing ratio of approximately 3.25 hours per patient day for skilled care and 2.5 for intermediate care. As originally reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Health Quest increased its staffing levels to account for an increased demand in labor intensive care, and increased its staffing expenses to account for the intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Health Quest's projection of utilization by class of pay in the application reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 51.6 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 3.4 percent. Health Quest's utilization projection, as updated at hearing, was as follows: private pay 50.9 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 4.1 percent. TAB Health Quest currently serves 30 percent Medicaid patients at its Jacksonville facility, 10 percent Medicaid patients at its Boca Raton facility, and no Medicaid patients at its Sarasota facility. It has, however, committed to serve 40 percent and 48 percent Medicaid patients at its Sunrise and Winter Park facilities, respectively. Health Quest's projections of payor are reasonable. Initially, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges to range from $52 for skilled and intermediate care Medicare patients to $57.25 for skilled care-private and Medicare patients. It did not, however, draw any distinction between private and semi-private rooms. At hearing, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges as follows: $90 for SNF/single/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/Medicare; $68 for SF/double Medicaid; $68 for ICF/single/private pay; $70.75 for ICF/double/private pay; and $68 for ICF/double/Medicaid. Health Quest's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenue and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and as updated. During the course of these proceedings, a serious question was raised as to whether Health Quest had demonstrated that it had the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, or that it was committed to the subject project. Within the past three years, Health Quest has sold three of its approved CONS and is considering the sale a fourth due to its inability to handle that number of projects, and the adverse impact it would have on its ability to deliver quality care. Notwithstanding its inability to proceed with approved projects, Health Quest proceeded to hearing in October 1987 and December 1987 for nursing home CONs in Hillsborough County and Lee County (the subject application), and also had nine such applications pending in the January 1987 batching cycle and eight such applications in the October 1987 batching cycle. Health Quest's actions are not logical, nor supportive of the conclusion that it is committed to this project or that it possesses available resources for project accomplishment. Under the circumstances, Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton currently hold superior ratings from the Department. A superior rating includes consideration of staffing ratios, staff training, the physical environment, physical and restorative therapies, social services, and other professional services. Those facilities are monitored, as would the subject facility, by Health Quest for quality care through a system of quarterly peer review, and provide extensive staff education programs that include orientation training for new staff and on-going education for regular staff. Health Quest has demonstrated that it has provided quality care. However, in light of the strain its current activities have placed on its resources, it is found that Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it could provide quality care at the proposed facility were its application approved. Hillhaven, Inc. Hillhaven is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hillhaven Corporation, which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises. The Hillhaven Corporation has been business for almost 30 years, and is currently responsible for the operation of approximately 437 nursing homes and retirement centers nationally, including 15 nursing homes which it owns or operates in the State of Florida. Hillhaven proposes to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care community nursing home in Fort Myers, Lee County, consisting of 38,323 square feet. It will include 14 private rooms and 53 semi-private rooms, a full bath attached to each room (shower, toilet and sink), central tub rooms, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and outdoor patio areas. In all, Hillhaven's proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility would be a single-story building containing 38,323 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $3,544,444. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $29,537 per bed, and as designed provides 217 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows; construction costs $2,146,000; cost per square foot $56.00; construction cost per bed $17,884; equipment costs $442,005; and equipment cost per bed $3,683.38. Hillhaven's project costs are reasonable. As with the other applicants, Hillhaven update its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing, certain oversights in its initial submission, and its decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction as originally proposed. As updated, the estimated project cost is $4,089,639, or $34,155.33 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated, were as follows: construction costs $2,446,088; cost per square foot $63.82; construction cost per bed $20,384; equipment costs $521,200; and equipment costs per bed $4,343.33. By far, the biggest factor in the increased construction costs was Hillhaven's decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction. Either type of construction would, however, meet or exceed state standards, and Hillhaven's estimates of construction and equipment costs are reasonable. The Hillhaven facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, recreational services, restorative nursing services, and social services. Hillhaven does not discriminate on admission, and would admit Alzheimer's and subacute patients as presented. Were sufficient demand experienced, Hillhaven has the ability to provide and would develop a full Alzheimer's unit, and provide day care and respite care. Currently, Hillhaven operates 36 Alzheimer's units at its facilities nation wide, but has experienced no demand for such a special unit or other special care at its existent Lee County facility. As originally reviewed by the Department, Hillhaven's staffing levels an expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Hillhaven increased its staffing levels to account for staff inadvertently omitted from its initial application, and increased its staffing expenses to account or intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Hillhaven's staffing level is 2.5, and its staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Hillhaven's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 30 percent, Medicaid 60 percent, and Medicare 10 percent. As updated at hearing, Hillhaven's utilization projection was as follows: private pay 44 percent, Medicaid 53 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Currently, Hillhaven provides, on average, 53 percent Medicaid care at its facilities in Florida. Hillhaven's estimate of payor mix was reasonable and, in light of intervening changes in circumstance, was reasonable as updated. Hillhaven's patient charges for its second year of operation as originally reviewed by the Department ranged from $58.60 to $62.00 per day. As updated, Hillhaven's patient charges ranged from $52.13 to $73.50 per day. Hillhaven's estimated charges were achievable when initially proposed and as updated, and are reasonable. Hillhaven's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and comport, as updated, with the current experience in Lee County. Hillhaven has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates are premised on reasonable assumptions, and Hillhaven has demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of its project. Currently, Hillhaven owns or operates 15 facilities in the State of Florida. Of these 15 facilities, two have opened within the past year and are not eligible for ratings. Nine of the 13 eligible facilities are operating with superior licenses. Of the remaining four facilities, two have a standard license and two have a conditional license. The two facilities with conditional ratings have both resolved their deficiencies. Hillhaven has provided and will continue to provide quality care. It ensures that quality care will be maintained within its facilities by drawing upon the professional resources four regional offices comprised of registered nurses, quality assurance monitors, regional dietitians, maintenance supervisors, employee relations specialists, and other administrative support personnel. Regional consultants visit company facilities monthly to plan, organize and monitor operations, and to conduct in-service training workshops. Overall, Hillhaven provides each facility with an in-depth quality assurance program. Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center Gene Lynn (Careage) is the president and 100 percent owner of Careage Corporation. Since 1962, Careage has developed approximately 150 nursing homes and retirement centers, as well as 100 medically related facilities, in 22 states and the Virgin Islands. Until December 1986 it did not, however, own or operate any facilities. Currently, Careage operates four nursing homes in the United States (one in the State of Washington, two in the State of California, and one in the State of Arizona) , but none in Florida. The home office of Careage is located in Bellevue, Washington. Careage proposed to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Lee County with specialty units for subacute and Alzheimer's care, consisting of 45,500 square feet. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 2 isolation rooms and 7 private rooms with full bath and 45 semiprivate rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semiprivate rooms with half bath, central dining area, beauty-barber shop, quiet lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, outdoor patio areas, and exam-treatment room. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Careage's proposed facility was a single-story building containing 45,500 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $4,150,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to 34,583 per bed, and as designed provides 184-227 net square feet of living space for isolation/private rooms, and 227-273 net square feet of living space or semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: construction costs $2,583,125; cost per square foot $56.77; construction cost per bed $21,526; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipment costs, are reasonable. The Careage facility would offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, physical therapy, recreational services and social services. Additionally, the proposal includes a special 21-bed unit dedicated solely to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients, and a dedicated 10-bed unit for subacute care which will accommodate technology dependent children care. Among the subacute services to be offered are hyperalimentation, IV therapy, ventilators, heparin flush, and infusion pumps for administration of fluids. Careage will offer respite care as beds are available, and will offer day care in a separate facility. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 49 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 3 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patients charges for its facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $63.86, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $59.23, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $108.15, and private (other) /subacute (room rate only) $128.75. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, for its 120-bed facility were not shown to be reasonable. First, in light of the fact that there was no quantifiable demand for a dedicated Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, as discussed infra at paragraphs 126-129, no reliable calculation of fill-up and occupancy rates or revenues and expenses could be derived that was, as the Careage application is, dependent on such revenue stream. Second, the Careage pro forma was predicated on average rates experienced in Lee County. Since Careage proposes heavier nursing care than that currently experienced in Lee County, its estimates of patient charges are not credible. At hearing, Careage updated its 120-bed application to account for inflationary factors that had affected the project since it was first reviewed, and to correct two staffing errors. These updates did not substantially change the project. Careage has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates were not, however, premised on reasonable assumptions, and Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 120-bed project. Following the Department's initial review of the applications in this batching cycle, it proposed to award a certificate of need to Careage for a 60- bed facility, premised on its conclusion that there was insufficient numeric need to justify an award of beds exceeding that number, notwithstanding the fact that the application of Careage was for 120 beds and did not request or propose a 60-bed facility. Notably, all financial, staffing, construction, equipment and other projections described in the Careage application were based on a 120- bed facility, and no information was provided regarding a 60- bed facility. Also notable is the fact that the other applicants were not accorded equal consideration. Not surprisingly, the proposed award of a CON for 60-beds to Careage was timely challenged, but Careage did not protest the Department's denial of its application for 120 beds but appeared as a respondent to defend the Department's decision to award it 60 beds. At hearing, Careage offered proof of the reasonableness of its 120- bed proposal over the objection of the other applicants. /5 Careage contends that its proposed 60-bed facility is a scaled down version of its 120-bed proposal Careage proposes to offer the same services in its 60-bed facility as it proposed in its 120-bed facility, including the 21-bed Alzheimer's unit and 10-bed subacute care unit. Its proposed 60- bed facility is not, however, an identifiable portion of its initial project. As proposed, the 60-bed facility would contain 26,900 gross square feet, and meet or exceed state standards. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 1 isolation room and 4 private rooms with full bath, 17 semi- private rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semi-private rooms with half-bath, together with the same amenities offered by the 120-bed facility, but on a reduced scale. As proposed, the total project cost for the 60-bed facility is $2,475,000, which equates to $41,250 per bed. As designed, the facility would provide the same net square footage of living space for private and semi-private rooms as the 120-bed facility. Construction equipment costs would be as follows: construction costs $1,431,750; cost per square foot $53.22; construction cost per bed $23,863; equipment costs $210,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipments costs, are reasonable. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay in its 60-bed facility was as follows: private pay 47 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 5 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patient charges for its 60-bed facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $66.00, Medicaid (all Inclusive rate) $63.50, Medicare (all inclusive rate) $120.00, private (other)/subacute (room rate only) $130.00. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections, its projections of revenue and expenses, and its pro forma estimates for its 60-bed facility suffer the same deficiencies as those for its proposed 120-bed facility. Under the circumstances, Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 60-bed facility. While Careage has only owned and operated nursing homes for a short time, the proof demonstrates that it has and will continue to provide quality care for its residents. The Alzheimer's unit and subacute care units are reasonably designed, equipped and staffed for their intended functions. Staffing ratios in the subacute unit will be 6.0, and in the other areas of the facility 3.0. Careage currently utilizes a quality assurance program at each facility which includes a utilization review committee, safety committee, infection control committee, and pharmaceutical committee. Each facility also has a resident advisory council, community advisory council, and employee advisory council. Presently, Careage is developing a company level quality assurance program, and has initiated announced and unannounced site visits by a quality assurance expert to evaluate resident care, operations, maintenance and physical environment. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The opinions expressed by the witnesses offered by the Department were premised on information available to them while these applications underwent "preliminary" review. The information available to them at that time, and represented by the State Agency Action Report (SAAR), was incomplete and inaccurate in many respects, including the services to be provided by some of the applicants and the approved bed inventory and occupancy rates utilized in the need methodology. These witnesses were not made privy to, and expressed no opinions, regarding the relative merits of the applications in light of the facts developed at hearing. Throughout the hearing, counsel for the Department objected to evidence from any applicant regarding "updates" (changes) to their applications as they were deemed complete by the Department prior to its initial review. It was the position of the Department's counsel, but otherwise unexplicated, that the only appropriate evidence of changed conditions after the date the application was deemed complete were those changes which relate to or result from extrinsic circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as inflation and other current circumstances external to the application. The majority of the "updated" material offered by the applicants at hearing did result from the effects of inflation, the passage of time between the application preparation and the dates of final hearing, changes in the market place regarding nursing salaries, changes in the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement system and typographical errors in the application. Some changes in design were offered as a result of the applicant's experience with other construction projects and in order to comply with licensing regulations. There were also some changes which resulted from better information having been secured through more current market surveys. None of the applicants attempted to change their planning horizon, the number of beds proposed, the proposed location of the facility or the services to be offered except Careage. The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2), Florida Administrative Code; formerly, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b) Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology... The Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i. The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict in the horizon year. In this case, the applicable district is District 8, and the applicable subdistrict is Lee County. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 65-74 in the district. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB), as well as the subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is calculated based on the number of community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986. The Department's Semi-Annual Nursing Home Census Report and Bed Need Allocation prepared for the July 1986 review cycle (July 1989 planning horizon) listed 4,193 licensed community nursing home beds in District 8 and 996 in Lee County. However, that count taken on May 1, 1986, did not include 120 new beds which were licensed in Charlotte County on May 8, 1986. The count also excluded 287 beds at four other facilities in the district, including 60 beds at Calusa Harbor in Lee County, because they were listed as sheltered beds according to Department records at that time. After passage of Section 651.118(8), Florida Statutes, the Department surveyed the facilities and found that the beds at these four facilities were operated as community beds rather than sheltered beds. Under the circumstances, the proof demonstrates that as of June 1, 1986, there were 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds in district 8 (LB) and 1,056 in Lee County (LBD). The formula mandated by the rule methodology or calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Some of the applicants contend that the current population" for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated or the July batching cycle, OR based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. Under this theory, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that period, is the appropriate date to calculate "current population" to derive PCPC and POPD. The Department contends that "current population" for POPC and POPD should be calculated as of July 1986, the filing deadline for applications in this review cycle. The Department's position is, however, contrary to its past and current practice. The need reports issued by the Department between December 1984 and December 1986, routinely used a three and one- half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population." In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one-half spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to deviate from its past and current practice. Under the circumstances, January 1, 1986, is the appropriate date on which the "current population" is to be calculated when deriving POPC and POPD. The parties are also in disagreement as to whether population estimates developed after the application deadline can used to establish the current population. Rule 10- 5.011(k)2h, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that population projections shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor, but does not limit such proof to any particular estimate. The Department advocates the use of population estimates existent at the application deadline. Accordingly, it would apply the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1986. Other parties would apply the more recent estimates adopted by the Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1987. In this case, the use of either estimate would have no significant effect on the result reached under the rule methodology; however, since all population estimates and projections are only approximations rather than actual counts, it would be more reasonable from a health planning perspective to use the latest estimates of the 1987 population than the estimates available at the time of application. In this case, this means using July 1, 1987, estimates of January 1986 populations. These estimates are still "current" as of January 1986, since It is still the January 1986 population that is to be measured, and more reliable from a health planning perspective than the prior projection. In the same manner, July 1, 1987, estimates of horizon year 1989 populations (PCPA and POP), infra, would also be used rather than July 1, 1986, estimates of that population. Accordingly, Forum's calculation POPC (128,871), POPD (77,194), POPA (149,645), and POPB (95,748) is appropriate. (Forum Exhibit 10, Appendix A) Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 26 to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA 4,600/(128,871 + (6 x 77,194) BA 4,600/(128,871 + 463,164) BA 4,600/592,035 BA .0077698 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over in the district. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB 6 x BA BB 6 x .0077698 BB .0466188 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A", the district's age adjusted number of community nursing homes beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant department district projected three years into the future. POPR is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: A (149,645 x .0077698) + (95,748 x .0466188) A 1,162.7117 + 4,422.4086 A 5,585.12 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA", the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds;" gross need in the case. 7/ This calculation is defined by subparagraphs 2d as follows: SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed, however, occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept contemplated by subparagraph 2d. Accordingly, the parties concur that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d of the current rule, but, rather, defined by former rule 1C--5. 11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In calculating the occupancy rate (OR) for the licensed community nursing homes in the subdistrict (Lee County) the Department derived a figure of 91.91. The Department arrived at this figure based on the first day of the month patient census of each facility considered to have community beds (LBD=1,056), which included the 60 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion; assumed that such census was maintained throughout the entire month; and then divided such patient days by the actual number of beds available. The Department's methodology is an accepted health planning technique, and comports with its previous practice. Some of the parties disagree with the technique utilized by the Department to calculate OR, and advocate the use of actual patient day occupancy to derive OR. This technique differs from the "first of the month" technique by utilizing the actual number of patient days experienced by the facility, as opposed to assuming a constant census based on first of the month data. This alternative methodology is, likewise, an accepted health planning technique, and if proper assumptions are utilized will yield a more meaningful result than the Department's methodology. In this case, the proponents of the "actual patient day occupancy" methodology, erroneously assumed that 160 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion were community nursing homes beds, as opposed to 60 beds; and, based on an erroneous LBD of 1,156, derived a subdistrict occupancy rate of 92.97. Under such circumstances, these proponents calculations are not reliable, and the subdistrict occupancy rate derived by the Department is accepted. Applying the facts of this case to the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2d produces the following gross need calculation for the subdistrict: 5A 5,585.12 x (1,056/4,600) x (.9191/.9) SA 5,585.12 x .2295652 x 1.0212222 SA 1309.36 The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant department subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. unless the subdistrict's average occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The number of approved and licensed nursing home beds for the second batching cycle in 1987 shall be based on the number of approved and licensed beds as of August 1, 1987, in subsequent nursing home batching cycles, the number of licensed and approved beds to be used in establishing net need for a particular batching cycle shall be determined as of the agency's initial decision for the immediately preceding nursing home batching cycle. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" In the subdistrict from the cross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated when, as here, the batching cycle at issue predates its enactment. In the face of this dilemma, the parties rely on the provisions of former rule 10-5.11(21)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, which was existent when their applications were filed to resolve their dispute. Under the circumstances, reference to former rule 10-5.11(21)(b), is appropriate. Former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 provides: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subaragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8).... (Emphasis added) While the former rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need calculated under subparagraphs (b)1-8, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule as the data base for calculating LB and LBD, and the number of approved beds as of December 18, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). The other parties would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no reasonable evidentiary basis for its interpretation of the date at which the total number of licensed and approved beds are to be calculated under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and the other parties for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. The Inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule, as well as subparagraph 2i of the current rule, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's interpretation of the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational, since it could result in some beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed on June 1, 1986, but licensed before the consultant supervisor signed the SAAR (state agency action report), they would not be counted in either inventory. On the other hand, the other parties' approach would ignore all beds licensed or approved from previous batching cycles after June 1, 1986 which beds were intended to serve at least a portion of the future population. The fundamental flaw in the parties' approach to establishing an inventory date under subparagraph (b)9, was the assumption that subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule defined licensed bed inventory for purposes of subparagraph (b)9. The Department's rule must be construed in its entirety, and all parts of the rule must be construed so as to work harmoniously with its other parts. So construed, the only logical conclusion to be drawn, as hereinafter demonstrated, is that subparagraph (b)7 defines LB and LBD ("current" licensed beds) for the cross need calculation under the methodology defined by subparagraphs (b)1-4, and does not presume to define licensed beds for the net need calculation under subparagraph (b)9. Subparagraphs (b)1-4 and 7 of the numeric need methodology prescribed by the former rule is designed to yield a gross bed need for the horizon year. The keys to this methodology are the calculation of a current bed rate (BA) and current occupancy rate (OR) for the current using population, and the projection of those rates on the population to be served in the horizon year. A meaningful calculation of the current bed rate cannot, however, be derived without a current inventory of licensed beds (LB and LBD). Accordingly, the relationship between subparagraph (b)7, which defines the data base (June 1, 1986 in this case) for defining LB and LBD (the "current" licensed bed inventory) to the gross bed need calculation is apparent. The parties' suggestion that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9 not only ignores the inextricable link between subparagraph (b)7 and the gross bed need methodology, but also the language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9. The purpose of that subparagraph is to derive a realistic estimate of actual (net) bed need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles were intended to serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it would be illogical to ignore any of those beds when calculating net need. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable in this case not to count any beds that were licensed or approved from previous batching cycles between June 1, 1986, and the date a decision is rendered on these applications. Indeed, subparagraph (b)9 speaks to "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not beds existent on June 1, 1986. In sum, subparagraph (b)7 cannot be read to define licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9, and the parties' suggestion that it can is rejected as contrary to the clear language of the rule methodology. See: Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 493 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Since the purpose of subparagraph (b)9 is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures to the greatest extent possible that the horizon population will not be over or undeserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing there were 1,056 licensed beds and 120 approved beds in the subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a net need of 145 community nursing home beds for the July 1989 planning horizon. Special Circumstances. The Department will not normally approve an application for new or additional nursing home beds in any service district in excess of the number calculated by the aforesaid methodology. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Succinctly, the need for nursing home services, whether they be general or special, is a product of the rule methodology, and not relevant to a calculation of need absent a demonstration of special circumstances. The Department has adopted by rule the methodology to be utilized in demonstrating special circumstances that would warrant a consideration of factors other than the numeric need methodology in deciding the need for nursing home services. That rule, 10-5.011(1)(k)2; Florida Administrative Code, provides: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained at Section 10-5.011. Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under the provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special 505 home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. In the instant case, some of the applicants have proposed special services, including an Alzheimer's unit, subacute care unit, and beds for technology dependent children. They offered, however, no proof that any person with a documented need for such services had been denied access to available beds that the number of persons with a documented need exceeded the number of available beds. Succinctly, there is no credible proof that the need for nursing home services in Lee County exceeds that calculated pursuant to the numeric need methodology. While there are no special circumstances existent in this case that would justify an award of beds in excess of that calculated by the rule methodology, that does not mean that consideration of the Alzheimer's, subacute and technology dependent children services offered by some of the applicants is not relevant to the comparative review of the subject applications. Rather, it means that the need for such services will presumptively be met within the need calculated by the rule methodology. How the applicants propose to address that need is, however, a matter for consideration in a comparative review of their applications. Each of the applicants propose to provide subacute care, with Careage proposing a special 10-bed subacute care unit which would accommodate technology dependent children. HCR and Careage propose special Alzheimer's care units; a 15-bed unit by HCR and a 21-bed unit by Careage. Hillhaven will admit Alzheimer's disease patients as presented, and will develop a dedicated Alzheimer's unit if demand should subsequently develop. The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and the increased demand for subacute services brought about by DRGs, demonstrates that there will be a demand for such services within existing and proposed facilities. There was, however, no persuasive proof of any demand for technology dependent services in Lee County. While there is a demand for Alzheimer's disease care, and the preferred mode of care is in a separate unit specifically designed, staffed, and equipped to deal with this degenerative disease, there was no persuasive proof that the demand is such as to warrant the creation of a separate unit such as proposed by HCR and Careage. 10/ Absent such quantifiable demand, the application of Hillhaven more realistically addresses the need for Alzheimer's disease patients than does that of the other applicants. With regard to subacute care services, the proof likewise fails to quantify the demand for such services. Under such circumstances, Careage's proposed 10-bed subacute care unit is not objectively warranted, and does not serve to better its proposal to provide such services over the proposals of the other applicants. Consistency with district plan and state plan The District 8 health plan contains the following pertinent standards and criteria: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county, 4 within District Eight. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: a. pharmacy h. occupational therapy b. laboratory i. physical therapy c. x-ray j. speech therapy c. dental care k. mental health counseling e. visual care l. social services f. hearing care m. medial services g. diet therapy New and existing community nursing bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds... Each nursing facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same county. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs. ... The State Health Plan contains the following pertinent goals: GOAL 1: TO DEVELOP AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LONG TERM CARE SERVICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA. GOAL 2: TO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE LONG TERM, CARE SERVICES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA. Each of the applicants demonstrated that their proposal would conform, at least minimally, with the foregoing provisions of the state and local health plans. Of particular significance to Lee County is, however, an applicant's commitment to Medicaid service. The District 8 Council has reported that hospitals in Lee County are having difficulty placing Medicaid patients in nursing homes due to the unavailability of Medicaid beds. The current Medicaid experience is 46 percent. Therefore, the local council has directed that new and existing community nursing home developments should dedicate at least 33-1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. While all applicants propose to meet this standard, Hillhaven's proposal to dedicate 53 percent of its beds to Medicaid care is substantially greater than the commitment of the other applicants, and is consistent with its current experience in meeting a community's need for nursing home care. Availability, appropriateness, and extent of utilization of existing health care services Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires Consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. When the subject applications were filed, there were 1,056 licensed beds in Lee County with an occupancy rate of 91.91 percent. The nursing home bed supply in Lee County is obviously strained, and there exist no reasonable alternatives to the addition of new beds to the subdistrict. To coordinate with existing health facilities, each applicant proposes to establish appropriate transfer agreements and affiliations with local physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers. While some of the applicants have proposed an Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, the proof failed to demonstrate any quantitative need for such units in the subdistrict. Some applicants also proposed to provide day care in conjunction with their nursing home. Currently, there exists adequate day care in Lee County at little or no expense to the patient, and there was no persuasive proof of a need for additional day care services. Economies derived from joint health care resources HCR and Hillhaven each proposed 120-bed facilities which would provide for a more efficient and economical operation than a 60-bed facility. The 60-bed facilities proposed by Forum and Health Quest are, however, part of a larger complex which likewise lends itself to an efficient and economical operation. HCR, Hillhaven, Forum and Health Quest are major operators of nursing home facilities, and are thereby able to negotiate and obtain bulk prices for food, medical and nursing supplies. These savings are ultimately passed on to the residents. Additionally, by drawing upon a broad spectrum of expertise existent within their corporate networks, these applicants are best able to maintain and improve the services they offer. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. As between the competing applicants, consideration of those criteria demonstrates that Hillhaven is the superior applicant whether it is evaluated on its application as initially reviewed by the Department or as updated at hearing. Among other things, the Hillhaven facility is spacious with large and well appointed patient rooms, its project costs are most reasonable (whether type 5 or type 4 construction), its programmatic proposal and staffing levels are most reasonable in light of existing demand, its provision for Medicaid services is the highest, and its patient charges are the lowest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Hillhaven's application for a certificate of need to construct a new 20-bed community nursing home in Lee County, and denying the applications of HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Careage. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of November, 1987.
The Issue Whether Life Care Center of Punta Gorda (Respondent), timely submitted its monthly nursing home quality assessment fee for February 2019; and, if not, whether a fine should be imposed for each day that the payment was delinquent.
Findings Of Fact AHCA, pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ is responsible for overseeing and administering the Medicaid program for the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was a Florida Medicaid provider authorized to provide nursing home services, and had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA. Respondent operates a nursing home facility as defined by section 409.9082(1)(b), and is required, pursuant to section 409.9082(2), to “report monthly to [AHCA] its total number of resident days, exclusive of Medicare Part A resident days, and remit an amount equal to the assessment rate times the reported number of days.” The monthly amount assessed pursuant to section 409.9082 is known as a “Quality Assessment Fee.” Section 409.9082(2) provides, in part, that AHCA “shall collect, and each facility shall pay, the quality assessment each month[, and [AHCA] shall collect the assessment from nursing home facility providers by the 20th day of the next succeeding calendar month.” Respondent’s Quality Assessment Fee for February 2019 was to be remitted to AHCA by March 20, 2019. It is undisputed that AHCA received payment of Respondent’s Quality Assessment Fee on April 12, 2019, and that this was the first instance where Respondent failed to timely remit payment of the fee to AHCA. In explaining why the Quality Assessment Fee was not tendered by the due date, Ms. Talbott testified that Respondent’s customary process is to remit payment by FedEx “so that . . . [there is] a tracking mechanism on it.” Ms. Talbott explained that her investigation revealed that the customary process for mailing payment to AHCA was not followed in the instant dispute because the accounts payable clerk, instead of using FedEx, and as a consequence of being distracted by a family emergency, inadvertently mailed the payment via the United States Postal Service, without requesting delivery confirmation. The accounts payable clerk did not testify during the final hearing and there is no specific finding of fact that the check was not delivered to AHCA because of any act(s) or omission(s) by the accounts payable clerk. The check that was purportedly mailed by the accounts payable clerk for payment of the Quality Assessment Fee was never received by AHCA, and Ms. Talbott credibly testified that the same was never returned to Respondent by the postal service. AHCA, by correspondence dated April 3, 2019, and mailed on April 9, 2019, informed Respondent that there was “an outstanding balance pertaining to a Quality Assessment Fee for February [2019],” and that payment of the same was due immediately. Respondent paid the Quality Assessment Fee on April 12, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order finding that Life Care Center of Punta Gorda committed its first offense of section 409.9082 and imposing a fine of $11,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 26th day of November, 2019.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was in violation of 42CFR 483.25(l)(1), 42CFR 483.60(d), Rules 59A-4.112(5) and 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code, at the time of its annual survey in July 2000, and, if so, whether those violations were uncorrected at the time of resurvey in September 2000, in order to justify the issuance of a Conditional licensure rating.
Findings Of Fact Tampa Health Care Center (Petitioner) is a licensed nursing home in Tampa, Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, Respondent surveys Petitioner to determine whether it is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If there are deficiencies, it determines the level of deficiency. When Respondent conducts a survey of a nursing home, it issues a survey report, commonly called by its form number, a "2567." The particular regulation, and the allegedly deficient practices which constitute a violation of that regulation, are cited in a column on the left side of the paper. After receiving the 2567, the facility is required to develop a plan of correction which is put in the right hand column corresponding to the alleged deficiency. The facility is required to develop this plan regardless of whether it agrees that it is in violation of any regulations, and it is prohibited from being argumentative. Respondent conducted its annual survey of Petitioner, ending July 27, 2000, and issued a 2567 survey report noting certain deficiencies. The deficiencies are designated as tag numbers. Among those noted were Tag F329, which is the shorthand reference to 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.25 (1)(1), and Tag F431, which incorporates 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d). Respondent rated these deficiencies as Class III deficiencies. Respondent conducted a follow-up survey on September 5, 2000, and determined that the deficiencies under tags F329 and F431 were uncorrected, and, as a result, issued a Conditional rating to the facility. On December 2000, Respondent conducted another follow- up survey and determined that all deficiencies had been corrected and therefore issued a Standard license to Petitioner effective that date. The 2567 constitutes the charging document for purposes of issuing a Conditional license. No other document was offered to describe the offenses, or deficiencies, which resulted in imposition of the Conditional license. The parties stipulated at the hearing that Tags F329 and F431 were the only ones at issue in this proceeding. In conducting its survey, Respondent uses a document developed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), called the State Operations Manual. It indicates guidance on how are to interpret regulations. TAG F 329 The 2567 from the July survey asserts, under Tag F 329, that the facility "failed to monitor psychotropic medications for 5 of 5 sampled residents." The regulation states that residents are to be "free from unnecessary drugs," and elaborates that a drug given without adequate monitoring is considered unnecessary. The guidelines establish that monitoring is expected only for residents on psychotropic medications. Therefore, for a violation to occur, there must first be a resident who is receiving psychotropic medications, and secondly, a lack of monitoring of the use of that drug. Respondent alleged and put on evidence that certain residents (numbers 1, 9, 19, and 21) identified in the July survey did not have "behavior monitoring records" in their files. Specific forms are not mandatory, and evidence of monitoring can be documented elsewhere in a resident's clinical record. Monitoring can be documented in nurses' notes, and those notes were not thoroughly reviewed, as Respondent's surveyors only had limited time for the survey. Respondent presented no evidence that Residents 9, 19, or 21 were receiving psychotropic medications. Petitioner presented evidence of numerous systems in place to monitor residents, including those receiving psychotropic medications. Residents are given a complete clinical assessment within 24 hours of admission; there is then a 14-day more thorough observation and assessment process, culminating in the development of care plans which address particular issues and direct staff to care for residents in particular ways. Nurses regularly document issues or concerns in nurses notes; a physician visits the residents at least once a month, which, as all drugs are ordered by the physician, includes review of the resident's medication. If necessary, a psychiatric evaluation is completed. Once a week a transdisciplinary team meets to discuss any residents "at risk," which includes those receiving psychotropic medications. Additionally, a consultant pharmacist reviews all residents' medications once a month. This review is to determine how well the resident is doing on the drug regimen. It includes reviewing nurses' notes, physicians' notes, the medication administration record, the record of dosages taken on an "as needed" basis, and discussions with nursing staff. The pharmacist reviews whether there are medications administered in excessive doses, in excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for use, or in the presence of adverse consequences. With regard to the September survey, Respondent alleged in the Form 2567 that "Residents numbers 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13 lacked Behavior Monitoring Forms in their records" and that all were on psychotropic medications which required monitoring. Respondent presented the testimony of Barbara Bearden who stated that Residents 3 and 4 were on psychotropic medications, and that there were no behavior monitoring forms. With regard to Resident 4, Respondent asserted that there was no assessment of behaviors in any records after August 14. Bearden acknowledged that both Residents 3 and 4 received reasonable doses, and that there was no reason to believe the level of medication was too high. Respondent's witness also asserted that there was no "AIMS" assessments, no initial assessment, and no indication of the reason for or effectiveness of the medications. These matters were not alleged in the charging document, which only asserted the lack of behavior monitoring forms. During her testimony, Respondent's witness acknowledged that there was no standard to determine how often there should be behavior monitoring. Marie Maisel testified for Respondent regarding Residents 9, 11, and 13. With regard to Resident 9, she testified that the resident received Restoril, a sleeping medication, and also Zoloft, an anti-depressant, and that there was no "systematic behavior monitoring." Sleeping medications do not require behavior monitoring, according to the State Operations Manual, and at deposition, the surveyor indicated that the only medication the resident received was Restoril. Petitioner therefore had no notice of the additional allegation regarding Zoloft and this fact cannot be considered. With regard to Resident 11, Maisel testified that the resident received Risperdal, a psychotropic medication, and that, in her opinion, the behavior monitoring was not adequate. At hearing the surveyor testified that Resident 13 was receiving Haldol and there was no systemic behavior monitoring. However, the witness acknowledged that when her deposition was taken, she did not know why Resident 13 had been cited. Petitioner therefore had no notice of these allegations regarding Resident 13. Petitioner presented evidence, including excerpts from the resident's clinical record, that Resident 3 had been assessed for drug use, and that behaviors were monitored. The resident had been admitted less than three weeks before the September survey, which means that an initial assessment had been performed, as well as the complete 14-day assessment, just prior to survey. Respondent admitted that it would be inappropriate to reduce medication soon after admission. There was a care plan which addressed the resident's use of Risperdal, and another which addressed the resident's ability to function with the activities of daily living. These care plans directed staff to monitor the resident's condition and behavior. Numerous nursing notes documented the resident's condition and behaviors. Resident 3 was not noted in the pharmacist's monthly report, meaning the review revealed no problems with medications. Furthermore, the resident's medications were significantly reduced while in Petitioner's care, and her condition improved dramatically, from being nearly comatose, to being alert and oriented, and needing only limited assistance with mobility. Resident 4 had been admitted just a month before the survey and had also just undergone an extensive assessment process. Her medications were also reduced from those she had been receiving on admission, and nurses notes clearly documented her condition and behaviors throughout the period up to the survey. These notes document not only the monitoring of behaviors, but the reason and need for the medication, as she exhibited combative behaviors. Resident 4 also did not appear on the pharmacist's report. With regard to Resident 9, Petitioner presented evidence that there was a care plan specifically addressing the resident's use of Zoloft, that there were other care plans which addressed behaviors and condition which required that the resident be monitored, and that there was periodic consideration of reductions. Resident 9 did appear on the pharmacist's report, suggesting consideration of a reduction in dosage; thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the system. Resident 11 had a care plan addressing her use of Risperdal, which required monitoring and other interventions. Monthly nursing summaries reflected that she was monitored, as did nursing notes. Generally, nurses notes indicate when there are problems or unusual occurrences, not when everything is routine. Petitioner also presented evidence with regard to Resident 13's use of Haldol, which showed the reason for its use (wandering, verbal abusiveness), numerous efforts to reduce the dosage, review by the pharmacist, a care plan to address its use, which required monitoring, and monthly summaries summarizing her condition and behaviors. Respondent presented sufficient evidence to show that Residents 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13, cited in the September survey, were appropriately monitored and were not receiving unnecessary drugs. TAG F431 Respondent charged in the September 2000 survey that several insulin vials in the medication room were not marked with the date they were opened. The regulation under Tag F431, 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d), requires that drugs be labeled "in accordance with currently accepted professional principles" and "the expiration date when applicable." The surveyor guidelines indicate that the critical elements of labeling are the name of the drug and its strength. Additionally, the guidelines advise that drugs approved by the Federal Drug Administration (F.D.A.) must have expiration dates on the manufacturer's container. Respondent's witness acknowledged that all insulin had the manufacturer's expiration date. Although there is a chance of contamination after opening a vial of insulin, it was acknowledged that it is customary to have a policy allowing use for six months after opening. Petitioner has a policy of discarding insulin 60 days after opening. While it is customary to write the opening date on the vial, a failure to do so will only reduce the amount of time it can be used, because of other systems in place. The pharmacy which dispenses the insulin puts a dispensing date on it, and the pharmacist reviews, monthly, stored medications. Within every three months, all medications are checked, and if there is no date of opening, the pharmacist looks to the dispensing date. If the vial was dispensed more than 60 days prior, it is given to the nurse for discarding. Instead of being able to be used for six months beyond the date opened, the medication is discarded sixty days, or at most ninety days, after it was dispensed. Writing the date opened on the vial is not an item encompassed by the regulation as explicated in the guidelines. Furthermore, there is no potential for harm, as there are redundant systems in place.
Recommendation Based of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the July 27 and September 5, 2000, survey reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F329 and F431, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 22nd day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia J. Hakes, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner in case number 91-4632, Brighton Hall Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Brighton"), is a general partnership. Prior to March 6, 1990, Brighton owned and operated West Bay Nursing Center (hereinafter referred to as "West Bay"), a 120-bed nursing home in Oldsmar, Florida. The Petitioner in case number 91-4634, Shive Nursing Centers, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Shive Nursing"), is a corporation. Prior to March 6, 1990, Shive Nursing owned and operated Sunset Point Nursing Center (hereinafter referred to as "Sunset Point"), a 120-bed nursing home located in Clearwater, Florida. The Petitioner in case numbers 91-4635 and 91-4636, GHF, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "GHF"), is a corporation. Prior to March 6, 1990, GHF owned and operated Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center (hereinafter referred to as "Oakhurst") and Orchard Ridge Nursing Center (hereinafter referred to as "Orchard Ridge"), two 120-bed nursing homes located in Ocala and New Port Richey, Florida, respectively. The Petitioner in case number 4637, Springwood Nursing Center, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Springwood"), is a Florida limited partnership. Prior to March 6, 1990, Springwood owned and operated Springwood Nursing Center, a 120-bed nursing home located in Sarasota, Florida. All of the Petitioners owned and operated nursing homes which participated in the Florida Medicaid program, provided services to Medicaid patients and received reimbursement for Medicaid services from the Respondent. The Respondent in these cases, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with administering the Florida Medicaid program. The Florida Medicaid Program. The Florida Medicaid program is a program for the reimbursement of the costs of providing medical care to certain patients in Florida. The State of Florida enters into contracts with nursing homes for the treatment of Medicaid patients. Nursing homes agree to provide medical care and the State of Florida agrees to reimburse the nursing homes on a per diem basis for those services. One of the components of costs which are considered in determining the Medicaid per diem rate is the property cost component. Included within the property cost component is a reimbursement for depreciation expense. Generally, depreciation is the allocation of the cost of certain assets over the useful life of those assets. For example, if an asset cost $100,000.00 and it will be useful for 10 years, it is reasonable to assume that 10% of its cost, or $10,000.00, will be attributable to each year of the asset's useful life. Only assets considered to have a limited useful life are considered depreciable. For Medicaid purposes, those assets generally include tangible assets, such as buildings, equipment and furnishings. Land is not a depreciable asset. Medicaid recognizes that assets with a limited useful life which are used in providing medical services constitute part of the costs which should be reimbursed to providers of Medicaid services. Therefore, depreciation expense is included as part of the property component of the Medicaid per diem reimbursement rate. Sale of the Nursing Home Facilities. When a change of ownership of a nursing home facility which has participated in the Florida Medicaid program takes place, the nursing home terminates its participation in the Medicaid program. Any amounts which were paid for depreciation to the former owner of a nursing home may be recovered (hereinafter referred to as "depreciation recapture"). Depreciation recapture may occur to the extent that there is a gain realized by the former owner of the nursing home facility on the sale of the facility's depreciable assets. There is a gain realized on the sale of depreciable assets when the amount received for a depreciable asset exceeds the net book value (cost less accumulated depreciation) of the asset. To the extent that a gain is realized on the sale of a depreciable asset, the owner may be receiving a reimbursement for amounts the Medicaid program has already paid the owner for depreciation. On or about November 29, 1989, Brighton, Shive Nursing and GHF entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Krupp I, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, for the sale of West Bay, Sunset Point, Oakhurst and Orchard Ridge. On or about November 29, 1989, Springwood entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Krupp Yield Plus Limited Partnership, a Massachusetts limited partnership, for the sale of Springwood Nursing Center. The sale of the five nursing home facilities was part of the sale of nine facilities by the principal owner of the facilities. The November 29, 1989, Asset Purchase Agreements referenced in findings of fact 22 and 23 (hereinafter referred to as the "Asset Purchase Agreements"), included as an attachment a schedule titled the "Purchase Price Allocation" allocating the purchase price to the assets of each nursing home facility sold. The total purchase price of $42,239,650.00 was allocated on the Purchase Price Allocation among the nine nursing homes and the corporate offices which were the subject of the sale. The purchase price allocated to each nursing home facility was further allocated on the Purchase Price Allocation to the various assets of each facility, including land (a non-depreciable asset), buildings and improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment, computer software, supplies and inventory, certificate of need, patient lists, covenant not to compete, assembled work force, favorable lease and enterprise/going concern. The closing of the Asset Purchase Agreements took place on March 6, 1990. The Department's Treatment of the Sale of the Nursing Home Facilities. When the Department was informed of the sale of the five nursing home facilities at issue in this proceeding, the Department made a determination of whether depreciation recapture was due on the sale. The Department, in determining the amount of gain on the sale, utilized the amounts allocated to the various depreciable assets of each nursing home facility on the Purchase Price Allocation as the amount realized for those assets. The amount realized for depreciable assets reported by the Petitioners less the net book value for the depreciable assets was determined to be the gain realized on the sale of the Petitioners' nursing homes facilities. This gain, which was less than the depreciation of the depreciable assets, was determined to be the amount subject to depreciation recapture. After calculating the amount of depreciation recapture for each facility, the Department notified each Petitioner by letter that depreciation recapture was due in the following amounts: Date of Letter Petitioner Recapture June 25, 1991 Brighton $175,627.00 June 5, 1991 Shive Nursing 94,631.00 June 15, 1991 GHF (Oakhurst) 278,169.00 June 14, 1991 GHF (Orchard) 115,492.00 June 7, 1991 Springwood 231,320.00 On July 5, 1991, the Petitioners challenged the Department's proposed action. Following discussions with Department officials by a representative of the Petitioners, the Department amended the amount of depreciation recapture on October 10, 1991, by reducing the amount of recapture for the following Petitioners: Petitioner Recapture Reduction Brighton $3,485.00 Shive Nursing 69,370.00 GHF (Orchard) 36.00 The parties stipulated that these proceedings would take into account these amended amounts and a Motion for Leave to Amend Letter Requesting Depreciation Recapture was granted by Order entered October 23, 1991. The Manner in Which the Department Determined the Amount of Depreciation Recapture. Rule 10C-7.0482, Florida Administrative Code, provides the framework for the operation of the Medicaid program in Florida. This Rule specifically incorporates Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan, Version IV, as a part of the Rule. The manner in which depreciation recapture is determined by the Department is governed by Section III.H.1. of Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan, Version IV (hereinafter referred to as "Title XIX"), which provides, in pertinent part: Recapture of depreciation resulting from sale of assets. The sale of depreciable assets, or substantial portion thereof, at a price in excess of the cost of the property as reduced by accumulated depreciation, resulting in a gain on sale, and calculated in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, indicates the fact that depreciation used for the purpose of computing allowable costs was greater than the actual economic depreciation. . . . The gross recapture amount shall be the lesser of the actual gain on the sale allocated to the periods during which depreciation was paid or the accumulated depreciation after the effective date of January 1, 1972 and prior to the implementation of payments based on FRVS to the facility. . . . [Emphasis added]. The terms "Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement", are defined in Section IX of Title XIX as "Health Insurance for the Aged, Blind or Disabled (Medicare), as provided in the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395- 1395pp)." Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, do not contain specific provisions governing how gain on a sale of depreciable assets is to be calculated. The federal regulations to implement Medicare (Title XVIII), however, including the following: (iv) If a provider sells more than one asset for a lump sum sales price, the gain or loss on the sale of each depreciable asset must be determined by allocating the lump sum sales price among all the assets sold, in accordance with the fair market value of each asset as it was used by the provider at the time of sale. If the buyer and seller cannot agree on an allocation of the sales price, or if they do agree but there is insufficient documentation of the current fair market value of each asset, the intermediary for the selling provider will require an expert to establish the fair market value of each asset and will make an allocation of the sales price in accordance with the appraisal. 42 C.F.R. 413.134(f)(2)(iv). The Department of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for administering the federal Medicaid program, has also promulgated a Provider Reimbursement Manual for guidance in the federal Medicare reimbursement program. Of pertinence to this proceeding is Chapter One, Section 104.14.B, which contains language similar to the provisions of 42 C.F.R. 413.134(f)(2)(iv), quoted in finding of fact 38. The terms "fair market value" are defined in Medicare (Title XVIII), as follows: Fair market value is the price that the asset would bring by bona fide bargaining between well-informed buyers and sellers at the date of acquisition. Usually the fair market value is the price that bona fide sales have been consummated for assets of like type, quality, and quantity in a particular market at the time of acquisition. 42 U.S.C. 413.134(b)(2). The federal regulations implementing Medicare (Title XVIII), and the Provider Reimbursement Manual are not specifically incorporated by reference in the Department's rules or in Title XIX. As a matter of policy, the Department relies upon the federal regulations and the Provider Reimbursement Manual in determining the amount of gain on the sale of depreciable assets. To the extent that an issue involving depreciation recapture is not resolved by the foregoing rules and policies, the Department relies on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. These policies are reasonable. The Department, in applying 42 C.F.R. 413.134(f)(2)(iv), treats a written allocation of the sales price between a buyer and a seller included in a sales and purchase agreement as sufficient documentation of the fair market value of each asset sold. Absent other evidence which would cause some question about the reasonableness of relying upon such an allocation, this policy is reasonable. Absent such contrary evidence, there is no reason why the Department should not assume that the parties to a sales and purchase agreement have reached an arms length agreement as to the fair market value of the assets being sold and that a schedule or other document setting out the agreement of the parties is sufficient documentation of that agreement. In this case, the Department has utilized a written allocation of the sales price (the Purchase Price Allocation) to determine gain on the sales at issue despite other documentation indicating that the allocated amounts may not constitute fair market value and raising a question as to whether the Purchase Price Allocation is sufficient documentation. It may be reasonable for the Department to conclude that a sale of assets does not involve "insufficient documentation" if the only evidence of the allocation of the sales price to the assets being sold is a written allocation of the sales price included as part of the sales and purchase agreement. But where other documentation of the fair market value of the assets is provided to the Department which is inconsistent with the written allocation included in the sales and purchase agreement, it is unreasonable for the Department to ignore that additional evidence. Absent a specific rule to the contrary, if other documentation is provided to the Department that calls into question the accuracy of a written allocation of the sales price, the Department should review and consider that documentation in determining whether the written allocation alone constitutes "insufficient documentation". In this case, the Department reasonably relied upon the Purchase Price Allocation originally provided to it to determine the amount of depreciation recapture. It was not reasonable, however, for the Department to ignore appraisals of the depreciable assets at issue performed on behalf of the Petitioners or to ignore other information concerning industry averages for new nursing home equipment in Florida on a per bed basis once this information was provided to the Department. Information Provided by the Petitioners. The Petitioners do not dispute that the Department is entitled to depreciation recapture on the sale of the facilities at issue in this proceeding. They dispute the amount of depreciation recapture, however. During the hearing of these cases, evidence was presented concerning industry averages for new nursing home equipment in Florida: generally, a Florida nursing home facility can be equipped with new equipment for $1,500.00 to $3,500.00 per bed. The cost of equipping the nursing home facilities at issue in these cases with used equipment based upon the allocation of values included in the Purchase Price Allocation is between $8,000.00 and $10,000.00. During 1988 and early 1989, prior to the time that the Asset Purchase Agreements were entered into, Craig Smith, appraised twelve nursing home facilities, including the nursing home facilities at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Smith holds a M.A.I. (Member Appraisal Institute) designation. The appraisals conducted by Mr. Smith were provided to the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification as required by Rule 10D- 29.103, Florida Administrative Code. The appraisals were provided by the purchasers of the nursing home facilities as part of the process of obtaining a license from the Department to operate the nursing homes facilities. The Department did not, however, rely upon or take into account the appraisals in determining the amount of depreciation recapture even though they were provided to the office responsible for making that determination. The Department, for purposes of determining the amount of recapture relied only on the Asset Purchase Agreement. The disparity between the amounts allocated to the depreciable assets of the nursing home facilities in the Purchase Price Allocation and the appraised values is significant. Based upon the weight of the evidence, the appraisals conducted by Mr. Smith and his determination of the fair market value of the depreciable assets of the nursing home facilities at issue in this proceeding are more reflective of the fair market value of those assets. The Petitioners presented evidence as to the amount of depreciation recapture which should be paid to the Department based upon the appraised value of the assets at issue in this proceeding. These amounts were not refuted by the Department. The amount of depreciation recapture the Department may reasonably receive from the Petitioners, based upon appraised fair market value, is as follows: Petitioner Recapture Brighton $ 95,915.00 Shive Nursing 27,502.00 GHF (Oakhurst) 229,222.00 GHF (Orchard) 78,141.00 Springwood 161,762.00 The Treatment of the Purchaser of Nursing Home Facilities. Prior to the change of ownership of a nursing home facility in Florida which intends to continue participating in the Medicaid program, the new owner must file an application with the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification for approval of the change and issuance of a license to operate the facility. Among the things to be reported by the new owner, is a fair market value appraisal of the nursing homes assets conducted by an appraisal expert. This requirement is specified, however, by the specific provisions of Rule 10D- 29.103(7)(i)9.b., Florida Administrative Code. This Rule does not specifically apply to the determination of depreciation recapture. The amount (known as "basis") which may be used by the new owner in the determination of the amount of depreciation expense entering into the new owner's per diem reimbursement rate is determined by a comparison of the fair market value appraisal required by Rule 10D-29.103(7)(i)9.b., Florida Administrative Code, the sales contract price and the cost of the facility for the owner of the facility on July 18, 1984. The manner utilized by the Department in its determination of depreciation recapture on the sale of a nursing home facility and the determination of the basis for the assets of the same facility for the new owner pursuant to Rule 10D-29.103, Florida Administrative Code, can result in the use of different amounts as the amount paid for those assets. In light of the conclusion concerning the invalidity of the Department's policy in these cases, it is not necessary to determine whether the Department's difference in treatment of the Petitioners and the buyers of the Petitioners' nursing homes was improper.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department requiring the Petitioners to pay to the Department the amounts set our in finding of fact 55 as depreciation recapture owed as a result of the sale of depreciable assets utilized by the Petitioners in the Florida Medicaid program. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1992, 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 20th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX Case Number 91-4632 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. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2, 9 and hereby accepted. 2 3-4, 9 and hereby accepted. 3 5-6, 9 and hereby accepted. 4 7-9 and hereby accepted. 5 10 and hereby accepted. 6 11-12 and hereby accepted. 7 See 13-14. 8-11 Not relevant. 12 35. 13 15-16. 14 13-14 and 16. 15 18-19. 16 56 and hereby accepted. 17 57. 18 58. 19 19. 20 20-21. 21 36. 22 Hereby accepted. 23 Not relevant. 24 See 36-41. 25 See 38-39. 26 41. 27 42. 28 22-25. 29 50 and hereby accepted. 30 25. 31 26-28. 32 Not relevant. 33 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 34-35 Not relevant. 36-37 51. 38 32. 39 34 and hereby accepted. 40 34. 41 33. 42 42-44. 43 38-39. 44 40. 45 42-43. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding. 46 43. 47 52 48-51 Not relevant to this proceeding. 52-54 See 42-47. 55 49 and 51. 56 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 57 49 and 52. 58 See 42-47. 59 Hereby accepted. 60 42-47 and 54-55. 61 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 62 See 42-47 and 54-55. 63 Not relevant to this proceeding. 64-65 54-55. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2, 5-8, 14-16 Summary of some of the rulings during the final hearing. Facts which primarily relate to credibility or weight of the evidence. 3 9. 4 48. 9 30-31 and 43-44. 10-13 See 43 and 45-47. 17-19 See 30-31 and 43-44. 20 32. 21 30-32. 22 42. 23 38. 24 Hereby accepted. 25-26 See 43 and 45-52. 27 30-31. 28 43. 29 Not relevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Wiley, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gordon B. Scott, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 230 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Rule 59C-1.036 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and; Whether the Agency's application form and scoring system utilized in the review of nursing home batch certificate of need applications constitute rules of the Agency as the term "rule" is defined in Section 120.52(16), employed in violation of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes (1993) and; Whether the disputed form and scoring system constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The disputed rule in this case is Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, which provides in pertinent part: The community nursing home beds subject to the provisions of this rule include beds licensed by the agency in accordance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and beds licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, which are located in a distinct part of a hospital that is Medicare certified as a skilled nursing unit. All proposals for community nursing home beds will be comparatively reviewed consistent with the requirements of Subsection 408.39(1), Florida Statutes, and consistent with the batching cycles for nursing home projects described in paragraph 59C-1.008(1)(l), Florida Administrative Code. The challenged rule is entitled "Community Nursing Home Beds," and also includes the "need methodology" for determining the need for community nursing home beds and specifically: regulates the construction of new community nursing home beds, the addition of new community nursing home beds, and the conversion of other health care facility bed types to community nursing home beds... Also pertinent to this case, the challenged rule provides: The Agency will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any agency service subdistrict if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that agency subdistrict to exceed the numeric need for community nursing home beds, as determined consistent with the methodology described in paragraphs (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this rule. The challenged rule has the effect of, among other things, requiring nursing homes and hospitals who seek to operate skilled nursing facility beds to file applications for community nursing home beds in the same batching cycle, compete against each other for those beds in nursing home subdistricts and be subject to the need methodology applicable to nursing home beds. The Agency has not developed a need methodology specifically for Medicare certified distinct part skilled nursing units. In 1980, the Agency's predecessor, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, attempted to promulgate rules with the same effect of the rules challenged in this case. In Venice Hospital, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 14 FALR 1220 (DOAH 1990) 1/ the Hearing Officer found the challenged rule in that case to be invalid and concluded, as a matter of law, that, with respect to the previous proposed rule: The competent, substantial evidence shows that these proposed rules are not reasonable or practical and will lead to an illogical result. There exists an inadequate factual or legal basis to support the forced inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing beds into the community nursing bed inventory. In the 1990 challenge to the previously proposed rule, the Hearing Officer concluded that the proposed rule in question was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, but also found that, from a health planning standpoint, reasons existed for and against the inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. In the instant proceedings, the Agency concedes that the challenged rule and the previous proposed rule are substantially identical. In this case, the parties defending the challenged rule presented several facts, many of which seek to establish changed circumstances since 1990, as evidence of a rational basis for the inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. Facts Established Which Arguably Support the Validity of the Challenged Rule Although the term "subacute care" does not have a generally accepted definition, this term is often applied to that care provided patients in skilled nursing units. Subacute care is an emerging and developing area of care which covers patients whose medical and clinical needs are higher than would be found in a traditional nursing home setting, but not so intense as to require an acute medical/surgical hospital bed. Subacute care is a level of care that is being developed to bridge a gap between hospital and traditional nursing home care and to lower the cost of care to the health delivery system. Both hospitals and nursing homes operate Medicare-certified distinct part skilled nursing facility units. The same criteria, including admissions criteria, staffing requirements and reimbursement methodologies, apply to such skilled nursing units, in hospitals and freestanding nursing homes. The patient population served in such units is primarily a population which comes to either a hospital or nursing home-based unit from an acute care hospital stay. This population group has a short length of stay in the Medicare distinct part unit and can be rehabilitated within a certain period of time. Skilled nursing units in hospitals and those in freestanding nursing homes are competing for the same patient population. Both hospitals and nursing homes are aggressively entering the subacute care market. There are some nursing homes which provide a level of subacute care equal to that provided by hospitals. As a general rule, the staffing, clinical programs, patient acuity and costs of care for patients do not substantially vary between skilled nursing units in hospitals and such units in freestanding nursing homes. In the past two or three years, the number of Florida nursing homes which compete for skilled unit patients has increased. In applications for skilled nursing unit beds, the services proposed by hospitals and those proposed by nursing homes are generally similar. Medicare-certified distinct part units in both freestanding nursing homes and hospitals are certified to provide the same nursing services. The types of services and equipment provided by hospital skilled nursing units and nursing home skilled nursing units are similar. There has been an increase in subacute care in the past five years. The average length of stay for patients treated in Medicare-certified distinct part nursing units in hospitals and in such units located in freestanding nursing homes is similar. The federal eligibility requirement for Medicare patients in hospital- based and in freestanding nursing home distinct part skilled nursing units are the same. Some skilled nursing units which are located in nursing homes have historically received patient referrals from hospitals. When these referring hospitals develop distinct part Medicare certified skilled nursing units, the nursing home skilled nursing units tend to experience a decline in occupancy. Uniform need methodology is developed in part based upon demographic characteristics of potential patient population. Nursing home bed need methodology utilizes changes in population by age groups over age 65 to project need for beds. Both hospital-based skilled nursing units and nursing home-based units serve substantial numbers of Medicare-eligible patients who are 65 years of age and older. Population health status is also utilized in developing uniform need methodologies. The health status of service population for Medicare units in freestanding nursing homes is, as a general rule, the same as the health status of population served in such units located in hospitals. The intent behind the process of reviewing CON applications from hospitals seeking skilled nursing unit beds and nursing homes seeking such beds is to reduce the risk of overbedding and duplication of services. Overbedding and duplication of services have the tendency to result in excessive costs and can result in deterioration of quality of care. Medicare admissions to nursing homes and Medicare revenue to nursing homes have increased in the past several years. Data also indicates that nursing homes are beginning to provide more intensive care for patients in skilled nursing units. The prevalence of freestanding nursing home Medicare-certified skilled nursing units has substantially increased in the past three years and this growth trend is expected to continue. Facts Established Which Demonstrate That the Challenged Rule Should be Declared Invalid The challenged rule requires a hospital seeking Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds to be comparatively reviewed with nursing home applications seeking all types of nursing home beds. There is no separate nursing home licensure bed category for skilled nursing unit beds. The Agency's inventories of freestanding nursing home beds do not identify Medicare-certified skilled nursing beds. Once an applicant to construct a nursing home opens the nursing home, the applicant does not need a separate CON to designate beds as a Medicare- certified skilled nursing unit. According to the AHCA's own witness, a freestanding nursing home can internally change its categories at any time without CON review. Pursuant to statute and agency rule, however, hospitals must obtain a CON to change the category of even one bed. 2/ Although a hospital seeking hospital licensed Medicare-certified skilled nursing beds is compelled by Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, to compete against all nursing home applicants and all nursing home beds in a batched review, it faces totally different standards of construction, operation and staffing after approval. Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code, is the nursing home bed need formula. This formula does not result in an estimate of need for skilled nursing unit beds and projects need for total community nursing home beds only. There is currently no bed need methodology (hospital or nursing home) to ascertain the need for Medicare certified skilled nursing unit beds. The Agency's inventories of freestanding nursing home beds do not separately identify Medicare-certified skilled nursing home beds in nursing homes. All that is shown is whether the beds are "community nursing home beds" or "sheltered nursing home beds." The Agency has not established how, under this inventory and regulatory scheme, it controls overbedding in Medicare- certified skilled nursing units within a specific district or subdistrict since the only such beds shown on the inventories are those in hospitals. It is unreasonable and illogical to compare the need for hospital- based Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds with the need for all community nursing home beds. Under the present circumstances a reasonable comparison might be drawn between need for hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds and freestanding nursing home skilled nursing unit beds, but the AHCA rules do not currently provide for such a comparison. Determining the need for hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds by comparing such beds to all nursing unit beds constitutes poor health planning. Such hospital-based skilled nursing units do not provide similar services to similar patients when compared to all community nursing home beds and it is neither logical or reasonable to comparatively review the need for such services. The challenged rule also requires hospital applicants for skilled nursing unit beds to compete with nursing homes within the nursing home subdistrict. The Agency by rule divides districts differently for nursing homes than for hospitals. Thus, some hospitals' skilled nursing unit beds are comparatively reviewed against nursing home beds of all kinds and against hospital skilled nursing beds which are not within the same hospital subdistrict. As a general statement, the treatment profiles for patients in Medicare-certified skilled nursing units in hospitals and those for patients in nursing homes skilled nursing units are similar. There is, however, a distinct part of such patient population which must be treated in a setting which provides immediate access to emergency care. The provision of immediate emergency care is not typically available in nursing homes and nursing home patients in need of such care usually have to be readmitted to hospitals. Care available in hospitals (physicians and registered nurses on duty at all times, laboratory and radiation services available on premises) is sufficiently different to demonstrate that Medicare-certified skilled nursing units are not comparable to such units in freestanding nursing homes in all aspects. This distinction is clearly significant to patients who need emergency services because of age, multiple illnesses, and other conditions. Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, is the hospital licensure statute. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, provides: The Agency shall issue a license which specifies the service categories and the number of hospital beds in each category for which a license is received. Such information shall be listed on the face of the license. All which are not covered by any specialty-bed-need methodology shall be specified as general beds. The Agency equates "acute care" beds with general beds. By rule, the Agency has excluded from the definition of "acute care bed": neonatal intensive care beds comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds hospital inpatient psychiatric beds hospital inpatient substance abuse beds beds in distinct part skilled nursing units, and beds in long term care hospitals licensed pursuant to Part I, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. By Agency rule, a hospital specialty need methodology exists for all categories of hospital beds excluded from the acute care bed definition except category (e) beds in distinct part skilled nursing units and (f) long term care beds. The Agency is currently drafting a specialty hospital bed need methodology for long term care beds. The only licensed bed category for which the Agency has developed no specialty bed need methodology (existing or in process) is hospital beds in distinct part skilled nursing units. At hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of Elfie Stamm who was accepted as an expert in health planning and certificate of need policy analysis. Through Ms. Stamm's testimony, the Agency attempted to establish that the numeric need methodology established by the challenged rule includes a calculation of the need for both nursing home and hospital-based distinct part skilled nursing units. This testimony was not persuasive on this point. Indeed, Ms. Stamm acknowledged that the disputed rule does not result in an estimate of need for skilled nursing units or beds. The parties to this proceeding have attempted to establish that Medicare admission statistics in Florida support either the validity or invalidity of the challenged rule. Based upon the Medicare-related statistical data placed in the record in this case, it is more likely than not that, as of 1992, in excess of 90 percent of utilization of hospital-based skilled nursing units is Medicare covered and that the percentage of Medicare (as opposed to Medicaid) patient days in all freestanding nursing home beds was only seven percent. In this respect, it is not logical or reasonable to comparatively review the need for hospital-based Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds with all community nursing home beds. 47. The Agency lists Sections 408.15(8), 408.34(3)(5), 408.39(4)(a) and 400.71(7), Florida Statutes, as specific statutory authority for the challenged rule. None of the cited statutory provisions provides specific authority for the Agency to require hospitals seeking hospital licensed beds in Medicare- certified skilled nursing units to be reviewed against all community nursing home beds. There is no evidence of record in this case of any federal law requiring such review and no evidence to suggest that Medicare reimbursement is affected by such a review one way or the other. In this case, the competent, substantial evidence shows that the disputed rule is not reasonable or rational. The Agency has not developed a specific numerical need methodology providing for a reasonable and rational basis to comparatively review the need for Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds in hospitals or in nursing homes. There exists an inadequate factual or legal basis to support the forced inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units into the inventory of all community nursing home beds. Form 1455A Agency Form 1455A and the scoring methodology are used by the Agency in the review of applications for community nursing home beds and for skilled nursing facilities within distinct parts of a hospital. Various parties in this proceeding assert the Form 1455A and the scoring methodology constitute unpromulgated rules which are invalid pursuant to Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. Any party filing a letter of intent concerning community nursing home beds receives from the Agency an application package including Form 1455A and instructions. The instructions are an integral part of the application. Also included as part of the application are 34 pages of instructions on how the Agency scores the application. Form 1455A has general applicability to all applicants for community nursing home beds and for skilled nursing home facilities within distinct parts of a hospital. Form 1455A contains numerous provisions of mandatory language which facially provides that it must be submitted with applications for CON. The Agency acknowledges that such mandatory language predated the passage of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, and considers the language obsolete. The Agency intends, in the future, to edit the form to strike "misleading language". Form 1455A is not incorporated in any rule of the Agency and has not been promulgated as a rule. Applications are reviewed based upon questions in Form 1455A. Applications are also reviewed against a numerical scoring system developed with the form. The form requires that the applicant certify that it will obtain a license to operate a nursing home. The form also requires certification that the applicant participate in Medicaid services which are not applicable to hospitals. These and other portions of the form are not rationally or reasonably related to the operation of a hospital-based distinct part skilled nursing unit. In the review and analysis of the applications at issue, a "scoring methodology" is used by the Agency. The scoring matrix is utilized to put numerous applications filed in the same agency district in perspective in terms of numerical ranking and how the applications compare to each other. The State Agency Action Report is the end product of the Agency review of the applications. The scoring system is used in the review proceedings and is utilized and included in at least some of the State Agency Action Reports. Form 1455A and the scoring methodology are utilized by the Agency in a manner that has general application and which forms significant components of a process which creates rights, and which implements, interprets, and prescribes law and Agency policy. At the final hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of Ms. Elizabeth Dudek, the Agency Chief of the Certificate of Need and budget review offices. Ms. Dudek was accepted as an expert in CON policy and procedure. Ms. Dudek provided an overview of the process whereby the challenged form and scoring system are used by the Agency in analyzing CON applications. Ms. Dudek testified that the Agency does not believe the form and scoring system meet the requirements of a rule. Ms. Dudek considers the form and system to be tools used to elicit responses in a standardized format. The fact that an application receives a high score based on the scoring matrix does not mean that the application will be approved. Ms. Dudek is of the opinion that the form and scoring system do not competitively disadvantage hospitals competing with nursing homes. Ms. Dudek cited the most recent batch cycle in which twelve hospitals were awarded distinct part nursing units, although these hospitals' applications did not receive the highest scores. Ms. Dudek's testimony was not persuasive in the above-referenced areas. As currently structured and utilized by the Agency, the form and the scoring system at issue are not reasonable or rational. There is not an adequate factual or legal basis to support the use of the form or the scoring system in analyzing applications for CON files by hospitals for distinct part Medicare-certified skilled nursing units.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Marian Block (hereafter Respondent M. Block) is a licensed nursing home administrator having been issued license number 000 0389. The Respondent Henry L. Block (hereafter Respondent H. Block) is a licensed nursing home administrator having been issued license number 000 0923. The last known address of Respondent M. Block is Box 1387, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. The last known address of Respondent H. Block is 1511 Club Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. From May 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981, the Respondent H. Block served as nursing home administrator of the Royal Palm Convalescent Center, 2180 Tenth Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. From May 1, 1980 through July 1, 1981, Respondent M. Block owned an interest in the Royal Palm Convalescent Center, 2180 Tenth Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. In February 1974, the Respondent M. Block met Mrs. Helen Sumpter, a neighbor residing in a condominium in Dunedin, Florida, where the Respondent and her husband also resided part of the year. The Respondent M. Block, Helen Sumpter and Helen's husband, Howard, became personal friends during the ensuing years. While living at the Dunedin condominium, Mrs. Sumpter, a retired registered nurse, confided in the Respondent M. Block that she had leukemia of the lymph glands. Since Mrs. Sumpter did not have a physician in Dunedin, the Respondent M. Block, through her physician in Vero Beach, obtained the services of a physician for Mrs. Sumpter. In the early part of May 1980, Mrs. Sumpter informed the Respondent M. Block that she felt she would be better off living in the nursing home owned by the Respondent M. Block and administered by her son, Respondent H. Block, rather than living alone in the Dunedin condominium which she had occupied with her now deceased husband. On May 23, 1980, Mrs. Sumpter told the Respondent M. Block that she desired to return that weekend with the Respondent and her husband to Vero Beach where she could be admitted to Royal Palm Convalescent Center. The decision to move to Vero Beach and be admitted to the Center was a voluntary act of Mrs. Sumpter which was precipitated by her serious medical problem and the death of her husband. She arrived at this decision without conferring wish any family members, all of whom lived outside of Florida. While Mrs. Sumpter was packing her personal belongings for the move to Vero Beach, she gave the Respondent M. Block several items of personal property including a chair and a stereo. These gifts occurred prior to Mrs. Sumpter's admission to the Center. The Respondent M. Block left these items in her Dunedin condominium and when she learned that Helen's family wanted the items returned, she boxed them and took them to the manager's office where they were picked up by Mary Powers, Helen's sister. Mrs. Sumpter was admitted to Royal Palm Convalescent Center on May 27, 1980 at 3:15 p.m. Less than twenty-four hours later, she was discharged from the Center on physician's orders and admitted to Indian River Memorial Hospital. Mrs. Sumpter remained in the hospital from May 28, 1980, until June 5, 1980, when she was readmitted to the Center from the hospital. She remained at the Center until June 13, 1980, and was readmitted that same day to Indian River Memorial Hospital where she died on Saturday, June 14, 1980. On Sunday, June 1, 1980, George Somerville, the nephew of Helen Sumpter, telephoned the Respondent M. Block who informed him that the lease on Sumpter's Dunedin apartment had ended on May 31, 1980, and any personal effects had to be removed as soon as possible. Somerville, accompanied by two of his uncles, traveled to Dunedin on June 6, 1980 and packed Mrs. Sumpter's furniture and personal items in a pickup truck and drove back to the family farm in Virginia. Upon being admitted to the Center, Helen Sumpter's stock certificates and other items of intangible personal property were placed in the nursing home's safe. While a patient at Indian River Memorial Hospital, Helen Sumpter saw attorney Samuel Block and executed a power of attorney in favor of the Respondent M. Block. Both of the witnesses to the power of attorney were employees at Indian River Memorial Hospital. The Respondent M. Block never used the power of attorney and never acted as attorney in fact for Helen Sumpter. When Somerville arrived at the Center to inquire concerning his aunt, the Respondent M. Block disclosed that she had been given power of attorney by Helen Sumpter and immediately gave the original power of attorney document to him. Upon the death of Helen Sumpter, the Respondent M. Block made the necessary funeral arrangements and, pursuant to her will, had the body delivered to the Medical School at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. One of the items which the Respondent M. Block disposed of for Helen Sumpter while she was a resident at the Center was a white cowhide suitcase which she had received from her deceased husband on their first anniversary. The Respondent M. Block took the suitcase and other personal items that Mrs. Sumpter no longer had room for to the Hospital Auxiliary Thrift Shop of the Indian River Memorial Hospital. The Respondent M. Block had a letter of tax deduction sent to the estate for the charitable donation. Sometime later, Mary Powers, Helen Sumpter's sister, came to the Center and wanted the suitcase. The Respondent M. Block went to the Thrift Shop, retrieved the suitcase and gave it to Powers. Regarding the stock certificates and other items of intangible personal property which Mrs. Sumpter brought to the Center, there was no testimony or credible demonstrative evidence introduced that this property was mishandled by either of the Respondents. When Somerville first visited his aunt at the Center, and inquired about her property, the Respondent M. Block took out of the safe Sumpter's property for his inspection. All of the intangible personal property belonging to Helen Sumpter in the possession of the Respondent M. Block was delivered to Somerville upon the death of his aunt. The Respondent M. Block was also joint signatory on a checking account opened by Helen Sumpter on June 2, 1980, at the First National Bank, Vero Beach, Florida, bearing account number 0000-40-116-6. On June 20, 1980, the Respondent M. Block prepared bank check number 108, on account number 0000-40-116-6, in the amount of $12,330.01 and payable to George Somerville III, as personal representative of the estate of Helen Sumpter. This check, number 108, which closed out the account, was the only check signed by the Respondent M. Block on the joint account. When she arrived at the Center, Mrs. Sumpter owned an automobile which she desired to dispose of since it was no longer needed. The wife of Respondent H. Block bought the car from Mrs. Sumpter for $1,500. No evidence was introduced at the hearing that the purchase price of $1,500 was less than the fair market value of the car or that Mrs. Sumpter was coerced, either directly or indirectly, to sell the car to Mrs. Block. Although the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints filed against both Respondents are identical, the only testimony at the final hearing concerning Respondent H. Block's involvement with Helen Sumpter involved his wife's purchase of Sumpter's automobile. The actions of the Respondent M. Block toward Sumpter were based on their long-standing close friendship. With the exception of Helen Sumpter, no patient at the Center has ever granted the Respondent M. Block a power of attorney.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: That the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Marion Block, Case No. 82-2331, be dismissed; and That the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Henry L. Block, Case No. 82-2332, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sherman N. Smith III, Esquire REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY 885 Dahlia Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Mildred Gardner, Executive Director Board of Nursing Home Administrators Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns property in Dade County, Florida, located at 47 Northwest 32nd Place, Miami, Florida. Improvements have been erected on the property. The Petitioner leases the property and improvements to Flordean Nursing Home, Inc., a Florida corporation. The corporation operates a skilled nursing home on the premises, and pays a monthly rent of five hundred dollars to the Petitioner for the exclusive occupation of the property and improvements. The Petitioner is the president and majority stockholder of the corporation, and the administrator of the nursing home. The nursing home is licensed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The corporation provides extended care treatment and skilled nursing home services to its clients or patients. The clients pay a single charge for the services which include a room, nursing care, laundry, meals, activities, and medical attentions. Activities include movies, religious services, birthday and other holiday celebrations, and similar functions. The corporation does not and has never simply rented a room to any client. The nursing home is a commercial venture for profit, and it in fact makes a profit. The average age of the nursing home guests is 84. Typically they are admitted through physicians. They become permanent residents. They receive their mail at the home and typically do not leave until they die. The average stay is three years, five months. At the time of hearing the nursing home housed 52 guests in 19 rooms. The rooms are private, semiprivate and three in a room. The petitioner applied for a certificate of registration from the Florida Department of Revenue in June, 1968. The certificate was issued under sales tax number 23-08-102316-82. The Petitioner has paid sales taxes on the monthly rental payments that she has received from the corporation. She is seeking a refund of these taxes for the period from March 1, 1972 through and including May 30, 1978. The corporation does not collect sales taxes from the nursing home guests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order denying the petitioner's refund application. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Rm. LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jack R. Rice, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 350838 2424 N. W. First Street Miami, Florida 33135
