Findings Of Fact Petitioners Flagler and St. Augustine have each applied for a CON to establish an inpatient cardiac catheter-ization program within HRS Service District IV. Each had the opportunity of responding to HRS' "omissions letter" for the cure of certain initial flaws. However, in its preliminary review of the applications, HRS denied both applicants and this proceeding followed. HRS initially denied Flagler's application, stating it had only partially complied with Sections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (i), (l), (n), and (2)(b) and (d) F.S. (1989) and Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)4.a, 4.c., and 8.b. F.A.C. HRS initially denied St. Augustine's application, stating it had only partially complied with Sections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (h), (i), (l), (n), and 2(b) and (d) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)4.a., 4.c., and 8.b. F.A.C. and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any compliance with Sections 381.705(1)(m) and (2)(a) F.S. Prior to formal hearing, the parties stipulated that there is a numerical need under Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)8. F.A.C. for one additional inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in HRS District IV for the applicable planning horizon for these applications. That planning horizon is January 1992. The parties further stipulated that both applicants have provided quality care; that, except for existing inpatient catheterization laboratories, there are no alternatives to the proposed facilities; that health manpower and management personnel are available for operation of the proposed programs; that the salaries listed on each application are reasonable; that the costs and methods of construction proposed are reasonable; that either applicant, if approved, would meet the scope of services, hours of operation, and health personnel requirements of Rule 10-5.011(1)(e) F.A.C.; and that St. Luke's Hospital in Jacksonville provides open heart surgery and is within one-half hour ambulance travel time from either applicant. It was also stipulated at formal hearing that the equipment costs proposed by both applicants are reasonable and that the costs of construction, as proposed in the applications, are reasonable. Facilities operated by Flagler Hospital, Inc. and St. Augustine General Hospital, L.P. are located in the city of St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida. The two facilities are less than 500 yards apart and, for all practical purposes, are directly across U.S. 1 from one another. Both facilities are 115-bed general acute care hospitals providing the same services except that Flagler provides obstetrics and St. Augustine does not. The service areas of the two hospitals consist of the five zip codes immediately surrounding the two facilities as the primary service area and St. Johns County, except the Ponte Vedra area, as the secondary service area. Flagler operates as a not-for- profit hospital. St. Augustine operates for profit. The applicant for CON 6011 is "Flagler Hospital, Inc." This corporation is based out of its only and local facility described supra and is locally operated. Regardless of any other terminology applied during HRS' review leading up to the formal Petition in DOAH Case No. 90-2035, and regardless of any inadvertent changes of the style of that cause thereafter, the "applicant" for CON 6012 is, in fact, "St. Augustine General Hospital, L.P.," a limited partnership. The applicant's August 23, 1989 Letter of Intent in CON 6012 is in the name of "St. Augustine General Hospital, L.P. d/b/a St. Augustine General Hospital." The Identification of Principal Parties form submitted by the applicant states that the legal name of the applicant/parent corporation is "St. Augustine General Hospital, L.P." and that the facility/project name is "St. Augustine General Hospital." As of the date of formal hearing, "St. Augustine Hospital, Inc." (no "General" in this name) was a wholly-owned subsidiary of "Healthtrust, Inc." and the only general partner in the applicant, and "Healthtrust, Inc." was the sole limited partner in the applicant. "Healthtrust, Inc." purchased the shares of all the other former limited partners in July 1990, only after this cause had reached the formal hearing stage. The Board of Directors of the general partner, "St. Augustine Hospital, Inc.," is located in Nashville, Tennessee, as is the Board of Directors of "Healthtrust, Inc." Health Corporation of America (HCA) owns a significant number of shares (approximately 30-34%) of "Healthtrust, Inc." "Healthtrust, Inc." is a nationwide hospital chain with approximately 90 hospitals, which "spun off" from HCA in 1987. Thus, "Healthtrust, Inc." is both the sole owner of the general partner and the sole limited partner in the applicant, a limited partnership. The past lineage of the several St. Augustine legal entities is somewhat convoluted, but it is a significant and material consideration for purposes of this CON proceeding that "Healthtrust, Inc." collects management fees from St. Augustine General Hospital, which is the applicant's d/b/a namesake, and that "Healthtrust, Inc." seems to have been underwriting St. Augustine General Hospital in one context or another for an uncertain period of time. St. Augustine General Hospital has been losing money annually. Its net loss for fiscal year 1990 was $2 million. By a September 25, 1989 letter from Stephen C. Brandt, "Healthtrust, Inc.," otherwise known as "The Hospital Company," has committed to loan "St. Augustine General Hospital, Inc." sufficient funding to implement and provide cardiac catheterization services at "St. Augustine General Hospital." The proposed recipient of "Healthtrust Inc.'s" commitment, which is "St. Augustine General Hospital, Inc.," is not the same entity or legal "person" as the applicant, "St. Augustine General Hospital, L.P.," and the parties further agree that there is no such legal entity as "St. Augustine General Hospital, Inc." (TR-132-133) Also, it is not clear from this record what other enterprises or ventures are attributable to "St. Augustine Hospital, Inc.," the general partner in the applicant. Therefore, even if the true intent of Mr. Brandt's letter was to show that the general partner, "St. Augustine Hospital, Inc." and not the nonexistent "St. Augustine General Hospital, Inc.," would receive funding from "Healthtrust, Inc.," there is no guarantee that "Healthtrust Inc.'s" funding commitment to the general partner would be used as a simple conduit to St. Augustine General Hospital, L.P., the applicant. With regard to quality of care, either applicant is capable of providing high quality cardiac catheterization services. However, St. Augustine's proposed physical plant is less ideal than that proposed by Flagler. St. Augustine proposes a lab with a procedure room that contains only 314.5 square feet of floor space. The industry standard is 480 square feet. The State of Florida has not adopted by rule a standard for the minimum size of a cardiac catheterization procedure room. However, the Inter-Society Commission for Heart Disease Resources has issued a report, relied upon by architects in designing cardiac care facilities, which recommends a minimum size for a procedure room of 50.4 square yards, which equals 453.6 square feet. The State Health Plan has adopted the Inter-Society Commission Report. Undersizing the lab has the potential to downgrade the quality of care in St. Augustine's proposed lab in several respects. It limits the storage space necessary and required to conduct routine procedures and crash procedures in cardiac arrest situations and interferes with maintaining the "sterile field," essential to routine catheterization procedures, but more importantly, in the event of a cardiac arrest or other emergency situation, there may not be adequate room for as many as five additional persons to enter the room, together with emergency equipment, to resuscitate and stabilize the patient. Concerns about undersizing of space are not applicable to Flagler's proposed catheterization lab. St. Augustine submitted that it could convert space adjacent to its proposed lab for its cardiac catheterization program at a cost of approximately $33,000, but expert testimony was persuasive that such a conversion could be considerably more expensive. To the extent that St. Augustine's planning would need to be revised, additional drawings would have to be prepared to show the reconfiguration of the room with the cost increase. Even assuming, arguendo, that St. Augustine's $33,000 figure is correct and that $33,000 is a proportionately low cost of such a change of plans in relation to St. Augustine's entire proposed project costs, it is found that such a construction conversion as proposed would constitute a change in the St. Augustine application so substantial that it would require amendment of St. Augustine's pending application and therefore such a conversion cannot be considered anew and without prior HRS review at this stage of the CON proceedings. The State Health Plan contains certain preferences relevant to this comparative CON review. Both applications benefit from the State Plan's favoring of an applicant proposing to provide cardiac catheterization services in a county that does not presently have a catheterization lab if it can be demonstrated that patients are leaving the county for such services. Upon the credible evidence as a whole, including but not limited to the testimony of Messrs. Jernigan and Nelson, Ms. Dudek, and Drs. Matthews, Prakash, and Mehrotra, it is found that a minimum of 225 patients had to travel outside St. Johns County, primarily to Jacksonville, Duval County, for such services in 1988, and there is competent, substantial evidence upon which a reasonable person may infer that that number is increasing (See Finding of Fact 20). HRS' viewpoint that freestanding labs which do not require a CON in order to operate in the proposed service area now accommodate these patients or will soon take up this slack is not supported by credible, competent substantial evidence. (See Finding of Fact 19) The State Health Plan also favors disproportionate Medicaid providers. Flagler is a federally designated disproportionate share hospital and qualifies for this preference. (See, also, Findings of Fact 15 and 20). Both applicants have committed to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay and therefore both applicants meet this State Health Plan preference. The Local Health Plan also contains criteria relevant to these applications, among which is that plan's preference for an applicant who proposes to provide catheterization services in an area of concentrated population which is currently without an existing program. The city of St. Augustine constitutes such a designated area, and since both applicants' facilities are located there, they are each entitled to such preference. Both facilities are located in the District IV subdistrict with the highest use rate, and both are entitled to the Local Health Plan's preference for an applicant in the area of highest catheterization use. St. Augustine would be the logical place to put a catheterization lab if need were shown, and HRS' own rule reveals the need for one lab. (See also Finding of Facts 4, 14, 20) The Local Health Plan also prefers the applicant who will provide the proposed services in the most cost effective manner. Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) figures suggest that Flagler is superior in this regard but are not persuasive in and of themselves. Historically, the applicants have been comparably cost-effective, dependent upon the procedure or service assessed. However, for the reasons set forth infra in respect to long-term financial feasibility in general, Flagler has the edge in this preference area. The Local Health Plan contains a preference for an applicant addressing a current access problem. HRS determines need for inpatient cardiac catheterization labs on a district-wide basis rather than a county-by-county basis. No cardiac catheterization subdistricts have been designed and promulgated by HRS rule. The Local Health Plan uses a subdistrict basis; subdistrict 3 contains St. Johns County without any inpatient cardiac catheterization programs and southeastern Duval County where three hospitals provide such services. Either applicant's facility meets the access standard of Rule 10-5.011(e)4.a. F.A.C., that is, access within one hour of automobile travel time under ordinary conditions for 90% of the district population. However, the access problem bears some further specific commentary. St. Johns County residents now regularly travel, primarily to Jacksonville, Duval County, and to a lesser extent, to Gainesville, Alachua County, to receive these services. Increased costs and duplicate procedures often accrue unnecessarily to patients who seek treatment outside the service area/county. Moreover, the need to travel probably depresses the number of catheterization procedures done on St. Johns County residents, either because of the genuine logistics of lack of continuity of care, travel costs to the patient and family, and stress on the patient and family caused by out-of-county procedures or because of the patients' perceptions that these problems exist. Health care of patients who forego catheterization for these reasons would be qualitatively improved if they could submit to the procedure in their own locale; likewise, health care and costs to all catheterization patients would be improved it they could access the procedure close by with lesser travel, stress, and peripheral costs. That an access problem exists has been thoroughly and conscientiously demonstrated by both applicants. It has also been established that the city of St. Augustine location of either applicant would enhance accessibility for the elderly, handicapped, and medically indigent who are the least likely patients to submit to travel for inpatient catheterization services. For those reasons and since the two facilities to be utilized by the applicants are in such close proximity, it can only be concluded that the award of a CON to either applicant would equally improve access to inpatient cardiac catheterization services on a geographic basis alone. Both applicants will be able to meet the personnel requirements of Rule 10-5.011(e)5.b. F.A.C. The premise that a de minimis higher FTE projection by St. Augustine automatically translates into better patient care was not proven and is suspect due to the size limitations of St. Augustine's proposed lab. (See Finding of Fact 10) Flagler's argument that because Flagler assigned a higher pay rate to different members of its catheterization team and because Flagler is willing to pay higher salaries overall does not translate into an advantage upon the state of this record as a whole. Either applicant will provide services to all persons in need, regardless of ability to pay, and each applicant further proposes serving Medicare, Medicaid, indigent, private pay, and HMO/PPO. Both applicants must, by law, comply with any conditions HRS may place on their CONs. In these respects, it is concluded that each applicant equally meets those respective Local Health Plan preferences, even though Flagler has clearly shown that its past "track record" in the area of Medicare, Medicaid, and indigent care exceeds that of St. Augustine in both quantity and quality. (See Findings of Fact 11 and 20) All capital projects or expenditures proposed by St. Augustine have to be approved by Healthtrust, Inc., although the hospital management can approve "substitutions" of capital items of less than $5,000 per invoice. This restriction on local management, St. Augustine's potentially imprudent freezing of its per procedure cost for two years, and its perennially low occupancy rate overall (42 out of 115 beds last year) impact unfavorably on both the short-term and long-term feasibility of its project. St. Augustine raised the valid point that since, due to litigation, neither applicant can meet its projected opening date, some adjustment of each applicant's pro forma, based on inflation, is in order, however what this adjustment should be was never persuasively quantified by the witnesses. St. Augustine challenged Flagler's pro forma statement on basically three grounds: that the nine-month earlier projected starting date (now past) for Flagler's lab projects an artificially lower patient charge due to inflation; that Flagler's supply expense of $200 is too low; and that Flagler did not amortize remodeling costs of $147,000. Both applicants' projections in the category of patient charge per procedure are found to be reasonable, but St. Augustine also suggested that Flagler's patient charge per procedure should be increased by 3.75%, which assumes a nine-month adjustment, at a 5% annual interest rate to increase Flagler's procedure charge from $1,385 to $1,437 for year one and from $1,475 to $1,530 for year two. Such a result would not render Flagler's proposal unreasonable and would have the effect of increasing Flagler's profitability. However, no evidence showed Flagler intended to increase its charge. Flagler's projected supply expense per procedure is reasonable. Assuming Flagler depreciates renovation costs over a 20 year period, the resulting minimal increase in depreciation is not a significant concern proportionate to Flagler's "bottom line" profitability. HRS opposes both applications in part upon its assertion that neither applicant can attain its proposed number of procedures so as to insure long term financial feasibility. One of HRS' premises for this assertion is its contention that there are few cardiologists residing or practicing in St. Johns County. This is a truism so far as it goes, but not a controlling factor in light of significant other forces at work. Rather than cardiologists' clientele "feeding" a cardiac catheterization lab, as HRS originally supposed, the undersigned finds, upon the greater weight and credibility of all witnesses, including HRS' Ms. Dudek, that the absence of an inpatient cardiac catheterization lab in the city of St. Augustine, St. Johns County, has, in fact, depressed the availability of cardiologists in the county. Upon the testimony of Mr. Conzemius and Dr. Lambert, it is found that because there is no inpatient cardiac catheterization lab available, cardiologists currently cannot be recruited by either applicant. Establishment of such a lab by either applicant would result in more cardiologists locating in St. Augustine and St. Johns County with a concomitant improvement in patient accessibility to cardiology services. HRS' assertion that neither applicant can attain its break-even use rate is not based upon any definitive or even cursory study by HRS of existing county use rates, CONs are not required for outpatient catheterization services which may be offered in freestanding facilities. The record does not establish with specificity the extent of utilization or service volume of outpatient cardiac catheterization labs, if any, in St. Johns County. There is expert cardiologist testimony that freestanding catheterization labs are not a medically acceptable alternative to inpatient programs in a hospital. HRS contended that neither applicant has projected reasonable patient utilization figures guaranteeing long-term financial feasibility of their respective projects, but conceded that either proposal would be financially feasible if it attracted the projected patient numbers. The greater weight of the credible evidence supports a finding that sufficient numbers of inpatient cardiac catheterization patients can be captured by either applicant. Typically, 20% of cardiac catheterizations are done on an outpatient basis, so the 225-patient figure demonstrated for 1988 understates the potential cardiac catheterization patients in St. Johns County by 20%. Thus, approximately 55 more patients obtained catheterization out of county in 1988 than are shown by the inpatient figures, so mathematically one could project 270 such procedures on St. Johns County residents actually occurred in 1988. Application of the statewide use rate of 8.9 such procedures per 1,000 people applied to the appropriate January 1, 1992 planning horizon with the predicted population increase would yield an even higher potential patient figure of 674. Subdistrict 3 has historically experienced a yet higher use rate of 10.1 cardiac catheterization admissions. Either Flagler's 250 (first year) and 300 (second year) or St. Augustine's 275 (first year) and 325 (second year) is a reasonable projection which meets the HRS recommended minimum volume of 300 procedures per year in the second year. See, Rule 10-5.011(e)8.a. and e. F.A.C. Having a cardiac catheterization program would complement the obstetrical care which is exclusive to Flagler. Both applicants indicated their willingness to make their services available to a broad payor mix. St. Augustine projects utilization by class of pay for both year one and year two of operation as 2.2% Medicaid, 56.9% Medicare, 38.9% insurance, and 2.2% indigent. Flagler projects utilization by class of pay for both years as 7% Medicaid, 60% Medicare, 31% insurance, and 2% indigent. St. Augustine's projection of 2.2% of its cardiac catheterization services for Medicaid patients is reasonable but its projection of that same percentage for charity is inconsistent with St. Augustine's prior service and is unreasonable. Considering Flagler's historical Medicaid and indigent service history, its several contracts to provide care to these classes of pay, and the comparable cardiac catheterization utilization experience of similar providers, Flagler's projections in this respect are reasonable. If Flagler has erred in this portion of its assessment, increased percentages of patients covered by insurance reimbursements would only improve Flagler's "bottom line" for long- term financial feasibility. Both applicants' pro forma statements are based on operation of the proposed cardiac catheterization lab only, not including ancillary services and other charges related to the entire patient episode of care. Both applicants will receive an incremental layer of profit from establishing a cardiac catheterization lab, but that amount was not quantified on this record. The greater weight of the credible expert evidence shows that St. Augustine's understatement of a number of expenses will result in its lab experiencing a net loss which it will be tempted to "pass on" through other hospital charges. St. Augustine's commitment to following Healthtrust, Inc.'s policies with regard to depreciation, amortization, and assigning useful life to equipment is not persuasive that these corporate principles are preferable to the generally accepted accounting principles used by Flagler. If St. Augustine's commitment to freezing its charge per procedure does not result in its raising fees elsewhere, this commitment may still aggravate instead of alleviate St. Augustine's financial predicament, for the entire facility currently operates at a net loss. Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)6. F.A.C. as amended, August 1988, requires that CON cardiac catheterization applicants who do not provide open heart surgery services include a written protocol for the transfer of emergency patients to a hospital providing open heart surgery which is within 30 minutes' travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions. No statute, rule, or credible testimony herein defined "protocol" contrary to the interpretation given that term in Florida Medical Center et al. v. HRS, 11 FALR 3904 (1989). HRS' Ms. Dudek determined that each submittal met HRS' intent in the current rule. Her rule interpretation, based on agency expertise, is entitled to great weight. Flagler filed a protocol which is specific to cardiac catheterization patients in need of open heart surgery but did not specify which open heart surgery facility would be utilized. St. Augustine submitted a current transfer agreement between St. Augustine General Hospital, L.P. and St. Luke's Hospital, Jacksonville, the closest open heart surgery provider. This agreement is not specific to cardiac catheterization patients. St. Augustine also has an agreement with doctors at St. Luke's for open heart services backup. St. Luke's is within one-half hour's emergency travel time from either applicant's facility. There was no valid reason advanced in this record to suppose that Flagler could not also obtain travel and backup services with St. Luke's if it were granted the CON applied-for. Therefore, it is found that both applicants have complied with the current rule. Inherent in all challenges to the applicants' respective financial projections is the completeness of each application, and evidence as to the completeness of both applications has been received. Upon the testimony of HRS' health planning expert and agency representative, Elizabeth Dudek, it is found that at the time both applications were filed and at all times material to these applications, there was no consensus at HRS as to what constituted a "capital project" pursuant to Section 381.707(2)(a) F.S.; HRS had no definitional rule in place; HRS regularly looked to an applicant's audited financial statements with respect to the impact statement required under that section; and HRS did not require that there be a separate page labelled "assessment" for compliance with that section. Ms. Dudek reviewed both applications in the context of Section 381.707(2)(a) for HRS against other information already internal to HRS (exemptions, determinations for exemptions, or non-reviewables) and determined for purposes of initial review that both applicants had "captured" what HRS needed to know under Section 381.707(2)(a). This remained her opinion at formal hearing. (TR-586-589, 591- 593) St. Augustine expressly stated in its omissions response that it "has no capital projects applied for, pending, approved or underway in any state" (emphasis in original). In fact, the HCCB reported that for the eight-month period ending August 31, 1989, St. Augustine had $59,000 in construction in progress. Moreover, St. Augustine failed to list a lobby and patient wings renovation project costing approximately $540,000. St. Augustine's application contained no mention of these projects and no assessment, discussion, or analysis of their impact. St. Augustine's own Comptroller, David Chapman, would have defined these as capital projects (TR-93-94), and a common understanding of the English language would suggest that his is a reasonable interpretation of the clear statutory language. Flagler provided a page titled "FLAGLER HOSPITAL, INC. CURRENT CAPITAL PROJECTS" (Flagler-10), which listed the following "capital projects," as their expert witnesses defined that term under the statute. Maintenance and Yard Service Facility $61,000 (Review exemption pending) Storage Room Improvements $75,000 (Review exemption pending) Flagler Hospital Replacement Facility CON #2883; $21,728,558 Cost overrun application is being developed Rick Knapp, a certified public accountant and Flagler's expert in health care finance, accounting, and financial feasibility, also testified that Flagler's inclusion of the replacement hospital in the application as a "capital project" when the replacement hospital was essentially paid out before Flagler's CON application was even filed was probably not necessary under the statute but was intended for full disclosure. In fact, the evidence at formal hearing shows that Flagler's $21 million-plus replacement facility was completed, occupied, and paid for prior to Flagler's submission of the CON application to HRS in September 1989. The audited financial statements submitted with Flagler's application also indicated that, as of September 30, 1988, there had been construction in progress of $17 million, and an estimated $7.5 million for expected completion of construction in fiscal year 1989. Evidence admitted at formal hearing showed that the construction had been completed and the facility occupied in February 1989. Flagler began to depreciate its replacement facility upon occupancy. An overrun of approximately four million dollars was accrued and paid as of February 1989, but determining its exact amount was delayed by litigation with the architect and retainage by the general contractor. It cannot be determined from the application and omissions response that the cost overrun had been financed in full, but the two smaller capital projects were considered in the preparation and submission of Flagler's omissions response and specifically, depreciation expenses are included in the omissions response for all three of the above-identified projects. The hospital-wide pro forma contained in Flagler's omissions response shows a "healthy bottom line" for Flagler, even after consideration of the then-pending capital projects. Mr. Knapp represented that pages R-1, 2 of Flagler's omissions response (Flagler-11) meet the requirements of Section 381.707(2)(a) F.S., requiring a complete listing of all capital projects and an assessment of the capital projects' impact on the applicant's ability to provide the proposed cardiac catheterization lab. However, a close reading of pages R-1, 2 reveals that pages R-1, 2 do not repeat the list of capital projects just described or "showcase" Flagler's capital projects' impact on Flagler's ability to provide the services of the proposed catheterization lab, but rather, they make the detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed cardiac catheterization lab on the cost of other services provided by Flagler, which detailed evaluation is required by Section 381.707(2)(c) F.S. Indeed, R-1 is entitled "IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT ON COSTS OF OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT." Flagler's own witnesses concede that pages R1, 2 must be read in conjunction with Flagler's audited financial statements in order to arrive at the analysis of how other "health facility development projects and health facility acquisitions applied for, pending, approved or underway" will affect Flagler's ability to finance its catheterization lab. However, when compared to the pro forma on Table 3.3 of the application, it is clear that there is no impact of the listed capital projects on the proposed program. According to Mr. Conzemius, Flagler applied to HRS in March 1989 (six months prior to the filing of Flagler's CON application) and was turned down for an exemption on its overrun, and in the future Flagler will be applying for a CON regarding it. Flagler has disguised none of its activities from HRS and resolved and paid out the cost overrun prior to formal hearing so that the overrun, if it ever could have impacted on Flagler's proposed project, cannot do so now. Flagler's proposed cardiac catheterization lab will be paid for by cash funds in hand; the application contained a typographical error indicating that the funds were assured, when in fact, they are in hand. There will be no debt incurred by Flagler for the construction of the project.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a final order granting CON 6011 to Flagler Hospital, Inc. and denying CON 6012 to St. Augustine General Hospital, L.P. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 29th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 90-2034 and 90-2035 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner Flagler's PFOF (1-77): Accepted: 7, 10, 15, 16, 22, 23, 30, 34, 58 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and nondeterminative: 4, 5 Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary: 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 Accepted except where subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative to the facts as found; not necessarily adopted: 1-3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 65 Rejected as mere legal argument: 6 Subjects covered but proposals rejected in form proposed because they are mere legal argument or recital of unweighted, unreconciled testimony and/or exhibits: 71, 72, 73 Covered as modified to reflect actual stipulations and credible record evidence as a whole, eliminating subordinate matters and mere legal argument: 8, 9, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 43-52, 57, 60, 63, 74-77 The weight and credibility of all the evidence has been weighed within the RO and applies to all rulings. Petitioner St. Augustine's PFOF 6-(69)-73: [NOTE: St. Augustine numbered its preliminary matters 1-5 and its PFOF begin with #6; it also proposed two #69's] Accepted, except where subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative to the facts as found: 6-15, 17-24, 26, 27, 28, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 47 Accepted as modified to more closely conform to the material facts of record or to eliminate subordinate or unnecessary proposed facts or facts which were not proven: 31, 34, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 66, 67, 68, 69#2, 72 Accepted, except where subordinate, unnecessary or mere legal argument: 39, 43 Rejected as subordinate, immaterial or mere legal argument: 16, 25, 29, 32, 36 Subjects covered but proposals rejected in the form proposed because they are mere legal argument or recital of unweighted, unreconciled testimony and/or exhibits: 30, 42, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 60, 70 Rejected as not proven for the reasons set out in the RO: 56 Accepted in part, the remainder is rejected in part as mere legal argument, recital of unweighted, unreconciled testimony and exhibits, and/or not proven: 57 PFOF 59: First paragraph cumulative. All paragraphs beginning with a dash on the same page under 59: Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found or mere recital of unweighted or unreconciled testimony and/or exhibits and legal argument. Dash 1 on next page: Rejected as contrary to the credible record evidence as a whole. Remaining dashes beginning on that page: subordinate and not determinative and/or mere recitation of unweighted or unreconciled testimony and exhibits. Credibility determination made. Accepted but cumulative that historically Flagler has served more Medicaid patients than St. Augustine and is a disproportionate Medicaid provider. The remainder is rejected as mere legal argument or recital of unweighted or unreconciled testimony and/or exhibits: 61 Rejected that the same payor mix may be expected. The evidence supports Flagler's projected 7% Medicaid rate. The remainder is mere legal argument, subordinate and cumulative to the facts as found, and/or contrary to the weight of the credible record as a whole: 62-65 Accepted as modified to eliminate mere legal argument and to more closely conform to the material facts of record: 69#1 In all its parts, is rejected as mere legal argument and not determinative of any material fact: 71 PFOF 73: The subject matter is covered within the RO. Recital of deposition testimony in a belated attempt to impeach a witness who has testified has been rejected as not a proposed finding of material fact. The remainder is mere recitation of unweighted or unreconciled testimony/exhibits. The weight and credibility of all the evidence has been weighed within the RO and applies to all rulings. Respondent's PFOF (1-13): Accepted, except as subordinate or unnecessary: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 13 Rejected in part as mere legal argument or unweighted or unreconciled testimony or exhibits (not proven upon the credible record evidence as a whole); otherwise accepted: 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 The weight and credibility of all the evidence has been weighed within the RO and applies to all rulings. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman Patricia A. Renovitch Attorneys at Law Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Jay Adams, Esquire Attorney at Law 1519 Big Sky Way Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Patterson Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license to practice medicine of Respondent, Howard E. Gross, M.D., based on allegations that he violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been licensed in 1971 and issued license number ME 0017039. Respondent has never been disciplined previously. Respondent is board-certified in internal medicine (1970) and cardiovascular diseases (1973). He is an interventional cardiologist. He has practiced medicine in Orlando since 1971. For the past 10 years, he has done a high-volume catheterization practice. In the most recent one-year period, he did approximately 500 interventional procedures and 400 diagnostic procedure, and in almost all instances, the catheterization involved a ventriculogram. On or about February 18, 1997, patient L. D. L., an 84-year-old male with a history of coronary artery disease, presented to Orlando Regional Medical Center, for catheterization and possible rescue angioplasty to be performed by Respondent. Respondent performed a cardiac catheterization on the patient. During the catheterization procedure, Respondent advanced a 6-French pigtail catheter into the patient's left ventricle and performed a ventriculogram by injecting what he thought was approximately 20cc of ionic dye, utilizing a MEDRAD injector. During the catheterization procedure, Respondent noted that he did not obtain opacification of the left ventricle and noted that free air was in the left ventricle. In fact, Respondent injected the patient with approximately 15cc to 20cc of free air rather than dye. As a result, the patient suffered cardiac arrest, and his blood pressure fell to zero. Respondent initiated various life-saving measures to counter the effects of the injection of free air, which were unsuccessful, and the patient was pronounced dead at approximately 1:55 p.m., as a result of cardiac arrest brought on by an air embolus. At the time, Orlando Regional Medical Center (hereinafter "ORMC") had a policy/procedure (No. 3233-MEDRAD- 0001) for Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory (hereinafter "Cardiac Cath Lab") personnel (Respondent's Exhibit 1). It delineated specific procedures to ensure "the use and safe applications of the power injector." In particular, it states the procedure to be employed by Cardiac Cath Lab staff in loading the MEDRAD injector. At ORMC and other hospitals, Cardiac Cath Lab personnel load the MEDRAD injectors without physician supervision. As explained by both expert witnesses, loading the syringe with dye is a very simple task for a nurse or scrub tech to perform. In the instant case, the nurse loading the MEDRAD injector interrupted the loading procedure because she was concerned about the patient's lab values (kidney function) and was uncertain about what type of dye Respondent would order. Respondent was not yet in the Cardiac Cath Lab. The nurse anticipated asking Respondent which type of dye he wanted and then loading that type dye into the MEDRAD injector. When she interrupted the loading procedure, the nurse left the plunger positioned in the syringe where it appeared that the syringe had been loaded with 20 to 25cc of dye and the injector arm pointing upward. The nurse then left the Cardiac Cath lab to get her lead apron anticipating only a monetary absence from the lab. Unknown to her, Respondent entered the Cardiac Cath Lab within seconds after her departure. Respondent was not in the Cardiac Cath Lab at any time while the nurse was manipulating the MEDRAD injector. As the nurse secured her lead jacket, she was called to another patient to administer medication which required the presence of a registered nurse per hospital procedures. In the nurse's absence, the catheterization and ventriculogram of the patient proceeded. The Registered Cardiovascular Technician (hereinafter "RCT"), observing the MEDRAD injector in what appeared to be a prepared state, wheeled it to the patient's side and lowered the injector arm into a position to receive the catheter. The RCT testified that a MEDRAD injector would never be left as she found it, plunger at the 20 to 25cc mark and arm elevated, if the machine was not loaded with dye. The ionic dye used in the procedure is clear and, due to the nature of the MEDRAD plunger and casing, it is extremely difficult to tell if dye is in the syringe. Further compounding the difficulty in observing dye in the syringe is the fact that the lights in the Cardiac Cath Lab are lowered during the procedure to allow better visualization of the video monitor. While the RCT positioned the MEDRAD injector at the patient's side, Respondent was in the process of entering the catheter into the patient, manipulating the catheter in the patient, visualizing its position in the patient's heart on the video monitor and monitoring hemodynamics. Petitioner's expert witness testified that Respondent did justifiably rely on the Cardiac Cath Lab personnel to follow the procedure outlined in Respondent's Exhibit 1. The nurse and cardiovascular technician did not follow the policy/procedure and, as a result, allowed the presence of air in the MEDRAD injector. After the catheter is properly located in the patient's heart, the external end of the catheter is attached to the MEDRAD injector. Petitioner's expert witness opined the Respondent should have used extension tubing to effect the connection between the catheter and MEDRAD injector. Testimony revealed that extension tubing is used by many physicians who perform cardiac catheterization. Respondent's practice was not to use extension tubing. Both Petitioner's and Respondent's expert witnesses agreed that Respondent's choice not to use extension tubing was a "technique" choice and did not fall below the "standard of care." Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent should have been present in the Cardiac Cath Lab to observe the loading of the MEDRAD injector. Testimony revealed that at ORMC and other hospitals it was the Cardiac Cath Lab staff's responsibility to load the MEDRAD injector without the direct supervision of physicians and that physicians are rarely in the lab when the MEDRAD injector is loaded. The "standard of care" does not require the physician to watch the loading of dye or the expulsion of air from the syringe in the loading process. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent should have performed a test injection (a process where a small amount of dye is injected into the heart prior to the main injection). Respondent's expert testified that under certain circumstances (none of which is applicable to the instant case) test injections were appropriate; those circumstances occur less than 5 percent of the time. Electing not to perform a test injection in the instant case does not fall below the "standard of care." Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent should have observed a "wet to wet" connection between the catheter and the MEDRAD injector to ensure that no air is in the system. This is accomplished by withdrawing a small amount of blood from the catheter into the MEDRAD injector. Small air bubbles may appear between the blood and dye and are then "tapped" to rise to the top of the syringe. However, Respondent performed the "wet to wet" connection and did not observe anything unusual. He has historically performed some "wet to wet" connections where no air bubbles were present between the blood and dye as it appeared in this case. The RCT confirmed that Respondent performed the "wet to wet" connection, looked for air in the syringe, and tapped on the syringe to loosen and expel air bubbles. Respondent's expert witness testified that he performed an experiment creating a "wet to wet" connection with air in the MEDRAD injector syringe instead of dye. He found that the miniscus formed by blood and air in the syringe has an identical appearance to blood contacting dye in the syringe. The "wet to wet" connection between blood and air in the syringe has the same appearance as a "perfectly clean", "wet to wet" connection between blood and dye in the syringe. Respondent's expert witness testified that from five to ten percent of the time a "perfectly clean", "wet to wet" connection occurs in which no air bubbles appear between the blood and dye. Petitioner's expert witness testified that the physician must make absolutely certain that no gross amount of air is injected into the patient, and, relying on his view that the Respondent as the physician was the "captain of the ship," he testified that "the injection of this volume of air during the ventriculogram fell below the cardiology "standard of care." Petitioner's expert rendered his opinion based upon his examination of the hospital records. Respondent's expert rendered his opinion based upon his examination of the following: Administrative complaint with supporting documents. Dr. Allen Seals' (Petitioner's expert) report and deposition. Agency for Health Card Administration investigative report. ORMC's Code 15 report. Respondent's February 21, 1997 memo for peer review purposes. Hospital records. Death résumé. ORMC's MEDRAD policy/procedure. Experimentation with a catheter and MEDRAD injector. Respondent's expert testified that Respondent met the standard of care in the instant case because he practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar circumstances. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, the undersigned rejects the expert opinion of Dr. Allen Seals, M.D., Petitioner's expert witness, and accepts as being more credible the testimony of David P. Browne, Jr., M.D., Respondent's expert witness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is not guilty of violating Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Robert D. Henry, Esquire Martin D. Buckley, Esquire Ringer, Henry & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 4922 Orlando, Florida 32801-4229 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Department of Health Board of Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a hospital licensed by the State of Florida and is located in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent, the affected state agency, as defined in Subsection 120.52(1), Florida Statutes, is responsible for the regulation of health care facilities, to include Petitioner. The Department also considers the question of provision of additional health care in the community through its certificate of need program. Intervenor has made application to provide ambulatory surgery in Duval County, Florida, through a freestanding surgery center. Jacksonville, Florida, is in Duval County. This case is part of a consolidated hearing process and is the companion matter to Saint Vincent's Medical Center, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Ambulatory Care - Duval Development Corp., d/b/a Jacksonville Surgical Center - Ambulatory Surgical Center, Respondents, D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-337 and Riverside Hospital, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Ambulatory Care - Duval Development Corp. d/b/a Jacksonville Surgical Center - Ambulatory Surgical Center, Respondents, D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-482. The first three days of the hearing were conducted on the dates alluded to in this order. That presentation was transcribed. In addition, deposition testimony was presented and accepted as part of the record in this matter. The campanion cases concern the propriety of the grant of a certificate of need to the Intervenor in this cause to allow construction and operation of a freestanding ambulatory surgery center which would be used for performing outpatient surgeries. At all times relevant to this case, Saint Vincent's had a department in which outpatient surgical procedures were performed and are expected to be performed in the future. With the advent of the establishment of the Intervenor's facility, that health care unit will be in competition with Petitioner in the realm of providing surgical procedures. As recently as 1975, Respondent knew that ambulatory surgery centers, such as that proposed by the Intervenor, would need permission to construct such a facility. This permission relates to the need to apply and receive a certificate of need from the Department. The authority for such regulation was pursuant to applicable provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding this regulatory role to be fulfilled, Respondent did not undertake a program for enacting rules to consider the question of need for ambulatory surgical centers. This lack of rulemaking was primarily due to inactivity of applicants seeking ambulatory surgical center certificates of need. This circumstance changed in late 1982. In December, 1982, Respondent received approximately thirteen applications for ambulatory surgical center certificates of need, as contrasted with approximately ten applications over the prior three years. At the same time Respondent was in the throes of having to revamp its certificate of need review process related to the overall health industry, brought about by statutory changes which abolished health system agencies and created local health councils. In 1983, at the time of the hearings, Respondent had received 27 applications for ambulatory surgery centers. This glut of applications by would-be ambulatory surgical centers and the 1982 applications were examined without formal rules defining the need question, related to expected numbers of surgical procedures that might be conducted on an outpatient or ambulatory basis. The determination of this ratio of outpatient surgical procedures to inpatient surgical procedures is a vital part of the need question. 1/ Absent promulgated rules, Department officials began their attempt to ascertain the percentage comparison between outpatient and inpatient surgeries, as that item was involved in the establishment of a methodology for considering the need question. Based upon information provided by applicants for ambulatory surgery centers and its own research, Respondent concluded that anywhere from 18 to 40 percent of total surgeries could be expected to be outpatient surgeries. Having utilized a median projection related to population expectations in the certificate of need process, the Department decided to use a median projection for the expected percentage of outpatient surgery. Thus, 29 percent was selected as the percentage of outpatient surgeries in the total number of surgical procedures and that percentage was utilized in the computation of the number of expected outpatient surgical procedures. Utilization of this 29 percent factor in the computation of the number of procedures to be expected on an outpatient basis may be seen in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and Respondent's Exhibit 1, application reviews. Once the Department decided to employ the 29 percent factor, it has consistently, on a statewide basis, utilized that factor in evaluating the question of the grant of certificates of need for ambulatory surgical center applicants. This has been done in more than one batch or cycle and was done in the instance of Intervenor's application which is at issue. Although the 29 percent factor is not the only determining element of the certificate of need process, it is an integral part of that process and can affect the outcome of the grant of the certificate, as has been the case in two instances alluded to in the course of the hearing. This policy choice by the agency is not emerging. It is not one of a series of approaches that have been experimented with in trying to arrive at a concluding agency position, prior to the formal adoption of a rule. This percentage factor has been the only number utilized in the review of all ambulatory surgery center applications commencing late 1982 to the time of final hearing in this action. This choice has not stood the test or scrutiny of the rulemaking process set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding the stated willingness of the agency to modify its position when presented with a more credible method, that contingency or eventuality has not occurred and every applicant for ambulatory surgery center certificate of need has had its application measured against the 29 percent factor commencing December 1982, to the exclusion of other techniques suggested by applicants. In the face of the facts reported above and the record considered, and recognizing that the agency should be afforded an opportunity to establish a record basis for the utilization of the 29 percent factor, even if it were found to be an invalid rule, a decision was reached at the time of hearing on the question of the utilization of the 29 percent factor and whether it was a rule not duly promulgated. It was found that the 29 percent factor is an unpromulgated rule and could not stand as law without first being subject to an assessment of the quality of the record basis for the agency's policy choice. The argument related to this case may be found at pages 798 through 829 of the transcript. The ruling is announced at pages 829 through 832. Respondent subsequently presented additional evidence in support of its policy choice and that may be found in succeeding sections within the transcript. This written order memorializes the ruling announced at hearing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mease Health Care, Inc. (Mease), is a private, not-for- profit acute care community hospital in Dunedin, Florida. It is located in District V, a health planning district established by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Intervenors, Morton F. Plant Hospital, Inc. (Plant) and Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. (Bayfront), are acute care hospitals also located within District V. Mease has pending in Case Nos. 89-1652 and 89-4888 a challenge to HRS's fixed need pool determination for new cardiac catherization services and an application for a certificate of need (CON) authorizing it to establish a new inpatient cardiac catherization program in Dunedin, Florida. In the instant case, Mease has challenged an HRS policy as being an illicit rule. Respondent is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Health Facility and Services Development Act. For the purpose of assisting it in administering the act, HRS has promulgated Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), Florida administrative Code (1989), which pertains to inpatient cardiac catherization services and defines the requirements for the establishment of such services. Paragraph 8.c. of the rule contains the formula used for calculating fixed need pools for new inpatient cardiac catherization programs. The formula is: NN PCCPV - ACCPV - APP, where NN is the annual net program volume need, PCCPV is the projected adult cardiac catherization program volume, ACCPV is the actual adult cardiac catherization volume, and APP is the projected program volume for approved programs. This formula was applied by HRS to the September 1988 batching cycle, which was the first batching cycle after the rule became effective. For that cycle, HRS calculated NN to be -53 for District V. NN was therefore less than 300. Paragraph 8.d. of the rule provides the following relevant instructions on how the formula should be applied to batching cycles subsequent to September 1988: If NN is less than 300 in the first batching cycle after the rule becomes effective, the ACCPV value which is subtracted from the PCCPV will be the same value as ACCPV in the first batching cycle until the projected net need in a future batching cycle reaches a program volume of 300 or more. . . For the March and September 1989 batching cycles, which were the two batching cycles immediately subsequent to the first batching cycle after the rule became effective, HRS did not keep the ACCPV value constant, "or the same . . . as in the first batching cycle", even though NN was "less than 300 in the first batching cycle." Put another way, in all batching cycles after September 1988 HRS has recalculated ACCPV even though in the first batching cycle NN was a negative number and therefore was less than 300. HRS's affidavit confirms that this is the manner in which ACCPV has been calculated in all cases since the adoption of the rule. Since the policy has been consistently used in the above manner in all cases, creates rights and requires compliance, and is not apparent from a literal reading of the rule, the policy necessarily constitutes a rule. There is no dispute that the policy has not been formally adopted as a rule.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, the Department of Professional Regulation, should pay the Petitioner, Kirk A. Woodson, M.D., attorney fees and costs under Section 57.011, Fla. Stat. (1989), the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, the parties stipulate that the Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party" and that reasonable fees and costs exceed $15,000, the statutory cap. The only remaining issue under the statute is whether the Respondent was "substantially justified" in filing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 90- 5986 against the Petitioner. 1/
Findings Of Fact On or about June 7, 1988, a complaint was filed against the license of the Petitioner, Kirk A. Woodson, M.D., subsequent to closure of a professional malpractice liability claim against him without payment of indemnity. The substance of the complaint was that, on January 1, 1986, Woodson saw and performed a hysterectomy on a patient who had presented at the emergency room at University Community Hospital in Tampa, Florida, with heavy and continuous vaginal bleeding. The complaint stated that post-surgery the patient developed Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and died. The complaint questioned whether Woodson failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. By letter dated June 30, 1988, the Department of Professional Regulation (the Department or DPR) notified Woodson that it had received the complaint and that it was initiating an investigation. DPR subpoenaed the hospital records which revealed that the patient arrived at the UCH emergency room at 5:28 a.m. on January 1, 1986, with at least a three-day history of vaginal hemorraging. An emergency room physician saw the patient, gave her two units of packed blood cells, and admitted her to Woodson's service. Woodson was called at approximately 8:30 a.m. and saw the patient later that morning. The patient's admission to surgery to determine the cause of the bleeding and perform necessary procedures was delayed until at least approximately 2:00 p.m. because the patient refused to consent to a dilation and curettage (D and C); she was insisting on a hysterectomy only. She finally consented to a D and C to be followed by a hysterectomy if Woodson found it to be medically necessary. During this delay, the patient continued to bleed and was transfused with two more units of packed blood cells at approximately 1:45 p.m. After the consent was given, there was a further delay, not explained by the records, until approximately 6:00 p.m. in getting the patient to surgery. The patient continued to bleed. Surgery took almost five hours. During surgery, the patient's bleeding got worse, and she was transfused with four more units of whole blood during the surgery. The DPR investigator was unable to ascertain from the hospital records the reason for the length of the surgery. The DPR investigator attempted to arrange an interview with Dr. Woodson and his attorney on or about February 28, 1989. The appointment was cancelled. When the DPR investigator contacted Woodson to reschedule the interview, Dr. Woodson questioned why DPR was pursuing the complaint when the malpractice claim was closed without payment of indemnity. Dr. Woodson agreed to be interviewed but expressed his preference that the investigator first review the "extensive depositions" taken in the malpractice litigation. 4/ Having already determined to request an expert evaluation of the case, the investigator decided to postpone the interview with Dr. Woodson. On July 10, 1989, the DPR asked a probable cause panel of the Board of Medicine to authorize the retention of an expert in gynecology to review the information obtained through investigation to that point in time to assist in the determination whether Woodson's treatment of the patient fell below that level of care, skill and treatment which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. On July 22, 1989, the probable cause met and authorized the expert review. On or about November 2, 1989, the DPR requested an expert review by Doris N. Carson, M.D., a Board-certified gynecologist with extensive surgical experience, including emergency room experience. Dr. Carson reviewed the hospital records supplied by DPR, some of which were difficult to read. By letter dated November 20, 1989, Dr. Carson reported her impressions. Dr. Carson believed the records supported Dr. Woodson's diagnosis and ultimate course of treatment. In the patient's condition, the proper course of treatment was to attempt to stop the vaginal bleeding by doing a D and C; a hysterectomy only should have been attempted if the D and C did not stop the bleeding. However, Dr. Carson perceived other problems that were not explained to her satisfaction by the hospital records. First, Dr. Carson did not see anything in the records to justify the length of the surgical procedures performed by Dr. Woodson. She reported: Careful review indicated that the subject attempted to remove the fibroids vaginally, and when this only increased the bleeding, then decided to do a laparotomy. The uterus, although enlarged, was not huge and the procedure as described seemed to move along without difficulty. When, however, the time is reviewed five hours would indicate very serious problems of technique or what seems more likely a lot if indecision about how to proceed. Evidently there was no physician surgical assistant, and the subject proceeded alone. In retrospect better operationg room help should have been available. Second, Dr. Carson felt that the patient received too much whole blood replacement during the course of the day and the surgery. Her reading of the hospital records indicated to her that five units of whole blood were given to the patient in addition to four units of packed cells. She felt: "Packed cells altogether would have been a better choice in light of the volume given to the patient." Her concern was that "volume overload," rather than ARDS, may have resulted ultimately in the death of the patient. However, she disclaimed the necessary expertise to render a conclusive opinion on the question and recommended that, if the DPR wanted a conclusive opinion on the cause of death, it should have a specialist in intensive care or a respiratory expert review the records. Dr. Carson had some difficulty with the delay in getting the patient to the operating room. The records indicated that at least some of the delay was caused by the patient's unwillingness to give consent to the recommended D and C. But Dr. Carson nonetheless had concerns that the delay added to the amount of blood transfused. Dr. Carson closed her letter with this remark: "In conclusion: A poorly done sugical proceeding below the recognized normal level of care." For reasons not apparent from the evidence presented, DPR did not interview Dr. Woodson before asking the probable cause panel to find probable cause and file a draft Administrative Complaint against Dr. Woodson based on Dr. Carson's expert review and the rest of the investigative report, including the hospital records. The draft Administrative Complaint, drawn in two counts, sought to discipline Dr. Woodson under Count I for failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which a reasonably prudent similar physician recognizes as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, in two respects: first, for allegedly causing volume overload in the patient by ordering units of whole blood, instead of packed blood, to replace the patient's blood loss; and, second, for allegedly taking too long, without justification, to perform the necessary surgery. Count II alleged that Woodson failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, specifically with respect to ordering whole blood instead of packed units and with respect to the length of the surgical procedures. The probable cause panel considered the matter at its meeting on June 22, 1990. Counsel for the panel pointed out that the "extensive depositions" Woodson had indicated he wanted the DPR investigator to read before Woodson was interviewed were not in the packet of materials reviewed by the panel. 5/ But members of the panel indicated that they had reviewed the material that was in the packet and that they thought the information contained in it was adequate to make a probable cause determination. One of the doctors on the panel called it a "horrendous case." She felt that Woodson had "swamped out the patient" and had performed "inappropriate types of fluid therapy and blood therapy." The other member mentioned the "five-hour operating time . . . without any real explanation." The panel's attorney pointed out the part of the report of investigation that referenced the patient's refusal to consent to Dr. Woodson's proposed surgery and asked whether it constituted "any semblance of an explanation for a delay?" It is not clear from the transcript of the probable cause proceeding how the panel resolved the attorney's question, but the panel voted to find probable cause notwithstanding the question. 6/ There is information in the materials reviewed by Dr. Carson, and by the probable cause panel, which tends to explain some of the time it took for Dr. Woodson to perform surgery on the patient. Some of this partially exculpatory information was difficult to read and decipher in the records. Some of the partially exculpatory information was acknowledged by Dr. Carson and may also have been taken into account independently by the panel. Notwithstanding this partially exculpatory information in the record, the finding of probable cause was substantially justified.
Findings Of Fact Procedural issues. In June 1983, Petitioner filed an application for a certificate of need to operate a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Hollywood Medical Center. Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service (HRS) denied the application, and Petitioner filed this petition for administrative review. Notice of hearing was given by order dated August 6, 1984. Two days before the hearing, SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT moved to intervene. The petition was denied because it was filed less than five days before the hearing, and was therefore untimely. Rule 28-5.207, F.A.C. Also shortly before the hearing, HRS filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude evidence of cardiac catheterization utilization other than a base year of 1981. The motion was denied because the relevant rule, rule 10-5.11(15) allows proof of "not normal" circumstances. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed a joint prehearing stipulation, agreeing to certain issues of law and fact. Pursuant to that stipulation, the following criteria are either not applicable in this case or have been satisfied by the Petitioner: section 381.494(6)(c)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11), and (13), Fla. Stat., section 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat., and rule 10-5.11(15)(a) through (f), (g), (h)(1) and (2), (i)(1) through (3) and (5), (j), (m), (n), and (o)(2). It was further stipulated that the Petitioner will not be performing coronary angioplasty in its proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory. HRS further stipulated that if the Petitioner satisfies all other applicable criteria, the project will be financially feasible. Remaining at issue in this case are subparagraphs (6)(c)(1), (2), and (12) of section 381.494, Fla. Stat., and subparagraphs (h)(3), (i)(4), (k)(1), and (o)(1) and (3) of rule 10-5.11(15). F.A.C. The central issue in this case is whether pursuant to the relevant statutory and rule criteria there is a need for a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Hollywood Medical Center. The Hollywood Medical Center is located in the southern portion of Broward County. It is a 334 licensed bed medical/surgical hospital, and its medical staff covers all major medical specialties. The hospital has 24 hour emergency service, 14 intensive care beds, a full service operating room, and does cardiovascular surgery, but does not do open heart or bypass surgery. Hollywood Medical Center, based on zip codes from its own patient records, serves patients primarily from the Dade County line a few miles south to the New River Canal on the north and from the ocean on the east to the Collier County line on the west. In this service area, physicians tend to be located in the eastern section, and do not typically have staff privileges at hospitals in northern Broward County, nor do they tend to refer patients to hospitals in the northern section of Broward County. Patients at Hollywood Medical Center who need cardiac catheterization procedures are now referred to Memorial Hospital, which is approximately 2 miles away. In the south Broward County area, there is no other alternative. There was no evidence of any cardiac catheterization facility in northern Dade County accessible to patients from southern Broward County with the exception of a newly granted certificate of need to Humana Biscayne. There was no evidence as to when Humana Biscayne will be open and providing services. In northern Broward County, there are five operating cardiac catheterization laboratories. The one closest to Hollywood Medical Center, Broward General Medical Center, is approximately 6 miles to the north. Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), F.A.C., establishes a method of projecting the number of cardiac catheterization procedures expected for the year in which the proposed new service would begin. This number is the product of the projected population for the service area and the number of procedures performed in 1981 in the service area for one hundred thousand population. HRS interprets this rule to require analysis based upon HRS district data. The HRS district in this case is district ten, which is Broward County. Once the projected number of procedures is determined, that number is divided by 600 to determine the number of catheterization laboratories needed. This number is derived from rule 10- 5.11(15)(o)3., which forbids approval of a new laboratory if the average volume for all laboratories in the service area drops below 600. HRS now argues that the number 600 is only a floor to protect existing providers, and is not to be used to compute need. In the normal computation of need under the rule, this is not true. Thomas Porter, supervisor of the certificate of need section at HRS calculated his Projections of need using 600 procedures per unit in the district as the means to determine the need for a new laboratory. Mr. Porter testified: "Well, in terms of what I would agree with is in terms of numerically determining the need for the number of labs, we divide by 600 procedures. . . . HRS based its denial of the certificate of need in this case by using a use rate for Broward County in 1981 of 329.5 procedures per one hundred thousand population. This use rate in turn was based upon a 1981 population of 1,046,646 and 3,449 procedures in the county for that year. Since the projected population for Broward County in 1986, two years from the date of the hearing, is 1,179,205, HRS concluded that by 1986 the county will need 6.475 laboratories, which rounds to 6. There are 5 licensed and operating laboratories now in Broward County, and 2 additional laboratories have been approved by HRS in the final order in PLANTATION GENERAL HOSPITAL v. HRS, et al., DOAH case number 84-1838, 6 FALR 6796 (1984). Using the method proposed by HRS to calculate need, there is no need for an additional laboratory as sought by Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 5, computes the same formula set forth above, but uses a 1981 rate of 340 catheterization procedures per one hundred thousand. This rate is incorrect. On table 2 of this exhibit the actual procedures for each Broward County facility is recorded for 1981, and the total number of procedures has been incorrectly added. The correct total is 3,449, not 3,546, and the resultant rate (which is based upon a slightly lower estimate of 1981 population, 1,042,941) is 330.7 procedures per one hundred thousand. Correcting table 5 using the 330.7 rate, the need for cardiac catheterization laboratories is: YEAR DISTRICT 1985 6.3 1986 6.5 Thus, if the rule for determining need in a normal situation is followed, the record in this case shows no need for the catheterization facility proposed by the petitioner. Subpart 15(f) of the rule, however, allows approval of an application if the circumstances are other than normal, in which case approval can occur even though need is not shown by subpart 15(l) and 15(o), above, pertaining to calculation of need using the 1981 use rate, future population projections, and division by 600. Mr. Porter testified for HRS that the 1981 use rate has been a fairly accurate predictor of actual use rates in subsequent years, but that it has not yet been accurate in Broward County. In 1981 the use rate, as corrected above, was 329.5, accepting as true the HRS population estimate for Broward County in 1981. In 1982 the use rate was 393.6. This figure differs from Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 3, because the columns are incorrectly added on table 2. The correct total of procedures for 1982 is 4211. The correct total for 1983 is 5008. In 1983 the use rate was 457.9 using the 5008 figure. Thus, in two years, Broward County has increased its use of cardiac catheterization by 39 percent over the 1981 base rate. HRS argued that the 1981 planning rate should continue to be used because current data may be anomalous, and not reflective of the long range trend. This might be true if the base rate were reflective of a stable prior trend, but it is not. It is only the data from one year, and as such, is less persuasive as a predictor of the future. The trend for at least Broward County in the six years from 1977 is reflected in Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 3. In 1977, the use rate in Broward County was 174 procedures per one hundred thousand. The actual rate has increased steadily each year for six years to the rate indicated above for 1983, 457.9 per one hundred thousand. This is an increase from the 1977 rate of about 263 percent. At least in Broward County, this data indicates that the 1981 rate is probably not static, but is only a point on a trend that shows significant increases annually. There was partial evidence that the trend indicated above may be slowing down. Dr. Silvio Sperber, who is a cardiologist in charge of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Memorial Hospital, testified that Memorial Hospital had had 673 cardiac catheterization procedures from January 1984 through September 1984. He testified that his laboratory was running about 15 percent fewer procedures than the year before. This was not accurate. From Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 2, Memorial Hospital experienced 942 procedures in 1983. By the end of September 1984, it should have experienced about 75 percent of that number at a zero rate of increase, or 706 procedures. Its actual experience in nine months, 673, is only 4.7 percent less than the 1983 expected number of 706.3. The Memorial Hospital experience in 1984 is some evidence that the rate of increase in Broward County may be less or even stabilize in the future at the 1983 utilization rate, but this is evidence from only one hospital. The other four operating laboratories may have experienced a similar decline, or an increase, but there is no evidence on the point. And in any event, Use small decline at Memorial does not persuasively indicate a return to the significantly lower 1981 Broward County rate. There was additional evidence to support the conclusion that the 1983 rate of use would not decline again to the 1981 rate. Atherosclerotic heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States today. Cardiac catheterization is the best tool currently available for evaluation of the condition of the heart. From 1978 to 1982, Broward County has experienced a higher death rate for major cardiovascular disease than Florida as a whole. The death rate was 16.6 percent higher in Broward County in 1982 than in Florida generally. Additionally, cardiac catheterization seems to he coming more and more useful in the treatment of heart disease. Three years ago, when HRS established the 1981 base rate, catheterization was not considered a state-of- the-art procedure for treatment of an acute heart attack. Today, catheterization during the first few hours of a heart attack for the point injection of a clot dissolving substance, streptokinase, is proving to be a remarkably effective means of reducing the long-range damage of clot caused heart attacks. Further, use of catheterization during the attack itself has enabled physicians to see for the first time that most heart attacks are caused by clots. As good uses for catheterization increase, it is only reasonable to expect that the utilization rate will increase. While the foregoing is some evidence that application of subpart 15(l) and (o) of the rule in this case in Broward County produces a "not normal" result, justifying consideration of additional evidence of need, it still does not necessarily follow that the application herein should be granted. First, using the 1983 use rate of 457.9 procedures per one hundred thousand population, and the 1986 predicted population of 1,179,205 in Broward County, the number of expected procedures by 1986 is 5400. There will be 7 approved laboratories by 1986, and thus each would be able to perform approximately 771 procedures, if there is an even distribution within the county. This would be considerably less than approximate maximum capacity of a catheterization laboratory, which is somewhat less than 1300. Dr. Sperber testified that his laboratory could perform 5 procedures per day, 5 days a week, or 1300 per year. This, however, fails to account for emergency work and angioplasty, both of which take more than two hours. Angioplasty at Memorial now runs about 15 percent of all procedures. It is urged by petitioner that once the number of procedures is predicted for 1986, then the need for laboratories should be derived by dividing that number by 600, which is in subpart 15(o) of the rule. While this is the procedure for determining need in the normal case, as found above, it does not follow that the standard of 600 continues to apply to determine need in the abnormal case. The "not normal" exception of subpart 15(f) of the rule operates to except analysis of need not only from the 1981 use rate (subpart 15(l)), but also the 600 procedures standard (subpart 15(o)). Since the 600 standard is only about 50 percent of maximum capacity, it constitutes a rather low threshold number for commencement of a new laboratory. In effect, although the 1981 use rate apparently predicts only 72 percent of the need as compared to the 1983 rate, the 600 standard overpredicts need by at least the same amount. As indicated above, even if the 1983 use rate is used, the seven approved laboratories would be easily able to handle this need since the average spread among these laboratories would be about 771 procedures per laboratory. Though petitioner sought to show that there would be unmet need in the area actually served by Hollywood Medical Center, the evidence falls short of demonstrating a "not normal" situation of actual unmet need in that area justifying approval of its application. This evidence will be considered in the following findings. HRS does not consider district lines to be absolute if the facts justify consideration of services available in an adjacent district. In Broward County the local health council has debated the issue of dividing the district service area into subdistricts, but has not chosen to do so. Mr. Porter testified that he could think of as many reasons to divide the county as reasons not to divide the county. Broward County is divided north and south by the legislature into two hospital districts, however. As found above, physicians in the southern portion of Broward County tend to refer patients to hospitals in the same area, and do not use hospitals in northern Broward County. These physicians tend to use hospitals closer to their offices, and consequently do not usually have staff privileges at hospitals in the northern portion of the county. These patterns of use, however, have not been shown to be an immutable condition, but simply reflect current practices. Patients at Hollywood Medical Center who currently need cardiac catheterization are transferred to Memorial Hospital, a few miles away. Memorial Hospital is about a ten minute drive from Hollywood Medical Center. The cost of transfer is about 5300 to 5400. Although Hollywood Medical Center cardiac patients needing diagnostic catheterization at times must wait a day or two before Memorial can provide that service, such delays were not typically of major significance or life-threatening. A more significant problem experienced on occasion by Hollywood Medical Center has been inability to transfer unstable patients to Memorial for diagnostic catheterization. Acutely ill patients at times may need catheterization for diagnostic purposes, but are too ill to be transferred by ambulance to Memorial for the procedure. However, the record does not contain evidence of how frequently this occurs. In any event, these inconveniences are normal and expected where not every hospital has cardiac catheterization facilities. Stated another way, the above would be evidence of a "not normal" condition only if the normal condition was for all acute care hospitals to have catheterization laboratories, which is not the case. As discussed above, cardiac catheterization is also used for emergency treatment of heart attack by the injection of streptokinase directly to the clot causing the attack. Cardiac catheterization facilities must be available at the hospital initially receiving the heart attack patient because these patients are usually too unstable to be transferred from the emergency room of the receiving hospital to Memorial. Treatment by streptokinase injection is therapeutically most beneficial only in the first few hours of the heart attack, or at least within six hours of the emergency, because it is during this period that the permanent damage caused by the clot will occur. Dr. Stephen Roth, a cardiologist on the staff of Hollywood Medical Center, had from 5 to 10 heart attack patients in 1984 who needed streptokinase injection by catheterization, and who suffered a deterioration of their condition due to the unavailability of facilities for catheterization at Hollywood Medical Center. He implied that his two other partners had a similar experience, but the record does not contain competent evidence to support a finding as to the magnitude of the problem for them. Dr. Jeffrey Erlich, also a cardiologist, has had a similar problem of having heart attack patients arrive at Hollywood Medical Center in need of emergency streptokinase injection by catheterization, but did not testify as to the magnitude of the problem. In Dr. Erlich's opinion, every acute care hospital that treats heart attack victims should have a cardiac catheterization laboratory to provide emergency injection of streptokinase. Dr. Silvio Sperber, who is one of the only three physicians who run the cardiac catheterization facility at Memorial Hospital, testified that he had performed about 7 streptokinase injection procedures since the beginning of 1984. The foregoing is insufficient evidence of a "not normal" need for a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. The number of emergencies are not that great, the problem is not atypical of other hospitals not having cardiac catheterization facilities, and there is no evidence of any failed efforts to have emergency vehicle operators take all heart attack patients directly to the available laboratories in the area. See paragraph 24, ahead. Administratively, the process of transferring a patient from Hollywood Medical Center to Memorial for cardiac catheterization causes the sort of problems normally associated with transfer of ill patients. Though the drive is only ten minutes, the time preparing the patient and actually transferring the patient is much longer, and is a hardship on the patient. However, almost all of the cardiologists at Hollywood Medical Center are on the staff of Memorial, and can follow their patients at that facility without much difficulty, since it is only ten minutes away. In 1983, Memorial Hospital had 942 catheterization procedures. If the 1984 experience continues at 4.7 percent less than 1983, Memorial Hospital will perform about 898 procedures. If thereafter it experiences only a 10 percent growth rate, Memorial Hospital will perform 1086 procedures in 1986, and 1195 procedures in 1987. It is reasonable to conclude that it will reach its maximum capacity in a few years, probably by 1988. However, although not currently used by Hollywood Medical Center, there are or will be two catheterization facilities within less than eight miles. Broward General Hospital is the next closest, apparently about six miles away. In 1983, Broward General performed only 551 procedures, indicating significant future capacity. Additionally, a new laboratory has been approved for Plantation General Hospital, about eight miles away. Since this laboratory will be new, it will have a long way to go before it reaches a 1200 capacity. The driving distance to these two other facilities may be a few miles more than this, but the distance is not significantly greater than Memorial. Although Petitioner's physicians testified that they did not consider the hospitals further north to be acceptable as alternatives to Memorial, the distance alone does not pose a significant problem. The major problem is not in the driving distance, as long as the trip is 10 or 20 minutes driving time, but the administrative preparation time at either end, which would be the same inconvenience for transportation regardless which alternative was used. Typically patients who suffer a heart attack are transported to the emergency rooms of any number of hospitals in Broward County. Dr. Erlich testified that his prior patients do not usually call him before arriving at a hospital, and that he has no ability to direct his patients to a hospital having cardiac catheterization capability. Thus, he felt that all such hospitals should have the capability. There is no evidence that Memorial Hospital could not handle more heart attack patients, or that emergency vehicle operators could not transport more heart attack patients to Memorial. An ambulance carrying a heart attack patient could just as easily arrive at the emergency room of Memorial than it could at Hollywood Medical Center, only ten minutes away. The problem of having heart attack patients arrive in an unstable condition at Hollywood, where there is no catheterization facility, ought to be solved at least in part by greater coordination with emergency vehicle operators in the vicinity of the two hospitals. Dr. Sperber and his two partners apparently have a monopoly over the performance of cardiac catheterization procedures at Memorial Hospital. This factor is somewhat relevant to the issue of need for the proposed new catheterization laboratory, but absent additional evidence that patients will in fact be denied the service, or will receive service of poor quality or at unreasonable expense due to this apparent monopoly, this one factor alone does not show sufficient need to warrant approval of the application. Some patients prefer to go to Hollywood Medical Center, which is a smaller, for-profit hospital, but patient preference of this sort does not show a "not normal" need for the proposed catheterization laboratory. Based upon all of the foregoing, there is not sufficient evidence on this record demonstrating a "not normal" condition of need by 1986 to justify granting this application. However, if there were a need shown by the evidence, the following additional findings are made. Thomas Porter testified for HRS that the requirement that there be adequate care for indigents is satisfied if such care is provided by the District as a whole, and that there was no question that indigents were adequately served in District X. Petitioner will provide cardiac catheterization for indigents only on an emergency basis, and will rely upon Memorial to provide other indigent care. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Porter, the criteria with respect to indigent care, rule 10- 5.11(15)(h)3, F.A.C., has been satisfied. Since nearly all of the cardiologists on the staff of Hollywood Medical Center are also on the staff of Memorial Hospital, it is probable that Hollywood Medical Center would do a substantial number of catheterization procedures in the first year of operation, which is projected to be 1986. By the third year of operation, 1989, the Hollywood Medical Center facility would satisfy the requirement of rule 10-5.11(15)(i)4, F.A.C., that it annually perform at least 300 procedures within three years of initiation of service. For these limited purposes it is appropriate to consider the proximate population served, since this population is the most reliable source of patients and revenue. Most of the patients for the Hollywood Medical Center catheterization laboratory will come from its current actual service area, which was defined by the evidence to be a region in southern Broward County. Given the shared cardiologist staffing at both hospitals, it is not at all unreasonable to project that Hollywood Medical Center will service 30 percent of the need in the southern region of Broward County. Based on the 1983 Broward use rate, Hollywood Medical Center would do 518 catheterizations in 1989 if it handled only 30 percent of the need. Memorial would handle the remaining 70 percent, doing 1207 procedures annually. Even using the lower 1981 use rate provided by HRS, 329.5 per 100,000, Hollywood Medical Center would do 372 procedures in 1989, using the assumed market share of 30 percent. (As noted above, however, these figures do not demonstrate need, however, since existing facilities will be able to serve this same population adequately.) As already found above in calculation of need, rule 10- 5.11(15)(o)1 and 3, F.A.C., is satisfied if the 1983 use rate is used. Beginning with 1986, and in every year thereafter, there will be enough catheterization procedures needed so that the average volume for all facilities in the district will be at least 600 annually. HRS stipulated that if all other criteria were satisfied, the project proposed by Petitioner would be financially feasible. From the foregoing findings, all other criteria in dispute have been satisfied, and the project would be financially feasible. All other findings of fact proposed by the parties which have not been discussed above have been considered and have been deemed to be irrelevant.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Petitioners should be awarded certificates of need authorizing the establishment of inpatient cardiac catheterization services at their respective facilities. As a result of stipulations of the parties, matters for consideration with regard to award of those certificates of need primarily involve a determination as to whether Petitioners' applications meet rule criteria relating to need (numeric and non-numeric), provision of a written protocol or transfer agreement, and utilization standards.
Findings Of Fact The legislature has deregulated the establishment of outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories (cardiac cath labs), but a certificate of need (CON) is required before a hospital can operate an inpatient cardiac cath lab. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) has not approved, as the result of initial agency action, a new cardiac cath lab CON in HRS' Service District Five since 1977. The Parties Palms Petitioner NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Palms of Pasadena Hospital (Palms), is a 310 bed acute care hospital located in Pasadena, Florida. Pasadena is geographically located in the southern portion of Pinellas County, Florida. Pasadena, though geographically small, is one of the most densely populated cities in the United States. Within one half mile of Palms are 10,000 people of whom 60 percent are 65 years of age or older. Palms is a full service hospital with an extensive range of medical and surgical services, including a 24 hour emergency room; a coronary care intensive care unit; a surgical intensive care unit; and a respiratory intensive care unit. Palms also offers a full spectrum of non-invasive cardiology services including electrocardiography, echocardiagraphy, nuclear medicine, stress testing and 24 hour monitoring. Palms has five cardiologists, four of them invasive cardiologists, on its active staff and five cardiologists on its courtesy staff. The four invasive cardiologists would utilize a cardiac cath lab or program at Palms. Palms is situated on 13 acres with a main hospital complex that encompasses over 400,000 square feet. There are over 300 physicians on Palms' medical staff, representing virtually every medical specialty. The hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. HRS Service District Number Five, which encompasses Palms location, is composed of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. The service district is heavily populated by persons age 65 and over; the persons who, nationally, have the highest rate of cardiac catheterization admissions per 1,000 persons. The rate for deaths resulting from major cardiovascular diseases and heart disease in Pinellas County is 150 percent above the rate for such deaths within the entire State of Florida. Notably, thirty percent of the approximately 200,000 persons within Palms' primary service area are age 65 or older. Further, sixty-eight percent of Palms' patients are medicare patients with an average age of 77 to 78 years. The average age of the medicare population at other hospitals in Pinellas County ranges from 72 to 73 years of age. During 1987 and 1988, 516 inpatients at Palms required cardiac cath services (238 in 1987 and 278 in 1988). A diagnostic cardiac catheterization (cardiac cath) is an invasive medical operation in which a catheter is passed via vascular access in the arm or leg into the heart for purposes of diagnosing cardiovascular diseases or measuring blood pressure flow. Significant advances in the technology of cardiac catheterization permits usage of cardiac caths in the emergency treatment of heart attacks through injection of thrombolytic agents directly into the blood clot causing the heart attack. While these medications can be given intravenously, such an option is not available in the case of elderly patients, who run a higher risk of internal bleeding as a side effect of the drug, and patients who delay seeking medical attention after the onset of a heart attack. Approximately 30 percent of the patients arriving at Palms' emergency room have a cardiac related problem. The number of these patients who are candidates for intravenous injection of thrombolytic agents is small. Approval of Palms' application would significantly improve the quality of care of these patients by permitting the injection of thrombolytic agents directly into the blood clot causing the heart attack, a permitted medical procedure in the process of administering a diagnostic cardiac cath. After the onset of a heart attack, there exists a six hour window during which potentially life-saving drugs can be administered. Due to the possible side effects of these drugs, cardiologists must often perform a cardiac cath to diagnose the ailment prior to administering the drugs. Consequently, patients who present themselves for treatment at Palms several hours after the onset of heart attack symptoms may be precluded from receiving these drugs in view of the lack of a cardiac cath lab or program at Palms. Mease Petitioner Mease Health Care, Inc., (Mease) owns and operates Mease Hospital Dunedin and Mease Hospital Countryside. Mease also operates clinics located in New Port Richey, Palm Harbor, Countryside and Dunedin, Florida. These clinics serve a combined 350,000 patients per year. Mease Hospital Dunedin is a 278 bed facility located in Dunedin, Florida. The Mease Dunedin Clinic houses approximately 60 physicians. Mease Countryside Hospital, opened in 1985, consists of 100 beds and is located approximately eight miles from Mease Hospital Dunedin. Approximately 30 physicians have offices at the Mease Countryside Clinic. Most physicians practicing in the clinics have hospital privileges only at the Mease facilities. Another 100 physicians on the staff of these two hospitals have practices in the surrounding area and admit patients to the Mease facilities. Physicians housed in the Mease Countryside and Dunedin Clinics provide a significant source of patient referrals for the two hospitals, since most physicians practicing in the two clinics have hospital privileges only at the Mease facilities. Ninety percent of patients hospitalized by physicians in the two clinics are hospitalized in Mease Dunedin or Mease Countryside hospital facilities. Mease currently operates a cardiac cath lab at its Mease Dunedin campus on an outpatient basis. This existing facility could be utilized by Mease for inpatient catheterization. The existing outpatient cath lab is outfitted with a Phillips Digital Cardiac Imaging System, the most medically advanced equipment of this type in Pinellas County. Mease's current outpatient cath lab meets all applicable standards for the operation of an inpatient cath lab and is adequately staffed to perform 600 cardiac caths per year. There is no difference in the physical layout of an inpatient cath lab versus an outpatient cath lab. Mease also provides diagnostic services such as echocardiography and nuclear cardiology. Growth in cardiology services experienced by Mease is consistent with the provision of these additional services. Morton Plant Morton F. Hospital, Inc., (Morton Plant) is a not-for-profit 740 bed general acute care hospital spread among twelve buildings on a 36 acre campus in Clearwater, Florida, approximately three or four miles from Mease. Morton Plant offers a wide range of health care services, including cardiac cath, open heart surgery, a cardiac rehabilitation program, post-cardiac surgery recovery areas and intensive coronary care units. HRS HRS is the state agency which is responsible for administering Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes, the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", under which applications for Certificates of Need (CON) are filed, reviewed, and either granted or denied by that department. Petitioners' Applications The applications of Mease and Palms, seeking a CON to implement inpatient cardiac cath services were filed with HRS on September 28, 1988. After initial review, HRS sent omissions letters to the applicants on October 13, 1988. Responses from Mease and Palms were made on November 11, 1988, and HRS denied both applications on January 12, 1989. Both Petitioners timely requested formal hearings regarding the denials. "Old Rule Versus New Rule" HRS has adopted procedures governing its review of applications, such as those of the petitioners, for CONs authorizing the establishment of inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. These procedures include HRS' numeric methodology for estimating need for cardiac cath labs or programs. This methodology has traditionally been found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e). On April 22, 1988, HRS published a proposed "new" rule containing a new methodology for estimating cardiac cath program need. A key component of the new rule is the use of "admissions" to a cardiac cath program, as opposed to the old rule's use of "procedures", to determine numeric need for additional CONs. The new rule was timely challenged by two parties in proceedings before the Division Of Administrative Hearings. However, the matters in dispute between HRS and the challengers were resolved and the proceedings voluntarily dismissed. Subsequently, HRS filed the new rule as revised with the Secretary of State's office and published the new rule on July 29, 1988. The new revised rule was challenged within 21 days of publication pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, by three new parties in Division Of Administrative Hearings Cases numbered 88-3970R, 88-4018R and 88-4019R. A Final Order eventually issued in those cases finding the rule challenges to have been timely brought pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and finding the revisions to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as a result of noncompliance by HRS with requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Florida Medical Center v. DHRS, 11 FALR 3904 (Final Order issued June 29, 1989). The Final Order in Florida Medical Center has been appealed. The parties to this proceeding were permitted to present evidence of need for the respective applications under both the new and old versions of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e) Florida Administrative Code, although all the parties were informed by order dated September 20, 1989, that the undersigned intended to apply those provisions of the administrative rule criteria in existence prior to the successful challenge to the proposed amendments treated in the Final Order issued in Florida Medical Center. Stipulations Palms and Mease stipulate that each other's application meets the quality of care criteria set forth in Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Morton Plant disputes only Mease's ability to insure quality of care through sufficient utilization. HRS stipulates that both applications meet quality of care criteria with the sole exception that neither applicant included a "written protocol" as noted on page II of the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). The parties stipulate that the requirement for a written protocol exists within the "new" version of the cardiac cath rule and not in the original version of the rule. The parties further stipulate that the terms "written protocol" and "transfer agreement" are not defined in either version of the cardiac cath rule. The parties stipulate that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes, (relating to operation of joint, cooperative or shared health care resources) are not applicable to either of the applications in this case. HRS stipulates that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(f), Florida Statutes, (regarding the need within the service district of an applicant for special equipment and services not reasonably accessible within adjoining areas) are not applicable to either the Palms or Mease applications. Morton Plant contends these criteria are in issue with regard to Mease's application. All parties stipulate that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(g), Florida Statutes, (relating to need for research and educational facilities in conjunction with the applications) are not in issue. Criteria relating to manpower and resources contained in Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes, are not deemed applicable to the applications by HRS or the Petitioners. Morton Plant contends that these criteria are in issue with regard to the availability of necessary health manpower resources insofar as the Mease application is concerned. Petitioners agree that their applications meet immediate and long term financial feasibility requirements of Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. HRS also joins in that agreement, provided costs associated with the cardiac cath lab director at the lab proposed by Palms does not affect the financial feasibility of Palms' project. Morton Plant contests the long term feasibility of Mease's project. All parties agree that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes, relating to the costs and methods of proposed construction and equipment acquisition, are met by Palms' application and are not applicable to Mease's application. Criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes, relating to provision of services to Medicare and medically indigent patients, are met by the Petitioners according to HRS. The other parties contend these criteria are in issue. The parties agree that requirements of Section 381.705(2)(c) and (e), Florida Statutes, (relating to new construction alternatives and proposals for additional nursing bed capacity) are not applicable to the applications at issue in this case. The parties agree that the licensure and accreditation of the parties are not in issue and need not be proven. HRS stipulates that Palms' application and Mease's application satisfy all rule criteria under both the old and new versions of the cardiac cath rule with exception of those criteria relating to need (numeric and non-numeric), a written protocol or transfer agreement, and utilization standards set forth in the rule. Availability of existing services Palms Palms' patients requiring the services of a cardiac cath lab must be transferred by ambulance to other facilities where such service is available. Most of these transfers are made to All Children's Hospital (All Children's) in St. Petersburg, Florida, the nearest facility with cardiac cath services. Cath procedures are performed at that facility by cardiologists possessing staff privileges at Palms, as well as All Children's. On average, the transfer of a patient from Palms to All Children's takes an average of one and a half to two hours, although the actual automobile travel time is less than an hour. After a determination that a cardiac cath is needed, arrangements for the transfer involve negotiating an available time at All Children's and preparing the patient for transfer. Patient medical records are copied, consent forms signed, explanations given to patients and intravenous administration of fluids is begun. Because of their unstable condition, specialized nurses, capable of interpreting cardiac monitors and administering drugs associated with cardiac problems, must accompany these cardiac patients in the ambulance. All Children's ambulance is often not available for transfers from Palms. In those instances, Palms must provide an ambulance and nurse. If the need for such a transfer occurs in the middle of a nursing shift, Palms must pull a nurse from another unit in the hospital to accompany the patient. If plans for the transfer are known in advance of the beginning of a nursing shift, additional nursing staff is arranged for that shift. Some patients experience difficulties in the course of such a transfer. The number of intravenous applications (IVs) attached to a patient is limited during an ambulance transfer, consequently some patients must have some IVs removed. During transportation of the patient, IVs are often shaken loose, medications become unbalanced, other medical appliances become disconnected and some patients experience blood loss as well as a loss of blood pressure. Some patients have required blood transfusions upon arrival at the cardiac cath facilities. In view of the associated difficulties, some cardiovascular patients at Palms are simply too sick to undergo a transfer to another facility where cardiac cath services are available. If a cardiac cath lab or program existed at Palms, an estimated $68,000 in transportation charges would be saved in the first year alone. All Children's, a pediatric hospital, is the only hospital in the State of Florida that performs cardiac cath procedures on both adults and children in the same lab. Since All Children's is a tertiary, regional referral center, more than two thirds of the pediatric diagnostic cardiac caths are performed on nonresidents of the service district. Over 55 percent of all diagnostic cardiac caths at All Children's are performed on nonresidents of the district. Angioplasty is a therapeutic, as opposed to diagnostic, cardiac cath procedure. Such cardiac caths can only be performed at facilities providing open heart surgery services. All Children's is the only hospital in South Pinellas County able to perform angioplasty. All Children's has two cardiac cath labs. Both are heavily utilized. From July 1987 through June 1988, there were 1,268 cardiac admissions to the two labs. All Children's historic rate of 2.12 cardiac cath procedures per admission equates to 2,688 procedures performed on these patients. While this number of "procedures" is in excess of the minimum 600 "procedures" per lab standard applicable under the numeric need methodology used by HRS prior to publication of the proposed admission-based need determination formula, different definitions of the term "procedure" are ascribed to the term in accordance with the context of its usage. Under HRS' proposed admission-based need determination formula, there were 1,099 adult cardiac cath admissions to All Children's program from April 1987 through March 1988. This number of admissions is substantially in excess of the 300 admissions per program standard required for program operation under the proposed new rule policy. Currently 15 cardiologists normally use All Children's two labs on a regular basis. Three of these cardiologists deal with pediatric patients. A fourth pediatric cardiologist is being recruited by All Children's. This additional cardiologist will perform electrophysiology, a cardiac cath procedure involving use of multiple catheters. Electrophysiology studies are extremely time-consuming and this additional cardiologist's lab usage will contribute to present lab access difficulty. Presently, All Children's has a "block time" schedule for the different cardiologists on the active staff at the hospital. Each cardiologist has a scheduled block of time for usage of the cardiac cath labs. As a result, a cardiologist can not have a patient, admitted during the previous night, catheterized on a particular day unless that physician's block of time happens to fall on that day. This process effectively eliminates a majority of time during the week when a cardiologist may schedule catheterization for a patient. Pediatric cardiac caths require more lab time than adult cardiac caths and All Children's gives preference in scheduling caths to pediatric patients. Further, All Children's facilities are blocked all day on Mondays for pediatric patients. It is not unusual, in view of the preference given pediatric patients and emergency cath requirements, for adult cardiac cath patients to be "bumped" from the schedule after their arrival at All Children's. The length of hospitalization of adult cardiac cath patients therefore increases, along with a substantial increase in the patient's medical care costs. The decision of All Children's to block both of the hospital's labs for pediatric caths each Monday has resulted in the postponement of cardiac caths for Palms' patients until Monday night or Tuesday. The result is that weekend patients from Palms have a lengthened hospital stay, assuming the patients are stable and can endure the sometimes two or three days wait for a catheterization study. Palms' cardiologists also experience difficulty placing their patients after catheterization at All Children's. Since All Children's is a pediatric hospital, there are no adult beds with the exception of eight intensive care beds which are usually filled by open heart and other surgical patients. As a result of the lack of available beds at All Children's, alternatives are to transfer Palms' patients to Bayfront Medical Center, a facility adjoining All Children's, following catheterization, or return them by ambulance to Palms. This latter alternative is often followed since Bayfront Medical Center is frequently without available beds. Since a significant percentage of diagnostic cardiac cath patients must later undergo a therapeutic catheterization, Palms' patients, who are returned to Palms after diagnostic catheterization, must be transferred back to All Children's for additional cath work. In one instance, a Palms' inpatient was transferred a total of nine times. The difficulty of access to the cardiac cath labs at All Children's is particularly acute during the first quarter of each year when many elderly people come to the St. Petersburg area to enjoy the warmer climate. Significant health care risks to delaying diagnostic cardiac caths include instances at Palms where patients with unstable angina have suffered large myocardial infarctions before their transfer to another facility's cardiac cath lab. These risks are enhanced for Palms' cardiac inpatients, many of whom have multiple health problems. Palms' inpatients have a higher comorbidity index than all other hospitals in the service district. The approximately 30 primary care physicians on the active staff of Palms are not on the active staff of any other hospital. As a result, they are unable to follow their patients and continue treating their other ailments when those patients are transferred to another facility for cardiac catheterization work. If these primary care physicians could follow their patients, the quality of care would be improved. In addition to difficulty obtaining timely access to All Children's cath labs, the volume of work performed at the lab has resulted in cardiac cath technicians requesting, on at least one occasion, that a catheterization be stopped due to the fatigue of the technicians. Approval of additional inpatient diagnostic cath labs or programs in the area would reduce or eliminate the occasions of such stoppage in the future. Cardiac patients admitted to hospitals in the service district which do not have inpatient cardiac cath services wait, on the average, 1.5 days longer in the hospital before they receive catheterization than do those patients admitted to hospitals in the district providing such services. As a result, patients undergoing cardiac cath procedures and staying in a hospital without inpatient cardiac lab services average a stay which is 1.6 days longer than patients staying in a hospital with inpatient cath services. If Palms were able to provide inpatient cath services, an average additional charge of $1,800 per patient undergoing cardiac cath would be eliminated. This equates to a total savings of $200,000 to $300,000 in medical costs from the reduction of the average length of stay as the result of an inpatient program at Palms. Since hospitalized patients are at increased risk for developing nosocomial illness, diseases or infections contracted during a hospital stay, reducing the length of stay also lessens the patient's opportunity to develop such an illness. Approval of the Palms application, while temporarily lowering the number of diagnostic cardiac caths performed at All Children's, would eventually result in an increase in the number of cardiac caths performed at All Children's. This is particularly applicable to the increase in therapeutic caths that would occur at All Children's as the result of establishment of a diagnostic inpatient cardiac cath lab at Palms. The elderly and seasonal population which would be served by an inpatient cath lab at Palms would result in increased referrals from Palms to All Children's for therapeutic cath services. Two other hospitals in South Pinellas County operate inpatient diagnostic cardiac cath labs, St. Anthony's Hospital (St. Anthony's) and Humana Hospital Northside (Humana). Since neither hospital provides therapeutic cath services, a patient transferred there from Palms for the purpose of a diagnostic cath must later be transferred a second time to All Children's in the event therapeutic services are required. The diagnostic cardiac cath lab at St. Anthony's is owned and operated by the Rogers Heart Foundation, a private non- profit foundation. The emphasis at the Foundation on cardiac research has led to a very low use rate in its cath lab. Additionally, staff privileges are limited to those cardiologists willing to serve on rotation as an emergency room physician. As a result of the reluctance of cardiologists, who have limited their practice to cardiology, to meet the emergency room duty requirement, the staff of St. Anthony's is effectively a closed one. The cardiac cath equipment at St. Anthony's is out- dated and fails to produce quality images. Problems have been encountered by cardiologists with the quality of film developed by St. Anthony's cardiac cath lab. Consequently, the lack of growth and modernization of the St. Anthony's lab does not present a reasonable alternative to Palms' application. The alternative of Humana presents a shortage of intensive care and cardiac cath beds similar to that experience with All Children~s, especially during the winter months. Continued diagnostic catheterization of Palms patients at Humana will result in increased competition for an already insufficient number of beds. Humana is located even further from Palms than All Children's, worsening the current problems associated with transfer of Palms' patients to All Children's. Further, Humana, according to the rate of admissions to its cath lab in the second year of operation, will Substantially exceed the new proposed HRS policy of 300 admissions required to justify a program's operation. During 1988, Palms ranked fourth out of the 24 hospitals in the service district in the number of inpatients requiring diagnostic cardiac caths. If those hospitals operating cardiac cath labs are eliminated from the list, then Palms ranked first in the total number of inpatients requiring cath services at the remaining 17 hospitals. In 1988, Palms' 278 inpatients requiring diagnostic cardiac cath services was more than the 219 at St. Anthony's and the 174 for Humana's first year, even though those facilities had cath labs. Palms' total also exceeded the 201 patients requiring this service at both of the Mease hospital sites. The likelihood of discernable adverse impact on the cardiac cath programs at St. Anthony's and Humana as the result of establishing diagnostic cath services at Palms is small in view of the infrequent admission of Palms' patients to those programs. Serious problems will continue to be experienced by Palms' patients in obtaining inpatient diagnostic cardiac cath services if the Palms application is denied. In view of the demographics of the surrounding area and patient age composition at Palms, establishment of a diagnostic cardiac cath program in that hospital would result in an improvement of the standard of care received by inpatients there. The unique nature of All Children's primary mission as a pediatric hospital, and its inability to provide ready access to its cardiac cath labs by Palms' patients for the purpose of diagnostic cardiac cath services, coupled with other previously- noted access problems constitute exceptional and "not normal" circumstances sufficient to justify approval of a diagnostic cardiac cath lab at Palms without regard to numeric need requirements of either the "old" or "new" versions of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Mease Accessibility to health services has two aspects; geographical accessibility and financial accessibility. The "old" rule policy of HRS has a two hour travel standard within which a cardiac cath lab must be available. The proposed rule has a one hour standard. Morton Plant is approximately three or four miles from the Mease Dunedin campus. Both hospitals provide services to the same population. The Mease Countryside Campus is approximately eight miles from the Mease Dunedin campus. The considerable testimony regarding the problem and inconvenience of transporting patients for cardiac cath presented by Palms is not appropriate to Mease. The cardiac cath labs at Morton Plant are not overcrowded, although alternatives to that possibility are being contemplated in the future through the addition of another cardiac cath lab. Based upon projections presented at the final hearing, an additional cath lab may be necessary by 1991. The present labs are not utilized on the weekends except for emergencies and difficulty in scheduling a diagnostic or therapeutic cath is rarely encountered. However, a scheduling suggestion was made by Morton Plant officials, requesting that cathing cardiologists not schedule elective cardiac caths on Mondays and Fridays. But, Morton Plant has not implemented any rule making the cath labs unavailable for elective procedures at those times. One of the Morton Plant labs has been in operation since 1985 and the equipment in that lab is scheduled to be replaced in the fall of 1990. This refurbishment should eliminate concerns regarding reliability of that lab's machinery, although all maintenance of the equipment in both labs is conducted at night to permit both labs to be functional during the day. Mease opened an outpatient cardiac cath lab in April, 1989. Mease expects to perform 160 to 175 outpatient diagnostic caths in the first year of operation. The lab is not presently profitable. However, transfer of inpatients to other facilities for purpose of inpatient caths does impact negatively on Mease. Mease loses approximately $133,000 per year as the result of inpatient transfers, exclusive of ambulance fees. These losses represent the difference between the medicare reimbursement to Mease and the charges that Mease must pay to the other facility for provisions of the inpatient cath services. From October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1989, between 250 and 260 Mease inpatients were transferred to other facilities to receive inpatient caths. Ambulance cost per patient varies depending upon the destination facility which is generally either Largo Medical Center in Largo, Florida, for a charge of $436 round trip or Morton Plant for a round trip charge of $378. An estimated one hour is needed to make the transfer of a patient from Mease to Morton Plant, although actual travel time to the nearby facility is obviously much less. The services of those Mease nurses who accompany each patient are unavailable to Mease for other services for approximately two hours. The transfer of any inpatient to another hospital constitutes less than optimal care and can compromise patient safety as illustrated by one instance of the transfer of a Mease patient who suffered a major heart attack en route to another facility and became a "cardiac cripple." However, such examples with regard to accessibility to other facilities by Mease patients are not sufficient to constitute exceptional or not normal circumstances for purpose of granting the Mease application. Need For The Proposed Projects Prior to publication of the new proposed rule, HRS recognized that multiple procedures may be performed on a single patient during one admission to a cardiac cath lab. However, in the course of application of the old rule methodology to determine need for additional cardiac cath CONs, HRs did not, as a matter of operational policy, ascribe that same meaning to the term "procedures" in formula computations made to determine numeric need for those labs. Typically, a patient undergoes more than one procedure in the course of a cardiac cath. To determine an actual number of procedures, in the generic sense of the word, performed by existing cardiac cath labs in the service district, Mease and Palms subpoenaed information from all those labs. As a result of that effort, Mease and Palms have shown that 7,507 cardiac cath procedures were performed in the service district during the period July 1987 through June 1988. Of this total, approximately 5,081 were diagnostic cardiac caths. Cardiac cath lab admissions for diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac caths during the July 1987 through June 1988 period totaled 4,057 patients in the service district, averaging 1.85 procedures per cath lab admission. Similarly, diagnostic cardiac caths averaged 1.47 procedures per admission. A Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) is a combination of variable diagnoses codes and procedure codes that are used by Medicare to assign a fixed level of reimbursement to the type of medical services rendered by a provider. The term ICD-9CM Code is an acronym for the Internal Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification. The ICD-9 coding system is a classification for morbidity and mortality statistics which are modified for use in the United States for statistical collection. There are five diagnosis codes which identity conditions treated and three procedure codes identifying the type of treatment provided. The federal government and the State of Florida's Health Care Cost Containment Board (HCCCB) require that Florida hospitals maintain and report ICD-9-CM Code information. The American Hospital Association, with input from the federal Health Care Financing Administration, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the American Medical Records Association, publishes standards and rules to ensure uniformity in the reporting of ICD-9 information. Further, the Peer Review Organization, as part of its contract with the Health Standards Quality Bureau, reviews the accuracy of ICD-9 coding by hospitals. Florida hospitals report ICD-9 information to the HCCCB by filling out a Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Sheet for each patient. The HCCCB requires Florida hospitals to report up to five diagnosis and three procedure codes. Different ICD-9 codes are assigned for different types of cardiac catheterization procedures. Hospitals are expected to Code each individual cardiac catheterization procedure performed on the patient in accordance with specific instructions published by the American Hospital Association. ICD-9 code information reported to the HCCCB by existing providers of cardiac cath services in the service district corroborates the findings derived by Petitioners from information obtained through subpoenas to those providers, and verifies there is generally some multiple of ICD-9 code procedures per patient in a single admission. While ICD-9 code information is the most reliable tool available for health care planning purposes, the counting of procedures by those codes is not an appropriate measuring tool or good indication of need for two reasons. First, certain procedures may be a component of each and every catheterization, such as pressure measurements and angiography. The same amount of time and resources per patient are utilized regardless of whether the event is recorded as one "admission" or two "procedures". Secondly, different hospitals do record or code the various procedures differently, thereby skewing the results of any attempt to average procedures district wide in order to develop a ratio of procedures to admissions. In this regard, it is noted that Mease and Morton Plant do not code angiography as a separate procedure, consequently they have a low ratio of procedures to admissions in comparison to Palms. In developing its proposed new rule policy, HRS considered methodical scenarios for converting prpcedures to admissions, including a conversion factor of 1.2 procedures per admission and a conversion factor of 1.9 procedures per admission. Neither of these conversion options are utilized in the proposed new rule. Further, the evidence presented at the final hearing fails to establish that HRS has in place any methodology for the conversion of cardiac cath lab procedures to admissions to cardiac cath programs. Petitioners contend that HRS relied in the past upon local health councils to gather the correct number of cardiac cath lab procedures performed by existing labs in a service district, and that hospitals with cardiac cath labs erroneously reported lab admissions to the District Five Local Health Council rather than the total number of procedures performed in the labs. Petitioners further contend that as a result of unwitting reliance upon the number of cardiac cath lab patient admissions instead of the number of procedures performed on patients admitted to those labs, HRS historically suppressed projections of cardiac cath lab need in the Service District Five when applying the "old" rule. The weight of the evidence presented at the final hearing supports a finding that actual need may be at some minor variance with that projected by HRS' need formula computation under the old rule. The extent that such need exceeds the projected amount, while not totally capable of discernment on the basis of the evidence presented, is probably in the neighborhood of 1.01 procedures per admission. It is found that HRS did not intentionally suppress need projections in the district and that the minor variance shown does not substantially affect numeric need determinations calculated under the old rule. As previously alluded to above, the term "procedure" in the rule methodology previously utilized by HRS historically meant the aggregate of what is performed on one admission to a cardiac cath lab. The old rule was based on federal guidelines providing that procedures were equal to an admission. At the time the old rule was written, the terms "cases", "cardiac catheterization", and "cardiac catherization procedures" were used interchangeably with the advent of DRGs for medicare reimbursement purposes, hospitals responded to local health councils' data collection requests by reporting "Procedures" used for reimbursement purposes. The resultant confusion spawned the motivation for HRS to propose the new rule methodology which uses the term "admission." HRS reviewed the applications at issue here pursuant to the proposed new rule and its "admissions" based numeric need methodology. That review, conducted on the basis of admissions, was consistent with the policy of HRS to interpret the term "procedure" to mean "admission." Further, in view of the equivalency accorded the those terms by HRS, the number of procedures for purposes of numeric need calculation under the "old" rule formula does not require inflation in order to apply the old rule's numeric need formula. HRS has candidly admitted that various providers reported the number of "admissions" rather than "procedures". The policy of HRS, although subject to a minor margin of error with the advent of DRGs, to count admissions as procedures is one that has been consistently and fairly applied without regard to whether the result led to the granting or denial of a particular application. From a health planning perspective, an admission or patient is the appropriate unit of measurement to determine future need for cardiac cath services. The goal of the CON program is to ensure an appropriate allocation of services while controlling capital expenditures. The Petitioners contend that cardiac catheterization admissions are not a good measure of resource consumption and that the type of catheterization, i.e., adult versus pediatric and therapeutic versus diagnostic, should be considered. To an extent, the position is well taken, but in the absence of an agency policy that measures numeric need in that fashion, the alternative proposed by the Petitioners is unpalatable. The Petitioners' overly broad proposal for consideration of "procedure" as a multiple of "admission" for purposes of need formula computation results in a proliferation of cardiac cath labs in derogation of the CON program goal previously mentioned. The use of 300 admissions as a minimum number required for a new lab under the proposed "new" rule is not a recognition by HRS of any applicable conversion factor of procedures to admissions. Instead, the number of 300 admissions is a standard that must be met after all existing providers have their present patient volume protected, as opposed to a simple minimal admission number required to maintain skill proficiency of medical personnel. Under the old rule, a volume of only 600 patients per lab is protected in contrast to the new rule's proposal to protect uncapped patient volume in existing cardiac programs. To that extent, the old rule does not place the same emphasis on utilization of existing labs or programs as does the new rule. HRS' SAAR on the Petitioners' applications confirmed a total of 4,712 admissions to cardiac cath labs in the service district from April, 1987 until March, 1988. If the number of admissions is equated to mean the number of procedures, in accordance with HRS rule policy applied to the formula previously used to determine numeric need, then the result of that computation under the "old" rule is no numeric need for additional cardiac cath labs in the service district. Likewise, computations under the proposed "new" rule need formula utilizing reported admissions during the base period also results in a finding of no numeric need for additional cath labs in the district. Out-migration While it is conceded by the parties that strict application of the numeric need methodology of the proposed "new" rule results in a finding of no need for additional cardiac cath labs, Petitioners contend that HRS is required to factor into that new need methodology the number of residents in the service district who go outside the district to obtain cardiac cath services. While subsection h of the "new" rule requires that HRS consider such data in the determination of need, there is no requirement that the number of such residents be included within the need determination formula. As established at the final hearing, out-migration serves to establish need for a facility, in the absence of numeric need, where it is shown that residents are leaving the service district due to unavailability of the services within the district. While residents are leaving the service district in this instance to obtain cardiac cath services, the evidence fails to establish that this action is due to service unavailability. Quality Of Care The parties stipulated that both applicants partially meet the statutory requirement requiring proof of the ability to render quality care and the previous record of the applicant to render quality of care. HRS contends both applicants failed to a provide a "written protocol" for the transfer of emergency patients to open heart surgery providers in compliance with requirements of the "new" rule. HRS concedes that both applications meet quality of care requirements, including those relating to a "transfer agreement" if reviewed under the "old" rule. HRS has not formally defined the term "written protocol", but no evidence exists that either applicant would fail to provide quality of care with regard to transfer of patients in the event such became necessary. The purpose of a written protocol is to assure HRS that proper quality of care procedures would be used in transferring open heart patients. HRS professes confidence in the ability of the applicants to perform this service and therefore this requirement is considered fulfilled in the event approval of the applications is determined pursuant to provisions of the "new" rule. Availability Of Resources Morton Plant's concerns regarding Mease's ability to render quality of care are restricted to whether Mease has provided for sufficiently trained staff to handle the projected volume of cases in the event that Mease's application is approved. Availability of appropriately trained professionals is also a Morton Plant concern. The projections of Mease for salaries, number of employees, expenses, training or acquisition of employees, and overtime costs are reasonable and meet requirememts relating to availability of resources. Consistency With State And Local Plans The state health plan in effect when these applications were filed contains a goal that an average of 600 cardiac cath procedures per lab be maintained within the district. HRS found this provision of the state health plan to be inapplicable since these applications were not reviewed in conjunction with requirements of the "old" rule. Regardless of this omission, neither application meets this goal in view of the traditional interpretation accorded the term "procedures" by HRS. With regard to the district plan, all counties within Service District Five have existing or approved cardiac catheterization providers. With the exception of the access difficulties noted with regard to Palms, services are well distributed. Neither applicant is a major referral hospital, although both have traditionally served all patients without regard to the ability of the patient to pay. Adequacy And Availability Of Other Services There are other existing providers of diagnostic inpatient cardiac cath services available in service district five, whose capacity is not fully utilized. Mease, whose Dunedin campus is located only three to four miles from Morton Plant, proposes to provide services to the same patient population. As previously noted, the concerns about the adequacy of equipment in one of the Morton Plant cath labs is in the process of being addressed through the installation of new equipment in the fall of 1990. Although there are existing providers available, the instances of access difficulty recited by witnesses for Palms are likely to be compounded as more patients undergo cardiac catheterization at those alternative facilities in the future. The demographics of Palms' elderly and multiple illness-laden inpatient population increase the complications likely to be experienced by those inpatients during transfer for purposes of diagnostic catheterization. Likewise, outpatient cath lab establishment would not be a realistic alternative for these patients, or a cost effective measure. While many inpatients would invariably have to be transferred later for therapeutic cath services, the rigors of such a journey would be avoided initially for all inpatients and a considerable number of inpatients thereafter. Impact On Existing Costs No testimony presented at final hearing supports a finding of an adverse impact on any existing provider in the event that Palms' application is approved. Of the three other full service hospitals in Palms' primary service area, only one has a cardiac cath program. Palms projects savings from the elimination of ambulance transfers and reductions in the length of stay for Palms' inpatients receiving diagnostic cardiac caths at approximately $157,000 in the first year of operation. Cost per cardiac cath patient for this service would be approximately $2,200 on average, an amount comparable to other providers in the Palms area. One thrust of Mease's argument, in terms of impact of its program upon the costs of inpatient cardiac cath, is directed to the losses which Mease experiences through the transfer of inpatients to Morton Plant. While increased utilization of Mease's present outpatient cardiac cath lab by its inpatients would decrease or eliminate the present loss of income experienced by the hospital, the burden of that cost benefit to Mease falls upon Morton Plant. The number of inpatients projected by Mease would be derived primarily from individuals who would otherwise receive cardiac cath services at Morton Plant. Approximately 30 percent of the total procedures performed at Morton Plant would be lost if the Mease application is approved. Such a loss would not be detrimental to the Morton Plant program, other than to require Morton Plant to postpone future contemplated increases in the number of cardiac cath labs in the present program. Approval of the Mease application would increase competition to some degree among other providers of diagnostic cath services to inpatients in Mease's primary service area. As previously noted, the impact of competition would be primarily upon Morton Plant, whose cardiac cath facilities, while nearing capacity limits, are not over utilized at the present time. Mease estimates that an average cath charge to inpatients would be $1,500 if its CON is approved. The loss of revenue to Morton Plant will average $1,606 for each inpatient cath lost to another facility, or $511,000 if Mease's application is approved. This amount closely approximates the positive revenue impact of $563,785 estimated by Mease in the event of CON approval. Financial Feasibility All parties, except HRS, stipulated that Palms' application was financially feasible. HRS' position was that Palms' application met this criterion, provided costs of Palms' cardiac cath lab director did not affect financial feasibility. Palms presented evidence at the final hearing amplifying the information in its application and establishing that the cost of the lab director will not affect financial feasibility of the project. The directorship will be a voluntary, non-paying position rotated among the cardiologists with privileges to perform catheterizations. Palms' proposal is financially feasible. HRS stipulated that Mease's project is financially feasible. Morton Plant disputes the long term financial feasibility of Mease's project. Mease maintains that its provision of inpatient cath service will have no cost because the equipment has already been purchased and is being used to do outpatient caths. However, Mease also has an expense item on its inpatient pro forma for depreciation of that same equipment and maintains that the cost for providing the cath service will decrease as costs will be spread over more patients with the advent of inpatient cath services. The more reasonable assumption is that the cost of the equipment is a cost associated with the present CON application, particularly since Mease admits to the motivation of implementing outpatient service in an attempt to enhance the probability of obtaining an inpatient lab. Notwithstanding this cost discrepancy, Mease's application is financially feasible. Medicaid And Medically Indigent HRS has stipulated that the Petitioners' past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent is not at issue. However, the parties contend that the matter is in issue between them. As a not-for-profit hospital, part of Mease's mission is to provide needed medical care, independently of the patient's ability to pay. Mease would apply this same philosophy to patients needing services in its inpatient cath lab. Mease provides its fair share of medicaid and charity services relative to the community in which it is located. Palms has made a commitment to serve all patients regardless of ability to pay. Palms does not have any policies which would discourage Medicaid patients. Comparative Review There is insufficient numeric need under either the new or old rule formula to approve either of the Petitioners' applications on that basis. However, Palms presented considerable evidence of exceptional and not normal circumstances justifying approval of its application. In particular, the overcrowding at All Children's, inpatient transfer problems, the severity of the scheduling difficulties at All Children's and other access problems provide an adequate basis for approval of the Palms application. Palms generates more inpatients requiring inpatient diagnostic cath services than does Mease. Notably, 4.76 percent of the total service district diagnostic cath inpatients originate from Palms as opposed to 3.37 percent for Mease. The average age of Palms' inpatients is higher than that of Mease's inpatients. Palms' inpatients have a higher comorbidity index than both Mease and the service district as a whole. Palms has had, historically, more inpatients in the 45-64 age cohort and the over age 65 cohort undergo cardiac cath than has Mease. Mease provides more Medicaid care than Palms, but Palms does not provide obstetrics and pediatric services, two areas of care traditionally high in Medicaid utilization. If the comparison is limited to Medicaid utilization for cardiology services, Palms ranks higher than Mease. Capital costs of Mease's construction of an outpatient lab capable of provision of inpatient services is not included in its application, although depreciation and amortization of the lab and equipment is included. Mease's outpatient lab was constructed in an effort to improve its application for a CON to provide inpatient services, therefore exclusion of that cost results in an unfair comparison of capital expenditure between the two applications. Discounting Mease's claim that its provision of inpatient cath service will have no cost because the equipment has already been purchased and is being used to do outpatient caths, the application of Palms is superior to that of Mease.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the application of Palms for an inpatient cardiac catheterization lab or program Certificate of Need, and denying the application of Mease. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Mease's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Adopted in substance. 4. Rejected as to cost, not supported by weight of the evidence. 5.-15. Adopted in substance. 16. Rejected, conclusion of law. 17.-20. Rejected, cumulative. 21.-25. Rejected, unnecessary. 26.-31. Adopted in substance, but qualified in some instances. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, misrepresentative of HRS policy interpretation of "procedures" in the context of rule application. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 37.-38. Adopted in substance. 39. Adopted. 40.-41. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 42.-43. Rejected, unnecessary. 44.-45. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 48.-51. Rejected, cumulative. 52.-58. Adopted by reference. Rejected, relevancy. Rejected as recitation of testimony, alternatively ultimate conclusion not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected, relevancy. 63.-65. Adopted. Rejected, speculative. Adopted by reference. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, cumulative. 70.-72. Adopted in substance. Rejected, cumulative. Adopted in substance. 76. Rejected on basis of creditability. 77.-78. Adopted. 79.-81. Adopted in substance. 82.-84. Rejected, cumulative. 85.-86. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 87.-88. Adopted by reference. 89. Rejected, cumulative and speculative. 90.-91. Adopted in substance. 92. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 93.-94. Adopted in substance. 95.-97. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 98.-99. Adopted by reference. 100. Rejected, unnecessary. 101.-103. Adopted in substance. 104.-110. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 111. Adopted in substance. 112.-114. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 115.-116. Rejected on basis of creditability. 117.-122. Adopted by reference. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Rejected on basis of creditability. 126.-128. Rejected, cumulative. 129. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 130.-131. Adopted in substance. 132.-138. Adopted by reference, although cumulative. 139.-141. Rejected, relevancy. 142. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 143. Rejected, relevancy. 144. Adopted with modifications. 145. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Palms' Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Adopted in substance. 11. Rejected, unnecessary. 12.-25. Adopted in substance. 26. Rejected, unnecessary. 27.-41. Adopted in substance. 42. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. 43.-45. Adopted in substance. 46. Rejected, unnecessary. 47.-57. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 58. Rejected, conjecture unsupported by weight of the evidence. 59.-63. Adopted in substance. 64. Rejected, unnecessary. 65.-71. Adopted in substance. 72.-75. Rejected, unnecessary. 76. Adopted as to first sentence. Rejected as to second sentence as unsupported legal conclusion. 77.-79. Adopted in substance. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted for recitation of factual background in recommended order. However, the term "procedure" refers to ICD-9 procedures and not to "procedures" as that term has been defined by agency policy for need formula calculation. Proposed finding's conclusion of additional lab numeric need is rejected as not supported by weight of the evidence. 82.-88. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 89.-92. Rejected, unnecessary. 93.-94. Rejected, unsupported by weight of the evidence. 95.-101. Rejected, unnecessary. 102. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 103.-105. Rejected as legal argument and conclusions unsupported by weight of the evidence to advance the theory that ICD- 9 procedures should govern over the agency's policy definition of procedures under the old rule, and that such other definition should control the determination of number of admissions used to calculate numeric need under the new rule. Rejected, unnecessary. First sentence adopted in substance, remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as argumentative legal conclusion not supported by weight of the evidence to the extent that subsection h data must be included in numeric need formula calculations. Rejected as to ultimate conclusion of this proposed finding as unsupported by weight of the evidence. 109.-114. Adopted in substance. 115.-117. Adopted by reference. 118.-119. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 120.-125. Adopted in substance. 126. Rejected, unnecessary. 127.-130. Adopted in substance. 131. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 132.-137. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Morton Plant's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Adopted in substance. Adopted in substance with exception of last sentence which is not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected as to ultimate conclusion as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. 9.-11. Adopted in substance. 12.-15. Adopted in substance. 16.-18. Rejected, unnecessary. First sentence reject, unsupported by evidence as to Palms. Adopted by reference as to remainder of this proposed finding. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, except as to last sentence which is adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. 26-28. Adopted in substance. 29. Adopted in substance with exception of next to last sentence of this proposed finding which is rejected as unsupported by weight of the evidence. 30.-34. Adopted in substance. First sentence rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 37.-38. Adopted in substance. 39.-40. Rejected, unnecessary. Ultimate conclusion of this proposed finding regarding accessibility of cardiac cath services to Mease inpatients is adopted in substance. This proposed finding is apparently directed only to the Mease application in view of the usage of the singular in the reference to denial of the "application" and as such the remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance. All aspects of this proposed finding are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Therefore, as a multiple proposed finding not susceptible to division, it is rejected for that reason. Adopted in substance. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 47.-48. Rejected as unnecessary with exception of last sentence of proposed finding number 48 which is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. 49.-50. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 51. Adopted in substance. 52.-56. Rejected, legal argument. 57. Adopted in substance. HRS' proposed findings. Adopted in substance, as to patients requiring angioplasty. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. 7.-10. Adopted in substance. 11. Rejected, unnecessary. 12.-13. Adopted by reference. Rejected as unnecessary. First sentence adopted in substance, remainder rejected as speculative, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Adopted in substance. 19.-21. Adopted in substance. 22.-23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-25. Adopted in substance with exception of last sentence of proposed finding number 25 which is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 26.-27. Rejected, unnecessary. 28. Adopted by reference. 29.-30. Adopted in substance. Adopted in substance. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. 34.-35. Adopted. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 39.-45. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance except as to last sentence which is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted. 49.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Adopted. 55.-56. Rejected, unnecessary. 57.-58. Adopted in substance. 59. Rejected, unnecessary. 60.-61. Adopted in substance. 62. Rejected, unnecessary. 63.-67. Adopted in substance. 68.-72. Rejected, unnecessary. 73.-77. Adopted in substance. 78.-79. Rejected as unnecessary. 80.-81. Rejected as legal conclusions. 82. Rejected as unnecessary. 83.-87. Rejected, legal conclusions and argument. 88.-89. Adopted in substance. 90.-92. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. 96.-98. Adopted by reference. 99. Rejected, unnecessary. 100.-101. Adopted in substance. Rejected, recitation of testimony. Rejected as to Palms, not supported by weight of the evidence. As to Mease, existing inpatient providers provide an alternative. 104.-105. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 106. Rejected as cumulative. 107.-108. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted by reference. Rejected, legal argument. Adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. 113.-114. Adopted in substance with modification. 115. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esq. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 Tallahassee, FL 32301 C. Gary Williams, Esq. Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esq. 227 South Calhoun St. P.O. Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Ken Hoffman, Esq. W. David Watkins, Esq. P.O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esq. Loula Fuller, Esq. P.O. Drawer 190 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Case Status On October 15, 1986, Petitioner, Holy Cross Hospital, Inc. (Holy Cross), filed an application with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), for a certificate of need to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at its existent acute care hospital in Broward County, Florida. On June 12, 1987, the Department published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to deny Holy Cross' application, and Holy Cross timely petitioned for formal administrative review. Intervenors, Zachariah P. Zachariah (Zachariah), North Ridge Medical Center (North Ridge), Florida Medical Center (FMC), and North Broward Hospital District d/b/a North Broward Medical Center, and Broward General Medical Center (North Broward), current providers of cardiac catheterization services in Broward County, sought and were granted leave to intervene in this proceeding. The standing of these intervenors, with the exception of Zachariah, is not in dispute. Background Holy Cross is a private, not for profit, general acute care facility located at 4725 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Currently, Holy Cross operates 574 general acute care beds and 23 intensive rehabilitation beds. Holy Cross has, since 1974, operated an open-heart surgery program at its facility. In 1974, Holy Cross sought leave of the Department to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory at its facility. That application was denied. As a consequence of that denial, Holy Cross actively solicited physicians to establish such a program within its hospital. In August 1976, Holy Cross negotiated a ten-year lease with Zachariah whereby it leased him 2,833 square feet of space on the third floor of the hospital for use as a cardiac catheterization laboratory. Zachariah purchased the necessary equipment, and has operated a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Holy Cross since 1976. In March 1985, following Zachariah's expansion of his laboratory facilities, he and Holy Cross executed a new lease agreement to continue the operation of his laboratory within the hospital. This lease was for 6,956 square feet of space on the third floor of the hospital and was for a five year term commencing October 15, 1985, with a five year renewal option. Currently, Zachariah has three cardiac catheterization laboratories within the space he leases at the hospital. The proposed facility Holy Cross proposes to renovate and dedicate, as a cardiac catheterization laboratory, 2,500 square feet of existing hospital space immediately adjoining Zachariah's existing catheterization laboratories. The physical renovations are estimated to cost $315,000 and equipment to cost $600,000 for a total capital expenditure of $915,000. The laboratory, as proposed, is capable of providing a range of angiographic studies and physiologic studies without the need to move patients to perform related procedures. Holy Cross currently has the capability of providing immediate endocardiac catheter pacemaking in cases of cardiac arrest, and the proposed laboratory will likewise have such capability available to it. Currently, approximately 13 physicians practicing at Holy Cross possess such skills. Holy Cross currently provides, and will continue to provide, a ranged of non-invasive cardiac or circulatory diagnostic services within its health care facility, including: hematology studies and coagulation studies; electrocardiography; chest x-ray; blood gas studies; clinical pathology studies and blood chemistry analysis; nuclear studies pertaining to cardiology; and echocardiography. Additionally, Holy Cross currently provides, and will continue to provide, the following services within its facility: pulmonary function testing; and microbiology studies. As sited, the proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory will be readily accessible to the population of Broward County. Accessibility does not, however, present a problem in Broward County since all approved facilities are located strategically throughout the county. The hours of operation for the proposed laboratory will typically be either 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with the capability of rapid mobilization of the study team for emergency procedures 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Holy Cross is fully accredited by the Joint Commission of Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) for special care units, as well as its intensive and cardiovascular intensive care unit. The parties have stipulated that the staffing requirements proposed by Holy Cross are reasonable, and that it will be able to recruit the necessary staff. Currently, Holy Cross maintains an ongoing program of staff education and skills upgrading. Additionally, Holy Cross maintains an ongoing educational program for the community whereby citizens Acre afforded the opportunity to learn what specialty services are provided by the hospital. These programs will continue to be provided by Holy Cross. The proof established that Holy Cross can be reasonably expected to perform a minimum of 300 cardiac catheterizations annually within three years following its initiation of service. The proof further established that the average number of catheterizations performed each year by existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area was greater than 600 and that, if the Holy Cross application is approved, the average volume of procedures performed by those laboratories would not be reduced below 600 procedures each year. The service cost proposed by Holy Cross is comparable to similar institutions within the service area when patient mix, reimbursement mechanisms and cost accounting methods are taken into consideration. Need determination The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for cardiac catheterization capacity in a service area shall be determined. Pertinent to this case, Rule 10-5.011(e) 12, Florida Administrative Code, provides: Need Determination. The need for cardiac catheterization capacity in a service area shall be determined by computing the protected number of cardiac catheterization procedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination...(Emphasis added). In the instant case, the proof established that between July 1985 and June 1986 7,017 cardiac catheterization procedures were performed in the service area. The population estimates from the Office of the Governor, dated January 1, 1986, demonstrate an adult population within the service area of 962,987 for January 1986, and 1,009,557 for July 1988. Utilization of this data in the methodology prescribed by the rule, calculates that 7,356.3 catheterization procedures will be performed in July 1988 (the horizon year). When divided by the 600 procedure standard, there is a need for 12.26 cardiac catheterization laboratories in the service area to support the projected number of adult procedures in July 1988. At the beginning of the review cycle for the Holy Cross application the inventory of cardiac catheterization laboratories in the service area (Broward County) was as follows: Zachariah-3, Florida Medical Center (FMC)-3, North Ridge Medical Center-2, North Broward Medical Center-1, Broward General Medical Center-1, Plantation General Hospital-1, and Memorial Hospital-1, for a total of 12 laboratories. However, one of Zachariah's laboratories and one of Florida Medical Center's laboratories are backup laboratories, and no more than two laboratories are ever utilized or capable of being utilized at those facilities simultaneously. Pertinent to this case, Rule 10-5.011(e)1, Florida Administrative Code, provides: A cardiac catheterization laboratory is defined as a room or suite of rooms in a hospital which has the equipment, staff and support services required to perform angiographic and physiologic cardiac catheterization procedures, and which is customarily used to perform cardiac catheterization procedures. The number of cardiac catheterization laboratories in a hospital is equal to the number of patients who can undergo the catheterization procedure simultaneously... (Emphasis added). Accordingly, the proof demonstrates that for purposes of calculating the need for cardiac catheterization capacity in Broward County under the rule methodology that there existed 10 cardiac catheterization laboratories in the service area for this review cycle. Therefore, there exists a numeric need for 2.26 additional cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County. Consistency with State and Local Health Plans Pertinent to this case, the local health plan, District X, provides, as its general policy number 3, that: Services provided by all proposed and existing facilities should be made available to all segments of the residential population regardless of the ability to pay. Priority #1 - Services and facilities should be designed to treat indigent patients to the greatest extent possible, with new project approval based in part on a documented history of provision of services to indigent patients. Priority #2 - Applicants should have documented a willingness to participate in appropriate community planning activities aimed at addressing the problem of financing for the medically indigent. With specific regard to cardiac catheterization, the local health plan contains the following pertinent recommendations: Applicants proposing to initiate or expand cardiac catheterization...must make those services available to all segments of the population regardless of the ability to pay. The provision of new cardiac catheterization surgery programs should not be approved unless they meet or exceed the standards and criteria set forth by HRS. Holy Cross currently holds a Medicaid contract with the state, and proposes that its cardiac catheterization laboratory will be available to all persons in need and independent of their ability to pay. Holy Cross is not, however, an historic provider of significant indigent care, nor does it propose significant indigent care at its proposed laboratory. According to its application, the patient day percentage breakdown at its laboratory will be as follows: medicare-59.6 percent, medicaid-1.0 percent, insurance-36.0 percent, private pay-1.7 percent, and indigent-1.7 percent The proof demonstrates that Holy Cross' basic policy is to serve in a Christian-like manner, and to serve the indigent with open arms, respect and caring. In application, however, Holy Cross' "approach" to indigent care is "if they show up, we treat them." Clearly, Holy Cross does not actively promote the availability of its services to the indigent, and it offered no proof that it participated in any community planning activities aimed at addressing the problem of financing for the medically indigent. There was no proof, however, that indigent patients in Broward County (District X) were being denied cardiac catheterization care, notwithstanding the fact that over one-half of the laboratories in the county, (Zachariah, FMC, and North Ridge) have provided little or no medicaid or indigent care within the past 2 years. Under the circumstances, Holy Cross' failure to dedicate more resources toward indigent care is less significant than it might otherwise be if such need existed. However, it must still be concluded that the Holy Cross application is not consistent with the local health plan since its proposal to provide the services regardless of ability to pay is, in view of its "approach" to serving that segment of society, an obligation that will rarely, if ever, be fulfilled. To the extent the Holy Cross application may fail to comply with statutory and rule criteria, as hereinafter discussed, it is also not consistent with the local health plan. The state health plan devotes a section to cardiac catheterization, and the Holy Cross application conforms to the recommended minimum annual average of catheterization procedures, and the recommended physical proximity between open-heart surgical capacity and cardiac catheterization laboratories. The plan also provides as a goal, to assure the appropriate availability of cardiac catheterization and open-heart surgery services at a reasonable cost. As previously noted, the costs proposed by Holy Cross are reasonable. However, in view of Zachariah's existing facilities, the proposal does little of significance to enhance availability. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. The demand for cardiac catheterization services in the district has been increasing at a significant rate over the course of the past five years. Between 1982 and 1983 the number of cardiac catheterizations performed in the service area increased over 20 percent (from 4,162 to 5,009), between 1983 and 1984 there was an approximate decrease of 1 percent, between 1984 and 1985 there was an increase of 17.8 percent, between 1985 and 1986 there was an increase of 38.9 percent, and between 1986 and 1987 a projected increase of approximately 27 percent. Annualized data for 1987 demonstrates that 9,810 procedures will be performed in 1987. The historic demand for catheterization services within the district is a reliable proxy, and demonstrates that the demand for such services will increase by at least 20 percent in the year 1988. Such increase will result in the need to accommodate an additional 1,962 procedures in the year 1988, or 981 procedures by Holy Cross' planning horizon of July 1988. Accordingly, by July 1988 the district should experience a demand for approximately 10,791 procedures. During 1987, the existent facilities within the district were projected to perform the following number of procedures: Zachariah - 1,166, FMC - 2,134, North Ridge - 2,382, Broward General Medical Center - 1,430, Plantation General - 702, North Broward Medical Center - 532, and Memorial Hospital - 1,464. The maximum capacity of a cardiac catheterization laboratory is between 1,000 and 1,400 procedures annually, depending upon the mix of patients, the skills of the cardiologist, and the hours of operation of the laboratory. North Ridge's expert, Deborah Krueger, conducted a survey of existing facilities to discover what they considered to be the maximum number of procedures they could accommodate in each of their laboratories. While not wholly reliable, as hereinafter discussed, the responses regarding the maximum number of procedures that could be accommodated in each laboratory of the existing facilities was as follows: Zachariah - 1,000, FMC -1,250, North Ridge - 1,300, Broward General Medical Center - 1,040-1,248, Plantation General - 1,000, North Broward Medical Center - no response, and Memorial Hospital - no response. Comparing the number of procedures projected for existing facilities in 1987 with the results of Ms. Krueger's survey could lead one to conclude that there is an unused capacity within the district to accommodate up to 2,584 additional procedures in 1988. Such conclusion is not, however, supported by the proof. Notwithstanding Ms. Krueger's survey, the proof demonstrated that FMC is currently at capacity. North Ridge, which estimated it could perform 1,300 procedures per lab, is projecting 2,382 procedures in 1987, only 219 procedures less than its estimated maximum capacity. Yet, the North Ridge medical director is the only physician currently performing catheterizations at the hospital, and is sometimes doing up to 17 a day and working 12 hour shifts. Under the circumstances, to suggest that North Ridge is not currently at capacity is not credible. The only facilities with available capacity are Zachariah, Plantation General, and North Broward Medical Center. These facilities have the capacity to handle an additional 1,600 procedures in 1988: Zachariah (834), Plantation General (298), and North Broward Medical Center (468). Accordingly, there exists excess capacity within the district for the relevant time frame. As previously noted, there exists no accessibility problem within the district, and there is no proof that any patient has experienced any serious problem in obtaining catheterization services. There is, further, no dispute concerning the quality of care provided by existing facilities, and no issue raised concerning the efficiency and appropriateness of existing services. The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care Holy Cross has been a provider of a broad range of services within the district since 1959. The parties stipulated that the staffing requirements proposed by Holy Cross were reasonable, that it would be able to recruit the necessary staff, and that it had the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. Accordingly, no issue was raised concerning Holy Cross' ability to render quality care. Therefore, it is concluded that Holy Cross has provided, and will continue to provide quality care for its patients. Availability and adequacy of alternative services There was no evidence that any alternative service (a non-inpatient catheterization laboratory) is available within the district to satisfy the need for inpatient cardiac catheterization. Probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. Holy Cross and Zachariah have, since 1976, enjoyed a mutually beneficial arrangement, albeit one of landlord and tenant. At Holy Cross' request, Zachariah established a catheterization laboratory within the hospital's facility, and has since added two additional laboratories. But for a limited number of physicians, Zachariah's laboratory enjoys significant support from and is generally accepted by the physicians on the Holy Cross medical staff. Holy Cross has certainly benefited from this arrangement by being able to provide catheterization services for its patients within the facility, and as a referral base for its open-heart surgery program. Holy Cross does not contest the quality of care offered by Zachariah, nor does it point out any credible reason why their existing arrangement cannot continue to satisfy the needs of Holy Cross and the residents of the district as a whole. Holy Cross' rationalization for its need to initiate inpatient catheterization services is that Zachariah's service is a "closed" laboratory, and that if it were permitted to establish such services its laboratory would be "open." An open laboratory, Holy Cross asserts, would increase accessibility and improve quality of care. Holy Cross' contentions, and the proof it advanced to support them, are not credited. While the proof did establish that Zachariah's laboratory was closed, the proof also demonstrated that the laboratory proposed by Holy Cross would be closed. Further, quality of care, utilization, and accessibility are not favorably or unfavorably impacted within the district by virtue of whether a laboratory is classified as open or closed. Holy Cross' proposal is, essentially, a duplication of an existing program, sited within its own facility, that has the apparent capacity to meet the needs of Holy Cross and the community at large. Under the circumstances, the cooperative arrangement between Holy Cross and Zachariah offers a more economical alternative than Holy Cross' proposal. The need in the service district for special equipment and services not accessible in adjoining areas. There was no proof offered that any need existed in the service district for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. The need for research and educational facilities. No proof was offered concerning the need for any research or educational facilities. Further, no proof was offered that Holy Cross proposed any such programs, or that its services would be available to health professionals for training purposes. Use of resources. The Department asserts that the proposed project is a waste of hospital space, a valuable resource, that could be more appropriately utilized in light of Zachariah's existing facility than through dedication as a catheterization laboratory. No proof was offered, however, to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resource. The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the project The immediate financial feasibility of the project is not at issue since the parties have stipulated that Holy Cross has the available resources for project accomplishment and operation. At issue, however, is the long-term financial feasibility of the project. Holy Cross premises its financial feasibility analysis on its projection that it will achieve 800 catheterization procedures in its first year of operation, and 850 procedures in its second year of operation. Holy Cross proposes a patient day percentage breakdown as follows: medicare - 59.6 percent, medicaid - 1.7 percent, insurance - 36.0 percent, private pay - 1.7 percent, and indigent - 1.7 percent. The rate per procedure advanced by Holy Cross is $1,000 during the first year of operation, and $1,050 during the second year of operation. Based on the foregoing assumptions, the Holy Cross pro forma statement of revenue and expenses projected a $57,700 net income at the conclusion of its second year of operation. That pro forma contains, however, several errors which must be considered. First, its bad debt assumption of $12,000 was understated by $24,000. Second, its overhead allocation of $183,600 was overstated by 50 percent ($91,800). Third, its expense line item for supplies failed to reflect a 5 percent inflation factor which results in a supply expense of $223,000 instead of the $213,000 projected by Holy Cross. Fourth, Holy Cross inappropriately adopted a 40 year depreciation schedule, as opposed to 20 years, for its renovations resulting in an understatement of depreciation by $8,000 per year. Adjusting the Holy Cross pro forma for the foregoing errors and omissions demonstrates that the proposed project will generate a net income of $107,000 at the conclusion of its second year of operation if it can attain its projected 850 procedures. Whether Holy Cross can attain such level of service is, however, problematic. By July 1988 there will be only 981 new cardiac catheterization procedures demanded within the district. Existing facilities with capacity will be competing for those procedures along with Holy Cross, and all facilities will be striving to maintain their share of the current market. Under the circumstances, it is not reasonable to conclude that Holy Cross can attain its projection solely from increased demand but, rather, that it must likewise compete with existing providers for a portion of their existing market share. Zachariah, whose existing laboratories are located on the same floor and adjacent to the facility proposed by Holy Cross has the capacity to accommodate up to 834 additional procedures. There is no dispute regarding the quality of care offered by Zachariah, and his service enjoys significant support from the physicians on the Holy Cross medical staff. To penetrate the catheterization market, Holy Cross must therefore not only disrupt physician referral patterns district wide, but must also disrupt such patterns within its own facility. Holy Cross did not, however, advance any plan to market its proposed service. To demonstrate its ability to attract referrals, Holy Cross undertook a physician survey which, if accepted, would demonstrate that it could capture 269 to 327 procedures. Such survey was not, however, independently verified and was otherwise not a reliable indicator of project utilization. At best, it demonstrated interest in an alternative facility, but its utilization projections were merely speculative. Holy Cross also pointed to the recent success of Plantation General as indicative of the reasonableness of its 850 procedure projection. Plantation General initiated its catheterization services in April 1985. Notwithstanding the fact that it was located in close proximity to FMC, had no open-heart surgery program, and had no referral base, Plantation General attained 759 procedures by the end of 1986. Juxtaposed with Plantation General, Holy Cross has a long-standing open-heart surgery program and broad physician referral base. While the Holy Cross analogy is inviting, it is unpersuasive. While Plantation General may have been at 795 procedures by the end of 1986, its 1987 performance dropped to 702. Additionally, North Broward Medical Center initiated service in January 1986, and it is projected to only reach 532 procedures by the end of 1987. On balance, the proof fails to demonstrate that Holy Cross can reasonably expect to attract the necessary referrals to reach its projection of 850 procedures, or any lesser number of procedures, that would render its project financially feasible in the long term. Needs of entities providing service to individuals not residing in the service district. There was no proof that Holy Cross provided a substantial portion of its services or resources to individuals not residing in the service district such as to demonstrate special needs and circumstances for its proposed project. The probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing cardiac catheterization services. Holy Cross stipulated that all intervenors, except Zachariah, have standing to participate in this proceeding. Accordingly, it is established, except for Zachariah, that the initiation of the proposed service will substantially adversely impact the existing cardiac catheterization programs at those facilities. There was, however, no reliable proof that such competition would adversely affect the supply of catheterization services. Likewise, there was no competent proof that such competition would improve the delivery of health services. Regarding Zachariah, the proof demonstrated that he would lose patients if the proposed service is initiated. While the magnitude of his loss could not be quantified because dependent on future events, it must be concluded that since Holy Cross would disrupt the existing referral patters he has established with Holy Cross' medical staff, Zachariah's program would be substantially adversely affected by the proposed project. Costs of Construction. The parties stipulated that the costs for construction and equipment are reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Holy Cross' application for a certificate of need to initiate inpatient cardiac catheterization services. 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 12th day of February, 1988.
