The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaint contrary to Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact (Stipulated) The Respondent is and was at all times material to the allegations a licensed physician in Florida, holding license number ME 0050839 issued by the state. The Respondent was a board certified internist and board certified cardiologist practicing with Diagnostic Cardiology Associates at St. Vincent's Medical Center (St. Vincent's) at the time of the events which gave rise to these allegations. On or about June 25, 1988, W.V., referred to in the complaint as Patient #1, was admitted to St. Augustine General Hospital in St. Augustine, Florida. W.V. was a 68 year old male with a history of heart problems including four bypasses performed in 1977, a pacemaker implantation in 1979, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and prior prostate surgery. W.V. was determined to have had an acute myocardial infarction for which he was treated at St. Augustine General Hospital for five days. As W.V.'s condition improved, he was encouraged to walk at St. Augustine where he complained of chest pain and weakness. A echocardiogram showed segmental wall motion disturbance involving the posterior wall of the heart. A second electrocardiogram was performed which showed ventricular pacemaker rhythm and ST-T wave changes. On this basis, given his history and myocardial infarction, he was referred for a cardiac catheterization to St. Vincent's where his earlier heart surgeries had been performed. The patient was monitored during his hospitalization in St. Augustine, and did not show any signs of arrhythmias. On June 30, 1988, W.V. was transferred to St. Vincent's and received through the Emergency Room, where he was interviewed by the Respondent. After giving the Respondent a brief outline of his problems, W.V. was placed on a general medical floor for the evening, and scheduled for cardiac catheterization the following day. Cardiac catheterization and its risks were explained to W.V., who signed the patient consent forms authorizing the procedure. On the morning of July 1, 1988, after examining the patient and finding no changes, the Respondent performed on W.V. a cardiac catheterization, which verified the recent acute myocardial infarction, the blockage of two of the bypasses, damage to the heart muscle serving the lungs, and high vascular resistance with severe pulmonary hypertension. The patient tolerated the procedure well and showed no signs of arrhythmias during or after the procedure. The test results indicated that he could not benefit from surgery or angioplasty. W.V.'s primary health threat was from congestive heart failure, a condition likened to drowning in one's own fluids. (Tx-129, line 1.) A patient suffering from congestive heart failure will call for assistance from the nursing staff, as one of the expert's phrased it, "he would have been crawling out the door on his hands and knees calling for the nurse." (See Dr. Gilmore, Tx-130, line 8.) Conversely, heart failure alone would not have caused the patient to have chest pains, unless the patient developed elevated pressures to the point where pulmonary hypotension caused chest pain. However, the chest pain in such a case is not caused by clogged arteries or an impending heart attack, but by build up of fluid in the lungs which causes the heart to work harder to pump the blood through the lungs. (Dr. Campbell, Tx- 107, line 16.) The Respondent's post-catheterization order initially directed that W.V. be moved to a monitored bed following the procedure. The purpose of monitoring a patient is to observe, document and ultimately treat cardiac rhythm disturbances. (Dr. Gilmore, Tx-117,line 6.) Approximately 75 percent of post- catheterization patients were placed on telemetric monitoring (monitoring or telemetry hereafter). Monitored beds existed on 3 East (eight monitored beds), 5 East (eight monitored beds), Coronary Care Unit (eight monitored beds), Intensive Care Unit (12 monitored beds), and open heart unit which, although monitored, would not take catheterization patients. Notwithstanding the number of monitored beds, the critical piece of equipment is the monitor because each room on a monitoring unit was set up to receive telemetry. The monitor is a small radio transmitter that relays information from leads attached to the patient to receivers in each room. The monitors are removed by patients upon discharge, thrown into the laundry, and into the trash. They also require repair. As a result, the actual number of monitors varied from the planned number of monitored beds. Upon completion of the catheterization, the catheterization nurse would advise the nurse in charge of placing patients that the cardiac catheterization patient was ready for admission to the hospital, and whether the doctor had ordered a monitored or unmonitored bed. If the doctor had ordered a monitored bed and one was not available, the placement nurse would ask the admitting physician whether the patient being admitted really needed monitoring given the critical number of monitored beds available and the necessity to poll the treating physicians of all the monitored patients to see if any could be taken off monitoring. Inferentially, the Respondent considered the status of his other patients who were being monitored. If the physician deemed the patient's need for monitoring critical, then the placement nurse would poll the physicians of all other monitored patients, and request that they reassess the needs of their patients on monitoring. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 26) The unit which normally received post-catheterization patients, 5 East, had eight monitored beds and eight unmonitored beds which were used as "stepdown" beds for patients taken off monitoring so that the monitors could be changed, but the patient retained in the same bed. Not only were all the monitored beds occupied on 5 East, the post-catheterization unit, but that unit had almost a full census. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 20 - Page 26) The hospital's procedures required cardiac catheterization patients to remain in the catheterization laboratory until a monitored bed was available if the doctor stated that the patient was to go to a monitored bed. The catheterization patient would be held in the catheterization laboratory where there was a shortage of nursing care until a bed was found. Contrary to the experts' testimony which presumed the authority of the Respondent to place the patient in a monitored bed, it was the placement nurse who placed the patient once the doctor ordered a monitored bed post-catheterization. No evidence was received regarding her authority to place patients requiring monitoring in the ICU or CICU. Typically, doctors reassessed their patients' need for monitoring during morning rounds, and those that were stable were removed from monitoring so the monitor became available for a more critical patient. (See Libsky deposition, Page 24, line 20) W.V. catheterization was completed at approximately 11:00 a.m., following morning rounds when a maximum number of monitors should have been available; however, no evidence was received when a monitor would have been available. Testimony revealed that the wait could be as long as two hours for a monitored bed. During that time, under hospital protocols, W.V. would have remained in the catheterization lab. Contrary to facts assumed by the Petitioner's experts, the Respondent's options for placing the patient were: to place the patient in an unmonitored bed on the cardiac floor, or to retain the patient in a monitored bed in the holding area where he would be monitored by the cardiac catheterization nurse until the patient placement nurse found a monitored bed. The Respondent did not retain the patient in the cardiac catheterization area because the nurses could not adequately monitor W.V. and perform their other duties. The Respondent did not place W.V. in the Cardiac Care Unit or the regular Intensive Care Unit to obtain monitoring because it was not his function to place the patient. The only way he could have placed W.V. in CICU or ICU would have been to change W.V.'s status to justify the overall intensive care of the patient. However, this would have been unsupportable if questioned given the patient's condition which was stable upon admission six days after the myocardial infarction, and remained stable after the procedure. See Dr. Edwards Depostion, Page 41, line 19 et seq. Staffing levels on 5 East at the time of W.V.'s hospitalization were one nurse to four or five patients. There were five nurses, a charge nurse, and nursing assistant, and 22 beds on the unit. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 72, line 15.) The Hospital's Standing Order 01-009 provided that "The critical care nurse, in consultation with the charge nurse, may initiate the following (list of nursing interventions) and notify the physician as soon as possible in the event of an acute deterioration [of] patient status and in the absence of a physician." (See Burnsed Deposition, Page 112, line 4) The Hospital Standing Order 01-017 provided "Any changes in the patient's condition will be called to the attention of the attending physician and appropriate consulting physicians. The emergency standing orders may be initiated by the nursing staff, but the physician must be informed of their use." (See Burnsed Deposition, Page 113, line 10) The Respondent placed the patient on 5 East, the cardiac care floor, in an unmonitored bed at approximately 11:50 a.m., as indicated by the notation on the patient's chart "nonmonitored," which indicated a change from the initial orders. (See Cavin Deposition, Page 34, line 7 and Page 35, line 7 et seq.) There was no order that W.V. should not be resuscitated. The Respondent's standing orders called for the patient's vital signs, together with shortness of breath and chest pain, to be monitored every 15 minutes for four hours. This was done until 3:15 p.m., when the monitoring was reduced to every 30 minutes. The Respondent advised the cardiac catheterization nurse, Mary Cavin, who accompanied the patient to the floor, of his findings, to include evidence of a recent myocardial infarction, and the patient's response to the procedure. (See Cavin Deposition, Page 19-20) Ms. Cavin identified her handwriting on the charts describing the Respondent's findings. However, these notes do not mention the recent myocardial infarction. The referenced notes were not sufficiently identified to check in the patient's charts. W.V. was taken to 5 East by Mary Cavin. Ms. Cavin had worked in this area at St. Vincent's for three years. Cardiac catheterization nurses were described by one of the experts as being among the best trained nurses in the profession, who because they work with the medical staff continuously during the procedures, are aware of the physician's findings and the patient's status. They pass this information along to the floor nurses when they transport the patients back to the floor. Ms. Cavin did not remember specifically W.V., but testified in her deposition regarding her normal practice when delivering a patient. She advised the staff on 5 East how the patient did during the catheterization, and what the findings had been. However, as stated above, in Cavin's notes she did not mention the recent myocardial infarction, and it is unclear whether she mentioned this to the staff of 5 East. The record is unclear to whom Ms. Cavin reported W.V.'s condition; however, Ms. Burnsed received a report on W.V. when she came on duty from Carolyn Johnson, the nurse who had cared for W.V. on the preceding shift. Ms. Burnsed was advised by Ms. Johnson that W.V. was stable post-catheterization, that he had previous open heart surgery, and that one of his grafts was blocked, but "had good collateral circulation to that." Further, Johnson advised Burnsed that W.V.'s vital signs were good, and he had no problems. Johnson did not mention the recent myocardial infarction suffered by W.V. Although Ms. Burnsed could not specifically remember her actions, her general course of action was to do a complete assessment upon starting the shift, make sure her patients were all right and having no problems, and orient them about the call light and calling her. Her physical assessment of W.V. revealed an apical heart rate of 72, respiration 18, and blood pressure of 100/70. W.V.'s vital signs were monitored by the staff of 5 East every 15 minutes as ordered by the Respondent until 3:15 p.m., when this was reduced to every 30 minutes. At 5:00 p.m., the Respondent saw W.V., who had no complaints and was stable. Ms. Burnsed found W.V. up going to the bathroom at 5:30 p.m., and got him back into bed explaining that it was important that he stay in bed because of his incision for at least 24 hours. Ms. Burnsed checked W.V.'s incision, and found that it was not bleeding at that time. At 7:00 p.m., Ms. Burnsed administered Lasix to W.V., and W.V. asked for and was provided sleeping medication at 9:00 p.m., at which time, Ms. Burnsed took W.V.'s vital signs which were essentially unchanged and stable. At 9:20 p.m. the patient's charts reflect that he was complaining of mild shortness of breath (SOB), and pains in his chest. Pursuant to the Respondent's orders, Ms. Burnsed administered nitroglycerin, 150 grains times one, after checking his blood pressure to insure it was within limits for the administration of nitroglycerine, and oxygen via nasal cannula, two liters, pursuant to emergency orders. This relieved the patient's symptoms. Ms. Burnsed did not report to the Respondent that W.V. had suffered mild shortness of breath and chest pain because the nitroglycerin and oxygen relieved his symptoms. The decision to notify or not to notify the treating physician was described as a nursing judgment based upon the nurse's assessment of the patient's condition after being medicated and placed upon oxygen. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 56, line 8 et seq.) Ms. Burnsed did not consider the patient's condition to have deteriorated given his response to the medication, and did not notify the Respondent. Subsequent to administering the nitroglycerin and oxygen, Ms. Burnsed spoke with W.V.'s wife on the telephone. It is intimated in the depositions that Mrs. W.V. called to advise that her husband had called complaining of shortness of breath and chest pains and an inability to get anyone to assist him; however, no evidence was submitted regarding the content of the conversation between Ms. Burnsed and Mrs. W.V. Five to ten minutes after speaking with W.V.'s wife, Ms. Burnsed returned to W.V.'s room, where she found him resting in bed without complaint. W.V. stated that he wanted to go to sleep. Ms. Burnsed did not remember checking his vital signs on this second visit, and it is most probable that she did not because he was trying to go to sleep. Ms. Burnsed checked W.V. at 10:10 p.m., and found he was not breathing, had no pulse, and was unresponsive. The Cardiac Resuscitation Team was called, and responded. Despite their efforts, W.V. was pronounced dead at 10:50 p.m. Although a partial autopsy was performed which confirmed the findings of the catheterization and the diagnosis of a recent myocardial infarction, the cause of death was not precisely determined. It was assumed by the experts that W.V. did not die of congestive heart failure because he would have complained more. Therefore, the experts concluded that his death was relatively sudden, most probably brought on by an arrhythmia or perhaps a stroke. There was a suggestion that the Respondent did not put W.V. on a monitor because he had a pacemaker. While patients with pacemakers are at no less risk of developing arrhythmias than patients without pacemakers, there was no evidence that this was a consideration of Respondent in placing the patient on a cardiac floor following cardiac catheterization. It was general practice to place cardiac catheterization patients who exhibited signs of cardiac pathology on telemetry for 24 hours following the procedure. The initial orders of the Respondent were consistent with this practice. Testimony was received from the Petitioner's experts was that the Respondent's care was substandard because he did not place the patient on monitoring as they would have done by placing the patient in the emergency room, or the intensive care unit, or the cardiac intensive care unit to obtain telemetry monitoring, or retain the patient in the cardiac catheterization area pending the availability of a monitored bed. Their assumptions regarding the doctor's authority were inconsistent with the procedure for placing patients at St. Vincent's which was the function of the placement nurse. The Petitioner's experts also testified that placing a patient on telemetry notified the nursing staff that the patient required special attention. The Respondent's witnesses were more credible in stating that placing a patient on telemetry was not the way to indicate to nursing staff that the patient required special attention. The testimony of Respondent's witnesses that intensive care personnel were not as well trained as personnel on the cardiac floor to deal with cardiac emergencies is not credible. Both groups of personnel, if not equally versed in cardiac care, are sufficiently skilled in steps to be taken in the event of a cardiac emergency that there would be no appreciable difference in the care provided. Placing the patient in the regular intensive care unit or the cardiac intensive care unit would have required changing the patient's medical status be changed, and there was no change in the patient's condition which would have warranted the change. The patient was extremely ill upon admission, and his prognosis was very poor. W.V. was going to die because of his cardiac condition and chronic pulmonary congestion unless he had a stroke. His condition was irreversible in the opinions of the various experts; however, he would have been released the day following the catherization and treated medically for his problems. The Petitioner's experts opined that the Respondent's decision not to place W.V. in a monitored bed was substandard care because they felt that there was an ethical duty to monitor the patient in the absence of orders directing that efforts not be made to resuscitate notwithstanding the dismal chances for success. Their opinion assumed the Respondent could direct the placement of the patient in a monitored bed on a specific unit within a relatively short period of time because of all the monitored beds in the hospital. The Respondent's experts opined that the decision not to monitor W.V. was within the acceptable standards of medical care by physicians under similar circumstances, i.e., retain the patient in the catherization laboratory where nursing care would have been inadequate pending availability of a monitored bed for up to two hours. Their opinion considered the circumstances at St. Vincent's, and is deemed more credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the charges against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 2nd day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The parties filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1-3 Paragraph 1-3. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 3. Paragraph 6 Paragraph 6. Paragraph 7 While true, this finding is unnecessary to a consideration of the issues. Paragraph 8 Paragraph 7. Paragraph 9 Paragraph 9. Paragraph 10 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 11 Subsumed in Paragraph 37. Paragraph 12 Subsumed in Paragraph 38,39. Paragraph 13 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 14 If arrythmias were undetected, they would have been irrelevant to consideration of the patient's condition. Paragraph 15 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Paragraph 16 Paragraph 46. Paragraph 17 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Paragraph 18 Contrary to more credible evidence; See Parag 48. Paragraph 19 Rejected at Paragraph 43. Paragraph 20 Rejected at Paragraph 40. Paragraph 21 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence; See Paragraph 12. Paragraph 22 Accurately states the expert's credentials, but is not relevant to consideration of the issues. Paragraph 23 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence; See Paragraphs 42 and 47. Paragraph 24 Subsumed in Paragraphs 9,12,47-49. Paragraph 25 Rejected at Paragraph 16. Paragraph 26 See comments to Paragraph 22. Paragraph 27 See comments to Paragraph 23. Paragraph 28 While the may have been a national standard of care, there was not a national set of circumstances which impact the issue of whether the Respondent adhered to the appropriate standard of care. Paragraph 29 Subsumed in Paragraph 47. Paragraph 30 Subsumed in Paragraph 24. Paragraph 31 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 4,5. Paragraph 2,3 Paragraph 6. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 6,4. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 9. Paragraph 6 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence; See Paragraphs 12-14. Paragraph 7-10 Subsumed in Paragraphs 17-19. Paragraph 11 Accurate; however, the patient was stable upon admission. Paragraph 12 Subsumed in Paragraph 46. Paragraph 13 Paragraph 46. Paragraph 14 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 15 Subsumed in Paragraph 25-28. Paragraph 16 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 17 Paragraph 31. Paragraph 18 Subsumed in Paragraph 33. Paragraph 19 Paragraph 37. Paragraph 20 Subsumed in Paragraph 46. Paragraph 21 Paragraph 38,48. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esq. Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael J. Obringer, Esq. Osborne, McNatt, Shaw, et al One Enterprise Center 225 Water St., Ste. 400 Jacksonville, FL 32202-5147 Marm Harris, M.D. Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent: failed to keep proper medical records; (2) committed medical malpractice; or (3) knowingly performed professional responsibilities which he knew he was not competent to perform, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43, chapter 456, and chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2014). At all times material to the complaint, Dr. Rivera-Kolb was a licensed medical doctor within the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 40201. Events of June 25, 2008 On June 25, 2008, Patient J.D., a 43-year-old female, was scheduled for multiple procedures at Florida Atlantic Orthopedics ("the facility"). The procedures included a two- level discogram by Dr. Thomas Rodenberg, followed by a two-level lumbar discectomy by Dr. Roberto Moya, followed by a bilateral L3 to S1 facet radiofrequency lesioning by Dr. Rodenberg. On June 25, 2008, Dr. Rivera-Kolb was working at the facility. As he testified, he had been hired to "harvest information" in personal injury cases such as slip and falls or automobile accidents. He would routinely perform physical examinations, develop full medical histories, and "proceed to follow a certain pattern of doing x-rays, doing certain tests at different agreed times, to comply with regulations imposed on the PI industry." Dr. Rivera-Kolb would also render primary health care and provide patients with anti-inflammatories and muscle relaxants as necessary. As indicated by a "Pre-Op" form dated June 25, 2008, and signed with the name "L. Lerfald, R.N." in the "Signature of Nurse" block, on that morning Nurse Lerfald took various vital signs of J.D. and recorded them at 10:50 a.m. At that time, J.D. was given 8 mg of hydromorphone and 20 mg of Valium. Dr. Rodenberg, an anesthesiologist at the facility, placed a central intravenous line ("IV") in J.D.'s left jugular. Dr. Rivera-Kolb assumed the responsibility of monitoring J.D. and preparing an "Anesthesia Record" during the two-level discogram procedure that was to be performed first. J.D. had been a patient of Dr. Rivera-Kolb's in the weeks before the procedures, and he was aware that she had accelerated hypertension (very high blood pressure). Dr. Rivera-Kolb sat at the head of the operating table, monitored J.D.'s vital signs, and filled out the Anesthesia Record, while Dr. Rodenberg performed the discogram. Dr. Rivera-Kolb then left the operating room. The second procedure, the two-level lumbar discectomy, was performed by Dr. Moya, with Dr. Rodenberg as anesthesiologist. Dr. Rivera-Kolb returned to the operating room after the discectomy and resumed the responsibility of monitoring J.D. for the third procedure, the facet radiofrequency lesioning, which was performed by Dr. Rodenberg. When Patient J.D. was ready to be moved from the operating room to the Post Anesthesia Care Unit ("PACU"), she became unresponsive, with an oxygen saturation of 60 percent and a heart rate of 30. Dr. Rivera-Kolb was the only physician present with the operating room staff when these changes occurred. In a written statement he later submitted to Mr. Robert Yastremzki, medical investigator at the Department of Health, Dr. Rivera-Kolb wrote: She was lying prone on the OR table. The moment she was overturned to a supine position on the gurney, the oxygen saturation alarm went off. There was an abrupt drop in blood pressure and pulse. The OR staff and I made sure all connections were in place. When it was corroborated that all connections were intact, I summoned Dr. Rodenberg to the OR as I reached for ventilation mask to improve oxygen delivery. The symptoms she displayed were consistent with a vasovagal syndrome secondary to local anesthetics injected in the cervical area during the procedure, which is not an uncommon complication. The parties stipulated that Patient J.D. went into full cardiac arrest, and Dr. Rodenberg was emergently called back to the operating room. Dr. Rodenberg arrived almost immediately. J.D. received cardiopulmonary resuscitation ("CPR"), atropine by IV, and a laryngeal mask airway ("LMA"). The left jugular IV appeared to be infiltrated, so Dr. Rodenberg placed a new external jugular line on the right side. After J.D.'s vital signs were stabilized, Dr. Rodenberg replaced the LMA with an orotracheal tube. J.D. was now breathing spontaneously and saturating in the high 90's, and Dr. Rodenberg directed that she be moved to the PACU. Dr. Rivera-Kolb and Nurse Lerfald moved J.D. to the PACU. Once there, her head was elevated. Shortly thereafter, Nurse Lerfald noticed that the left side of J.D.'s face was beginning to swell. Dr. Rodenberg was called back again. When Dr. Rodenberg arrived in the PACU a minute later, J.D.'s face was completely swollen. Dr. Rodenberg assumed control of J.D.'s care. He concluded that the swelling was angioedema and felt that anaphylactic shock was imminent. He detected a faint pulse and directed that the patient be returned to the operating room, where she was placed on a ventilator. A few moments later, no pulse was present, and CPR was begun a second time. J.D. was given epinephrine and atropine, and "911" was called. Dr. Moya was called in to assist. When Dr. Moya arrived, he concluded that the subcutaneous emphysema was secondary to the IV lines in J.D.'s jugulars and that J.D. had bilateral apical pneumothorax. He immediately placed chest tubes, first into the right side, and then the left. When the right chest tube was placed in water to create a negative pressure, clear fluid and gas came out. When the left chest tube was done, white milky fluid and gas were discharged. The Boca Fire and Rescue arrived and resuscitation efforts continued for approximately 25 minutes, after which blood pressure and heart rate were restored. J.D. was then transported to Boca Community Hospital. Pharmacy bills reflect that both midazolam (Versed) and propofol were signed out for use in Patient J.D.'s procedures on June 25, 2008. Dr. Rivera-Kolb signed the Anesthesia Record for the discogram procedure.1/ It indicated that the anesthesia and surgery started at 11:25 a.m. and ended at 11:55 a.m. Under a section entitled "Technique," the form provided check blocks to choose the anesthesia that was used: "General"; "Epidural"; "Spinal"; "Axillary Blk"; or "Other." The block on the form next to "Other" was checked, followed by the hand-written notation "MAC local." The form reflects oxygen saturation levels of 95 and 96 for two consecutive 15-minute periods. It records other readings every five minutes. It indicates systolic blood pressure at levels of 160 and 170 and diastolic blood pressure ranging from 90 to 110. It records a respiration rate of between 10 and 20 and a heart rate between 80 and 90. It does not indicate what, if any, drugs were administered during the procedure. It does not indicate any temperature readings, breath sounds, or EKG readings. Dr. Rivera-Kolb signed his name on the Anesthesia Charge Sheet on the line labeled "Anesthesiologist 1."2/ This sheet indicates that Dr. Rodenberg was the "Surgeon/Referring MD." It shows Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes of "66290 x2," indicating two "lumbar discograms," and "77003," indicating "flouroscopic guided--spine." In the row marked "ASA Physical Modifiers," the notation "P3" is circled. The sheet indicates the procedure was to be conducted with "MAC" anesthesia. It indicates that the pre-op interview was begun at 11:05 a.m. and ended at 11:12 a.m., that the surgery started at 11:20 a.m. and ended at 12:00 p.m., and that anesthesia also started at 11:20 a.m. and ended at 12:00 p.m. Dr. Rodenberg prepared and signed two different Anesthesia Records. Each recorded information for both the discectomy and facet radiofrequency lesioning procedures, even though Dr. Rodenberg performed the facet lesioning procedure himself and so could not appropriately also have performed the duties of anesthesiologist for that procedure.3/ Each of these forms indicates that the surgeries started at 12:04 p.m. and ended at 13:14 p.m., that the patient was in the PACU at 13:20 p.m., and that anesthesia started at 12:01 p.m. and ended at 13:24 p.m. There are differences in the two forms, however. In the section entitled "Technique," the first form has "MAC" written in next to the "Other" block, while the second form has "MAC local" written in this space.4/ In addition to the drugs shown as administered on the first form, the second form also shows the administration of what appears to read "Depo Medrol" and "epinephrine." Neither form documents the administration of either midazolam or propofol. Neither form records any patient temperature readings or breath sounds. While the first form records the last reading of blood pressure and heart rate at 13:15 p.m., the second form shows additional readings taken at 13:20 p.m., which reflect a considerable drop in heart rate to 40, a drop in systolic blood pressure to 75, and a drop in diastolic blood pressure to 20. The second form also contains hand-written notations in the "Remarks" area of the form which appear to read "postop instability," "See Nursing Notes," "See separate dictation(s)," "1324," and "intubated to PACU SR->sat 96%." In the "Post Op Visit" area of the second form a box marked "Complications" is also checked. A hand-written note in J.D.'s file reads as follows: Dr[.] Noback Escobar wanted me to leave this for you. The record was corrected after the fact due to disconnected IV so there might be two slightly different versions. You may call if this is confusing in any way Dr. Rodenberg Assuming that this note was made with respect to the two different Anesthesia Records, it does not provide an adequate explanation of all of the differences in the forms. Most significantly, the second form includes notations at 13:20 p.m. reflecting significant changes in J.D.'s blood pressure and heart rate, and reference to her post-operative instability and complications. These differences would not be explained by a disconnected IV, and the note does not otherwise explain them. There is, however, only one Anesthesia Record prepared and signed by Dr. Rivera-Kolb in J.D.'s medical records. Dr. Rivera-Kolb testified repeatedly at hearing that this form pertained to the third procedure, that is, the facet radiofrequency lesioning.5/ Dr. Rivera-Kolb's testimony on this point is rejected as not credible. The times indicated on the Anesthesia Record he signed are those of the first procedure, the two-level discogram, and are consistent with the time of the pre- operation procedures as documented on the form signed by Nurse Lerfald, with the Anesthesia Charge Sheet also signed by Dr. Rivera-Kolb, and with the times indicated on the Anesthesia Records prepared by Dr. Rodenberg for the second and third procedures. While Dr. Rivera-Kolb insisted that he prepared and kept an Anesthesia Record for the facet radiofrequency lesioning, he offered differing accounts with respect to that form. Dr. Rivera-Kolb's written statement to the medical investigator notes that J.D. was finally stabilized and sent to the hospital, and then continues: In the aftermath of the above described events, I returned to the OR and noticed the anesthesia sheet that I had used to tabulate the vital signs for Dr. Rodenberg was left on the anesthesiologist's table. I retrieved the data and went to the administrative office to hand him the document. Dr. Rodenberg was in the administrator's office with Dr. Moya and Dr. Escobar so I waited outside until their conference was over. As I handed the document to the records keeper Johan Castenada, Dr. Rodenberg exited the office. When I told him that I was placing the document on the operative record, he instructed me to destroy the record. He stated that it was unnecessary for me to get involved in this case since he had been monitoring the patient from his position in the OR and he did not need my tabulations. I was hesitant to destroy the records and asked Dr. Escobar for advice in the matter. Dr. Escobar insisted that I place the recorded data in the operative records where it stands now. He also advised me to file an incident report which I did. Yet in his deposition, Dr. Rivera-Kolb testified that he did not initially record the numbers on the Anesthesia Record, but instead entered them on a Progress Note form: I asked him first, where's the anesthesia sheet? He responded, you know, I don't want you writing in my official documents. And then I was concerned that this could have been a Monitored Anesthesia Care case, I was going to ask him what-–if there had been any changes but he said to me, this is still no anesthesia, local only case, like I told you before. * * * I looked for an anesthesia sheet. They told me they're supposed to be there. I opened a few drawers. I found a progress note and I wrote it on a progress note paper and later transferred it to this page [referencing the Anesthesia Record for the earlier discogram procedure]. * * * I had finished all the numbers in the monitors, yes. I had finished them all but I had to go to another room to transfer it to an anesthesia sheet that I found, you know, when I asked one of the circulating nurses. If the Anesthesia Record for the facet radiofrequency lesioning was not created in the operating room, but was created later in another room from notes made on a Progress Note sheet, the Anesthesia Record could not have been left on the anesthesiologist's table in the operating room following the third procedure. It is undisputed that Dr. Rivera-Kolb sat at the head of the table for the first and third of J.D.'s procedures on June 25, 2008. Numerous medical records of J.D. prepared at or near the time of her procedures provide clear and convincing evidence that the procedures were to be conducted under MAC. The Anesthesia Record dated June 25, 2008, and signed at the bottom by Dr. Rivera-Kolb indicates "MAC local." A Pre-Anesthesia Evaluation form dated June 25, 2008, indicates "MAC w/ GA b/u" after the words "anesthetic plan." The two different Anesthesia Records prepared by Dr. Rodenberg indicate either "MAC" or "MAC local." The Operative Report prepared by Dr. Moya dated June 25, 2008, and describing the second and third procedures, identifies Dr. Rodenberg as anesthesiologist and references "local MAC anesthesia." A Progress Notes form dated June 26, 2008, indicates "Anesth Rivera MD (MAC)." An Anesthesia Charge Sheet dated June 25, 2008, prepared for the discogram indicates the procedure is to be conducted under "MAC" and is signed by Dr. Rivera-Kolb as "Anesthesiologist 1." The Anesthesia Charge Sheet dated June 25, 2008, prepared for the discectomy and facet radiofrequency lesioning indicates that the anesthesia is "MAC" and shows an anesthesia start time of 12:01 p.m. and an anesthesia end time of 13:24 p.m. A Florida Atlantic Orthopedics form dated June 25, 2008, and signed by Nurse Lerfald shows "MAC," indicates the anesthesiologists as Dr. Rodenberg and Dr. Rivera-Kolb, and notes that anesthesia starts at 11:25 a.m. and ends at 13:14 p.m. Dr. Rivera-Kolb's argument that all of these references to MAC surgery should be ignored because the records might have been altered by Dr. Rodenberg is rejected. If Dr. Rodenberg had an opportunity to alter the records, it is not clear why he would not have simply replaced the Anesthesia Record rather than write a note to Dr. Noback. Even if Dr. Rodenberg did have an opportunity to alter the records, however, there is no apparent motive for him to systematically alter numerous documents prepared by different individuals to indicate that the surgeries were MAC if they were not, or any evidence that he did so. Mr. Escobar's testimony in general and, on this point in particular, was not credible. The documents prepared at or near the time of J.D.'s procedures are credited over other documents prepared after the procedures were completed, which were less consistent. A Physician Office Incident Report, which appears to have been stamped as received by the Department of Health on August 11, 2008, states that "[p]atient underwent lumbar discography, percutaneous discectomy, and facet ablation under local anesthesia." Dr. Rivera-Kolb's statement for the medical investigator, dated March 2, 2010, states that "Dr. Rodenberg, the anesthesiologist, requested that I monitor the patient's vital signs and post them in the anesthesia record sheet while he performed minimally invasive procedures under local anesthesia with Monitored Anesthesia Care." Dr. Moya, in his August 21, 2014, deposition, testified, "Well, at that stage of the procedure [the discography], which is done solely under local anesthesia, the person assigned by the anesthesiologist would be someone that looks at the graphs and makes sure that all is within normal limits." Dr. Moya went on to state that Dr. Rodenberg was always the anesthesiologist for all three procedures. Standards Dr. Orlando G. Florete, Jr., holds active and valid Florida Physician's License No. ME 0058430. He is a specialist in anesthesiology with a subspecialty in pain management. He is Board certified in anesthesiology, is a Diplomate of the American Board of Anesthesiology, and was recently elected as president of the Florida Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. He practices anesthesiology on a regular and routine basis at the Jacksonville Surgery Center. He is also the medical director of a pain management office at the Baptist Hospital in Jacksonville. He has been engaged by the U.S. Department of Justice as a consultant and is an expert medical advisor for the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security and for the Florida Department of Health. He served as clinical assistant professor in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Medicine at the University of Florida, College of Medicine, from 1994 until 2000, where he trained residents, fellows, and medical students. He has recently been engaged by the university to teach again in the field of anesthesia and pain management. Dr. Florete is an expert in anesthesiology and has knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education in the prevailing professional standard of care recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent anesthesiologists in Florida. No evidence was presented that Dr. Florete has been recently engaged in active clinical practice, consultation, the instruction of students, or a clinical research program in the general practice of medicine. Dr. Florete conducted a complete review of records provided to him by the Department pertaining to J.D.'s medical treatment on June 25, 2008, including records prepared by Dr. Rivera-Kolb, Dr. Rodenberg, Dr. Moya, Mr. Escobar, and Nurse Lerfald. He also reviewed the depositions of Dr. Moya and Dr. Rivera-Kolb and heard live testimony from Dr. Rivera-Kolb. As Dr. Florete testified, under the American Society of Anesthesiologist's physical status classification system, a patient classified as "P2" is a patient with systemic disease with mild limitation. A classification of "P3" means that the patient has significant or severe systemic disease with definite severe systemic or physical dysfunction. As Dr. Florete testified, the classification of a patient has an impact on the procedure and type of anesthesia used; so, an anesthesiologist must know the physical status of the patient. As Dr. Florete testified, midazolam is a generic name for Versed, in the benzodiazepine class, that is a very potent intravenous sedative that can produce amnesia and loss of consciousness. Propofol, in a one percent emulsion, is a milky- colored intravenous anesthetic that can promote rapid loss of consciousness. Dr. Florete testified, and it is found, that Versed and propofol are the most commonly used combination under monitored anesthesia care to produce that unique level of sedation that allows the surgeon to perform surgery without the patient being agitated, moving, or crying out. As Dr. Florete explained, the acronym "MAC" stands for "monitored anesthesia care." Monitored anesthesia care is a type of anesthesiology in which a qualified anesthesiologist monitors the patient. MAC requires an anesthesiologist to monitor physiological variances of the patient, such as rising blood pressure, increase of heart rate, loss of airway, or agitation in the patient. In MAC, the anesthesiologist must determine what level of anesthesia is advisable and be prepared to administer the medications to induce deep sedation as required. As Dr. Florete testified, a nurse may "tabulate" a patient's oxygen levels, breathing, circulation, and temperature in a case involving only local anesthesia, but simple tabulation of these vital signs by a nurse is not permitted in a MAC case because a nurse is not qualified to make the required judgments. Only an anesthesiologist is authorized to perform monitoring in a MAC case or to fill out an Anesthesia Record. As Dr. Florete testified, a person who assumes the position at the head of the table monitoring a patient in a case of monitored anesthesia care assumes the responsibilities of an anesthesiologist. As Dr. Florete testified, the prevailing professional standard of care requires an anesthesiologist to perform a physical examination of the patient and review the history of the patient prior to MAC. An anesthesiologist must keep records that document the pre-operative medical examination; indicate the type of anesthetic technique employed; indicate the start and end times of anesthesia; record the patient's vital signs over time; and indicate who provided anesthesia to the patient and when. An anesthesiologist must stay with the patient after a procedure until the patient is safely delivered into the PACU. Dr. Florete testified that in a MAC case, it would be a violation of the prevailing professional standard of care for a single person to both perform surgery and attempt to act as anesthesiologist for that same procedure. In a local anesthesia case, a single person could perform both roles. Dr. Florete testified that because Dr. Rivera-Kolb was not an anesthesiologist he "had no business" filling out an Anesthesia Record. Dr. Florete credibly testified that in his opinion, Dr. Rivera-Kolb's actions in monitoring Patient J.D. during surgical procedures that he knew or should have known were to be conducted under MAC and in preparing the Anesthesia Record for a procedure constituted the acceptance and performance of the responsibilities of an anesthesiologist, which Dr. Rivera-Kolb was not competent to perform. Medical Records As Dr. Florete testified, in assuming the responsibility to perform the professional duties of an anesthesiologist, it was incumbent upon Dr. Rivera-Kolb to keep complete and accurate Anesthesia Records that documented a pre- operative medical examination of J.D.; indicated the type of anesthetic technique that was employed; indicated the start and end times of the anesthesia; recorded J.D.'s vital signs over time; and indicated who provided anesthesia to her and when. While Dr. Rivera-Kolb did prepare an Anesthesia Record for the discogram, it failed to record any temperature readings, breath sounds, or EKG readings. As Dr. Florete testified, this Anesthesia Record was incomplete. As for the facet radiofrequency lesioning procedure, it is clear that Dr. Rivera- Kolb, contrary to his testimony, did not keep an Anesthesia Record containing a complete and accurate report of J.D.'s vital signs or documenting who provided anesthesia and when. As Dr. Rivera-Kolb admitted in his testimony, he was the only physician present after the third procedure when J.D. began to exhibit bradycardia and desaturation. Yet he did not document his evaluation of these events in J.D.'s medical records to justify his treatment of J.D. There was no evidence that Dr. Rivera-Kolb conducted a complete physical examination at the time of either the first cardiac arrest in the operating room, or the second cardiac arrest in the PACU. Dr. Rivera-Kolb was present and assisting in the medical treatment of J.D. through two procedures and during two cardiac arrests; yet, the only medical records kept by Dr. Rivera-Kolb were those pertaining to the first procedure. While Dr. Rivera-Kolb maintained that he completed an incident report, this testimony is rejected as not credible. No such report is found in J.D.'s medical records, and Dr. Rivera-Kolb's suggestion that Dr. Rodenberg may have removed it for some unknown reason is only unsupported speculation. There is clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Rivera- Kolb failed to keep legible medical records that justified the course of treatment of Patient J.D., including Anesthesia Reports and records of his evaluations. Dr. Rivera-Kolb was charged with violating the standard of care both in performing as an anesthesiologist during J.D.'s procedures and in assisting in treatment of her complications afterwards. He failed to keep medical records reflecting his participation in the treatment of J.D. for either of those times. The Department did not show that in earlier discipline, Dr. Rivera-Kolb was found to have failed to keep medical records. Medical Malpractice Dr. Rivera-Kolb assumed the responsibility of monitoring J.D. and preparing Anesthesia Records, thereby practicing as an anesthesiologist when he was not competent to do so. As Dr. Florete testified, the prevailing professional standard of care for a given health care provider is that level of care, skill, and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers. In assuming the responsibilities of an anesthesiologist, Dr. Rivera-Kolb is held to the standards recognized by reasonably prudent anesthesiologists. The Department proved that Dr. Rivera-Kolb did not complete a residency, have adequate training, and did not have board certification in anesthesia, all of which Dr. Rivera-Kolb himself admitted. As Dr. Florete testified, a general practitioner engaged in providing anesthesia care would not meet the prevailing professional standard of care. In evaluating Dr. Rivera-Kolb's actions after the three procedures that were performed on J.D., however it was not clearly shown that Dr. Rivera-Kolb continued to act as an anesthesiologist. To the contrary, it appears that Dr. Rivera- Kolb performed as an anesthesiologist during the procedures themselves, in part, because he knew that the surgeon was an anesthesiologist. After the procedures, Dr. River-Kolb resumed the role of a general practitioner, deferring to Dr. Rodenberg and Dr. Moya, and even acting at their direction. The prevailing professional standards of care applicable to the general practice of medicine with respect to J.D.'s post-operative complications were not established. Dr. Florete did testify that, as an "intensivist" who used to "run codes" for some hospitals in Jacksonville, he was familiar with emergency and critical care procedures. He also testified that "any medical doctor" should be able to diagnose pneumothorax "within one minute," because air trapped under the skin produces bulges or swelling which when pressed produces an unmistakable "crackling" sound as the gas is pushed through the tissue. He provided compelling testimony as to the proper diagnosis and treatment of pneumothorax. However, it was not shown that Dr. Florete was qualified to give expert testimony regarding the prevailing standards of care for a general practitioner.6/ Moreover, even if these had been established as the prevailing professional standards of care applicable to a general practitioner, it is not clear that they were violated by Dr. Rivera-Kolb in his treatment of Patient J.D. on June 25, 2008. Dr. Rivera-Kolb was charged with failing to fully evaluate the cause of the bradycardia and the desaturation once the first cardiac arrest occurred. The evidence showed that Dr. Rivera-Kolb immediately put a mask over J.D. and began to ventilate her. Dr. Rodenberg arrived within one minute and assumed control over the situation. Dr. Florete credibly testified that because of training and experience, an anesthesiologist should take the lead in such "code" situations, followed by the surgeon, and finally a general practitioner. It was therefore appropriate for Dr. Rivera-Kolb to defer to Dr. Rodenberg when he arrived. The evidence did not show that before Dr. Rodenberg arrived, there was sufficient time for Dr. Rivera-Kolb to have performed a complete physical examination of J.D. or to auscultate J.D.'s lungs, even if he had had a stethoscope, which he testified that he did not. There is no evidence that in this brief period of time, Dr. Rivera-Kolb caused any significant delay in recognizing the evolving medical emergency or in beginning treatment of J.D. Dr. Rivera-Kolb was also charged with medical malpractice in connection with the treatment of Patient J.D. after she had been stabilized following the first cardiac arrest and moved to the PACU. The Department alleges that Dr. Rivera- Kolb misdiagnosed J.D.'s condition, failed to identify the pneumothorax, and caused delay of treatment. One allegation of misdiagnosis stems from the written statement provided to the Department's medical investigator, as quoted earlier: The symptoms she displayed were consistent with a vasovagal syndrome secondary to local anesthetics injected in the cervical area during the procedure, which is not an uncommon complication. Dr. Florete did testify that vasovagal syndrome could be drug induced. However, contrary to Dr. Rivera-Kolb's statement, it is clear that no local anesthetic would have been administered intravenously through J.D.'s jugular for her procedures. The statement therefore fails to provide an explanation of J.D.'s condition to that extent. In his deposition, Dr. Rivera-Kolb admitted this, testifying that he became confused when writing the statement "two years later." He said that he was thinking that perhaps the jugular IV had pulled away from the vein and was "dripping all those chemicals" into her. Dr. Rodenberg did in fact conclude that the left jugular IV was infiltrated, which is why he inserted the second external jugular line into J.D.'s right side. In any event, Dr. Rivera-Kolb's statement was written some 20 months after the event. It is not clear that Dr. Rivera-Kolb's statement was his diagnosis on June 25, 2008. It may have been that the analysis in his statement was simply Dr. Rivera-Kolb's recollection of Dr. Rodenberg's diagnosis or simply his own opinion in looking back at the events of that day. Another allegation of misdiagnosis is predicated on Nurse Lerfald's identification of J.D.'s facial swelling. Nurse Lerfald went to get Dr. Rodenberg as soon as she noticed it. Patient J.D.'s face was "completely swollen" when they returned, and Dr. Rodenberg immediately assumed control of her treatment. However, there is scant evidence as to how much time passed between the time the swelling was first noticed and the time Dr. Rodenberg arrived. Nurse Lerfald's statement doesn't discuss it. Dr. Rodenberg's statement notes only that when he was called back to the PACU "[a]bout ten minutes had elapsed since the initial period of instability," with no mention of how long it took him to respond after he received the summons. Dr. Rivera- Kolb testified in his deposition that after the swelling was noticed, he put the head of J.D.'s bed down and pushed the endotracheal tube down, saying "[i]t took about less than a minute" before Dr. Rodenberg arrived. While Dr. Florete also testified that it should take "less than a minute" to diagnose pneumothorax from observation of the swelling, it was not clearly shown that Dr. Rivera-Kolb had even that much time before Dr. Rodenberg assumed control for the second time. It is clear that once the pneumothorax was identified, it should have been immediately treated by inserting a large-bore needle into each side of the chest to allow the air to escape while waiting to place the chest tubes. The failure of Dr. Rivera-Kolb to insert such needles immediately after the diagnosis was also alleged to constitute malpractice. But, it is undisputed that the pneumothorax was identified by Dr. Moya; after which diagnosis, Dr. Moya immediately began to insert the chest tubes. The diagnosis and treatment occurred very close in time. It was not clear from the evidence that there was any "wait" time after the diagnosis but prior to Dr. Moya's insertion of the tubes in which Dr. Rivera- Kolb could have acted, even assuming it was appropriate for him, as a general practitioner, to take over treatment of the patient from the orthopedic surgeon who had just made the diagnosis. Even if there had been competent testimony as to the prevailing professional standard of care for a general practitioner, the evidence did not clearly show that Dr. Rivera- Kolb failed to meet that standard or failed to use reasonable care. The Department established by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Rivera-Kolb committed medical malpractice when, as a general practitioner, he engaged in providing anesthesia care. Scope of Practice The Department presented evidence indicating that propofol was in fact administered to J.D. on June 25, 2008. First, there were pharmacy bills in J.D.'s medical record indicating propofol had been issued for her procedures on that date. Second, there were written statements from Nurse Lerfald and Dr. Rivera-Kolb himself that when the left chest tube was placed, air bubbles and a white-colored fluid were discharged. Dr. Florete indicated that the discharge of the whitish fluid from the chest tube was evidence that propofol was given to J.D., because no other drugs administered in this case other than propofol would have produced a white milky fluid.7/ It was not necessary for the Department to show that Dr. Rivera-Kolb himself administered propofol to J.D., that he knew that Dr. Rodenberg had done so during J.D.'s second procedure, or even that he "feared that that was the case" in order to show that Dr. Rivera-Kolb accepted or performed professional responsibilities which he knew he was not competent to perform. The evidence is clear and convincing that Dr. Rivera-Kolb knew, or should have known, that the procedures were to be conducted under MAC.8/ He signed more than one paper indicating this, once in a block designated as "Anesthesiologist 1." He also knew, from his earlier treatment of Patient J.D., that she had accelerated hypertension and that MAC procedures might be advisable. Despite his testimony to the contrary, it is clear that Dr. Rivera-Kolb accepted the responsibility to act as an anesthesiologist during two procedures and to prepare the Anesthesia Record for at least the first of these, and then proceeded to do so. The fact that Dr. Rivera-Kolb knew that Dr. Rodenberg was an anesthesiologist and was in the room performing the surgeries does not excuse Dr. Rivera-Kolb's actions or lessen his responsibility. If Dr. Rivera-Kolb at the time of the facet radiofrequency lesioning did not know specifically what sedatives were and were not administered earlier by Dr. Rodenberg or some other person, that fact would not be exculpatory, but incriminating. Dr. Rivera-Kolb is not board certified in anesthesiology. He has not completed a residency in anesthesiology and has not had adequate training in anesthesiology for him to perform the duties of an anesthesiologist. Dr. Rivera-Kolb knew that he was not competent to perform the professional responsibility of providing monitored anesthesia care to Patient J.D. during her procedures. There is clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Rivera- Kolb accepted and performed the professional responsibilities of an anesthesiologist, which he knew that he was not competent to perform. Dr. Rivera-Kolb's actions in knowingly accepting and performing professional responsibilities which he knew that he was not competent to perform exposed J.D. to potentially severe injury or death. Prior Discipline In December 2003, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Dr. Rivera-Kolb in the Department's Case No. 2001-22573. The complaint alleged that he failed to keep required medical records, prescribed a legend drug other than in the course of his professional practice, and committed medical malpractice in violation of sections 458.331(1)(m), (1)(q), and (1)(t), Florida Statutes (2001), respectively. In December 2003, another Administrative Complaint was filed against Dr. Rivera-Kolb in Case No. 2002-13550. The complaint alleged that he failed to keep required medical records and committed medical malpractice in violation of sections 458.331(1)(m) and (1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), respectively. In February 2006, Dr. Rivera-Kolb entered into a Consent Agreement with the Department of Health in settlement of these two complaints. In a Final Order incorporating the Consent Agreement issued on April 19, 2006, the Department imposed a reprimand, fine, and two-year period of probation against Dr. Rivera-Kolb's license. The Consent Agreement contained no provision finding that Dr. Rivera-Kolb had committed any of the offenses alleged in the complaint. Dr. Rivera-Kolb was not under any legal restraints on June 25, 2008. It was not shown that Dr. Rivera-Kolb received any special pecuniary benefit or self-gain from his actions on June 25, 2008. It was not shown that the incidents involved any trade or sale of controlled substances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health, Board of Medicine, finding that Dr. Rivera- Kolb violated sections 458.331(1)(m), (t), and (v), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine of $20,000.00 and a four-year suspension of his license to practice medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Parkway Regional Medical Center, Inc. (formerly Parkway General Hospital, Inc.) is a Florida corporation, wholly-owned by American Medical international, Inc., of Beverly Hills, California. Parkway is located at 160 Northwest 170th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. Biscayne Medical Center is wholly-owned by Humana, Inc. of Louisville, Kentucky. Biscayne is located at 2801 Northeast 209th Street, Miami, Florida. Both Parkway and Biscayne are located in DHRS District XI, and both propose to establish adult cardiac catheterization capabilities in DHRS District XI. The Local Health Council for District XI has not formally adopted its district plan. Both the Parkway and Biscayne applications are consistent with the State Health Plan. (Stipulated). In March, 1983, DHRS sent a letter to hospitals throughout Florida requesting information concerning the number of cardiac catheterization procedures performed in their laboratories during the calendar year 1981 and the number of cardiac catheterization laboratories now in use. Based upon information received in response to this letter, DHRS prepared an inventory which contains the following for District XI: FACILITY NUMBER OF ADULT CATHS. NUMBER OF ADULT LABS. American Hospital of Miami 531 1 Baptist Hospital of Miami 416 1 Cedars of Lebanon Hospital 367 1 Jackson Memorial Hospital 905 1 Mercy Hospital 494 1 Miami Heart Institute 1,268 1 Mount Sinai Medical Center 872 2 South Miami Hospital 485 1 St. Francis Hospital 535 1 University of Miami Hospital & Clinics 71 0 5,942 10 Although the DHRS survey letter requested information regarding number of catheterization "procedures," some of the hospitals responded on the number of patients catheterized rather than the number of procedures. This resulted in an understatement of procedures, since some patients receive multiple procedures. Rule 10-5.11(15)(d), F.A.C., defines "procedure" as follows: Procedure means an angiographic study, a physiologic study or a therapeutic activity within a cardiac catheterization laboratory which utilizes the equipment customarily used in cardiac catheterization. DHRS plans for cardiac catheterization on a two-year planning horizon. Therefore, the need for Parkway's and Biscayne's proposals should be determined based on projected procedures and population in the year 1986, since the decision is to be made in 1984. The DHRS 1986 population projection for District XI (persons 15 years and older) is 1,529,144. The DHRS inventory reflects 5,942 adult catheterization procedures performed in District XI hospitals in 1981. Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), F.A.C., contains a formula for determining need for additional cardiac catheterization laboratories. One step in the need determination methodology is calculation of the 1981 use rate. Utilizing the 5,942 procedures contained in the DHRS inventory, the 1981 use rate for District XI is 424.73 procedures per 100,000 population. Applying the need determination methodology in Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), F.A.C., to the 1981 use rate and projected population for District XI, the number of adult cardiac catheterization procedures projected for District XI from 1981 through 1986 is as follows: YEAR POPULATION 15 AND OVER 1981 USE RATE NUMBER PROJ. PROCEDURES 1981 1,399,299 424.73 5,942* 1982 1,427,404 424.73 6,061 1983 1,455,477 424.73 6,180 1984 1,483,615 424.73 6,302 1985 1,511,721 424.73 6,422 1986 1,529,144 424.73 6,494 * Actual number of procedures reported in DHRS inventory. Current information from each of the District XI hospitals with adult cardiac catheterization laboratories shows that application of the need methodology formula in Rule 10-5.11(15)(1) understates the number of adult cardiac catheterizations actually performed in District XI in 1982 and 1983, as follows: ACTUAL PROCEDURES ACTUAL YTD PROJECTED 1982 1983 1983 Mercy 441 317 543 Cedars 401 333 571 Miami Heart 833 486 833 St. Francis 917 495 990 JMH 986 580 994 American 576 321 550 Baptist 618 517 886 S. Miami 512 417 715 Mt. Sinai 983 647 1,109 6,267 4,113 7,191 Actual Use Rate 1982 - 439.17 Projected Use Rate 1983 - 494.23 For District XI, from 1980 through 1982, the use rate increased by 9 percent in 1980, 7 percent in 1981 and 3 percent in 1982. If the number of adult cardiac catheterization procedures actually performed in 1983 is projected for a full year, the District XI use rate would have increased by 12-1/2 percent in 1983. Rule 10-5.11(15)(o) provides that additional cardiac catheterization laboratories will not be approved where they would reduce the average volume of procedures performed by existing and approved laboratories in the service area below 600 adult procedures. Assuming an average of 600 procedures per lab, utilizing the projected number of procedures for 1986 and the use rates calculated for 1981, the number of adult cardiac catheterization laboratories required in District XI for 1986 would be 0.8. In accord with DHRS' policy, the 0.8 laboratory should be "rounded up" to 1.0. Therefore, under DHRS' interpretation of Rule 10-5.11(15), correct application of the need formula demonstrates a need for 1 additional adult cardiac catheterization laboratory in District XI. Initially, DHRS took the position that the 0.8 (0.7 for 1984) should be rounded down. However, this view was corrected by later testimony which established that the DHRS procedure is to "round up" such fractions. Parkway's emergency room is the third most active in Dade County and is the major emergency room between downtown Miami and the Broward County line. Parkway's proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory will be located on the same floor as and adjacent to the coronary care unit and the emergency room. Parkway's proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory will be dedicated solely to cardiac catheterization with the capability of mobilizing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Parkway's proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory will contain appropriate staffing and equipment. Based upon the number of patients referred by Parkway cardiologists to other institutions in the Miami area having cardiac catheterization facilities, Parkway projects utilization of its proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory in the first year of operation to be 250 to 300, increasing to 400 in the second year. Parkway does not intend to perform coronary angioplasty in its proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory but does intend to perform streptokinase procedures on an emergency basis on patients exhibiting acute chest pain and EKG abnormalities. Parkway has a written agreement with Cedars Medical Center pursuant under which Cedars will accept open-heart surgery patients from Parkway. Travel time from Parkway to Cedars under normal conditions is fifteen minutes. Biscayne's proposed adult catheterization equipment will be installed, and the procedures will be performed, in its "Special Procedures" Room, rather than a separate cardiac catheterization laboratory. If approved, Biscayne's cardiac catheterization laboratory would be available 24 hours a day and seven days a week on an "on call" basis. However, the anticipated regular hours for the laboratory will be 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., five days a week. Biscayne will staff its laboratory with a cardiopulmonary nurse, an x- ray technician, and a registered nurse. Biscayne proposes to perform only "diagnostic" cardiac catheterization procedures for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Biscayne takes the position that therapeutic procedures such as streptokinase and angioplasty are not medically safe without an in-house open heart surgery program. Biscayne has a written transfer agreement with Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami whereby all Biscayne patients requiring open heart surgery will be transferred to, and accepted by, Jackson for such treatment. The driving time between Jackson and Biscayne is twenty minutes. Biscayne projects 300 cardiac catheterization procedures in its first year of operation and 400 procedures in the second year of operation. These projections are based on the number of patients Biscayne cardiologists currently transfer to other hospitals for cardiac catheterization and an assumed capture rate of 60 percent of all potential procedures generated in Biscayne's service area. Biscayne's "special procedures" room is a multipurpose facility which will be shared with the radiology department. The latter operates three radiographic/fluoroscopic rooms (R&F) and one "special procedures" room. All four rooms are equipped for doing routine radiographic studies and special procedures. "Special procedures" as used by Biscayne refers to investigational studies for the diagnosis of medical conditions through the use of special imaging equipment, such as x-ray and fluoroscopy. About 1400 special procedures were performed at Biscayne in 1982. These procedures were performed in various areas of the hospital, including the R&F rooms, the special procedures room, surgical suites and the critical care unit. Special procedures normally take about one hour to complete. However, the procedure known as angiography is only performed in Biscayne's special procedures room. An angiogram involves an investigation of blood vessels by means of x-rays of injected substances or dyes. Last year, about 400 of the 1400 special procedures performed at Biscayne were angiograms. Angiographic studies of all blood vessels except the coronary arteries are currently performed in the special procedures room. Angiographic studies of the coronary arteries require cardiac catheterization equipment. Over a year ago, DHRS issued Biscayne a certificate of need to renovate and replace equipment in two R&F rooms and the special procedures room. Also, digital angiographic equipment was added to for the special procedures room. Per this certificate of need, Biscayne has purchased the new equipment and renovated these rooms. Construction was scheduled to be complete in October, 1983, but has been delayed. Biscayne will not have to purchase all new equipment (as will Parkway) to add cardiac catheterization capabilities to its special procedures room. Instead, special General Electric equipment will be added to the existing angiographic equipment which will enhance its capabilities to include cardiac catheterization. As a result, Biscayne can provide cardiac catheterization at a projected additional cost of $298,566 compared to Parkway's projected cost of $822,701. However, Biscayne's projection does not recognize that some of the special procedure facility costs should be allocated to cardiac catheterization. Biscayne's pro forma income statement for the cardiac catheterization project allocates 43 percent usage of the special procedures room to this function. As noted by Parkway, a 43 percent special procedures room equipment cost allocation would raise Biscayne's cardiac catheterization capability costs to $683,314. Biscayne does not intend that the inclusion of cardiac catheterization capability will lower the number of special procedures that will be done in a normal eight-hour day. The capacity of the special procedures room as stated by Biscayne's Director of Radiology and supervisor of Biscayne's proposed special procedures room/catheterization laboratory, is 6 per day, 5 days week, for an annual total of 1,560. Biscayne's CON application for the special procedures room projects 1,484 special procedures in the first year and 1,524 in the second year, allowing for 76 additional procedures in the first year and 36 in the second year. Biscayne projects 300 cardiac catheterizations in the first year and 400 in the second year, thereby exceeding the capacity of the combined special procedures room/cardia catheterization laboratory by 224 procedures in the first year and 364 in the second year. Biscayne's proposed sharing of special procedure facilities is a cost savings measure, and in this respect is superior to Parkway's proposal. Although Biscayne could mobilize its cardiac catheterization laboratory on an emergency 24 hour, 7 day basis as required by DHRS Rule (discussed below), it would likely encounter scheduling and use conflicts under true emergency conditions, or even full utilization as noted above. Parkway argues that Biscayne's shared facility plan violates American Heart Association guidelines recommending cardiac catheterization labs be dedicated solely to this use. However, the evidence did not indicate that departure from this guideline would have any adverse impact on the quality of care provided. Parkway is located in Northeast Dade County directly on the Golden Glades Interchange, where Interstate 95, the Florida Turnpike and the Palmetto Expressway intersect. The majority of Parkway's service area is in Dade county, and 86.17 percent of Parkway's patients come from Dade County. Biscayne is located in Northeast Dade County near the Broward County line. The majority of Biscayne's primary service area is within Broward county, and more than 60 percent of Biscayne's patients originate from Broward County. Broward County is within DHRS District X. Comparative statistical information demonstrates that Parkway is more fully utilized, delivers more acute care and has greater patient activity than Biscayne: BASIC STATISTICAL INFORMATION PARKWAY BISCAYNE Licensed Capacity 412 458 Beds in Service 412 330 Discharges 12,917 9,202 Average Length of Stay 9.1 days 8.1 days Patient Days 110,385 79,634 Occupancy 73.4 percent 47.6 percent Bed Mix Med-Surg. 394/72.9 percent occ. 284/65.2 percent occ. Intensive Care 18/89.9 percent occ. 26/77.5 percent occ. E.R. Utilization Visits 27,520 13,110 The Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) was formed in 1979 to monitor hospital costs/charges and to encourage cost containment for Florida hospitals through public awareness and the dissemination of information to the public. The HCCB is a division of the Florida Department of Insurance. Each year, the HCCB collects the prospective budget of each hospital sixty days prior to the first day of the fiscal year for each hospital. The HCCB reviews the data and budget submitted by a hospital, and then determines to accept the budget, reject the budget, or call a public hearing to make the hospital justify its budget. All HCCB action is based on the figures and budgets submitted by the hospitals themselves. The HCCB reviews the financial data submitted to it by various criteria which it labels "screens." The "total net revenue" screen is one of the screens utilized to compare a hospital's average patient charge to others in its peer group. "Total net revenue" refers to the amount of money a hospital actually receives for services provided to patients after all deductions are subtracted. In addition, the HCCB "adjusts" its various financial screens to eliminate the effect of outpatient care and revenues from inpatient activity. Thus, the screens are labeled, for example, as "adjusted revenues" or "adjusted costs." Comparisons between Biscayne and Parkway by using HCCB calculations of data and projections submitted by the two hospitals indicate the following (1983 budgets): Cost to the hospital per adjusted admission Cost to the hospital per adjusted day Total net revenue per adjusted admission Total net revenue per adjusted day PARKWAY BISCAYNE PARKWAY OVER BISCAYNE DOLLARS PERCENT $3954 $3438 $516 15.0 percent $ 458 $ 393 $ 65 16.5 percent $4263 $3595 $668 18.6 percent $ 494 $ 411 $ 83 20.2 percent Comparisons using the same screens for 1984 budgets are as follows: PARKWAY BISCAYNE PARKWAY OVER BISCAYNE DOLLARS PERCENT $4033 $3563 $470 13.2 percent $ 498 $ 422 $ 76 18.0 percent $4346 $3726 $620 16.6 percent $ 537 $ 442 $ 95 21.5 percent Cost to the hospital per adjusted admission Cost to the hospital per adjusted day Total net revenue per adjusted admission Total net revenue per adjusted day As indicated, Parkway's costs to provide hospital services and patient charges for these services have been, and are projected to be, substantially higher than those for Biscayne. PARKWAY BISCAYNE Rate of Increase from 1980 Base Year to 1983 Budget: Per Adjusted Admission 65.1 percent 48.4 percent Per Adjusted Day 65.8 percent 42.8 percent Rate of Increase from 1980 Base Year to 1981 Budget: Per Adjusted Admission 42.4 percent 33.8 percent Per Adjusted Day 50.7 percent 36.0 percent In addition to being more expensive than Biscayne, Parkway exceeds the 80th percentile of its hospital "peer group" in most financial screens. The HCCB places each hospital in a certain peer group based on a number of factors including beds in service, physician mix, Medicare utilization, hospital services index, and median family income. The objective of peer groups is to batch hospitals with similar characteristics for comparison purposes. Biscayne and Parkway are in the same peer group for budget year 1984. Each hospital is then compared to the 80th percentile in its peer group to determine whether that hospital "breaks the screen" or exceeds the standards set by law. "Breaking the screen" means that hospital is in the upper 20th percentile in its peer group. For budget year 1983, Parkway broke the screen for cost per adjusted day and adjusted admission, total net revenue per adjusted day and adjusted admission, and rate of change increases (1980-1983) per adjusted admission and adjusted day. It should be noted that Parkway's screen breaking during this period is at least partly attributable to its 25 million dollar renovation- expansion project. For budget year 1984, however, Parkway again broke the screens for cost per adjusted day, total net revenue per adjusted admission and adjusted day, and rate of change increases per adjusted admission and adjusted day for budget years 1981-1984. Biscayne did not break any of the screens during these same time periods. As noted by the HCCB, Parkway's current profit margin is 13.5 percent compared to the 9.3 percent average for proprietary hospitals in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting the application of Biscayne Medical Center to establish cardiac catheterization capabilities in District XI, and denying the application of Parkway Regional Medical Center, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire John H. French, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Keith E. Rounsaville, Esquire Harold W. Mullis, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 33601 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Medical Center Hospital, is a 208 bed not-for-profit hospital located in Charlotte County, Florida. Its primary service area is Charlotte County. It has secondary service areas including DeSoto County and the peripheral areas of Lee and Sarasota Counties, which adjoin Charlotte County. It has filed an application for a Certificate of Need authorizing it to establish a cardiac catheterization (cardiac cath) lab at its facility in Punta Gorda, Florida. After review by HRS staff personnel, the Department initially elected to deny the Certificate of Need application. HRS District 8 includes Collier, DeSoto, Lee, Sarasota, Hendry and Charlotte Counties. Charlotte County is in the approximate geographic center of that district and is the third most populous county in the district. There are 622 acute care beds in Charlotte County divided among three acute care hospitals. There are no cath labs in Charlotte County and in all of District 8, there are only three: (1) Memorial of Sarasota in Sarasota County, (2) Lee Memorial in Lee County and (3) Ft. Myers Community Hospital in Lee County. Charlotte County has a significant population of elderly citizens. This elderly portion of the population is that portion composed of persons of the age of 60 years or older. The population growth of the county and the surrounding areas has been very rapid and continues to be. Charlotte County has historically grown at a rate faster than that of the State of Florida. The county has the largest percentage of elderly persons of any county population in the United States, with approximately 34 percent of its citizens being in the elderly category. Statistically, this elderly age group has the highest degree of damage to coronary arteries and major vessels of the heart. The population of persons over 45 years of age is the broader age group of candidates for cardiac catheterization, comprising approximately 55 percent of the total population of the county. Approximately 40 percent of Petitioner's hospital patient volume, based upon its total admissions, consists of cardiac patients. This percentage is actually higher when computed in terms of patient days of care. Significantly, Medicare eligible patients, the more elderly patients, constitute the predominant number of Petitioner's hospital admissions. The 1981 and 1982 Medicare patient days were 67.16 percent of the Petitioner's total patient days. Patients in the primary and secondary service areas of the Petitioner's hospital, as well as the other two acute care hospitals in Charlotte County, who require cardiac cath services must now be referred out of that county. This referral process, with attendant delays in providing sometimes critical emergency care to patients, disruption of their living routines and those of their families attending them, causes a significant adverse impact on patients in terms of costs, personal health risks, stress and overall adverse effects on the quality of patient care. The economic costs of this referral process are significantly higher than if a cardiac cath facility were located in Charlotte County, especially in terms of the duplicated services and duplicated expenses involved in care for such cardiac patients since many of the aspects of care provided by the Petitioner as the initial admitting facility are duplicated when the patient arrives at the referral facility. A referral for cardiac cath to another physician and hospital involves transfer of the patient, if the patient is already an inpatient at the Petitioner's facility or one of the other two Charlotte County hospitals. The cost of an ambulance or helicopter transfer is significant and must be borne by the patient or the patient's reimbursement provider. The patient must be admitted to the referral facility as an inpatient. This leads to an additional facility charge, not to mention additionalmental and physical stress, on the patient. In turn, another physician at the referral facility must admit the patient to that second facility. He, in turn, will charge a fee. Further, additional laboratory tests and procedures are performed at the referral facility as part of the standard patient "work-up." These include all manner of blood examinations and tests and analyses, chest x-rays, EKG's and the like. Fees are charged for all of these tests and procedures which, in the case of an inpatient requiring cardiac cath, would have already been performed at Use referring facility. Added to this duplication of costs is the stress occasioned the cardiac patient by simply having to go to another hospital at a distance from his home, to a new doctor, to have that new doctor with whom he is unfamiliar, perform a procedure that the patient is apprehensive about. Additional real-life, practical problems involving equipment breakdown can result in additional inpatient time and expense at can result in additional impatient time and expense at the referral facility, since, in the present scenario, that is the only facility in the area with a cardiac cath lab and appropriate equipment. The transporting of a high risk patient, who should not be subjected to the transfer process due to the stress an risk it poses, but must be because the cath procedure cannot be legally performed by the referring facility (Petitioner), presents a clinically significant and often unacceptable risk of death for such patients. Without the cardiac cath lab capability at Petitioner's facility, optimal care to cardiac patients cannot be provided by the physicians and facilities attempting to treat such patients in the Charlotte County area. The minimum service volume requirement (as delineated in the cardiac cath rule at paragraph (i)(4)) requires that a minimum of 300 cardiac cath procedures be performed annually in a cardiac cath lab within three years following the initiation of those services. The number of cardiac cath procedures generated from the Charlotte County area is and has been significantly high for a long period of time. Dr. Rosenfield established that from his practice alone in Charlotte County, 175 to 160 cases have been referred for cardiac cath services since January, 1983. Based on the practices of other cardiologists and physicians in the area, Dr. Rosenfield was able to establish that 400 to 500 cardiac cath procedures a year could be performed in Petitioner's lab, if authorized. In addition to the actual patients referred out of the area, for instance to Lee County, for cardiac cath services, are those patients who refuse referrals. In these instances, patients, although recommended to undergo a cath procedure, refuse to because they are afraid or otherwise unwilling to go to an unfamiliar hospital outside of their county or to an unknown physician. Dr. Rosenfield had approximately 50 to 100 cases in his practice, in 1984, he would have referred to a cardiac cath facility in Lee County or other areas, but his patients refused to accept that arrangement. In short, it was established that the Petitioner can meet the minimum service volume requirement embodied in the so-called "cardiac cath rule." The frequency of cardiac caths being performed in District 8 facilities is increasing in an unbroken trend. Catheterizations are typically performed earlier in a patient's illness and hospital stay than in former times in order to earlier and better diagnose the patient's condition. This results in a higher quality of care for the cardiac patient and lessening of the overall cost of that patient's care both by reducing the number of hospital days and avoidance of unnecessary, sometimes duplicative diagnostic tests. There is a clear national and District 8 trend in cardiac medical practice which consists of performing more therapeutic cardiac caths as a useful tool of preventive cardiac medicine. Actual recent historical utilization and demand for cardiac cath service in District 8 has not been consistent with the prediction embodied in the calculations provided for in Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), Florida Administrative Code. That rule seeks to predict future cardiac cath procedures required in a future year (here 1986) by multiplying the 1981 actual cardiac cath use rate by the 1986 projected population in the District. The resultant figure is then divided by 600 to yield the number of cardiac caths needed as determined by the rule methodology. In the instant situation however, that abstract mathematical calculation projects that 1,833 procedures would be performed in 1986, yielding "need" for three cardiac cath labs. However, in District 8, in 1983, the actual cardiac cath procedures performed, without consideration of the six months of cardiac cath procedures performed by the Lee Memorial Lab in 1983 (annualized), were actually 2,089 procedures, significantly in excess of the need calculation the rule demonstrates for the year 1986, three years later. Utilizing the Department's rule-based mathematical calculation of need, it would be 1990 before enough procedures are projected to warrant a fourth cardiac cath lab in the District. In 1990, 2,128 procedures would be projected by the rule. Actual 1983 procedures, again only including six months of operation of the Lee Memorial Lab without annualizing that six month's experience, fall only 39 procedures short of what the formula shows to be the 1990 "need." If Lee Memorial's 1983 procedures were annualized, the resultant number of District 8 procedures in 1983 is 2,255, more than the Respondent's projected 1990 "need." Thus, the situation established for District 8 in Charlotte County is clearly a "not normal" factual situation, in that the Department's rule methodology shows for 1986, the "horizon" year at issue, and indeed even for 1990, that less procedures will be "needed" than the Petitioner established have already been performed in a single year, i.e. 1983. Thus, due in part to the high percentage of elderly patients who have more frequent need of cardiac cath procedures in the Charlotte County and District 8 population, the need calculation provided for in the above rule clearly does not mesh with nor address what the actual need is already. It is also significant to note that the actual numbers of cardiac cath procedures performed in District 8 cath labs in 1981, as compared to the numbers of unverified procedures reported to HRS, clearly result in a showing of a need for a fourth cath lab consistent with the need determination formula. Six- hundred thirty-three cardiac cath procedures were performed in 1981 at the Ft. Myers Community Hospital and Memorial Hospital of Sarasota. These procedures were "right heart" cath procedures which were included within complete Catheterizations or other Catheterizations procedures, which were counted as one procedure for reporting to HRS, but which in actuality involve separate procedures and billing. The addition of 633 procedures to the 1,482 procedures reported to and employed by HRS in its calculations herein results in a total of 2,115 actual 1981 procedures. Thus, the revised 1981 use rate results in a total of 2,511 projected procedures, for a 1986 horizon year need of 4.2 cath labs. The 1984 real utilization rate reveals in turn, as projected through the year end of 1984, an immediate need in District 8. This is predicated on the Department's acknowledged policy of granting one cath lab for each 600 procedures. If the 2,274 procedures actually experienced in 1984 in District 8 is divided by 600 there results a need of 3.79, or four, cath labs for 1984 based upon the 1984 actual utilization rates. It is also noteworthy that if 1983 actual use rates are utilized, the resulting computation reveals the need for four cath labs for the year 1986. The additional basis upon which the Respondent, HRS opposes the grant of the application is the feared inability of the Petitioner to meet the requirement of Rule 10-5.11(15)(i)5.a. which requires that cardiac cath labs in a facility not performing open heart surgery must submit with their CON applications a written referral agreement with a facility providing open heart surgery within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions. The Petitioner's application however, (Exhibit 5 in evidence) shows that indeed written referral agreements for open heart surgery between the Petitioner and Memorial Hospital of Sarasota and Ft. Myers Community Hospital have been executed. Ft. Myers Community Hospital is accessible from the Petitioner's location in 20 to 25 minutes travel time by an emergency vehicle, with normal driving time of 30 to 35 minutes. In the context of financial feasibility and control or economy in health care costs to the public, it is established that the Petitioner presently has space available in its existing facility and substantially all of the equipment necessary to perform cardiac catheterization procedures. The cost of its proposed lab will be a maximum of $87,000. That cost includes purchase of new equipment and modifications to the existing examination table.1 It is significant that the cost of this project is substantially less than that which existing health care providers may spend without undergoing certificate of need review, as long as they do not seek to offer a new service. The cost of the project is minimal in relation to the benefits to be derived by patients of the health care service area by institution of the additional cardiac cath service represented by this application. In a similar vein, no issue has been raised concerning the financial feasibility of the Petitioners installation and operation of the proposed cardiac cath lab service.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Certificate of Need authorizing the installation and operation of a cardiac catheterization laboratory for its facility at Punta Gorda, Charlotte County, Florida be issued to Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, d/b/a Medical Center Hospital. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Wiley, Esquire 666 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary L. Wilkins, Esquire 590 Harbor Blvd., Northwest Suite 204 Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 John M. Carson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd. Building 2, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. G. Boone, Esquire and Robert T. Klingbeil, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue here is whether Memorial should be authorized to operate the cardiac catheterization service it has already initiated. The parties have stipulated that criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c)(5), (7), (9), (10) and (13), Florida Statutes (1983), are not in contention and that Section 381.494(6)(d)(5), Florida Statutes (1983), does not apply. Still in dispute is whether Memorial's application conforms to the criteria set out in Section 384.494(6)(c)(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (8), (11), (12) and (6)(d)(1), (2), (3) and (4), Florida Statutes (1983), and Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code. Among the parties' posthearing submissions are proposed findings of fact. By order entered February 3, 1984, Fort Myers Community Hospital's motion to strike DHRS' proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and final order was denied. Proposed fact findings have been considered in preparation of the following findings of fact, and have been adopted, in substance, except where not supported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Findings Of Fact Community and Memorial are in Fort Myers, Florida, about three miles apart. Since 1974, Community has offered cardiac catheterization services. Memorial instituted these proceedings in hopes of obtaining authority to establish a second cardiac catheterization service in Fort Myers. Memorial already had an arteriographic radiology room and had only to spend approximately $232,835 in order to acquire a polydiagnostic-parallelogram, a cine pulse M-400 single plane system, a 35 millimeter camera, a "CMB-A Combilabor 2 Cine" film processor and a film projector. With this new equipment, Memorial has gained cardiac catheterization capability, but it is still unequipped for open heart surgery. Memorial instituted cardiac catheterization service in July of 1983. Under an agreement between the hospitals, Memorial's Exhibit No. 5, cardiac patients at Memorial needing open heart surgery can be transferred to Community, once the need is apparent. DISTRICTS In 1981, and as late as the time of the hearing, Lee, Collier, Hendry, Glades, Charlotte, Sarasota, DeSoto, Highlands, Hardee and Polk Counties comprised District 8. As of October 1, 1983, however, the district shrank to seven counties, with the shift of Highlands, Hardee and Polk Counties to District No. 6. In 1981, there were three cardiac catheterization laboratories in what was then District 8: one each at Community, Lakeland Regional Medical Center and Sarasota's Memorial Hospital. Lakeland Regional in Polk County is now in District 6. Population projections for the ten counties originally in District 8 are as follows, for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985: 1981 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 62088.0 66.146 41086.6 33.854 21019.4 12.258 COLLIER 91456.8 80.428 73557.1 19.572 17899.7 18.464 DESOTO 19531.2 83.715 16350.5 16.285 3180.7 21.719 GLADES 6153.6 84.737 5214.4 15.263 939.2 22.697 HARDEE 19663.2 88.488 17399.6 11.512 2263.6 27.396 HENDRY 19339.2 91.255 17647.9 8.745 1691.3 28.362 HIGHLANDS 49460.8 73.075 36143.6 26.925 13317.2 17.605 LEE 215752.8 77.297 166770.2 22.703 48982.6 17.485 POLK 329801.6 85.519 282043.7 14.481 47757.9 21.750 SARASOTA 209440.8 69.897 146392.8 30.103 63048.0 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1022688.0 78.470 802588.5 802508.3 21.530 220099.5 220179.7 18.389 PROJECTION 1982 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 65716.0 66.255 43540.2 33.745 22175.8 12.258 COLLIER 96942.6 79.921 77477.6 20.079 19465.0 18.464 DESOTO 20023.4 83.655 16750.5 16.345 3272.9 21.719 GLADES 6315.2 84.177 5316.0 15.823 999.2 22.697 HARDEE 19947.4 88.350 17623.5 11.650 2323.9 27.396 HENDRY 20079.4 91.112 18294.8 8.888 1784.6 28.362 HIGHLANDS 51395.6 72.509 37266.4 27.491 14129.2 17.605 LEE 226239.6 76.941 174070.8 23.059 52168.8 17.485 POLK 337951.2 85.350 288440.7 14.650 49510.5 21.750 SARASOTA 216630.6 69.761 151124.0 30.239 65506.6 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1061241.0 78.184 829904.3 829719.6 21.816 231336.7 231521.4 18.389 PROJECTION 1983 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 69344.0 66.364 46019.7 33.636 23324.3 12.258 COLLIER 102428.4 79.414 81342.5 20.586 21085.9 18.464 DESOTO 20515.6 83.594 17149.8 16.406 3365.8 21.719 GLADES 6476.8 83.617 5415.7 16.383 1061.1 22.697 HARDEE 20231.6 88.211 17846.5 11.789 2385.1 27.396 HENDRY 20819.6 90.969 18939.5 9.031 1880.1 28.362 HIGHLANDS 53330.4 71.942 38367.1 28.058 14963.3 17.605 LEE 236726.4 76.585 181296.7 23.415 55429.7 17.485 POLK 346100.8 85.180 294810.1 14.820 52190.7 21.750 SARASOTA 223820.4 69.625 155835.7 30.375 67984.7 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1099794.0 77.897 857023.3 856710.0 22.103 242770.7 243084.0 18.389 1984 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 72972.0 66.474 48507.1 33.526 24464.9 12.258 COLLIER 107914.2 78.907 85151.7 21.093 22762.5 18.464 DESOTO 21007.8 83.534 17548.6 16.466 3459.2 21.719 GLADES 6638.4 83.057 5513.7 16.945 1124.7 22.697 HARDEE 20515.8 88.073 18068.8 11.927 2447.0 27.396 HENDRY 21559.8 90.827 19582.1 9.173 1977.7 28.362 HIGHLANDS 55265.2 71.376 39446.0 28.624 15819.2 17.605 LEE 247213.2 76.229 188447.9 23.721 58765.3 17.485 POLK 354250.4 85.011 301152.3 14.989 53098.4 21.750 SARASOTA 231010.2 69.490 160527.9 30.510 70482.3 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1138347.0 77.611 883945.6 883479.4 22.389 254401.4 254867.6 18.389 PROJECTION 1985 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 76600.0 66.583 51002.4 33.147 25597.6 12.258 COLLIER 113400.0 78.400 88905.3 21.600 24494.7 18.464 DESOTO 21500.0 83.473 17946.7 16.527 3353.3 21.719 GLADES 6800.0 82.497 5609.8 17.503 1190.2 22.697 HARDEE 20800.0 87.934 18290.3 12.066 2509.7 27.396 HENDRY 22300.0 90.684 20222.5 9.316 2077.5 28.362 HIGHLANDS 57200.0 70.809 40503.0 29.191 16997.0 17.605 LEE 157700.0 75.873 195524.4 24.127 62175.6 17.485 POLK 362400.0 84.842 307466.2 15.158 54933.8 21.750 SARASOTA 238200.0 69.354 165200.5 30.646 72999.5 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1176900.0 77.324 910671.1 910027.8 22.676 266228.9 266872.2 18.389 PROJECTION These figures come from Community's Exhibit No. 1, as to which all parties stipulated. USE RATES The parties also agreed that, during the calendar year 1981, cardiac catheterization procedures in the district amounted to 743 at Community, 739 at Memorial Hospital in Sarasota, and 409 at Lakeland Regional, for a total of 1891 procedures, of which 1482 occurred at cardiac catheterization laboratories still in District 8. Since no cardiac catheterization laboratory in District 8 takes pediatric patients, this segment of the population must be excluded in calculating District 8 cardiac catheterization use rates. Of the total 1981 population of what was then District 8, 18.389 percent was under the age of fifteen. It follows that 834,626 persons 15 or older lived in District 8 in 1981. 1/ Dividing 1891 cardiac catheterization procedures by the adult population yields a 1981 use rate of 226.56854 per 100,000 persons for "old" District 8. Excluding cardiac catheterization procedures performed at Lakeland Regional and excluding the population of Highlands, Hardee and Polk Counties, the 1981 use rate for what has become District 8 can be calculated by dividing 1482 by 521526.76. This yields a use rate of 284.15666 per thousand persons resident in 1981 in the area of which District 8 is now comprised. In the state as a whole, 28,497 adult cardiac catheterizations occurred in 1981. Community's Exhibit No. 2. Dividing by Florida's projected 1981 population of 10,028.317, Community's Exhibit No. 1, the statewide cardiac catheterization use rate in 1981 was 284.16532. HRS no longer uses the cardiac catheterization projections in the State Health Systems Plan. CALCULATIONS REQUIRED BY RULE The parties have stipulated to the applicability of Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, which is in evidence as Joint Exhibit No. 4, and of which official recognition has been taken. This rule prescribes multiple numerical standards. First is a minimum service volume of "300 cardiac catheterizations performed annually . . . within three years . . . [of] initiation of service." Rule 10-5.11(15)(i)(4), Florida Administrative Code. Without a need for catheterization services, no applicant could meet this requirement but the minimum service volume requirement is designed to ensure that the technicians do their work often enough to remain proficient and is not, strictly speaking, a need criterion. It is clear from the evidence that Memorial can meet this minimum service volume requirement. Fifty or sixty procedures had already occurred at the Memorial laboratory by the time of the hearing. The other arithmetic calculations called for by the cardiac catheterization rule relate specifically to need. Because 1983 is the year in which Memorial initiated cardiac catheterization services, Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the number of cardiac catheterization procedures in the service area "Nx" be calculated for 1983. The rule specifies that this is to be accomplished by multiplying the 1981 use rate by the 1983 population. For purposes of the rule, the pertinent 1983 population is the adult population of present District 8, which, based on Community's Exhibit No. 1, amounts to 568,097 persons. Whether the statewide use rate or the use rate prevailing in what has become District 8 is used, the result is virtually identical. Multiplying by the 1981 use rate calculated with reference to the territory that is now District 8 yields 1614.3365 procedures in 1983. Multiplying by the 1981 use rate for Florida statewide yields 1614.3346. Multiplying by the 1981 use rate for what was then District 8 yields 1287.126, but this number cannot be said to relate to the population to be served in District 8 as it is presently constituted. For purposes of Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), Florida Administrative Code, therefore, "Nx" equals 1614. Rule 10-5.11(15)(o), Florida Administrative Code, requires that "Nx" be divided by the number of "existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area." Memorial's program has never received final approval, even though it is in fact operating and therefore "existing" within the meaning of the rule. Since Community and Sarasota's Memorial also have existing programs, the rule requires that 1614 be divided by three, yielding 538 as the average number of procedures per laboratory per year. Rule 10- 5.11(15)(o)(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that there shall be no additional adult cardiac catheterization laboratories established in a service area unless: The average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area is greater than 600. . . . No party contends that Memorial's application meets this rule criterion. All agree that three is the appropriate divisor. Nor is there any justification for adding the minimum service volume (300) to the need for cardiac catheterizations (1614) which the rule establishes for District 8. The rule treats the 300 as a subset of the 1614 total. COMMUNITY'S LABORATORY UNDERUTILIZED During the period January 3 to June 30, 1983, the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Community performed 517 catheterizations 2/ for an average of 4.34 procedures per day the laboratory was open. The cardiologists schedule their own procedures, by asking their office staff to arrange times with the Community employee who keeps the appointment book for the laboratory. Tuesday is most popular. During the period from January 3 to June 30, 1983, an average of 4.75 cardiac catheterizations occurred on Tuesdays in Community's laboratory. Wednesdays and Thursdays saw comparable, although lower utilization, but the average number of procedures dropped to 4.08 for Mondays and to 3.74 for Fridays. As a rule, cardiologists in Fort Myers do not perform these procedures on weekends. The cardiac catheterization laboratory at Community can handle five procedures a day comfortably. A single crew of technicians occasionally did seven cases a day, but this involved working overtime. The laboratory normally in operation no earlier than eight in the morning and no later than two or three in the afternoon. The average case takes an hour and fifteen minutes or so. When manipulation of the catheter beyond a heart valve proves exceptionally difficult, a case may take as long as two and a half hours. Without adding staff or lengthening its hours or changing its methods, the Community laboratory easily has the capacity to perform 25 cardiac catheterization procedures a week or 108 a month. In no month has this number been exceeded. In only one was it approached. On the basis of a 50 week year, 1250 procedures can be done without changing anything other than physicians' schedules on Mondays and Fridays. In 1982, Community performed only 806 procedures. The laboratory at Community has substantial unused capacity. Changes short of increasing hours of operation could increase the laboratory's capacity drastically. Of the time expended in a normal cardiac catheterization at Community, only 15 to 20 minutes actually entails use of specialized laboratory equipment. Preparing the patient for catheterization and administering post-catheterization care need not take place inside the laboratory proper. Experience in Florida has taught that moving pre- and post- care outside the laboratory itself makes seven or eight cases a day possible without going beyond two in the afternoon. Changes that would not require a certificate of need could increase Community laboratory's capacity substantially. There are eight cardiologists in the Fort Myers area, all of whom are on staff both at Community and at Memorial, and one possibility would be adding a second shift, or a sixth or seventh day. Either of these steps might entail adding not only catheterization technicians but also additional personnel for ancillary services, however. There is talk of introducing coronary transluminal angioplasty at Community, which would increase the demands on the laboratory, by some ten percent. (Approximately five percent of cardiac catheterization patients are candidates for coronary transluminal angioplasty and this procedure takes twice as long as the ordinary catheterization, on average.) Changes at Community's laboratory not requiring a certificate of need could readily offset any such an increase in utilization. EMERGENCY CATHETERIZATIONS A cardiac catheterization constitutes emergency therapy when, in order to restore normal blood flow, the catheter is used to introduce streptokinase, an enzyme that dissolves blood clots. Streptokinase may be injected intravenously so that it reaches a blockage at the desired strength, but there is a risk of untoward side effects. Use of the catheter permits local application of the enzyme to a blood clot blocking an artery. Neither of the cardiac catheterization laboratories in Fort Myers has ever administered streptokinase through a catheter, however. When a patient is admitted to hospital complaining of chest pains, and other tests do not indicate otherwise, cardiac catheterization may be appropriate, before the patient leaves the hospital. Once or twice, when there was an equipment failure at the Community laboratory, patients in this category had to be discharged and readmitted in order to be catheterized. On about ten occasions in the course of a year patients admitted with severe chest pains had to wait more than 12 hours for the laboratory to be free and in some of these cases the wait exceeded 24 hours. By comparison, the laboratory is idle for much longer periods weekends. Between two o'clock Friday afternoon and eight o'clock Monday morning, there are of course 66 hours; and there was no evidence of any use of the Community cardiac catheterization laboratory on weekends in recent times. CONTINUITY OF CARE About forty percent of the patients who are catheterized are deemed appropriate candidates for open heart surgery. Since Memorial does not have open heart surgery capability, patients must be transferred by ambulance to Community, in emergency situations. Otherwise they are discharged from Memorial and later enter Community or another hospital where open heart surgery is performed. EQUIPMENT COMPARABLE Nobody questions the adequacy of Community's laboratory. Memorial and Community offer identical cardiac catheterization services and each has all the equipment necessary to perform the services offered. Both Memorial and Community have digital vascular imaging equipment, but Community's vascular imaging equipment is not available for cardiac catheterization procedures. It is used in connection with other radiological techniques and is located elsewhere in the hospital. Since Memorial does cardiac catheterization in its radiology room, its digital vascular imaging equipment is available for cardiac catheterizations. Memorial cannot get more precise images with its equipment, but computer enhancement does allow precise images to be obtained with the use of less dye. According to uncontroverted testimony, however, the difference in the amount of dye is not large enough to affect the risk "as regards [anaphylactic] type reactions" (T. 403) to the dye. Memorial also has a U-arm apparatus that Community does not have. This facilitates taking pictures from different angles, but increased facility in this regard is only important in the performance of angioplasty procedures, which Memorial does not offer. Pursuant to Rule 10-11.5(15)(i)(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code, Memorial cannot offer coronary angioplasty because, unlike Community, it does not have facilities for open heart surgery. FINANCES Memorial's charges for a routine left heart catheterization exceed Community's charges for the same procedure by half, and are about 25 percent higher than average in the country. Memorial's charges exceed Community's for all catheterization procedures. There was no showing that anybody has ever been denied a cardiac catheterization at Community for inability to pay. The evidence suggested that this is more to the credit of the medical staff than to Community's administration, however. Memorial obviously had money available to finance initiation of its cardiac catheterization service, and might even make money on the service after a couple of years, if allowed to continue. It is losing money now, at least if its catheterization service is viewed apart from the "spinoff." One effect of permitting Memorial to operate a duplicative cardiac catheterization service in Fort Myers would be to divert revenues Community would otherwise have received to Memorial. Not only revenues for the catheterization procedures themselves, but also revenues attributable to the use of hospital rooms and other hospital services would be diverted, making the resulting marginal profit available to subsidize medical care at Memorial for which full charges go unpaid. Memorial has a high charity load and about double the proportion of medicaid patients that Community has. This undoubtedly contributes to making Memorial's charges in many categories among the very highest in the state. Community realizes profits of about $3,500,000 annually and could, at least theoretically, absorb the drop in profit that would attend its loss of revenue, without raising charges. But the fact remains that the cost of medical care to the community has increased because of Memorial's higher charges for identical services. In this case, competition increases rather than decreases total charges, as well as costs. The community could expect to pay more for catheterization services in the future if there are two laboratories in Fort Myers. MANPOWER Memorial hired its chief cardiac technician away from Community, which was still seeking a replacement at the time of the hearing. There is every reason to believe that enough staff can be obtained to man both laboratories, but it is the duplication of these salaries, more than the relatively insignificant duplication of capital costs, that makes two cardiac laboratories in Fort Myers a wasteful proposition at present.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services deny Memorial's application for a certificate of need for a new catheterization service. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August 1984.
The Issue Should the Board of Medicine (the Board) discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida, based upon allegations that he violated Sections 456.072(1)(bb), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in the care and treatment of Patient H.J.?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME: 65565. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes. On or about July 21, 2003, the Respondent performed peritoneal dialysis catheter removal on Patient H.J. at Bay Medical Center (Bay Medical). Peritoneal dialysis is a technique that uses the patient's own body tissues inside of the abdominal cavity to act as a filter. On or about August 25, 2003, Patient H.J. presented with erythema (a redness of the skin resulting from inflammation) and induration (localized hardening of soft tissue of the body) in the area where the peritoneal dialysis catheter had been removed. On or about December 3, 2003, the Respondent performed exploratory surgery of Patient H.J.'s wound. Additional Facts Patient H.J. suffers from end-stage kidney failure, diabetes and heart disease. Dr. Ahmad Oussama Refai treated Patient H.J. for his kidney failure. Dr. Refai is a board- certified Nephrologist. Dr. Refai referred Patient H.J. for placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter (catheter) to address the end-stage kidney failure. The catheter, as Dr. Refai describes it, was intended to remove the poisonous material in the blood of Patient H.J. By using the catheter clean fluid is introduced into the abdomen where it remains for a period of about four hours. The fluid introduced contains electrolytes put in the patient's blood stream. After the residence time for the fluid expires, the fluid is withdrawn through the catheter removing the harmful material. The patient, once instructed, is capable of performing the procedures described. The other option in performing this method of dialysis is to use a device that is employed at nighttime called a cycler, used while the patient is asleep and without the need for the patient to conduct the process. The patient's use of the catheter for dialysis is referred to as "home dialysis." Before Dr. Refai referred the patient to Respondent to place the catheter, the patient had been treated for his end- stage renal disease through a forearm AV graph to provide hemodialysis. That technique allows access to the patient's blood through a shunt, with the blood being run through a machine and cleansed and returned back to the patient. This procedure is done several times a week at out-patient centers, whereas the peritoneal dialysis is done daily by the patient or at night. On June 30, 2000, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and determined that the patient was a good candidate for the surgery necessary to place the catheter to perform peritoneal dialysis. On July 19, 2000, Respondent placed the catheter and peritoneal dialysis treatment was commenced. Following the placement the catheter was used by the patient as overseen by the Dr. Refai. As Dr. Refai describes it, the catheter is a silestic tube that has two cuffs. The cuff at the lower level sits on the fascia where it is secured and the other cuff is just under the skin or in the subcutaneous tissue. Dr. Refai describes the cuffs as fuzzy. The cuffs are expected to induce an inflammatory process promoting scarring so that the body forms tissue to hold the catheter in place. Dr. Refai calls this a bond. Dr. Refai explains that the other parts of the catheter are "slippery." It is the fuzzy part that holds the catheter in place. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 is an unused catheter similar in design to that placed in Patient H.J. On July 7, 2003, Respondent, Dr. Refai, and a Dr. Dean discussed Patient H.J. and the plan to remove the catheter that was no longer adequately performing the dialysis. On July 21, 2003, Respondent did surgery to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. On July 17, 2003, before Respondent did the surgery to remove the catheter, an explanation was made to Patient H.J. of the risks associated with the surgery as to bleeding, infection, MI stroke, death, and allergic reaction following removal of the catheter. Following the surgery Dr. Refai as the treating physician was aware that the wound associated with the surgery was not healing well and Dr. Refai sent Patient H.J. back to Respondent. Dr. Refai is familiar with the course of antibiotics prescribed for Patient H.J. to respond to the condition and the surgical exploration done by Respondent where a piece of cuff, as Dr. Refai describes it, was removed and the wound healed. December 3, 2003, was the date of the exploratory surgery. At that time, Patient H.J. was on hemo-dialysis and was being seen by Dr. Refai once a week. In Dr. Refai's opinion Patient H.J. was doing remarkably well, making allowances for his underlying condition (illnesses). At present Dr. Refai is aware that the patient is on the list to receive a kidney transplant. On August 1, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. In his notes Respondent stated: His wounds look good. There is no evidence of infection. No fever or chills. He looks well. He is not taking any pain medicine. I am going to see him back in a month for a final visit. On August 25, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again. The Respondent's notes stated: His p.d. catheter removal site which was removed 4 weeks ago has some erythema and induration around it. I ultrasounded it here in the office and it looked like there was a little fluid. I anesthetized the area and opened it. There was no gross pus. I am going ahead and treat [sic] him with some Keflex and have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday as I am going to be out of town. This may come to a head and become an abscess. It may just be some cellulitis. I am not real sure why he would have cellulites as it certainly did not look like a hernia. I am going to have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday and make sure it is improving. On August 29, 2003, a note was made by Dr. Beaver concerning his visit with Patient H.J. In that note Dr. Beaver said: Patient of Dr. Kinsey. He was seen back for re-check. Apparently he was having some questionable cellulites around his p.d. cath today. He states that he is feeling much better. On examination, I see no redness at all and per the office assistance it has much improved. There is really not tender [sic]. It looks to me like it is improving. We will plan for him to see Dr. Kinsey back next week. On September 12, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and in the office note stated: The area in his left lower quadrant is completely healed. He is doing well. I am going to see him back in one month for a final visit. On September 16, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note stated: He had some drainage from his previous p.d. catheter site. It does not appear to be infected. I am going to follow this area and see him in the office in a month. On September 30, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note it states: He still has some drainage from the p.d. catheter exit site [sic] it was done about eight weeks ago. I told him that I would like to leave that along [sic] for at least three months and follow that. If it does not improve after three to four months then we may need to explore the wound but it may be a piece of suture that it [sic] trying to spit. We will see him back in the office in about 6 to 8 weeks. On November 11, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and noted: He is still draining from his p.d. catheter exit site. This has been 5 months. It is time to explore the wound. We will proceed to the operating room for exploration in the sinus tract. I suspect that there will be a piece of the catheter in the bottom of the wound. On December 1, 2003 Respondent saw Patient H.J. for the pre-operative visit. At that time he noted: He is here for a pre-op for a wound exploration for his p.d. catheter removal site. He still has some granulation tissue there. I am going to plan to probe the area and evaluate where the sinus goes. On December 3, 2003, the surgery was conducted on Patient H.J. and Respondent noted: He underwent a left lower quadrant wound exploration. The p.d. catheter cuff was within the subcutaneous tissue and that is why his wound [sic] not close. This was removed and then the would [sic] was closed. He tolerated the procedure well. The various surgeries that have been discussed which were performed by Respondent took place at Bay Medical in Panama City, Florida. In the operative procedure report at the hospital related to the December 3, 2003 exploratory operation Respondent described a pre-operative diagnosis as: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. The post-operative diagnosis stated: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. Foreign body (peritoneal dialysis catheter cuff), left lower quadrant abdominal wound. The procedure performed was described as: Wound exploration and foreign body removal. The intra-operative findings related to the operation were: He was found to have a cuff of the catheter within the tissue. He had a small piece of p.d. catheter attached to it. The cuff had obviously broken. The catheter was broken with a cuff remaining in the subcu tissue. There was no intra-abdominal portion. In comparison, on July 21, 2003, in the operative/procedure report at Bay Medical through the description of the procedure to remove the catheter Respondent stated: . . . The previous incision in the left hypogastric area was anesthetized with local anesthetic and sharply incised. This was carried into the subcutaneous tissue and p.d.-catheter dissected and divided. The catheter was then pulled from the subcutaneous tissue at the exit site. The catheter was then delivered into the wound and abdominal wall cuff sharply incised and the catheter removed. The fascial edges were then reapproximated with 2 figure-of-eight0- vicryl sutures. On July 21, 2003, when Respondent removed the catheter from Patient H.J. no pathology was ordered. On December 3, 2003, following the exploratory surgery and retrieval of the catheter pathology was ordered. Daniel G. Dena was the pathologist at Bay Medical who addressed the specimen which was described by the pathologist as: "Tissue-p.d. catheter cuff" The anatomic diagnosis referred stated: "p.d. catheter cuff: plastic catheter, with attached fibro-fatty tissue at one end, showing acute and chronic inflammation." The macroscopic examination in the pathology report stated: "The specimen is labeled 'pd catheter cuff'. Received is a portion of plastic tubing measuring approximately 5 cm in length and up to 0.5 cm in diameter, with a cuff of soft tissue at one end measuring 2.5 cm in length and 1.2 cm in diameter." On July 26, 2004, in responding to the investigation that led to this prosecution Respondent stated in writing in relation to Patient H.J.: The original peritoneal dialysis catheter removal had gone uneventfully and I felt that both cuffs of the catheter had been removed in their entirety. But this was found not to be the case. I have placed a number of these catheters and removed a number as well and have not had this type of problem before. Visual inspection of the catheter on removal is routinely undertaken to ensure that the cuffs are removed and I felt that this had been completely removed but I was obviously mistaken. I am not sure if this was a defect in the catheter. Evaluation of the catheter and assurance of complete cuff removal would have probably prevented this process. I am certainly more cognizant of this being a problem in subsequent catheters that I have removed. At the original time of catheter removal the operative site appeared appropriate. At hearing Respondent offered additional explanation concerning the July 21, 2003 operation to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. and the exploratory surgery on December 3, 2003. As Respondent explained, in the July 21, 2003 surgery Respondent made a 3-to-4 cm incision about the belly button towards the middle of the abdomen through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, the fascial layer and muscle and peritoneal layer. The peritoneal layer is a semi-permeable membrane that waste products removed in the dialysis will cross. The catheter is placed into the abdomen. The catheter is 12 to 14 inches in length with a curlicue tail and holes in the end of the catheter that allows the fluids to be introduced and withdrawn from the abdomen. As Respondent explained the catheter has two cuffs, the smaller of which is designed for placement in the rectus muscle located along the inset part of the abdomen. The smaller cuff sits inside that muscle. Tissue attaches to that cuff to keep fluid from leaking out, to keep the catheter in place and to prevent bacteria from going down the outside of the catheter. There is a segment of the catheter between that cuff and a larger cuff which sits underneath the skin in the subcutaneous tissue. The tissue in that area attaches to the cuff and serves to hold the catheter in place. When removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, Respondent used an incision of about 3 cm and encountered the mid-portion of the catheter located between the two cuffs which was dissected down through the fascia and taken out with the portion in the abdomen being removed first. Before making the incision to remove the catheter, Respondent cut the portion of the catheter outside the body of Patient H.J. off, including the metal and plastic valves and other paraphernalia hanging out of the patient. The purpose of removing the catheter outside the patient's body was in the interest of protecting the surgical field from contamination to avoid wound infection. The part removed inside the patient initially was the intra-abdominal portion. The intra-abdominal portion of the catheter, including the cuff in that area was sharply removed. The cuff was 2 or 3 times the size that it would have been when first placed and the part around the cuff was cut to allow the catheter to be extracted. The area of the fascia was closed. Next Respondent addressed the subcutaneous portion of the catheter by following it out and sharply cutting the tissue around the catheter and the subcutaneous cuff with scissors to remove that portion which also had an ingrowth of scar and fibroblastic tissue. Once the portions of the catheter with the cuffs, had been removed Respondent looked to determine if he had both cuffs which appeared at that time as a wad of scar and tissue. Respondent then closed the wound. Respondent believed that he had removed the whole catheter, to include the cuffs. In fact the subcutaneous cuff was not entirely removed and another portion of the catheter remained in the patient following the July 21, 2003 surgery. Respondent's estimate of what had been left in the patient and removed on December 3, 2003, was about 2 cm of the subcutaneous cuff and then a portion of the balance of the catheter. In commenting on the difference between the pathology report and his visual assessment on December 3, 2003, Respondent remarked about "all the stuff" grown onto the cuff and catheter. He also said it had a lot of specimen, taken to mean the "stuff" attached to the cuff and catheter. Although in the operative notes from December 3, 2003, Respondent says the catheter broke, at hearing he stated that he did not know whether the catheter had been cut or broke during the July 21, 2003 procedure to remove the catheter. No independent tests were conducted to determine whether the catheter broke during the July 21, 2003 surgery or was cut by Respondent. Respondent does not precisely remember the appearance of the catheter, to include the cuffs, when examining it on July 21, 2003. But he believed that he had successfully removed the entire catheter. In his testimony Respondent describes the office visits subsequent to the July 21, 2003 surgery. When he saw Patient H.J. he observed cellulitis around the area of the incision which was treated with oral antibiotics and resolved. Respondent used ultrasound to determine whether fluid had collected in the area where he observed the cellulitis. No fluid collection was seen. Drainage was noticed around the exit site where the catheter came out of the skin, which ordinarily takes a month to six weeks to heal. Concerning the drainage around this exit site, Respondent expected the drainage to resolve within around five weeks unless there were a piece of suture or other kind of event keeping the site opened and draining. The wound site where the incision was made healed without incident. The exit site continued to drain. After a time Respondent concluded that the reason for the drainage was either an epithelilized sinus tract, a piece of suture, a piece of catheter, a piece of cuff, or a piece of dressing for the wound. Respondent waited a time before doing the exploratory surgery in view of the use of an absorbable suture in the July 21, 2003 surgery which would have dissolved over time, precluding the need to do the exploration. Respondent, given the problem with the drainage from Patient H.J. following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter, does not believe that the failure to remove this fragment would have killed the patient or have caused a lot of problems, but it was bothersome enough that it was worth the effort to try and find it and get the patient healed. Respondent in dictating his post-operative note on December 3, 2003, thinks that the catheter had broken and continues to hold to that belief, although he recognizes that it may have been cut in the prior surgery. Concerning his practice at Bay Medical, Respondent did not routinely have an X-ray done for patients undergoing surgery without a more specific reason for ordering it. Nor did he order a pathology examination following surgery absent the need for specific information. Patient H.J. in his testimony described the level of pain following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter as "a little pain." Expert Opinion Dr. Stanley P. Kococki is a general surgeon licensed in Florida. He is board-certified in general surgery. He has had experience placing and removing peritoneal dialysis catheters. He was qualified to offer expert opinion testimony concerning Respondent's treatment of Patient H.J., in particular, the surgery performed July 21, 2003. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that the Respondent fell below the standard of care in treating Patient H.J., in that Respondent failed to recognize that he had left a portion of the catheter in the patient, which Dr. Kococki describes as a retained foreign body and that this caused the patient to undergo a second unnecessary procedure, meaning that the second procedure would not have been necessary if the catheter had been removed completely in the first surgery. The failure to remove could possibly have caused serious problems for the patient, to include septicemia and death, according to Dr. Kococki. Dr. Kococki refers to the Respondent's obligation in removing the catheter, to make certain that the whole catheter was removed and that the wound properly healed beyond that point so that the patient would not experience problems. While recognizing that there are different techniques for removing the catheter from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki took issue with the method employed by the Respondent. Dr. Kococki believes that there are other methods for avoiding the problem with infection than to cut the catheter outside the body. There was no description of the use of a hemostat or clamps to hold the retained part of the catheter once the outside segment had been cut, so that the remaining portion of the catheter would not be lost under the skin. In addition, by cutting the catheter in two places there was a chance of leaving a piece of the catheter in the patient. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that when you cut the catheter in several places you have to remember where the pieces of the catheter are left in the patient. Given other circumstances during the surgery that occupy the surgeon's mind, it can lead to leaving a piece of catheter behind. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that leaving the catheter behind was not in the best interest of the patient because it led to subsequent surgery and had the sinus tract closed over the foreign body would have caused a localized infection and abscess formation around that area and possibly allowed for the bacteria from the abscess to enter the patient's bloodstream causing sepsis, and abscess formation in other organs, possibly the abdominal cavity, with a possible rupture intra-abdominally causing the patient to have generalized peritonitis. That can be life threatening and ultimately lethal. It is more of a problem with the person that has end-stage renal failure, in that the patient has a weakened immune system and lessened prospects to fight off infection. Dr. Kococki relied upon the pathology report made after the December 3, 2003 surgery to accurately describe the size of the segment that was left in the patient. In order to ascertain what actually happened with the catheter Dr. Kococki believes that the company or an independent examining body would have to determine if the catheter was defective. Even in the instance where the catheter may have broken in the initial surgery to remove it on July 21, 2003, the onus is still on the surgeon removing the catheter to examine it to make certain it was removed intact. Dr. Kococki characterizes the catheter as commonly present and utilized in surgical procedures to place and remove peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Kococki describes the catheter as a medical device, unlike a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle. Dr. Kococki recognizes that the purpose of the catheter is to perform dialysis but the retained portion left after the initial surgery to remove the catheter does not have a medical purpose, in his judgment. Dr. Kococki describes the cuff in the field related to the abdominal wall as providing a seal to avoid bacteria. The cuff as he understands it has an antibiotic coating that will help fight off infection. The cuff reacts with the patient's body tissue to act as a sealant. To have avoided the problem of failing to account for a portion of the catheter during the initial surgery to remove it from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki believes that the easiest thing to have done was while the patient was in the operating room send the catheter to a pathologist and have it measured for comparison against the known size of the catheter when first placed. A second safe-guard would be to use a portable X-ray of the abdominal cavity to make sure that there was no radiopaque material in the abdomen or subcutaneous tissue. The catheter has radiopaque material allowing this identification in Dr. Kococki's understanding. Dr. Kococki was not familiar with the procedures at Bay Medical where the catheter removal from Patient H.J. was performed. The bylaws of the institution do not require that the catheter be sent to pathology following removal. Dr. Thomas A. Gadacz testified in the interest of Respondent. He is licensed in several states. He is not licensed in Florida. He is an expert in the field of general surgery. He has placed and removed peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Gadacz describes the catheter as a medical device. It has nothing in common with a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle, in his opinion. As a surgeon Dr. Gadacz refers to sponges, forceps, clamps and surgical needles as items whose sole purpose is to assist during an operation, not intended to be left in the body. They are to facilitate an operation to provide exposure, to conduct the operation but they are not a therapeutic modality. By contrast the peritoneal dialysis catheter is used primarily for therapy by remaining in the patient for specified periods of time to treat the patient. Other aids in performing an operation are cotton balls called kitners, metal retractors and cannulas. Dr. Gadacz explains that the purpose of the cuffs related to the catheter is to react to the body so that tissue grows around them. The other part of the catheter made of Teflon is designed to be non-reactive. Dr. Gadacz is aware that catheters of the type under discussion have fractured or broken. Dr. Gadacz explained that the fracture of a cuff is not common. In his experience, in the instance where a segment broke in a catheter, Dr. Gadacz removed it. On the other hand the failure to remove the piece is not necessarily below the standard of care as Dr. Gadacz explains, "because some times this happens, and its, you don't know that that has happened." The possibility of knowing that the segment broke off is difficult. As Dr. Gadacz describes, it was impossible given the tract involved with the surgery here. The gross inspection of the catheter once removed from the patient is a process in which it is difficult to make certain that both cuffs are there because of the encrusting fibrous tissue found after removing the cuffs, causing the cuffs to no longer have the same appearance as when first placed. The visual inspection made of the catheter after removal would not necessarily reveal whether it was removed in its entirety, according to Dr. Gadacz. Dr. Gadacz is unfamiliar with surgeons who would use an X-ray after removal of the catheter to confirm that the entire catheter had been removed. Instead he defers to Respondent's operative note on December 3, 2003, where the Respondent says that the catheter had obviously broken to explain the failure to retrieve the catheter. Dr. Gadacz does not believe sending the catheter to pathology after it was removed on July 21, 2003, would necessarily have been useful because it would take familiarity on the part of the pathologist with that form of catheter to recognize that a part was missing. Dr. Gadacz recognizes that the fragment from the catheter left in Patient H.J. at the end of the initial surgery to remove the catheter is medically considered a foreign body because it was not part of the human body. Dr. Gadacz found nothing in the care provided by Respondent by to Patient H.J. after the July 21, 2003 surgery that was questionable. Dr. Gadacz did not find the technique Respondent used in removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, from the Patient H.J. to be below the standard of care. Generally Dr. Gadacz did not express the opinion that Respondent practiced below the standard of care. Dr. Gadacz explained that had the segment continued to be present in the patient there would have been a major risk of continuing infection and ultimately the patient could have developed a serious abscess in the subcutaneous tissue that could become life-threatening or nothing may have happened, and the segment may have been walled off by the patient's body. In determining the comparability of what is described in Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003), as "other paraphernalia," to those items listed within that section, "such as a sponge, clamp, forceps, surgical needle," that are "used in surgical examination, or other diagnostic procedures," reliance is made upon testimony from Dr. Gadacz. As a surgeon, the opinion by Dr. Kococki is rejected for reasons that will be explained in the conclusions of law. When considering whether Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, as envisioned by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), with the specificity called for in that provision, Dr. Kococki is more compelling in his opinion that the fragment left in Patient H.J. should have been removed in the earlier operation whether it broke or was cut by Respondent. The notion that there are times when some portion of the catheter may have been left in the patient, as was the case here, with no consequences to the practitioner, as expressed by Dr. Gadacz is not persuasive. Disciplinary History The Respondent has no prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the guidance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 8.001, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent did not violate Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003); that Respondent did violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003); placing Respondent on probation for two years; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; requiring Respondent to perform 50 hours of community service; requiring the completion of 5 hours of continuing medical education on "risk management" and requiring him to present a one-hour lecture to a group of peers discussing retention of foreign bodies in surgeries and techniques to avoid the retention. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Miller Ephraim D. Livingston Assistants General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Albert Peacock, Esquire 8554 Congressional Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Jose Rosado, M.D., (Respondent), violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Florida law. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0068035. Respondent is board-certified in internal medicine and cardiovascular diseases. On March 10, 1997, Patient W.B.C., a 72-year-old man, arrived at the Leesburg Regional Medical Center (LRMC) emergency room. He complained of a sudden onset of weakness in his left hand and arm with numbness and tingling. Respondent was Patient W.B.C.'s primary care physician. Respondent admitted Patient W.B.C. with a diagnosis of cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome and a history of myocardial infarction. Respondent ordered that Patient W.B.C. undergo a head CT scan, carotid Doppler, 2-D echocardiogram, an electroencephalogram, and a neurological consultation. Based on the test results and the consultation, Respondent diagnosed Patient W.B.C. with right cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome, and history of myocardial infarction. Respondent then discharged the patient with Ticlid, a medication to prevent further cerebrovascular accidents and aspirin. On March 16, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was admitted to LRMC complaining of weakness, dizziness and a fever. His vital signs revealed a temperature of 103.0 F, a pulse of 118, and a blood pressure of 139/75. The emergency room physician ordered a chest x-ray, EKG, and urine and blood cultures. The chest x-ray revealed no acute cardiopulmonary abnormality. Urine tests revealed features consistent with the possibility of urosepsis. Blood work showed a white blood count of 9.15, elevated but within the normal range. Also on March 16, Respondent ordered that antibiotics be given prophylactically until the blood cultures came back from the laboratory. The cultures came back positive for staphylococcus aureus (staph). Staph is a notoriously “bad bug” and Staphylococci aureus bacteremia has a high mortality rate. Staph aureus can originate from several possible sources including infections through the urinary tract system, IV sites, aspiration into the lungs, and pneumonia (although not very common). Staphylococci in the bloodstream is known as bacteremia. Bacteremia can lead to endocarditis which is an infection of the inner lining of the heart and the heart valves. Endocarditis is a life-threatening condition that can quickly damage the heart valves and lead to heart failure or even death. Patients with certain cardiac conditions such as mitral valve regurgitation have a higher risk of developing endocarditis. Patient W.B.C. had such a history. On March 17, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was started on intravenous antibiotics by Respondent. Patient W.B.C. continued to receive the intravenous antibiotics for four days from March 17, 1997, through March 20, 1997. Respondent then switched Patient W.B.C. to oral antibiotics and kept the patient in the hospital one more day prior to discharging him with instruction to continue on the oral antibiotics for another ten days. Patient W.B.C. was discharged on March 21, 1997. He was not referred to an infectious disease specialist nor had Respondent obtained a consultation with any specialist to determine the length of time that the patient's infection should be treated. Respondent felt that he was adequately qualified to treat this patient, and the treatment appeared to work. Respondent thought the bacteria growing in the patient's blood "likely" originated from a lung infection. An infectious disease specialist should have been consulted to give guidance as to how long to treat the infection. The standard of care for treating a staph aureus infection where there is a known source of infection requires 14 days of intravenous antibiotics. Where the source is not known, then four to six weeks of antibiotics is recommended. In this case, the infection, a resistant staph infection found in the patient's blood, could have originated from several sources. While such staph could have sprung from a source in the lung, this is by no means likely and the infection could have originated from another source. The standard of care required that Respondent contact an infectious disease specialist for an evaluation and/or that he treat Patient W.B.C.’s staphylococcus with a minimum of 10 to days of intravenous antibiotics. On or about April 11, 1997, Patient W.B.C., presented to the emergency room at LRMC complaining of congestion, shortness of breath, fever of 100.3° F, and a cough. The emergency room physician performed a physical exam which revealed vital signs of a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104, and a blood pressure of 90/54. A chest x-ray, blood work and a urine culture were ordered. Patient W.B.C. was then admitted on April 11, 1997, with a diagnosis of pneumonia, an old cerebrovascular accident and coronary artery disease. The ER physician started Patient W.B.C. on a plan of treatment which included intravenous antibiotics, Vancomycin, IV fluids, and blood cultures. A physical examination on the patient revealed a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104 and blood pressure of 91/53. The attending physician diagnosed him with probable sepsis with pneumonia. On April 12, 1997, the blood cultures came back positive for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. On April 15, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was afebrile (without fever) and his white blood cell count was 10.23, which is within the normal range of 4.0 to 11.0. The patient continued in this condition through April 18, 1997, despite suffering from sepsis. On April 18, 1997, Respondent approved Patient W.B.C. for transfer to another institution for consideration for urgent mitral valve replacement. On April 19, 1997, Patient W.B.C. arrested and was pronounced dead at 5:53 a.m. Petitioner’s expert, Carlos Sotolongo, M.D., is board- certified in internal medicine, cardiovascular disease and nuclear cardiology. As established by Dr. Sotolongo's testimony, Respondent practiced below the standard of care by failing to treat Patient W.B.C. with a sufficient number of days of intravenous antibiotics and by failing to consult an infectious disease specialist. According to Dr. Sotolongo, there is a difference in the way that an uncomplicated pneumonia is treated as opposed to a pneumonia complicated by bacteremia. The latter must be treated more aggressively. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and imposing a penalty which includes a formal reprimand, payment of an Administrative Fine in the amount of $5,000.00 within 180 days, and eight hours of Continuing Medical Education (CME) to be completed within the next 12 months dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of infections and/or risk management. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Kim M. Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital's application for a Certificate of Need to operate an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program in AHCA District 10 should be granted or denied by the Agency for Health Care Administration?
Findings Of Fact The parties Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital, ("CCFH,") is a not-for-profit corporation which owns and operates a 153 bed acute-care hospital located within the incorporated limits of Fort Lauderdale on Route A1A in the mid-section of Broward County, AHCA District 10. Among its 153 medical and surgical beds are approximately 11 beds in the intensive care unit and a similar number of intermediate care beds. CCFH is not a Level II trauma center; nor does it provide comprehensive medical rehabilitation services or the tertiary health care services of open heart surgery or organ transplantation. But, fully accredited by the Joint Commission of Health Care Organizations for Special Care Units, provision of tertiary care services in South Florida is a long-term goal of CCFH. Amisub (North Ridge Hospital), Inc., d/b/a North Ridge Medical Center, owns and operates a general acute-care hospital located in Broward County. It provides adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services as well as open heart surgery services. North Broward Hospital District, (the "District,") owns and operates hospitals in Broward County. Among the hospitals are three that provide, individually, adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services. The three hospitals, each a division of the District, are known as Broward General Medical Center, ("BGMC,") Imperial Point Medical Center, ("IPMC,") and North Broward Medical Center, ("NBMC.") In addition to cardiac cath services, BGMC provides open heart surgery services. Holy Cross Hospital is located in the northern part of Broward County within thirty minutes travel time of CCFH by emergency vehicle. It has 587 total licensed beds; 535 are acute care beds, 9 are level II NICU beds and 43 are rehabilitation beds. There is an open heart surgery program at Holy Cross and an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program with two cardiac cath laboratories. The Agency for Health Care Administration is the single state agency authorized by Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes, to issue or deny certificates of need, "written statements ... evidencing community need for a new ... health service [such as an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program.]" Section 408.032(2), Florida Statutes. Other Cleveland Clinic Organizations Cleveland Clinic Florida ("CCF") is a not-for-profit corporation separate and apart from CCFH. Comprised originally of 24 or 25 physicians, most of whom came from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Cleveland, Ohio, it began operation in Broward County on February 29, 1988. CCF initially established an outpatient diagnostic and treatment facility on Cypress Creek Road in the eastern middle part of Broward County with the long- term aim of providing tertiary health care services in the South Florida market. It contracted for hospital services with North Beach Hospital, and with the growth of its practice, purchased the hospital in 1990. Converted into a separate not- for-profit corporation, (the applicant in this proceeding,) the hospital was re- named Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital in 1993. In the six years since the inception of its practice, CCF has expanded into a multi-specialty group practice of approximately 85 physicians, representing more than 30 specialties. Both CCF and CCFH are subsidiaries of the same parent corporation. Although governed by separate entities, a Board of Trustees in the case of CCFH and a Board of Governors in the case of CCF, both entities' boards report to a common Board of Trustees. That board is the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the parent corporation, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. The Foundation, located in Cleveland, Ohio, is a not-for-profit corporation that serves as the sole corporate member of CCFH. Presently a multi-disciplinary group of approximately 500 salaried physicians, the Foundation is an integrated physician hospital organization, composed of hospital and clinical divisions and a research institute. In contrast to a traditional hospital environment in which a hospital governance may or may not be in accord with its service components' goals, these divisions and the research institute act in concert. The Foundation's organizations and its physicians, therefore, through collaborative effort, carry out the same mission: to provide better care of the sick, to investigate the problems of their illnesses, and to advance those who serve in like capacities. Fundamental values associated with this mission include quality, integrity, compassion, collaboration and commitment. Established in 1921, the Foundation has an extraordinarily distinguished history in cardiac care including coronary cardiac catheterization. Staff members, for example, performed the first valve transplant with bypass surgery. More pertinently, coronary angiography, a diagnostic procedure involving placement of a catheter into the heart, and which accounts for more than 80 percent of diagnostic cardiac catheterization activity, was performed for the first time at the Foundation. Today, the Foundation enjoys wide-spread recognition as a leader in cardiovascular care, research, and education. It is a major tertiary referral center for cardiac patients, treating high risk patients, many of whom have recurring heart disease. The Foundation's hospital in Cleveland has approximately 1,000 beds and is a full service tertiary care center with the exception that it does not provide obstetrics. The Foundation has seven cardiac cath laboratories used primarily for adult cardiac cath or angiography. An eighth laboratory is used to evaluate the arteries in the legs. There are approximately 17 cathing cardiologists on staff at the Foundation's hospital, compared to two on staff at CCFH. On average, 280 adult diagnostic cardiac cath procedures are performed there annually. 12. Despite the close relationship among the Cleveland Clinic organizations, CCFH is a separate entity from the others. The Foundation hospital, as outlined above, is both much larger than CCFH, and a major tertiary referral center when CCFH, at the moment, can only hope to provide tertiary services in the future. Most importantly, while advantages enjoyed by the Foundation may flow directly to CCFH because of their close relationship, the Foundation is not a co-applicant with CCFH in this proceeding. Nor is CCF a co-applicant. The applicant in this case is CCFH only. Pre-hearing Proceedings Including a Projection of Numeric Need Leading to the Agency's Intent to Grant CCFH's Application. 13. On August 6, 1993, the AHCA published in the Florida Administrative Weekly its Summary Need Projections. The Agency's publication projected a need for one additional adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program in District No party challenged the Agency's projection of numeric need. By letter dated August 19, 1993, CCFH notified the Agency of its intent to submit a Certificate of Need application for an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program in District 10. On the same day that the letter of intent was filed with the agency, August 23, 1993, CCFH filed a copy of the letter with the Broward Regional Health Planning Council. Within fourteen days of the filing of the notice of intent with the Agency, CCFH twice published in the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel a Notice of Filing. The first publication was on August 23, 1993, the second, on September 3, 1993. On September 22, 1993, CCFH filed the application with the Agency and on the same day filed a copy with the Broward Regional Health Planning Council. On October 7, 1993, the Agency acknowledged receipt of the application and informed CCFH that, "[c]ertain elements have been omitted from your proposal which are needed to implement formal review." Cleveland Clinic's Composite Ex. No. 2, Tab 3. Attached to the letter were a list of the omissions under the heading, "Omissions - Certificate of Need No. 7449." The letter informed CCFH that it was required by law to file an omissions response with both the Agency and the appropriate local health council by 5 p.m. on November 8, 1993, or else the application would be incomplete and deemed withdrawn by operation of Agency rule. On November 8, 1993, CCFH timely filed an omissions response with the Agency and a copy with the Broward Regional Health Planning Council. One week later, the Agency acknowledged receipt of the response and deemed the application complete effective November 9, 1993. On January 10, 1994, the Agency by letter to CCFH informed it of its intent to issue: Certificate of Need Number 7449 to Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital for the establishment of an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program at Cleveland Clinic Hospital located in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, District 10. Cleveland Clinic Composite Ex. No. 2, Tab 6. The letter also informed CCFH that the Agency intended to deny Certificate of Need No. 7551 for the establishment of a like program to be conducted by NME Hospitals, Inc. Outpatient Cath Lab Not Subject to CON Review At the time of hearing, CCFH had no outpatient cardiac catheterization program in operation. But, in October of 1993, CCFH requested a determination from the Agency as to whether it could establish an outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory without certificate of need review. It received word that an outpatient lab would not require review by letter from the Agency dated October 25, 1993. Whatever one may think of the wisdom of a policy of allowing outpatient cardiac cath labs to escape CON review, (and the apparent conflict with requiring inpatient labs to undergo such review,) the Agency's determination is in keeping with the policy of this state. For its part, CCFH is committed to opening an outpatient cardiac cath lab, regardless of whether it receives the approval it seeks in this proceeding. Commencement of operation for the outpatient laboratory will occur prior to start-up of an inpatient program. At the time of hearing, the outpatient lab was expected to commence operation sometime between November, 1994 and January, 1995. CCFH's aspiration to have an inpatient, as well as an outpatient, cardiac catheterization program at its hospital supports its long-term objective of providing the tertiary services provided in open heart surgery. An inpatient program will be capable of providing immediate endocardiac catheter pacemaking in cases of cardiac arrest, and pressure recording for monitoring and evaluation of valvular disease, or heart failure. The Application Conversion of the Outpatient Lab CON Application No. 7449, (the "Application,") seeks authority to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program at the Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital. If granted, the outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory will be converted to inpatient use. But approval of the application will provide authority to perform diagnostic cardiac catheterization only, not therapeutic cardiac catheterization. To implement the inpatient cath program, CCFH will not incur any construction, design, or equipment costs beyond those incurred with the outpatient cardiac cath facilities. Location, Design and Equipment The proposed location for the cardiac cath laboratory has not changed since the application was submitted in September of 1993. Well situated in relation to the central supply, surgical, telemetry and intensive care areas of the hospital, the laboratory will be on the second floor of the hospital, the site of the pathology lab at the time of the application. It has the added benefit of being near where families can wait while procedures are conducted. And, near the elevator on the second floor and an adjacent post-procedure monitoring area, the location is well-suited to good patient flow. The proposed design has not changed either since the filing of the application. The design calls for special procedure x-rays, film storage, and a dark room for proper processing of films. There will be adequate and appropriate space allocated to each area of the laboratory including the patient holding area. The equipment, manufactured by Picker and Hewlett-Packard, is "state of the art." To be purchased, whether the laboratory remains outpatient or not, is x-ray equipment with the capability of cineangiography or cineangiocardiography, an image intensifier, an automatic injector, a diagnostic x-ray examination table for special procedures, a blood gas analyzer and a multi-channel polygraph. A Closed Lab Currently there are no closed cardiac cath labs in Broward County. But, CCFH intends to operate its cath program, if converted from outpatient to inpatient, as "closed," meaning use of the laboratory by medical staff will be restricted. In the case of CCFH, the restriction will allow only physicians employed by CCF to have access to the lab. Initially, medical staff will be restricted to two members of CCF. When warranted by volume of procedures, CCF will recruit additional physicians to perform cardiac catheterization procedures at the lab. Modeling the Foundation with its Assistance With the assistance of the Foundation, CCFH will model its cardiac cath program after the program in place at the Foundation, allowing for the unique needs of its patient base. The Foundation model entails guidelines and protocols that ensure procedures performed are appropriate, cost-effective, efficient, with acceptable morbidity and mortality, and in a setting that allows education, research and training of medical personnel. It involves salaried staff physicians, in a closed laboratory where the performance of the physicians, themselves, as well as of nurses and technicians are monitored and evaluated. The Foundation has developed standardized protocols for determining whether catheterization procedures are indicated, how they should be performed, and for the evaluation of patients before and after the procedure. It has also developed quality assurance, credentialing, recredentialing, and peer review protocols. Standardized protocols improve efficiency, lower costs, and contribute to better patient care. The Foundation will assist CCFH in developing standardized protocols, based on the protocols used at the Foundation. The Foundation will assist CCFH in training the staff which will perform procedures at the laboratory. The Foundation will make available staff to visit the hospital and will allow CCFH staff to participate in training at the Foundation. The Foundation's assistance should enable CCFH to implement the program expeditiously and efficiently. Other Protocols CCFH has in place a transfer protocol for the transfer of emergency patients to Holy Cross Hospital where open heart surgery and other coronary procedures not available at CCFH can be performed. Holy Cross has agreed to accept emergency transfers. Another Application In addition to the filing of the application in this case, CCFH filed another application for the batched cycle in the Spring of 1994. There are differences in the two applications because the data used by the two are different; the data for the second application being newer. The application in this case used the best data available at the time the application was prepared. Certificate of Need Criteria The criteria upon which the Agency "shall ... review applications for certificate-of-need determinations for health care facilities," Section 408.035(1), F.S., are listed in subsections (a) through (o) of the statute. In addition, Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes, mandates the Agency to make certain findings of fact, listed in subsections (a) through (e) "[i]n cases of capital expenditure proposals for the provision of new health services to inpatients." Benefits and Absence of Harm Approval of the project is advanced by CCFH as meeting principally three public needs. First, it will further the development of the only fully- integrated health care provider in South Florida. This innovation into the South Florida market will improve quality and control cost. Second, it will improve access to services, albeit limited to cardiac care, for the uninsured population. Access to health care services for the uninsured population is one of the main needs of the health care system in Florida. Third, it will further expanded medical research and education in District 10 by allowing the Cleveland Clinic organization through the presence of CCFH in South Florida to sponsor research and postgraduate medical education in cardiology. Approval of the application will not do any harm. It will not result in any significant expenditure or duplication of equipment since CCFH has already committed to the equipment for its outpatient facility. It will not result in harm to the quality of inpatient cardiac cath services at existing providers. Nor will it cause significant financial injury to existing providers. Need in Relation to the Applicable District Health Plan and State Health Plan The State Health Plan The 1989 State Health Plan, superseded for the most part by the 1992 Interim State Health Plan, contains the latest statement at the state level of policy preferences for approval of new inpatient cardiac cath programs. The 1989 Plan lists four preferences, three of which apply to the application. The second preference applies to counties without any cardiac cath programs and so is not applicable to this proceeding. Of the remaining three preferences, CCFH's application does not conform to the third preference: "Preference shall be given to hospitals with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict...". (Cleveland Clinic's Composite Ex. No. 2, Tab 4, p. 18, Testimony of Dr. Luke, Tr. 989.) The application conforms to the first and fourth preferences. The first preference is: "Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes the establishment of both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services provided that a need for open heart surgery is indicated." Id. The application conforms to this preference because CCFH has applied for authority to implement an open heart surgery program and because the "Florida Need Projections Adult Inpatient Cardiac Catheterization and Open Heart Surgery Programs and Pediatric Cardiac Catheterization and Open Heart Surgery Programs, January 1996 Planning Horizon" indicates a net need for one adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program and a net need for one adult open heart surgery program in District 10. Id. The fourth preference is: "Preference shall be given to an applicant who agrees to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay." Id., p. 19. Consistent with its mission, CCFH has agreed to provide services to patients regardless of ability to pay as evidenced by its commitment to deliver 76 diagnostic caths per year to the uninsured population. The application is consistent with the goals of the 1992 Interim State Health Plan and "Healthy Homes, 1994," the 1994 Health Security Plan. Both of those plans demonstrate the intent of the State to promote improved access, quality, and cost control, based on the model of managed competition. The Cleveland Clinic is cited specifically in those plans as the type of organization that will facilitate managed competition. The District Health Plan The application conforms to both of the recommendations contained in the 1990 District 10 Comprehensive Health Plan. The application conforms to the sole applicable recommendation contained in the 1993 Certificate of Need Allocation Factors Report for Broward County. That recommendation, (also the second recommendation in the 1990 plan,) requires an applicant to document its willingness to make services available to all segments of the service area population, regardless of ability to pay. The recommendation is satisfied by CCFH's commitment in the application to perform seventy-six (76) diagnostic catheterization per year to the uninsured population. Availability, Accessibility, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Extent of Utilization, and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services in the Service District of the Applicant Geographic Availability and Accessibility There are twelve existing providers of adult inpatient cardiac cath services located in District 10. There are five of these providers within five miles of CCFH: Holy Cross, North Ridge, IPMC, BGMC and Pompano Beach Medical Center. Less than eight miles away are three other providers: Plantation General Medical Center, Florida Medical Center and North Broward Medical Center. A thirteenth program was approved at University Medical Center in 1994. The road system in Broward County is highly developed. There are many facilities within a few minutes drive of any resident in Broward County. In sum, even were CCFH's aspiration of obtaining approval for an inpatient cardiac cath lab never granted, there is no portion of Broward County that is without close, easy and reasonable geographic access to diagnostic inpatient cardiac care. Extent of Utilization Several providers have multiple laboratories, including North Ridge with three separate cardiac catheterization labs. Not counting the new program at University Medical Center, there are 19 cardiac cath laboratories in the District. At a minimum, a single cardiac catheterization laboratory can reasonably accommodate between 1500 and 2000 cardiac catheterizations in a single year. The nineteen labs of the providers existing and in operation at the time of hearing, therefore, had the capacity to perform between 28,500 and 38,000 cardiac catheterizations per year. During 1993, there were 14,701 cardiac caths performed at existing providers in District 10, a number, it may be safely assumed, no more than half of the capacity supported by existing providers. Individually, no existing provider operated at as much as 80 percent capacity and six of the twelve operated at less than 30 percent capacity. Excess capacity led the Agency to conclude in its State Agency Action Report, ("SAAR"): the need for an additional program cannot be supported in total, although based on current and proposed referral patterns, the impact of an additional cardiac cathe- terization program in the district on these underutilized facilities appears minimal. Cleveland Clinic Composite Ex. No. 2, Tab 6, SAAR, p. 13. The primary impact of an inpatient program at CCFH will be on BGMC and Holy Cross, where CCF physicians currently perform diagnostic caths. The adequacy of existing capacity was confirmed by testimony from the Chief of the Certificate of Need and Budget Review sections of the Agency that she is not aware of any individuals within two years of June of 1994 who have been denied access to inpatient diagnostic cardiac cath services because of lack of capacity. Quality of Care Quality assurance, peer review, and credentialing processes are established in order to ensure the highest quality of care. The objective of these processes is to reduce the possibility of unwanted events during the course of treatment. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association ("ACC/AHA") have established guidelines regarding the number of diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures a physician should perform in order to maintain proficiency in the procedure. The guidelines provide, generally, that each physician perform a minimum of 150 procedures annually. And, in general, the guidelines provide that where a physician performs at multiple laboratories, a minimum of 50 procedures should be performed at each laboratory. Some hospitals in Broward County do not require physicians to meet the guidelines. For example, the clinical criteria for performing cardiac cath services at BGMC require that a physician perform as few as 25 diagnostic procedures annually. During 1992 and 1993, only two of the nineteen physicians credentialed to perform diagnostic cardiac catheterization services at NBMC performed more than 40 procedures at the facility. But the guidelines are nothing more than for the purpose of offering guidance to a director of a laboratory in making decisions for what is appropriate in terms of operator experience with regard to credentialing. They are "not written in stone." (Tr. 367.) Exceptions are justifiably made on a case-by-case basis and do not necessarily reflect on quality of care. And there are exceptions in the guidelines, themselves, made for physicians who have extensive experience, that is, more than a thousand independently prepared cases. Nonetheless, one would expect that adherence to the guidelines would enhance quality of care. With the exception of the indirect negative reflection on quality of care that failure to adhere to the guidelines might have, and which could arguably lead to an inference that quality of care was suffering in some existing providers, there was no evidence that quality of care for inpatient cardiac catheterization patients suffers in Broward County. To the contrary, existing providers in District 10 are providing good quality of care. Access for Uninsured Persons Whether on an outpatient or an inpatient basis, CCFH has committed to perform 76 cardiac catheterization on uninsured patients annually, if their application for an inpatient service is granted. On an age-adjusted basis, the use rates for the District 10 uninsured population for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services are significantly below those for the insured population. But whether the use rates signify that the uninsured population of Broward County does not have adequate access to needed cardiac catheterization services is difficult to determine. Dr. Luke, CCFH's expert in health care planning, concluded that uninsured residents of District 10 do not have adequate access. His opinion was met with forceful resistance by other experts in health care planning presented by Cleveland Clinic's opponents. Even the Agency, CCFH's supporter in this proceeding, does not share Dr. Luke's opinion. But Dr. Luke's opinion gains support form the nature of cardiac catheterization. It is a service dependent on referrals. Uninsured persons plainly have more difficulty navigating the referral chain. While there are a number of vulnerabilities in the data Dr. Luke used to reach his opinion, without doubt, there are at least 76 members of the uninsured population per year in Broward County who need cardiac catheterization services annually. Whether they would receive such services, were Cleveland Clinic's application granted, is dependant upon whether they can successfully make their way along the referral chain. CCF, as a multi-specialty practice group, has few primary care physicians, the physicians who would make the initial referral that would lead to a cath procedure at CCFH. But, CCFH and CCF will engage in a program of outreach to identify appropriate uninsured candidates for cardiac catheterization services. CCFH and CCF will inform primary care physicians and clinics of their commitment to provide care to the uninsured population, and will encourage physicians to refer candidates for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services to CCF and CCFH. This outreach program enhances the chances that District 10's uninsured in need of cardiac catheterization services will receive them but there is no guarantee that the outreach program will be successful. Nor has CCFH, in its application or otherwise, offered such a guarantee. Ability and Record of the Applicant to Provide Quality of Care The CCFH cardiac catheterization program will enhance the quality of care offered in Broward County. The CCFH program will model its quality assurance, peer review, patient care, and credentialing/recredentialing protocols upon those used by the Foundation. These protocols meet or exceed the elements necessary to a successful quality assurance program contained in "Guidelines for Continuous Quality Improvement in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory" by Members of the Laboratory Performance Standards Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, a committee chaired by an employee of the Foundation, Frederick A. Heupler, Jr., M.D. The Foundation's quality assurance and peer review programs provide expressly for sharing quality assurance data with all physicians who perform procedures in the laboratory. The Foundation conducts weekly conferences at which data and specific cases are discussed among all the physicians performing procedures in the laboratory. The CCF physicians who will perform procedures in the CCFH laboratory will participate in the Foundation's conferences via the Foundation's telemedicine capability. The conferences perform an important educational function because in order to bring about quality improvement, the purpose of quality assurance, it is essential to provide feedback to all the physicians, nurses and technicians involved. The closed nature of the inpatient laboratory will enhance quality of care in several ways. Low-volume operators will be excluded thereby enhancing quality control. It will be easier to assure that the physicians with access to the lab meet recommended minimum volume standards necessary to assure quality. Cooperation is enhanced in the standardization of indications for procedures, practice of procedures and protocols. And, the ability to evaluate physicians' performances for purposes of recredentialing is enhanced. CCFH's status as an academically oriented organization enhances quality of care. For example, the presence of post- graduate fellows training in cardiology not only provides support to the laboratory but through their enthusiasm and inquisitiveness provide an animated atmosphere that brings out the best in the practitioners. As well as taking time to educate the fellows, the physicians spend more time educating the nursing staff. The nursing staff, therefore, benefits, in turn, from the stimulating environment afforded by the academic orientation to be provided in the Cleveland Clinic setting. The establishment of a cardiac catheterization program at CCFH will allow the CCF cardiologists to interact clinically with the rest of the CCF staff physicians, who practice predominantly at the hospital. The collegial clinical relationship among the CCF staff physicians enhances quality of care. The CCFH program will perform a minimum of 300 procedures annually by the second year of operation, consistent with the minimum number of procedures called for by the ACC/AHA Guidelines to ensure quality of care. The CCFH program will have a sufficient number and complement of staff to provide high quality services to the patients projected to be served by the program. The number and complement of staff are sufficient to allow for rapid mobilization of an on-call team 24 hours a day, seven days per week. The staff projected for the CCFH program will include a program director, board certified or board eligible in cardiology, radiology, or with subspecialty training in cardiology or cardiovascular radiology; a physician, board- certified or board-eligible in cardiology, radiology, or with specialized training in cardiac catheterization and angiographic techniques who will perform the examination; support staff, specially trained in critical care of cardiac patients, with a knowledge of cardiovascular medication and an understanding of catheterization and angiographic equipment; support staff, highly skilled in conventional radiographic techniques and angiographic principles, knowledgeable in every aspect of catheterization and angiographic instrumentation, with a thorough knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the circulatory system; support staff for patient observation, handling blood samples and performing blood gas evaluation calculations; support staff for monitoring physiological data and alerting the physician of any changes; support staff to perform systematic tests and routine maintenance on cardiac catheterization equipment and be available immediately in the event of equipment failure during a procedure; and support staff trained in photographic processing and in the operation of automatic processors used for both sheet and cine film. The CCFH plan for care both before and after the procedure will be of high quality. 74. CCFH's cardiac catheterization program will be capable of providing immediate endocardiac catheter pacemaking in case of cardiac arrest and pressure recording for monitoring and to evaluate valvular disease, or heart failure. The following noninvasive cardiac or circulatory diagnostic services will be available at CCFH: Hematology studies or coagulation studies; Electrocardiography; Chest x-ray; Blood gas studies; and Clinical pathology studies and blood chemistry analysis. Availability of Alternatives to the Project While there was expert opinion that an appropriate alternative would be to use the expertise of CCF physicians by operating "a high quality Cleveland Clinic program in one of the existing combined diagnostic and open heart approved facilities," (Tr. 1415,) there are disadvantages to this alternative. First, the transfer of patients from CCFH to a hospital providing inpatient cardiac catheterization services poses risks to patients and anxiety for both the patient and family. Transfer of patients also disrupts continuity of care. Second, the equipment for the laboratory has been purchased. If the project is not implemented, inpatients at CCFH will bypass that equipment and be transferred elsewhere. Third, there are no cost savings associated with the alternative since CCFH will implement an outpatient program if the inpatient program is not approved. Fourth, the South Florida community will not benefit from the research and education capabilities of CCFH and Foundation. Finally, the community will not benefit from whatever free care it might receive if CCFH is able, in fact, to make good on its pledge for the provision of free care. In contrast, the proposed program will benefit the community by enhancing the chances of improving access to the uninsured population, expanding and enhancing medical research and education, and furthering development of the only fully-integrated health care provider in South Florida, which, in turn, will improve quality and control costs. The Need For Research and Educational Facilities North Broward Hospital District has a division of academic affairs related to the training of medical students. It has established medical student affiliations with Nova Southeastern College of Osteopathic Medicine in Broward County and the University of Florida School of Medicine. Broward General Medical Center is seeking approval to establish a residency program and currently instructs third and fourth year medical students on a regular basis. These students often observe cath lab procedures at both BGMC and NBMC. By 1995, BGMC will be listed as an available point of residency in the catalog for the University of Florida School of Medicine. In addition to assisting in the education of medical students, the District is seeking national approval as a continuing medical education (CME) site. CME programs are presently approved by the Florida Medical Association. The week the hearing in this proceeding commenced, for example, the District's division of academic affairs hosted a program on emergency cardiology services sponsored by the University of Florida. Research programs serve an important function as a point of dissemination of new medical techniques. The District is engaged in secondary research. It was recently selected to participate in a multi-center lifestyle heart trial. Six sites were selected nationwide with BGMC being one of the approved sites. The program will do research regarding the reversal of coronary heart disease. The District's hospitals, moreover, have an Institutional Research Board. Any physician can propose a research program to the Board. But, despite BGMC's research activity, there are no recognized research institutions in District 10. Unlike the research in which the District is engaged which is secondary in nature, academic centers such as the Foundation, perform primary or original research. The Foundation, together with CCF and CCFH, is actively engaged in research related to cardiology. Included among CCF and CCFH's research activities are multi- center research studies, most of which are coordinated with the Foundation. The Foundation serves as the principal investigator for those studies but District 10 will benefit from the close relationship with the Foundation enjoyed by CCF and CCFH. There are substantial benefits associated with graduate medical education, including enhancing the quality of medical services provided. When patient care takes place in the milieu of education and research, as it does at the Foundation's facility in Cleveland, it enhances a hospital's opportunity to recruit physicians interested in that type of activity more than in the economics of medicine. Because of the close relationship between the Foundation and CCFH, the benefits provided by the Foundation's research and educational environment spill over to the applicant. For example, the Foundation has one of the largest cardiology residency programs in the United States. Residents from that program, as well as other Foundation residency programs, rotate to CCF/CCFH for part of their training. The number of Foundation residents rotating to CCF/CCFH has grown from 6 to 29 over five years. Most of the residents are in primary care and internal medicine programs. CCFH will provide educational benefits independent of the benefits that flow from the Foundation. There exists a need for additional graduate medical education training sites both in Florida and in District 10. Florida ranks 41st among the 50 states in the number of residents per population. To help meet this need, CCFH provides an independent residency in surgery under the guidance of CCF. It is the only accredited graduate medical education program in District 10. The proposed inpatient cardiac cath lab will further the training of graduate medical students both in Florida and Broward County by increasing their educational opportunities. The program will provide CCFH with the full diagnostic capabilities needed in order to train internists and other primary medicine specialists in evaluating and caring for cardiovascular patients. The ability of primary care physicians to evaluate and care for cardiovascular patients is critical, given the high rate of cardiovascular disease in South Florida. The provision of graduate medicine education requires institutional commitment. The applicant is so committed and its application is backed by the commitment of CCF. The approval of the application will enhance medical research and education in District 10 and the State of Florida. Availability of Resources CCFH's estimate of project costs is found on the second page of Schedule 2 on page 63 of its omissions response. A breakdown of the estimated costs appears at pages 114 and 115 of the omissions response on Table 25, AHCA Form 1455, 1993. The total of the estimate, $117,000, accurately reflects the total costs for the application. CCFH has available the $117,000 necessary to meet the costs and to finance implementation. CCFH will be able to recruit the nursing and technical staff necessary to the implementation of the project. Long-term Financial Feasibility The immediate financial feasibility of the project is not in doubt. CCFH has available funds in cash from operations with which it intends to fund the start-up of the project. The long-term financial feasibility of this project is another matter. Measured by whether the project produces a positive net income following its start up period, long-term financial feasibility should not be an impossible matter to judge within accepted norms. But, determining long-term financial feasibility in this case is difficult because of the troublesome task of sorting out the truth when experts, all duly-qualified, have opinions, either as to the underlying data and assumptions or the ultimate conclusion, that are diametrically opposed. Petitioners and intervenor attacked fervently the assumptions underlying the opinion of CCFH's expert in health care finance that the project is financially feasible in the long-term. These assumptions were, in the main, provided to the finance expert by CCFH's expert in health care planning, Dr. Luke. The attack was launched from various angles. One expert witness noted that the Agency reported in its SAAR that it was unable to determine long- term financial feasibility and that such an observation by the Agency ordinarily would lead to preliminary action by the Agency in the form of a denial. Moreover, inconsistencies between the Application and the subsequent application were viewed by experts other than Dr. Luke as "profound." (See e.g., Tr. 1300.) Conclusions reached in the application were seen as inconsistent by opposing experts when compared with data that was used to support the opinion of CCFH's finance expert, data provided by the Foundation with regard to its hospital in Cleveland, Ohio. Furthermore, internal inconsistencies in the Application were observed by experts called by CCFH's opponents. These included that CCFH overstated volume projections, overstated its service area, used a flawed charge methodology, understated its average length of stays for four DRGs related to cardiac catheterization and failed to account for expenses associated with the outpatient cath lab that would support the inpatient lab, if approved. These inconsistencies led the opponents' expert witnesses either to offer the opinion that the project was not financially feasible in the long-term or to view the data and assumptions used by CCFH's financial expert as so flawed as to prevent the expert from reaching the opinion held by CCFH's financial expert and to constitute a failure in proof by CCFH that its project is financially feasible in the long term. The flaws observed by CCFH's opponents' experts, however, were explained by Dr. Luke so that the opinion of CCFH's expert in health care finance, as best can be determined, remains valid. For example, Petitioners and intervenor pressed hard on the average length of stay assumptions provided for various DRGs. Dr. Luke conceded that the average lengths of stay provided, based on the cardiac cath inpatient treatment by CCF physicians at BGMC and other area hospitals, are "certainly shorter than the [overall] experience of other area providers." (Tr. 1100, 1101.) But, in response to the assertion that the shorter length of stay could be due to treatment at CCFH prior to the transfer to another area hospital where the cardiac cath procedure was to be performed, Dr. Luke offered two explanations. First, there was no evidence to suggest that a much larger percentage of CCF cardiac cath patients were transferred than were patients of other physicians. Second, the total length of stay in the hospital would be less if a patient were treated solely at CCFH and not transferred to another hospital because of efficiencies in scheduling and time lost in the transfer, itself. Dr. Luke's opinion, in this regard, was bolstered by analysis as to length of stay of patients under the care of CCF physicians in DRGs comparable to inpatient cardiac cath DRGS. With regard to DRG 143, (Chest pain), CCFH's average length of stay is tied for the lowest in the district. Others are the lowest. CCFH's 2.7 average length of stay for DRG 140, for example, the lowest in the District, may be contrasted with NBMC's average length of stay for DRG 140, which is 4.3, nearly 160 percent higher than CCFH's. The notion, therefore, that CCFH would have significantly lower average lengths of stay for cardiac cath patients is not inconsistent with available data. Average length of stay is the critical building block in the financial feasibility model used by CCFH in its application. But, on rebuttal, CCFH's expert in health care offered the opinion that the project is financially feasible in the long term based on a methodology under which average length of stay is eliminated as a variable. This methodology uses "Cost per Case" data. CCFH's expert compared CCF physicians' cost per case to the costs per case of both petitioners and their experts in this proceeding as well as data from three clients of the expert who provide inpatient cardiac cath services and employ casemix cost accounting systems: Holmes Regional Medical Center, Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Memorial Medical Center of Jacksonville. The outcome of the analysis was that the cost per case projected by CCFH, $2225, fell in the middle of the range of the other providers, which ran from a low of approximately $1600 to a high of approximately $3000. Based on a cost per case analysis, CCFH's health care finance expert concluded that even were the CCFH cost per case understated and turned out to be as high as the average cost per case of any of the petitioners in this case, the project would still be financially feasible in the long term. To take another of the attacks raised by petitioners, that CCFH failed in its application to take into account for expenses associated with the outpatient cardiac cath lab that would support an inpatient lab, it was not necessary that there be such consideration in the application. CCFH has committed the costs associated with constructing and equipping it outpatient cardiac cath program. This commitment makes these costs "sunk." They will be undertaken regardless of whether CCFH's application is granted or not and so are not part of the costs of the inpatient project. It is difficult to determine whether Dr. Luke or his critics are right. On balance, it seems that the matter swings in Dr. Luke's favor. In any event, the testimony on rebuttal which established financial feasibility based on a cost-per-case methodology was not overcome by the parties opposed to CCFH's application. In sum, the project will be financially feasible in the long term. The project will generate a positive net income and positive cash flow after its start-up period. The projections of utilization relied upon in evaluating the long- term financial feasibility of the program are reasonable and achievable. Those projections are based on the historical experience of CCF physicians who perform cardiac catheterization services at other Broward County hospitals. Those physicians performed in excess of 400 procedures in 1992 and 1993. There was growth of approximately 2000 diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures performed in District 10 between 1992 and 1993. The CCF physicians will need to obtain modest increases in their market shares in order to meet the projections of utilizations. The payor mix assumptions contained in the application are reasonable and achievable. The application accounts for all operational expenses necessary to the provision of inpatient cardiac catheterization services at CCFH. The Needs of a Multidisciplinary Clinic A multidisciplinary clinic is an organization which employs salaried physicians in a variety of medical specialties to provide diagnostic and therapeutic services to its patients. The physicians practice in a collegial collaborative environment. The multidisciplinary group clinic model promotes ease and economy in the diagnosis and care of patients. The clinic model uses a unified medical record, affording each physician who comes into contact with a patient all data and information pertaining to the patient. CCF is the only multidisciplinary group clinic in South Florida. Approximately eight percent of the discharges by CCF and CCFH in Major Diagnosis Category Five ("MDC-5"), which is the cardiac diagnostic group of the International Classification of Diseases, are attributable to patients who reside outside District 10 and the service districts adjacent to District 10. For purposes of health planning, a service district is a geographic area from which at least two-third's of a health care provider's patients are expected to come. The one-third to 20 percent remainder of the health care provider's patients come from outside the service district. A service district is used in analyzing growth in population or growth in demand for services because such growth will occur most intensively within the service district. The service district for CCFH includes all of Broward County and the southern portion of Palm Beach County. On average, approximately four percent of the MDC-5 discharges for other District 10 facilities reside outside District 10 and the adjacent service districts. The difference between the percentage of CCF and CCFH MDC-5 discharges from outside District 10 and service districts adjacent to District 10 and the average percentage of other District 10 hospitals' MDC-5 discharges from outside District 10 and adjacent service districts is statistically significant. Impact on Costs and Effects of Competition The CCFH program will sharpen competition for cardiac cath services in Broward County. CCFH, in conjunction with CCF and the Cleveland Clinic Florida Health Plan ("CCFHP"), constitute a fully-integrated health care delivery system. A fully integrated system enables a person in need of any type of medical care to receive services through the system. The relationship that exists between CCFH, CCF and CCFHP are unique in the Broward County market. Fully integrated health care delivery systems have been shown generally to produce efficiencies of operations and to improve the quality of care. The Cleveland Clinic system has had a positive impact on both the quality and cost efficiency of care offered in Broward County. CCH's average length of stay for patients and average charges for treatment of common cardiac problems are, on average, the lowest in Broward County. Both in Broward County and generally, health care is moving toward an environment of managed care and managed competition. Managed care and managed competition will result in a more competitive system, which will involve providers of health services bearing risk, in terms of prospective payment or prepaid medical plans. Managed care is intended to achieve high quality and cost efficiency in the delivery of medical services. The integrated health care delivery system model in place at CCFH is well suited for an environment of managed care and managed competition. Similar models in California, for example, have proven effective in offering high quality services at a lower cost in the California managed competition environment. In order for an integrated health care delivery system to achieve the goals of lower consumer costs and high quality, it must be able to control all elements of service delivery, including the costs of delivering services. The better the system can control its costs, the more competitive it can be. If the application is approved, CCFH will be able to control all its elements of the delivery of cardiac catheterization services. The approval of the application will enable CCFH to compete more effectively in the managed care environment because of the desire on the part of purchasers in the marketplace to receive the maximum number of services available. The more comprehensive CCFHP is the more its competitive stature is enhanced in the local market for health care services. To the extent that managed care entities compete on the basis of price, lower prices for health care services will occur. CCFHP has formed an accountable health partnership, ("AHP"). AHPs are organizations comprised of a service delivery system and a financing vehicle. The CCFHP AHP recently submitted a bid to a community health purchasing alliance ("CHPA"), which entities are organized under Florida law to serve as a clearinghouse of information to purchasers of health care, including the assembling and dissemination of information on constituent AHPs to interested parties. The CCFHP bid was the second lowest of the proposals offered to both the Broward County and Palm Beach County CHPAs. While the approval of the application is likely to lower the number of procedures done at all other programs in District 10, it will not have a material adverse impact on the quality of services offered at any existing inpatient cardiac cath program in the District. For those most likely to be affected by the program, approval does not at all threaten that they will drop below 300 procedures since the number of procedures conducted in their programs is in the thousands. For other programs operating at or about 300 procedures annually, approval should not impede their ability to perform in excess of 300 procedures annually. The approval of the application will not have a material impact on University Hospital, which recently received a certificate of need authorizing the development of an inpatient cardiac cath program. The approval of the application will result in the redirection to CCFH of cases primarily from BGMC and Holy Cross. Even with the redirection of cases, both BGMC and Holy Cross will retain in excess of 1000 procedures annually, which is more than adequate to ensure a program's quality. Nor will approval have a material adverse financial impact on any of the petitioners or intervenor. Both Holy Cross and North Ridge have enjoyed substantial operating margins and are otherwise extremely solvent. In the cases of IPMC, BGMC and NBMC, it is appropriate to evaluate the impact on the District system as a whole. The District has substantial financial resources. In the contexts of these organizations' financial strength, the impact of the CCFH inpatient cardiac cath program will be inconsequential. Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Medicaid and Indigent Patients It is the policy of CCFH to accept all patients, regardless of ability to pay. In addition to its commitment to provide free services to 76 uninsured patients as a condition of approval of the application, CCFH will also seek out Medicaid patients. This conditional commitment has the potential to be a substantial contribution to alleviating problems of the uninsured in obtaining needed inpatient cardiac catheterization services. But, as stated above, there simply is no guarantee that the commitment will be fulfilled. The Decision in the Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation Case On April 1, 1994, slightly more than two months before final hearing in this case commenced, Hearing Officer Michael M. Parrish rendered a Final Order in Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, et al., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case Nos. 91-6390R (consolidated). The issue in the case was whether Rule 10-5.032, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. By the Final Order, the hearing office declared only a relatively small part of the rule invalid, leaving almost the entire text of the rule intact. Rule 10-5.032 "implements the provision of section 381.706(1)(c), F.S., which provides that certificate of need shall not be required for an expenditure to provide an outpatient service." Pertinently to this case, the rule goes on to define[] the requirements for the establish- ment of inpatient cardiac catheterization services, including minimum requirements for staffing, equipment, and a need methodology for cardiac catheterization programs. A certificate of need for the establishment of inpatient cardiac catheterization services shall not normally be approved unless the applicant meets all relevant statutory criteria, including the standards and need criteria set forth in this rule. Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, at 8. Sub-section (8) of the rule is entitled, "Need Determination." Paragraph (c) of subsection (8), also entitled, "Need Determination," sets out the "need formula" as follows: A new adult cardiac catheterization program may be approved if the difference between the projected program volume and the number of adult cardiac catheterizations performed in the service planning area during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool, minus the number of approved adult programs times 300, is at or exceeds a program volume of 300 for the applicable service planning area. This need formula is expressed as follows: NN = PCCPV - ACCPV - APP Where: NN is the 12-month net adult program volume need in the service planning area projected 2 years into the future for the respective planning horizon. Net need projections are published by the department as a fixed need pool twice a year. The planning horizon for applications submitted between January 1 and June 30 shall be July of the year 2 years subsequent to the year the application is submitted. The planning horizon for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31 shall be January of the year 2 years subsequent to the year which follows the year the application is submitted. PCCPV is the projected adult cardiac catheterization program volume which equals the actual adult cardiac catheterization program volume (ACCPV) rate per thousand adult population 15 years and over for the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool, multiplied by the projected adult population 15 years of age and over 2 years into the future for the respective planning horizon. The population projections shall be based on the most recent population projections available from the Executive Office of the Governor which are available to the department 3 weeks prior to the fixed need pool publication. ACCPV equals the actual adult cardiac catheterization program volume for the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. APP is the projected program volume for approved adult programs. The projected program volume for each approved program shall be 300 admissions. Id., at 14 and 15. The rule goes on in (8)(d): Irrespective of the net need calculated under paragraph (c), no additional cardiac catheterization program shall normally be granted unless ACCPV divided by the number of operational programs for the service planning area is at or exceeds a program volume of 300 patient admissions. Id., at 15. The Hearing Officer summarized the rule as follows: it, projects a number of anticipated admissions to cardiac catheterization programs in the horizon year by multiplying the current use rate (number of admissions per thousand adult population) times the projected population. If the difference between the current volume and the projected volume is greater than 300, a new program may be awarded, so long as all of the existing programs, plus the proposed program, are projected to perform an average of 300 admissions each. An approved program is assigned a value of 300 for purposes of determining the average. Id., at 15 and 16. After summarizing the rule in the Final Order, the hearing officer took it to task on the basis of a number of deficiencies, not the least of which is that the rule fails to take into account the number of cath laboratories as opposed to the number of cath programs within a district. This point is found in Finding of Fact No. 29 in the Final Order. Even the most cavalier reading of Finding of Fact No. 29 shows the point could not have been made more plainly: The rule does not take into consideration the number of individual catheterization laboratories, rather it considers the number of cardiac catheterization programs. The difference is that an individual hospital will have only one program, but it may have more than one laboratory in each program. Id., at 19. In addition to deficiencies, the rule, in the view of the hearing officer, contains a fatal flaw. It does not address the capacity of existing cardiac catheterization programs or the capacity of existing laboratories. Furthermore, its use of 300 as the threshold number of procedures was an unexplained deviation from an earlier standard of 600 procedures as the threshold. This deviation was also an "unexplained departure from the National Guidelines for Health Planning, and an unexplained departure from other published guidelines recognized as authoritative." Id., at 25. The hearing officer went on in the Final Order to find that "[a]n essential ingredient of any functional need determination methodology is a method for identifying unmet need." Id., at 26. To do so, the methodology must identify "not only ... a reasonable estimate of future need," but also "a reasonable estimate of the future capacity of existing providers to meet that need." Id. The rule's shortcomings are summarized in Finding of Fact 43 of the order: The failure of the subject rule to consider the future capacity of existing providers in calculating future need has an adverse effect upon the ability to accurately predict future unmet need and also has a potential for adverse effect upon the quality of care offered by the existing providers. The rule authorizes the approval of a new inpatient cardiac catheteri- zation program even though many of the existing programs may be operating substantially below their capacity. The addition of new programs under such circumstances has the adverse effect of tending to reduce utilization of existing facilities that are already functioning well below capacity. Id., 26, 27. Ultimately, parts of the rule were determined by the Hearing Officer to be beyond the bounds of "reasonableness" and therefore arbitrary and capricious, and hence, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, see Section 120.52(8), F.S., as follows: The term "operational programs," was determined arbitrary and capricious because the term failed to take into account the number of laboratories within each program. The hearing officer wrote, "[I]llogical results [produced by the use of the term] can be avoided only by use of a methodology that takes into account the number of existing and approved laboratories." Id., at 32; The use of the phrase "a program volume of 300 patient admissions" was determined un- reasonable because it is inconsistent with the National Guidelines For Health Planning and other authoritative guidelines and because it bears no rational relationship to the actual capacity of cardiac catheterization laboratories, Id., at 33; and, Paragraph (9) of the rule was determined to be arbitrary and capricious because "it has the effect of ignoring the existence of any new laboratories added to existing facilities." Id., at 34. The effect of the hearing officer's ruling and the explanation underpinning the ruling was to turn much of the rule, and certainly the numeric need formula, into mincemeat. It clearly called for the initiation of rulemaking if AHCA wanted a rule establishing "need methodology" for calculating numeric inpatient cardiac catheterization program need. But AHCA chose to look at the Final Order in a different way, a way that one would think would occur only in a hearing officer's wildest nightmare. Instead of reading the Final Order in its entirety, and taking it as a whole in able for the order to make sense, AHCA, followed only the strict, literal, reading of paragraphs 4., and 5., on pages 35 and 36 of the order, where it is declared: That the following portions of Rule 10-5.032, Florida Administrative Code, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislatively authority for the reasons stated above: the use of the term "operational programs" at paragraph (8)(d), the use of the phrase "a program volume of 300 patient admissions" at paragraph (8)(d), and the last sentence of paragraph (9). That, with the exception of the portions of the rule described in the immediately preceding paragraph, Rule 10-5.032, Florida Administrative Code, has not been shown to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and the chal- lenges to other portions of the rule are hereby dismissed. Id., at 35, 36. By reading the declaration of partial invalidity "literally," in the strictest sense of the word, AHCA chose to leave in effect the numeric need formula: "NN = PCCPV - ACCPV - APP." This decision was made despite the fact that nearly the entire Final Order is devoted to an explanation of why the formula is dysfunctional in ways which strike at the very heart of the Certificate of Need program. Moreover, the strictly literal reading of the Final Order by AHCA leaves a rule on the books with portions which make no sense. AHCA conceded as much, through its Chief of the Certificate of Need and Budget Review sections of the Agency, elicited during the hearing in direct examination by AHCA's own counsel: Q: ... Now, specifically, as to paragraph 59C-1.0328, I think it is (d), with the language that has been stricken by the hearing officer in the John T. MacDonald case, does that paragraph make any sense to you? A: Not without that language in there, no. It doesn't read as something that could actually function. (e.s., Testimony of Elizabeth Dudek, Tr. 1468-1469.) The remainder of the Final Order was characterized in this manner by the Agency, Well, in looking through the final order, and then discussing it with other members of my staff and the legal staff, and in determining how we actually utilize the rule and what the difference in what is stated within the final order and the rule ... there did not appear to be any language that indicated ... that we needed to review capacity, nor the number of laboratories that were there. There were some comments related to both, but the findings were only such in the final order that the provisions of (8)(d) and then of (9) were deleted. (Tr. 1470-1). Suffice it to say, as will be articulated in the Conclusions of Law, below, this hearing officer does not read the Final Order in the Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation case in the same way as does the Agency.
Findings Of Fact The applicants, MediVision of Miami, Inc., and MediVision of Northern Dade County, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of MediVision Inc., which maintains its corporate offices in Boston, Massachusetts. MediVision, Inc., was incorporated in January, 1984, to promote the development of outpatient eye surgery, in part through the development and operation of outpatient eye surgery centers. MediVision of Miami, Inc., and MediVision of Northern Dade County, Inc., will each be responsible for the development and operation of the projects proposed in their respective applications. MediVision, Inc., was organized by several individuals in response to a study conducted by Bain and Company, a strategic consulting firms as part of a consulting engagement in which those persons were involved. The study disclosed several demographic and health care delivery trends which prompted MediVision management to pursue the development of outpatient eye surgery centers. Those trends are: an overall movement of all types of surgery from an impatient to an outpatient setting; the increase in the nation's elderly population, and the fact that the likelihood of a person developing cataracts increases dramatically with age; the technological improvements in the provision of cataract surgery; the growth in the number of cataract surgeries performed nationally; and, a change in the manner in which Medicare reimburses a facility for outpatient surgery performed upon Medicare recipients. Medicare, since 1982, has reimbursed licensed freestanding ambulatory surgical facilities at a flat rate for the provision of such surgery, with no cost to the patient. For the same surgical procedures performed in a hospital outpatient setting, Medicare will reimburse the facility its costs of providing the surgery; the patient is responsible to pay the Medicare deductible and 20 percent co-insurance. Various subsidiaries of MediVision Inc., presently operate eight outpatient eye surgery centers nationwide; two are located in Florida. Other MediVision subsidiaries are developing three additional centers in Florida, pursuant to certificates of need issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Both parties employed the same quantitative need methodology. The methodology employs the following steps: acquire data regarding number of impatient and outpatient surgical procedures performed by existing providers; using this data, calculate current overall surgical use rate and outpatient surgical use rate for county; using the projected population for the year in question and the current use rate, calculate projected number of surgeries; multiply total projected surgeries by 40 percent to establish total outpatient surgery pool for year in question; subtract from result of step 4, all outpatient surgical procedures projected to be performed in hospitals and operating freestanding ambulatory surgery centers; subtract financial break-evens of all certificate of need approved freestanding outpatient surgery centers from this pool; and, after subtractions the number of surgical procedures remaining are compared to the break-evens of certificate of need applicant at issue. If the pool is larger than break-evens the condition is satisfied. If the pool is smaller than break-evens the condition is not satisfied. The quantitative methodology provides a reasonable approach to the evaluation of need for ambulatory surgical facilities. The basic methodology has been employed by the Department since 1982; in December, 1985, the Department began to employ a "40 percent outpatient factor" in implementing the policy. Accordingly, looking toward the planning horizon of 1988, the methodology projects that 40 percent of all surgeries in Dade County will be performed on an outpatient basis. The 40 percent outpatient factor is reasonable for use in these proceedings. The prevailing literature suggests that 40 percent of all surgeries can be expected to be performed on an outpatient basis. Within Florida, many counties are already performing in excess of 30 percent of all surgeries on an outpatient basis. Trends in health care delivery and reimbursements including the growth in pre-paid health care organizations, such as health maintenance organizations; professional review organizations, which monitor the appropriateness of hospital admissions; and Medicare reimbursement incentives will contribute to an increase in the percentage of surgeries performed in an outpatient setting. While employing the same quantitative need methodology, the parties' health planning experts arrived at different conclusions as to whether the methodology projects need for the facilities at issue in these proceedings. The differences in outcome are attributable to two issues: (1) the calculation of a base-year use rate; and (2) the calculation of "break-evens" for previously approved, but non-operational, ambulatory surgical facilities. Each expert relied upon the same basic data source in calculating a base-year surgical use rate, employing data collected by HRS and reported in the most current State Agency Action Report prepared by the Department relative to Dade County. Such Action Report (CON Action No. 4095) lacked complete data regarding the total number of surgeries performed in Dade County during the base-year (1984-5), in that six of the thirty-three acute care hospitals in Dade County failed to report. Because it is necessary to have complete data in order to establish an accurate base-year surgical use rate, Mark Druash who was engaged to undertake a need analysis by the applicants, referred to earlier State Agency Action Reports to acquire surgical procedure data for the six hospitals which had failed to report. Such documents are reliable data sources upon which to base a need analysis. In calculating a county's surgical use rate, health planners take into consideration the total population within the county. Accordingly, the total number of surgeries provided within the county must also be considered. In that six Dade County hospitals failed to report data and HRS' health planner did not acquire data relative to those facilities, the surgeries performed at those hospitals were not included in his calculation of a surgical use rate. If the total population of a county is considered in calculating a surgical use rate, but something less than the total number of surgeries is considered, the calculation results in an artificially deflated use rate. As the base-year use rate drives all of the remaining calculations in the quantitative methodology, an error in the calculation of the use rate will be carried through the entire methodology. The ultimate effect of a deflated use rate is to project a smaller number of surgical procedures, as compared to a use rate calculated upon complete data. HRS calculated a base-year surgical use rate for Dade County of 78.2 surgeries/1000 population. MediVision calculated a base-year surgical use rate of 92.8/1000 population. The variance in the use rates is attributable solely to the fact that Druash acquired and employed in his calculations surgical procedure data from all Dade County hospitals previously relied upon by HRS; while HRS relied upon incomplete data. In that Druash's calculations are based on a complete data based the surgical use rate of 92.8/1000 population is found to be more accurate and reliable than the rate of 78.2/1000 population calculated by HRS from incomplete data. The parties differ in their calculation of "break- evens for previously approved, but not yet operational, ambulatory surgical facilities. The break-even calculation is an integral part of the quantitative need methodology. The purpose of subtracting from the available outpatient surgical pool the "break-evens" of approved, but not yet operational ambulatory surgical facilities is to assure that there exists need for the project proposed adequate to allow both such project and previously approved facilities to operate in a financially viable manner. The "break-even" approach is also intended to promote competition; rather than assuming that all of the procedures projected by a facility will be performed in such facility; the approach allocates to the facility only that number of procedures it needs to generate sufficient revenues to cover its expenses. Druash who participated in the development of the quantitative methodology during his tenure with HRS, testified that the "break-even" approach was selected because it would promote competition among providers by approving enough applicants so that they would be "hungry" for the residual surgeries projected by the methodology. The purpose of calculating a financial break-even is to ascertain at what point a project's cash flow will equal its expenditures. The generally accepted method for calculating a financial break-even requires that fixed costs be separated from variable costs. The concept of variable costs is the basis for the computation of a break-even. Fixed costs are those which remain constant regardless of the volume of business conducted by an entity; variable costs are those that change directly with volume. In the operation of an ambulatory surgical facility, virtually all expenses related to medical supplies are variable. If no patients are treated, no medical supplies are needed, and no expenses are incurred. If 100 patients are treated, 100 units of medical supplies are needed, with resultant expense. Certain expenses involved in the operation of an ambulatory surgical center are totally fixed, such as debt service and property taxes. All other expenses are variable to some degree e.g. salaries, utilities, and maintenance. Depreciation and amortization of property and equipment are not considered as expenses in a break-even analysis, as those items do not represent cash expenditures. As mere accounting recognitions of prior investment, depreciation and amortization should not be included in a calculation of a cash flow break-even. HRS' methodology for calculating financial break-evens for ambulatory surgical procedures treats all expenses as fixed, and includes amortization and depreciation among those expenses. By HRS' admissions the Department, "in lieu of attempting to determine what is fixed and what is variable . . . will use a somewhat more crude method". Where a financial break-even is calculated treating all costs as fixed, the resulting break-even number is artificially inflated. By the Department's reckoning, the effect of treating all expenses as fixed is to "add a cushion" to its approvals of prior applications. HRS' expert acknowledged, however, that differentiating between fixed and variable costs in performing a financial break-even analysis is the "preferred methods no question". Lovell Jones, a certified public accountant and expert in health care finance, performed revised break-even analyses for previously approved, but not yet operational, ambulatory surgical facilities. Jones first acquired expense and revenue data from the certificate of need applications submitted by previously approved applicants. Then, treating only medical supplies as variable expenses, and excluding amortization and depreciation from the list of fixed expenses, he calculated the actual financial break-even of each approved, but not yet operational, facility. Jones' analysis finds the collective break- even of all previously approved, but not yet operational, facilities to be 17,996 procedures, whereas the Department's "crude" analysis results in a collective break-even of 25,736. Jones' method of calculating break-even, which was agreed to be technically correct by both parties, is more accurate and reliable than the method employed by the Department. Using the agreed-upon quantitative methodology, the surgical use rate calculated by Druash, and the break-even numbers calculated by Jones, there is projected to exist in 1988 a pool of 5006 outpatient surgical procedures that could be provided by the applicants in these proceedings. Subtracting the break-even numbers of the two proposed facilities, there will exist a residual pool of greater than 3600 procedures. Accordingly, there exists a quantitative need for the two proposed facilities. Furthers the residual pool of greater than 3600 procedures represents an adequate "cushion" to satisfy the concerns of HRS that previously approved facilities be given the opportunity to operate in a financially viable manner. The proposed facilities will improve access to services for both Medicare and indigent patients. Medicare patients receiving surgery at the facilities will be treated free of cost, with the Medicare program having full responsibility for payment. All other patients will be treated at the facilities regardless of ability to pay. The proposed facilities will promote competition in that management intends the charges to commercial patients to be less than the prevailing charges in the community. Where an ambulatory surgical facility enters a market, hospital charges for similar services tend to decrease. The proposed facilities will promote cost containment, as it is more costly to render care in a hospital outpatient department than in a freestanding ambulatory surgical facility. Hospital outpatient departments, which are reimbursed by Medicare for their costs of providing services, do not have the same incentive to reduce costs as do freestanding ambulatory surgery facilities, which are reimbursed at a predetermined flat rate for the provision of services. Accordingly, Medicare has encouraged the use of freestanding ambulatory surgical facilities by incurring all responsibility for payments at no cost to Medicare recipients. The Department's sole concern regarding the financial feasibility of the proposed facilities arises out of its position that there exists no need for the facilities. Accordingly, the Department questions whether the facilities will enjoy utilization sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to their viable operation. In that need for the facilities has been found to exist, it follows that the facilities will be able to generate adequate numbers of surgeries to achieve break-even in their second years of operation. Several other factors indicate that the facilities will experience utilization sufficient to achieve break-even in their second years of operation: The marketing and community education activities proposed by the applicants will encourage utilization. In its existing surgical facility in Orlando, MediVision, Inc., has undertaken similar activities, which have resulted in substantial surgical referrals to the facility; There exists a residual pool of approximately 5,000,000 untreated cataracts nationally; Medicare reimbursement policies which allow Medicare recipients to receive treatment at licensed freestanding ambulatory surgical centers at no cost to the recipient will encourage utilization of the proposed facilities; The applicants' pricing structure, for both Medicare and commercial patients, will encourage utilization of the proposed facilities; and Two local ophthalmology group practices have expressed strong interest in performing surgery at the proposed facilities. Each group presently performs in excess of 1000 surgeries annually, which volume is greater than the break-even volume necessary to be achieved at each facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawn it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the applications of Petitioners to establish and operate freestanding ophthalmic ambulatory surgical centers in Dade County, Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 101 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
