Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Florida Hospital, is a tertiary care hospital located in Orange County, Florida, and consisting of three different campuses, with a total of 1,075 licensed beds. It is the second busiest and biggest hospital in Florida. T2. 9,20. Florida Hospital submitted its original FY 1984 budget to the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) on October 31, 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. The FY 1984 budget was revised at least once through informal negotiation with HCCB staff before it was considered by the HCCB, and these revisions were accepted by the staff of the HCCB. T1. 54, 104. These changes were not placed in evidence. The HCCB reviewed Petitioner's FY 1984 budget at its meeting on April 19, 1984. T1. 54; Petitioner's Exhibit 4. The budget was accepted and not selected for public hearing, and the HCCB found that Petitioner's hospital had one of the top three highest case mixes in the state. Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Petitioner's 1984 fiscal year ran from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984. T1. 52. Although the budget was not considered by the HCCB until April, 1984, the budget was effective for all of fiscal year 1984. T1. 54. By letter dated October 11, 1984, but received October 15, 1984, Florida Hospital submitted an amended FY 1984 budget to the Hospital Cost Containment Board. T1. 54; T2. 51; Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The amendment thus was submitted 289 days after the beginning of Petitioner's 1984 fiscal year, using the date of receipt as the date of submission, and 77 days from the end of the fiscal year. By letter dated February 11, 1985, the HCCB staff notified Florida Hospital that its amended 1984 budget would not be accepted because it was received less than 90 days before the end of Florida Hospital's 1984 fiscal year. T1. 54-55; Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Florida Hospital is not aware of any analysis made by the staff of the HCCB with respect to the merits of the proposed amendment. T1. 56. In the fall of 1984, the HCCB applied the 90 day policy to all hospitals which submitted proposed budget amendments. T1. 7, 13. The policy was initiated in late summer or early fall, 1984. T1. 6,7. The HCCB did not provide the Petitioner with any other reason for the proposed denial of its amendment. T1. 23. The HCCB has now abandoned its policy of refusing to accept budget amendments within the last 90 days of the fiscal year, and that issue is not present in this case because the HCCB does not rely upon it to deny the amendment proposed by the Petitioner. T1. 11, 27. Effective May 18, 1984, the Legislature substantially amended the Health Care Cost Containment Act of 1979, section 395.501, et seq., Fla. Stat. Chapter 84-35, Laws of Florida (1984). Historically, there was no practice or policy of the HCCB or its staff to either encourage or discourage amendment of budgets after submission to the HCCB, and although such amendments were not required by law, amendments were routinely allowed. T1. Under prior law, the HCCB had no regulatory authority over hospital budgets, and could not require a hospital to revise its budget or to abide by its budget. T1. 40. The HCCB only had the power to subject the hospital to a public hearing. Id. It often occurred that hospitals would revise a budget under the former law, after preliminary staff analysis and recommendation, and it is inferred that often such amendments were prompted by the possibility that the unrevised budget would trigger a public hearing. T1. 39. In fiscal year 1984, ninety-nine hospitals submitted amendments or other changes to their budgets after initial budget Submission to the HCCB. Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Sixty-five of those amendments were accepted by the staff of the HCCB or the HCCB and became a part of the hospital's 1984 budget. Id. At least fifteen or twenty of the attempts to amend the FY 1984 budget set forth above were filed after the particular fiscal year had already begun. T1. 70. The majority of these fifteen or twenty were changes or amendments submitted prior to the time that the particular budget was submitted to the board of the HCCB. Id. In most eases, these fifteen or twenty amendments were accepted by the HCCB. T1. 71. Thus, it was common for the HCCB to accept amendments to the FY 1984 budget after the beginning of that fiscal year. There is no evidence, however, that any of these amendments accepted by the HCCB had the effect, under the amended 1984 law, of reducing the variance between a 1984 budget as originally filed and 1984 audited actual experience to diminish or entirely avoid the base year adjustment required by section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1985). On March 6, 1984, Kissimmee Memorial Hospital submitted an amendment to its FY 1984 budget after the beginning of that fiscal year. Its fiscal year was calendar year 1984. This amendment was accepted by the HCCB in April, 1984, and was effective retroactively and prospectively, for the entire fiscal year. T1. 71-77; Petitioner's exhibit 7, worksheets C-3, C-4 and X-4. Of the fifty FY 1984 files reviewed at the HCCB by Scott Miller, witness for the Petitioner, one contained an amendment to a budget which was accepted by the HCCB after the HCCB had approved the budget. T1. 77. That hospital was Central Florida Regional Hospital. Id. The fiscal year for Central Florida Regional Hospital was calendar year 1984. T1. 79. The HCCB accepted the budget during their June, 1984, meeting. T1. 79; Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Subsequently, by letter dated September 21, 1984, Central Florida Regional Hospital submitted a proposed amendment to its FY 1984 budget. T1. 79-80. The proposed amendment was received by the HCCB on September 24, 1984, and sought an amendment due to receipt of favorable prior year Medicare settlements. Petitioner's Exhibit 8, letter of September 21, 1984, and worksheets C-2 and X-4; T1. 81. This was 22 days before the HCCB received the amendment proposed by the Petitioner in this case, and was more than 90 days from the end of the 1984 fiscal year. Apparently the amendment proposed by Central Florida Regional Hospital was subjected to the same 90 day amendment policy as Petitioner's amendment, but since the amendment of Central Florida Regional Hospital was submitted with more than 90 days left in the fiscal year, the amendment was not precluded by application of that policy. T1. 7, 13. The amendment proposed by Central Florida Regional Hospital related to past and future periods, and was proposed to be effective for the entire fiscal year. T1. 136, 81. The amendment was concerned solely with actual experience, the receipt of a Medicare settlement, which was a single unusual revenue event. The HCCB accepted the amendment, T2. 69, and the amendment became effective for the entire 1984 fiscal year. T1. 80-81; T2.69. (Specifically, staff of the HCCB accepted the amendments, the amendments were entered into the HCCB computer, this was deemed to be acceptance by the HCCB itself, and the amendments were averaged on the computer for the entire 12 month period. T2. 67, 69-70.) The effect of the amendment was to increase net revenue per adjusted admission by about $180, and this increase was too small to have any impact upon the issue of whether Central Florida Regional Hospital would be subject to a base year adjustment pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1984). T1. 61-62. The policy described in finding of fact 8 above was never promulgated by the HCCB as a rule. T1. 9, 12. No general written notice was given to hospitals potentially affected by the policy. T1. 13. The first notice given to hospitals of the existence of the policy was when staff of the HCCB notified a particular hospital in response to proposed fiscal year 1984 budget amendments. Id. Florida Hospital first learned of the existence of the policy when its attempted budget amendment was rejected by the HCCB staff on February 11, 1985. T1. 54-55. The amendment proposed by the Petitioner to its FY 1984 budget included a reduction of about 21,000 patient days, and a reduction of about 1900 admissions from the original budget. T1. Additionally, the amendment sought to increase revenue amounts which resulted primarily from a change in case mix. Id. Finally, there were increases in expenses for malpractice insurance and data processing software. Id. Revenues respond quite directly to increases or decreases in case mix. T1. 68. Case mix is a mathematical expression of the intensity of services provided to the patient, T2. 16, which correlates to the degree of illness of the patient. Id. The average case mix is 1.0. T2. 17. In the summer and early fall of 1983, when the Petitioner prepared its original budget for 1984, case mix standards did not exist, T1. 61, and the 1984 budget was not based upon a case mix. Id. Case mix data for fiscal years 1982 and 1983 became available in January, 1984. T1. 135. Florida Hospital's case mix, and its revenues, increased in fiscal year 1984 primarily due to the introduction of the Medicare prospective payment system on October 1, 1983. T1. 59, 65, 96. Additionally, in the market served by Florida hospital there was increased activity from health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations. T1. 59. The Medicare prospective payment system was a major change in the reimbursement system. T1. 119. These changes in the health care market caused Florida Hospital to experience a decrease in length of stay and an increase in the intensity of services rendered to sicker patients. This occurred because the new Medicare System, as well as HMO's and PPO's, were intended to reduce hospital stays and treat less sick patients outside the hospital. T1. 59. The budget of Florida Hospital was initially prepared and submitted in October, 1983, with virtually no actual experience under the new Medicare prospective payment system. T1. 95-96. See also findings of fact 2 and 19, supra. Florida Hospital hired two consultants to assist it in trying to predict the impact of the new Medicare program. T1. 95. Florida Hospital receives many of its patients on referral from other hospitals which cannot provide services to such patients. T2. 18, 33-34. Thus, Florida Hospital is relied upon by the surrounding area to treat sicker patients. T2. 25. It is hard to predict trends in such referrals, and consequently, it is difficult to predict the impact of other market changes, such as the Medicare changes and the success of health maintenance organizations described above, since Florida Hospital must rely on referrals. Health maintenance organizations in the first year of operation in the surrounding community were able to substantially reduce days of care, and this success was not predictable by Florida Hospital when it formulated its FY 1984 budget. T2. 14- Additionally, the Orlando area in the last two years has experienced significant unpredictable increases in population, which added to the foreseeability problems of Florida Hospital. T2. 18-20. Over the several years preceding fiscal year 1984, Florida Hospital experienced a trend of increasing open heart surgical procedures. T1. 60. In 1984, Florida Hospital originally budgeted for a significant increase over 1983, to its maximum capacity using a 5 day week. Id. But the demand continued, and in 1984, Florida Hospital began doing open heart surgery on weekends. T1. 61. This decision, coupled with a decrease in length of stay per surgery, resulted in an increase in open heart surgeries greater than originally predicted in the 1984 budget. Id; T1. 110-111. Florida Hospital might have anticipated using weekends when it prepared its 1984 budget, but did not do so because weekend work is not a normal practice. T1. 112. In the fall of 1983, the national trend for open heart surgery was showing a decrease in such procedures. T1. 135-36. Additionally, Florida Hospital experienced a shift of less complicated surgeries, such as cataract surgeries, from inpatient to outpatient procedures, resulting in an overall increase in intensity of the remaining surgical procedures. T1. 62-63. The Hospital has no control over this choice, since it is made by physician and patient and is affected by reimbursement policies of insurance and governmental programs. Id. Florida Hospital monitors its budget on a monthly basis, but does not have specific criteria for evaluating the meaning of trends. T1. 86-87. A change of 5 percent would cause concern to Florida Hospital but other circumstances would be evaluated. T1. 87. In the first two months of the first quarter of FY 1984, Florida Hospital experienced a slight increase of admissions over budget estimates. T1. 85-88. In a letter to the HCCB dated March 23, 1984, Florida Hospital noted that the intensity of its case mix for Medicare patients had increased about 50 percent since 1979, and that the length of stay had dropped 0.2 days from 1983 to 1984. Intervenor's Exhibit I. At the time the letter was prepared, the Hospital had no way of knowing if the non-Medicare case mix was the same. T1. 109. The data further showed a trend away from psychiatric patient days, which produce less revenue per day, toward more intense forms of care, which produce more revenue per day. Id. The letter was sent to provide information requested by staff of the HCCB, and to explain changes to the budget as originally submitted. Id.; T1. 104. While March and April of 1984 showed some signs of a change from predictions in the budget, it was not until June, 1984, that Florida Hospital experienced a significant decline in patient days. T1. 97-98. Even then, it was determined that the June, 1984, experience was not a good trend indicator, but was an anomaly. Id. This was shown to be the case when June, 1984, was compared to June, 1985. Id. Moreover, these were only gross trends in patient days and admissions, and were not specific for case mix. T1. 99. In fact, Florida Hospital finished the fiscal year at about the gross revenue level it had predicted in its 1984 budget; the problem was an increase in intensity of case mix, with lower patient days generating higher revenue per adjusted admission. Id. In June, 1984, Florida Hospital received a Medicare settlement for two or three prior years. The settlement was $10 million, and the timing of the receipt of such settlements was not within the control of Florida Hospital. T1. 63, 93. Significant variances were first noticed by Florida Hospital in revenue per adjusted admission in July, 1984. T1. The variances were cumulative from April, 1984. T1. 100. The vice president for finance at Florida Hospital, Scott Miller, was first aware of the amendments to the Hospital Cost Containment law, chapter 84-35, Laws of Florida (1984), establishing a base year adjustment for fiscal year 1984 based upon actual experience in 1984, in June, 1984. T1. 100. Section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1984), requires comparison of the 1984 budget for net revenues per adjusted admission filed with the HCCB with the audited actual experience of each hospital for such revenues. The bulk of the work in preparation of the proposed amendment to its FY 1984 budget, Petitioner's Exhibit 6, was done in August, 1984, based upon data to June 30, 1984. T1. 92, 83. One of the reasons for submitting the amended budget was to diminish the base year adjustment described in finding of fact 30 above. T1. 100. Since the potential loss to Florida Hospital is over $10,000,000, it is likely that this was a major cause for the amendment. Additionally, the proposed amendment was submitted to more honestly reflect changes in the predicted budget. T1. 102. From a purely fiscal point of view, without consideration of regulatory consequences, there is an incentive to underestimate revenues and overestimate expenses. T2. 26-27. During the preparation of the proposed budget amendment, Florida Hospital did not consult the Florida Hospital Reporting System Manual, and did not talk with any employee of the HCCB for advice with respect to the proposed amendments. T1. 130. The proposed budget amendment submitted in October, 1984, dealt with the entire fiscal year 1984, and did not distinguish between portions of the year which already had been completed and the remainder of the fiscal year. T1. 131-132. As set forth in finding of fact 16, the basis of the proposed amendment was actual experience in fiscal year 1984, T1. 139-140, and contained revenues actually received that were substantially greater than originally predicated. With respect to future periods, the budget was a projection. Due to seasonal variances, unpredictable receipt of lump sum payments, and variations in changes in admissions for various types of cases, it is not practicable to prorate the budget of Florida Hospital, as proposed to be amended, in daily, monthly, or quarterly segments, T1. 133, and the proposed amended budget does not contain a method for such proration. A budget can be defined as a projection for a future time of expenditure and revenue, and it reflects anticipated goals. T1. 127, 131. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Florida Hospital has ever attempted to avoid a public hearing by underestimating revenue, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Florida Hospital's original FY 1984 budget contained intentional underestimations of revenue or intentional overestimations of reductions from gross revenue. As found in findings of fact 18 through 31, Florida Hospital's original FY 1984 budget was based upon the best information then available. It took six months to prepare, T. 127, and was reasonable at the time submitted. Florida Hospital submitted amendments to its budgets in FY 1982 and 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit 1. In years prior to 1984, Florida Hospital had submitted amendments to budgets after the beginning of its fiscal year. T1. 134. Florida Hospital has claimed in previous years that it offers services not offered by other hospitals in its group. T2. 72-73. Through discussions with the staff of the HCCB, it was agreed between Florida Hospital and the staff of the HCCB that Florida Hospital could delete from its FY 1984 budget revenues and expenses associated with kidney transplant, employee housing, pathologist laboratory fees, sales of gasoline to employees, and a laundry. T2. 73-74. See Petitioner's Exhibit 10, attachment 2 and 3. The effect of deletion of these items from the FY 1984 budget was to delete a predicted $3,231,000 in revenue. Petitioner's Exhibit 10, attachment 1. When Florida Hospital filed its audited actual experience for 1984, the HCCB had a new staff analyst assigned to review the budget of Florida Hospital, and the new analyst concluded that the items described in finding of fact 40 should be included in the actual report initially, Petitioner's Exhibit 10, attachment 4, but that these items would be "pulled back out" for purposes of analysis later. T2. 75. However, Respondent's Exhibit 1 did not implement this agreement. Instead, the items described above were deleted from the FY 1984 budget but were included in the FY 1984 actual experience figures on this exhibit. Id. The total amount of revenue actually received for these items in FY 1984, which should be deleted from the FY 1984 actual experience of Florida Hospital pursuant to the understanding with staff of the HCCB, is $4,074,415. If this amount is not deleted, Florida Hospital's base year adjustment pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. is larger by nearly $3 million. T2. 76. Respondent's Exhibit 1 computes the FY 1984 net revenue per adjusted admission for Florida Hospital for the following: FY 1984 original budget; FY 1984 budget as proposed to be amended; FY 1984 budget if the proposed amendment is allowed for only the last 77 days of the fiscal year; and the 1984 actual experience. T2. 51-53. As discussed in finding of fact 41, the figure for 1984 actual experience does not delete the items discussed in that finding. Respondent's Exhibit 2 computes the adjustment to base year if the proposed amendment is not accepted, and if the items described above in findings of fact 40 and 41 are not deleted from actual experience. T2. 56-58. The amount of this adjustment would be $13,771,310 which is $344.52 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Respondent's Exhibit 2. Respondent's Exhibit 3 computes the adjustment to base year if the proposed amendment is accepted for the 77 days remaining in the fiscal year, and if the items described above in findings of fact 40 and 41 are not deleted from actual experience. T2. 59-60. The amount of this adjustment would be $10,476,400, which is $262.09 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Respondent's Exhibit 3. If the proposed amendment is not accepted, but the items described in findings of fact 40 and 41 are deleted from actual experience, the adjustment to base year would be $10,871,303, which is $271.97 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit 9. If the proposed amendment is accepted for the 77 days remaining in the fiscal year, and if the items described in findings of fact 40 and 41 are deleted from actual experience, the adjustment to base year would be $7,760,747, which is $190.15 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit 9. If the proposed amendment is accepted by the HCCB to be effective for the entire FY 1984, the budgeted net revenue per adjusted admission for Florida Hospital is $4,008.70. Respondent's Exhibit 1. Assuming that the deductions from actual experience in 1984 are not made (see findings of fact 40 and 41), the net revenue per adjusted admission actually experienced by Florida Hospital in 1984 was $4,346.66. Id. Since the difference between these two figures is less than 10 percent above the budgeted amount, $4,008.70, the base year of Florida Hospital would not be adjusted pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat., if the proposed amendment were accepted for the entire fiscal year. This result would occur even though the deductions from revenue described above are not made.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Hospital Cost Containment Board enter its Final Order approving the proposed amendment to the FY 1984 budget of Florida Hospital only for the last 77 days, and, as a result, calculating the adjustment pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1985), in the following amounts: subtraction of a total of $7,760,747 net revenues from FY 1986 budget, which is subtraction of $190.15 net revenues per adjusted admission for the FY 1986 budget. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 7th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-0747H Rulings upon Proposed Findings of Fact. Pursuant to section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., the following are specific rulings upon all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The numbers herein correspond to the numbers of each proposed finding by party. Findings of fact in this recommended order are indicated by the abbreviation "FF". Findings of Fact Proposed by the PETITIONER, Florida Hospital. Adopted, FF 1. Adopted, FF 2. law. law. Adopted, FF 3. Adopted, FF 4. Adopted, FF 6. Adopted, FF 7. Adopted, FF 8. Adopted, FF 9. Rejected because the proposed finding is a question of Rejected because the proposed finding is a question of Adopted, FF 10. Adopted, FF 11. Adopted, FF 12. Rejected because of insufficiency of evidence that this categorical, all inclusive finding of fact can be mode. There is a marked distinction between amendments submitted by Hospitals before acceptance of the budget by the HCCB, and amendments submitted after the budget has been accepted by the HCCB. See FF 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Further, of the ninety-nine instances of amendment, the Petitioner presented only one occasion when an amendment was accepted after the budget had been approved by the HCCB and was accepted for the entire fiscal year, some of which had already been executed. See FF 14. Through 19. Adopted, FF 13. 20. Through 28. Adopted, FF 14. Adopted, FF 8 and 14. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted, FF 8. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted to the extent found in FF 11 end 12, and the remainder rejected for lack of evidence. Adopted, FF 8. Rejected because irrelevant since the basis for the 90 day incipient policy is not at issue because the policy is not at issue. Adopted, FF 7 and 8. Adopted, FF 8. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted, FF 8. True, but irrelevant and therefore rejected. Rejected because not supported by the evidence. As found in FF 17 through 31, Florida Hospital was aware of the amended law, effective May 18, 1984, that subjected hospitals to a potential base year adjustment resulting from FY 1984 budget data, but as also found in those findings, Florida Hospital could not prepare its proposed amendment any sooner due to lack of data. The delay in filing the amendment, on this record, occurred due to lack of data, not lack of notice concerning the 90 day policy. Adopted, FF 39. Adopted in part, FF 39. However, the purpose of prior year amendments cannot be a portion of this finding of fact because there is insufficient evidence. Without evidence as to the nature of such prior year amendments, and given the reverse incentive in those years to understate revenues to avoid public hearing, it cannot be concluded that the motives for such amendments were to "present a fair document to the HCCB." Adopted, FF 8. and 48. Adopted, FF 16. and 49. through 51. Adopted, FF 17. 52. and 53. Adopted, FF 18. 54. and 55. Adopted, FF 19. 56. and 57. Adopted, FF 20. 58. and 59. Adopted, FF 21. 60. and 61. Adopted, FF 22. Adopted, FF 21. Rejected. It is unclear from the evidence whether volume of patient days and admissions "magnifies" the impact of changes in market conditions. It could be statistically true that a greater volume produces more reliable predictions due to a larger base pool of data, which averages out small anomalies in data. Adopted, FF 19. through 69. Adopted, FF 23. 70. and 71. Adopted, FF 24. Adopted, FF 38. Adopted, FF 29. Adopted, FF 31. Adopted, FF 28. and 77. Adopted to the extent modified in FF 38. To the extent not adopted in the modified language, it is rejected for lack of evidence. Adopted, FF 33. Since there were no other definitions given in the record, adoption of this finding as proposed would be misleading. T1. 127-128. Thus, it is rejected as phrased. Adopted, FF 37, except this is the same definition, not "another" definition. Rejected as phrased. There is not evidence in the record that the budget which is the subject of testimony at T1. 129 was prepared or used in any manner with respect to past time in the budget year. Adopted in the introduction, but not, strictly speaking, a finding of fact. Adopted, FF 42. and 86. Adopted, FF 43. and 87. Adopted, FF 44. 88. and 89. Adopted, FF 14. Adopted to the extent relevant in the introduction. Adopted, FF 40. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to FF 40. Adopted, FF 40. through 96. Adopted, FF 41. Adopted, FF 45. Adopted, FF 46. Findings of Fact Proposed by the RESPONDENT, HCCB. The first sentence is adopted, FF 9. The next two sentences are rejected as issues of law, not fact. The next sentence is adopted, FF 7 and 9. The last sentence, also a matter of law, is rejected because not fact. Adopted only to the extent in FF 8, and remainder is rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since the policy is not used by the HCCB to deny amendment in this ease. Adopted, FF 5 and 7. Adopted, FF 8, except the last sentence, which is not relevant as discussed above. The first two sentences are adopted as modified in FF The next sentence is adopted in FF 16. The next sentence is adopted as modified in FF 26. The last sentence is adopted as modified in FF 27 and 29. The first sentence is adopted in FF 16, the second sentence is adopted in FF 19, the last two sentences are adopted in FF 23. The first sentence is adopted in FF 3. The last sentence is true, T2. 51, but not relevant. Adopted, FF 32 and 34. Adopted, FF 35. Adopted, FF 40. The first sentence is rejected for the reasons stated in FF 40 and 41. The second sentence is rejected as an issue of law, and also rejected because irrelevant: there does not appear to be any statute allowing or prohibiting the HCCB to "disregard" any portion of a budget. But as found in FF 10, there is apparently some discretion afforded the HCCB, discretion that is exercised frequently. Adopted, FF 14 and 8. Findings of Fact Proposed by the INTERVENOR, The Public Counsel. Adopted, FF 1. Adopted, FF 9. Adopted, FF 2. Adopted, FF 2, 3, and 4. Adopted as modified in FF 16. and 7. Adopted as modified in FF 16, but there is not enough evidence to show a "trend." Adopted, FF 3 and 4. Adopted, FF 7. Adopted, FF 16. Adopted, FF 31. Adopted, FF 19. Adopted, as modified in FF 27 and 29. Adopted, FF 30. Adopted, FF 30. Adopted, FF 32. The record contains no evidence that the subject matter of the proposed amendment is incorrect, or false, and thus the motive for such amendment is largely irrelevant. For this reason, this finding is rejected. Adopted, FF 34. Rejected because the record citation does not support the proposed finding. Rejected because misleading. The proposed amendment does not relate to a specific future time, but in fact relates to the remaining days of the fiscal year, since that was all that was left of the budget year when the amendment was filed. Adopted, FF 35. Adopted as modified, FF 35. Adopted as modified, FF 36. Adopted as modified, FF 36. Adopted as modified, FF 35. Adopted, FF 36. Adopted, FF 26 and 36. Adopted as modified, FF 35 and 36. Adopted as modified, FF 35 and 36. Adopted, FF 19 and 20, except the last sentence, which is cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected because irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and cumulative to FF 20. Adopted, FF 20. Rejected as irrelevant and cumulative to FF 20. Adopted, FF 19. Rejected as irrelevant. See FF 18 and 20. The record supports only one conclusion regarding the prospective payment system: no one knew what massive changes would occur in the market place prior to actual implementation of that system for a number of months. Awareness that PPS was on the way, without knowing what it would do, is irrelevant. Adopted as modified, FF 30. Rejected as irrelevant. See FF 15 through 31, which conclude that the Petitioner acted in a timely manner to prepare and submit its proposed amendment. Adopted, FF 37. Adopted, FF 38. Adopted, FF 10. Adopted, FF 3 and 10. Adopted, FF 12. Adopted as modified, FF 12. Adopted as modified, FF 12. Further, the point is irrelevant. Rejected because the proposed finding is an issue of law. Rejected because inextricably mixed with the issue of law contained in proposed finding 46. Rejected because inextricably mixed with the issue of law contained in proposed finding 46. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis Ashley Billingsly, Esquire Hospital Cost Containment Board 325 John Knox Road Building L, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve, Public Counsel Office of Public Counsel 202 Blount Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T. L. Trimble, Esquire 2400 Bedford Road Orlando, Florida 32803 James Bracher, Executive Director Hospital Cost Containment Board 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by Petitioner, Charles W. Leverson, Sr., for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, Petitioner would be allowed to return to work as a unit treatment rehabilitation specialist in a unit for developmentally disabled adults at Florida State Hospital (FSH). Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. In a preliminary decision entered on an unknown date, a DCFS committee denied the request principally on the ground that Petitioner had minimized or denied the gravity of his disqualifying offenses. Petitioner is now barred from doing such work because of disqualifying offenses which occurred on December 16, 1990, and March 24, 1992. On the first date, Petitioner was arrested for the offense of aggrevated battery on his wife, a misdemeanor under Section 784.04, Florida Statutes (1990). On the second date, Petitioner was again arrested for five offenses, including battery on his wife in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes (1991). As to the first charge, on January 26, 1993, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of battery and was placed on one year's supervised probation. He was also required to "[s]pend 15 weekends in the county jail." In addition, Petitioner was ordered "not [to] possess or consume any alcohol during the term of [his] probation," and to "[c]ontinue with counseling" (of an undisclosed nature). As to the second charge, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on July 24, 1992, of committing battery on his wife in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. A "not guilty" verdict was entered as to the remaining four charges. The record does not indicate the sentence, if any, that he received for this offense. Petitioner successfully completed all terms of his probation. Since his arrest in March 1992, he has not consumed any alcoholic beverages. This is an important consideration since both disqualifying offenses occurred when he was intoxicated. Petitioner began working at FSH on September 26, 1979. He was first employed as a support service aide but was eventually promoted to the position of unit treatment rehabilitation specialist, a position involving supervision of developmentally disabled adults. Because of a background screening which occurred in 1997, Petitioner's disqualifying offenses were discovered, and he was forced to resign effective February 12, 1998. He has requested an exemption so that he can return to his employment. Since being forced to resign some four months ago, he has not been employed. The two disqualifying offenses involve battery on Petitioner's long-time wife, Shirler. In both cases, she suffered injuries serious enough to require treatment at a local hospital. Shirler says, however, that Petitioner has "changed" since his 1992 arrest, and he no longer drinks, is communicative with her and the three children, and is a good father. Petitioner attends church, is a member of a lodge in Quincy, Florida, and has a much better attitude since he stopped drinking. He has received good work evaluations during his most recent years of employment at FSH. Former co-workers and supervisors attested to the fact that Petitioner has good rapport with his co-workers and residents, and he performs his stressful job with a "cheerful" and "pleasant" attitude. He was also described as one of the "better" employees in the forensic unit. In March 1987, or more than eleven years ago, Petitioner received a five-day suspension because of an altercation with an inmate in the FSH forensic section laundry room. The suspension was meted out after Petitioner became involved in an argument with an inmate and drew an opened knive in a threatening fashion. Although Petitioner denied that the blade was exposed, testimony by a co-worker established that it was exposed in a threatening fashion. The altercation was resolved, however, before any violence occurred. In mitigation, it was established that Petitioner's possession of a knive in the laundry room was not unlawful since it was necessary for him to use a knive to open the sealed buckets of detergents. On October 13, 1993, Petitioner received a written reprimand for "Abusive and/or Threatening Language." On that occasion, Petitioner was instructed by his supervisor to help fold some laundry in the laundry room. Petitioner replied that he would not and told him "to get off my fucking back." Petitioner also pointed his fist at the supervisor in a threatening manner and "threatened to kick his butt." On June 27, 1994, Petitioner was suspended for fifteen work days effective July 8, 1994, for using threatening and/or abusive language towards a supervisor. This disciplinary action was taken after Petitioner had again refused to comply with instructions by his supervisor. On that occasion, he became "real mad," called her a "motherfucker," shook his fist at her, and threatened to "get her." Although the supervisor stood her ground against Petitioner, she was "afraid" for her safety. Petitioner was less than candid in describing the incidents which led to him receiving disciplinary action by his employer in 1987, 1993, and 1994. He has, however, expressed remorse for striking his wife in 1990 and 1992, and he regrets the embarrassment he caused his wife and children. For the last four years, Petitioner has had a blemish-free record at FSH, including good evaluations from his supervisors and a reputation as one of the "better" employees in his section. Given these considerations, it is found that Petitioner has sufficiently rehabilitated himself since the disqualifying incidents, and that he will pose no threat to the FSH clients and inmates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949
The Issue Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Central Florida Regional Hospital (Central Florida) (CON Application No. 9805) and Oviedo HMA, Inc. (Oviedo HMA) (CON Application No. 9807P) for a new, 60-bed acute care hospital in Seminole County, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or AHCA) acute care subdistrict 7-4, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria sufficiently to warrant approval; and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Agency AHCA is the state agency authorized to evaluate and render final determinations on CON applications pursuant to Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes.2 Oviedo HMA Oviedo HMA, Inc. is a start-up subsidiary of Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), a national for-profit hospital chain, headquartered in Naples, Florida. Oviedo HMA was formed for the sole purpose of constructing, owning, and operating a hospital in the Oviedo area. HMA traditionally develops hospitals in non-urban markets. It describes itself as a "turnaround specialist for non-urban hospitals," that "acquires and then revitalizes hospitals in growing communities with [population of] 30,000 to 400,000 that have a clear demographic need." HMA focuses on smaller-type hospitals ranging in bed size from 50 to 200 beds. HMA's ownership of hospitals has grown from 16 in 1993 to 59 hospitals in 2005. HMA owns and operates approximately 16 hospitals in Florida, all of which have come under HMA's ownership and operation by acquisition. HMA has not yet opened and constructed a new acute care hospital in Florida. HMA is building a new hospital in Collier County and has recently completed a replacement hospital in Brooksville, Florida. HMA anticipates acquiring an 80 percent interest in St. Cloud Hospital (owned by ORHS) in the greater Orlando area, with ORHS retaining a 20 percent interest. This transaction had not closed as of the final hearing. HMA owned and operated hospitals nationwide are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and provide high quality of care to their patients. HMA has experienced financial growth in recent years; growing from approximately $250 million in net revenue in 1993 to over $3.6 billion in 2005, and growing from approximately $12 million in net income in 1993 to approximately $350 million in 2005. Its financial strength among for-profit hospitals is strong. For HMA, company-wide, over 15.4 percent of gross revenues were attributable to Medicaid in fiscal year (FY) 2005, with an additional 4.5 percent in charity care. In Florida, 9.7 percent of gross revenues of HMA were attributable to Medicaid (over $324 million) in 2005, with an additional 4.4 percent in charity care (over $147 million). In the SAAR, AHCA conditioned its approval of Oviedo HMA's project with the condition that Oviedo HMA provide "[a] minimum of 7.1 percent of the total annual patient days in the 60-bed facility . . . to Medicaid patients" and "[a] minimum of 2.9 percent of the 60-bed facility's gross revenues . . . to charity patients." OV 99 at 52. AHCA should impose these conditions if the project is approved. Oviedo HMA has committed to provide obstetrical services. In order to perfect its CON application, Oviedo HMA is relying heavily on Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. (ORHS), a Florida not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates health care facilities in Orange, Seminole, Lake, and Osceola Counties. HMA would not pursue the project without a collaborative clinical and financial arrangement with ORHS. Following the filing of Oviedo HMA's letter of intent, on October 20, 2004, representatives of HMA, Inc. and ORHS, Inc., signed a letter of intent "relating to the possible formation of a joint venture or other business relationship" for the construction of a new hospital in Oviedo." Thereafter, HMA and ORHS agreed in principle that if the CON application were approved and the hospital project proceeded forward, 20 percent of the stock of Oviedo HMA will be owned by ORHS or one of its affiliates. (Stated otherwise, ORHS will contribute 20 percent of the project cost.) Losses and profits will be shared in accordance with percentages of stock ownership. Any written agreement between Oviedo HMA and ORHS is expected to be modeled after the ORHS/HMA St. Cloud Hospital agreement. See Finding of Fact 6. It is anticipated that any such agreement will contain, in part, buy-out and non-compete provisions.3 The entity that files a CON application must be the same entity that licenses and operates the CON approved project, here a hospital. OV 69 at 9-10.4 According to Mr. Gregg, "as of the [legislative] changes of 2004, if a change of ownership occurs, then that new owner acquires the certificates [sic] of need that were [sic] associated with the provider being purchased." Id. at 10. See generally § 408.036(2)(a), Fla. Stat.; Ch. 2004-383, § 6, Laws of Fla. The proposed stock purchase by ORHS does not affect the corporate status of Oviedo HMA, Inc., the applicant/entity.5 The situation would be different if the applicant/entity changed. The persuasive evidence indicates that Oviedo HMA, Inc. will own and operate the new hospital. ORHS has sufficient funds and is committed to expend between $15 and $20 million toward the Oviedo HMA hospital project, but is not willing to finance the entire cost of the project. This is one reason why ORHS did not pursue a CON application for a similar project as it had done in a prior batching cycle. The ORHS hospitals/health care facilities provide high quality of care to their patients. ORHS uses an enterprise-wide health information system which is complemented by other systems. ORHS physicians can access patient clinical information at an ORHS facility or remotely. PACS is a picture, archiving, and communications system. PACS provides the user with the ability to view images digitally, e.g., X-rays can be transmitted electronically and can be viewed remotely. With the design and structural cabling system in place, the PACS system can be used by the Oviedo HMA hospital and OHRS. The anticipated collaboration between the entity systems will afford the ability to tie the computer systems together. This system is available among collaborative hospitals and by credentialed staff who are given access to the system.6 Generally, physicians who do not have privileges at an ORHS facility would not be able to access the information unless given permission, which is not done on a standard basis. Hospital facilities with a "business relationship" with ORHS facilities can access the information. However, federal confidentiality requirements must be followed. Unaffiliated hospitals, such as CFRH, could be provided access to the information. See Endnote 6. Central Florida Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. (Central Florida), a for-profit corporation, is an applicant in this proceeding and will own the new hospital proposed in its CON application. If approved, the new hospital will have a separate management team charged with running the day-to-day operations of the new hospital. Central Florida is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HCA Inc. (Health Corporation of America), a national for- profit corporation with hospitals distributed throughout the United States, including the State of Florida, and abroad. HCA's health care services include physician practices, ambulatory surgical centers, community hospitals, and large tertiary referral centers. Central Florida owns and operates Central Florida Regional Hospital (CFRH), a general acute care hospital with 226 licensed beds, consisting of 208 acute care beds and 18 skilled nursing unit beds (a separate unit within the hospital). CFRH is located at 1401 West Seminole Boulevard, Sanford, Florida, and is accredited by the JCAHO. Osceola Regional Medical Center, in Osceola County, Florida, is also an HCA facility in District 7. Central Florida will transfer (and delicense) 60 acute care licensed beds from CFRH to effectuate the CON application. CFRH asserts that it can maintain an appropriate census with the remaining bed complement. If the reduced bed complement is insufficient in number, CFRH can add new acute care beds without obtaining a CON. Ch. 2004-383, § 6, Laws of Fla., amending Section 408.036(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes (2003). CFRH's geographic service area is predominantly north Seminole County and west Volusia County. CFRH provides inpatient and outpatient services, including obstetrics, and has the only adult open-heart surgery and interventional cardiology program in Seminole County. CFRH's OB department averages 80 to 100 OB deliveries a month. CFRH does not operate a Level 2 or Level 3 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital operate these units. CFRH has a history of providing health care services to Medicaid patient and indigent patients. CFRH expects to implement otolaryngology services, as well as a neurosurgery program that will include state-of-the- art "cyberknife" technology, a surgical tool that can also be used in cancer and tumor treatment in areas of the body other than the brain. (CFRH has not offered neurosurgery for some time, but signed a contract with a neurosurgeon that starts March 1, 2006, and is recruiting for a second neurosurgeon.) The hospital will be offering a 64-slice CAT scanner, which is a state-of-the-art imaging system. It is used for ruling out the necessity of a cardiac intervention procedure. CFRH has two OB/GYN physicians in Oviedo who are employed by the hospital. One works part-time. CFRH is recruiting for additional OB physicians for CFRH. CFRH has a reputation for providing high quality of care to its patients. This includes but is not limited to CFRH's cardiovascular and interventional programs. (For calendar year 2004, there were 300 open heart surgery discharges from CFRH. In 2004, CFRH ranked 40 out of 73 Florida hospitals with interventional cardiology programs in the number of open heart surgery discharges.) CFRH uses an electronic medical administration record (eMAR) system, which increases patient safety. Each patient's arm band is coded and can be scanned for, in part, drug compatibility. Nurses are alerted if there are any abnormalities. This particular system is unique to HCA hospitals. CFRH also uses a PACS system to transmit images to other facilities. Central Florida enjoys an excellent reputation as a corporate citizen in the Sanford community and Seminole County generally. Central Florida makes annual monetary contributions to a number of local organizations, including, for example, Seminole Community College for the purpose of expanding their nursing program. ORHS and Florida Hospital also contribute to this project. On September 7, 2004, the City of Oviedo issued a letter of support of Central Florida's application "for a 60 bed satellite facility in Oviedo, Florida."7 On November, 15, 2005, The Greater Oviedo Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution favoring Central Florida's application over Oviedo HMA's application. Until Central Florida filed its CON application, Central Florida had not begun to aggressively consider a greater presence in the Oviedo area. Central Florida expects to recruit in the area (and build a medical office) if its CON application is approved. CFRH has approximately 164 doctors on staff with active privileges (or active provisional) and requires its physicians to be board certified in order to be a part of the medical staff, unless the physician provides a specialty service for a limited period of time. CFRH will support the new hospital and provide any necessary training. CFRH expects to be the referral hospital for the new hospital, as opposed to a Florida Hospital or ORHS facility. Health Services in Orange and Seminole Counties Within District 7 Agency health planning service District 7 consists of Brevard, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties. § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. For acute care beds, each of the four counties is treated as a separate "subdistrict" by AHCA. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(g). Both applications were filed to construct a new, acute care hospital in Seminole County, subdistrict 7-4. Specifically, each application proposes a new, 60-bed hospital in Oviedo, in Seminole County. At present, Seminole County has three acute care hospitals: CFRH is located in Sanford, near the Volusia County line in north Seminole County; Florida Hospital-Altamonte, located in Altamonte Springs, in south Seminole County to the west of Oviedo; and ORHS South Seminole Hospital, also located in south Seminole County to the west of Oviedo. For the period January, 2003, through December, 2003, CFRH reported 55.82 percent occupancy in its 208 acute care beds. By comparison, Florida Hospital-Altamonte reported 72.40 percent occupancy in its 258 acute care beds and ORHS South Seminole Hospital reported 53.80 percent occupancy in its 126 acute care beds. See CF 12 at Table 1-20. Florida Hospital-Altamonte and ORHS South Seminole Hospital are each a part of large hospital organizations that collectively dominate the market for hospital services in Seminole County and District 7. Both applicants propose to address the maldistribution of existing licensed acute care beds in Seminole County, with the greater need for acute care beds in south Seminole County. There are approximately 2,470 acute care beds in Orange County and approximately 600 acute care beds in Seminole County. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., owns and operates seven general acute care hospitals under the "Florida Hospital" name in the greater Orlando area: Florida Hospital- Altamonte (258 acute care beds) in Seminole County; Florida Hospital-Orlando (702 acute care beds), Florida Hospital-East Orlando (144 acute care beds), Winter Park Memorial Hospital,8 and Florida Hospital-Apopka (50 acute care beds) in Orange County; and Florida Hospital-Celebration and Florida Hospital- Kissimmee in Osceola County. See Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case Nos. 02-0448CON and 02-0449CON, 24 FALR 714, 720 (DOAH November 18, 2002; AHCA December 31, 2002). In 2001, Florida Hospital and ORHS filed competing CON applications to build a 60-bed hospital in Oviedo, and each was preliminarily denied by AHCA. Both organizations challenged AHCA's determination, and, following an administrative hearing, AHCA awarded the CON to Florida Hospital. See Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., supra. However, Florida Hospital never implemented its proposal, and the CON lapsed. ORHS is a large tertiary health care system in the greater Orlando area comprised of several health care facilities and one additional facility which will be opening this year, the Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Babies (Winnie Palmer), a 273-bed facility. It is anticipated that obstetrical and women services and infant care will relocate from the Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children and Women (Arnold Palmer) to Winnie Palmer in May 2006. ORHS and Florida Hospital offer outstanding cardiovascular services. (For calendar year 2004, Florida Hospital-Orlando and Orlando Regional Medical Center had 1,759 and 898 open heart surgery discharges, respectively, and rank one and four, respectively, among open heart surgery providers statewide.) ORHS owns and operates several general acute care hospitals in the greater Orlando area. South Seminole Hospital in Longwood, Seminole County, is a 206-bed hospital with approximately 126 acute care beds, and 80 psychiatric beds in a detached facility. Several ORHS facilities are located in Orange County. Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC), located in downtown Orlando, is a 600-bed general acute care hospital that provides tertiary care services and serves as a teaching hospital. ORMC is the only Level 1 trauma center in the greater Orlando area. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center is physically attached to ORMC and functions as the medical-surgical and radiation/oncology program for ORMC. Arnold Palmer is a 275-bed specialty hospital that provides subspecialty pediatric care, neonatology, and obstetrics. A $50 million construction project is underway. Lucerne Hospital is a 275-bed general acute care hospital, a few miles away from ORMC. Sand Lake Hospital is a 150-bed general acute care hospital (located near Disney). ORHS previously owned St. Cloud Hospital in Osceola County, but sold an 80 percent interest in St. Cloud to HMA in November, 2005. See Findings of Fact 6 and 13. South Lake Hospital is a smaller, 100-bed general acute care hospital located in Lake County, Florida, that is digitally linked to ORMC. ORHS owns a 50 percent interest in and manages this hospital. The South Lake Hospital District owns the remaining interest. ORHS has approximately 40 physicians who practice or have offices within the Oviedo market. CFRH has one full-time physician practicing within the area. See Finding of Fact 30. Approximately 1,700 physicians have privileges at ORHS facilities. If the Oviedo HMA project is approved, ORHS expects to regain tertiary care referrals now lost to the Florida Hospital system. Florida Hospital and ORHS healthcare facilities dominate the market for hospital services in Orange and Seminole Counties. The Oviedo area: demographics, utilization of existing providers, and applicant service area and occupancy projections The City of Oviedo is located in south Seminole County, east of Longwood (where South Seminole Hospital is located) and Altamonte Springs (where Florida Hospital-Altamonte is located), and approximately 10 to 15 miles from downtown Orlando. The City of Oviedo is included within zip codes 32765 and 32766, although there are other adjacent zip codes to the northeast 32732 (Geneva) and to the west 32708 (Winter Springs). See CF 80. The Oviedo area is growing. In 2004, the total population for the four zip codes was 106,789 and projected to increase 12.6 percent (to 120,227) by 2009. (The population is projected to increase 9.3 percent statewide and 11.2 percent in Seminole County by 2009.) The population in zip code 32765 was 49,985 in 2004, projected to grow to 57,742 in 2009, or 15.9 percent. In zip code 32766, the population was 9,068 in 2004, projected to grow to 11,302 in 2009, or 24.6 percent. Population in the Winter Springs and Geneva areas are projected to increase 7.1 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively, by 2009. The Oviedo area is described as "a young, family oriented suburb of Orlando" or more generally as a suburban community. The parties have stipulated to the need for a new, 60- bed acute care hospital in Oviedo. Oviedo HMA proposes to serve a four zip code area, i.e., zip codes 32765, 32766, 32708, and 32732 and projected that 95 percent of its utilization will come from within these zip codes. OV 27. Oviedo HMA projects occupancy levels to be 57.9 and 75 percent for Years 1 and 2, respectively. (Central Florida's expert opined that Oviedo HMA's occupancy levels for Years 1 and 2 would be 54 and 60 percent, respectively. CF 25-15.) Oviedo HMA's projected occupancy levels for Year 2 may be optimistic for a start-up hospital, but nevertheless appear achievable, in part, in light of the collaborative arrangement. Oviedo HMA excluded from its market area, zip code 32773 because of its proximity to CFRH and zip code 32792 because of its proximity to Florida Hospital-Winter Park Memorial Hospital in Orange County. The southernmost zip codes, 32817, 32826, and 32820 (east of zip code 32792) were excluded because of current patient travel patterns. At present, the Oviedo area is served almost exclusively by either Florida Hospital or ORHS. Oviedo area residents are out-migrating to Orange County for obstetrical and emergency room services. (For calendar year 2003, approximately 44 percent of Seminole County residents received acute care services outside of Seminole County.) Florida Hospital and ORHS serve the majority of the out-migrating residents. In 2004, for the four zip codes of Oviedo HMA's proposed service area (32765, 32766, 32708, and 32732), Florida Hospital facilities had a combined 61.7 percent non-tertiary market share, and ORHS facilities had a combined 30.9 percent non-tertiary market share. Winter Park Memorial Hospital provided the most non-tertiary discharges (1,771 or 20.7 percent), followed by Florida Hospital-Orlando (1,647 or 19.2 percent), Florida Hospital-Altamonte (1,335 or 15.6 percent), and South Seminole Hospital (1,183 or 13.8 percent). CFRH accounted for 309 or 3.6 percent of the discharges. CF 25-6 and 25-9. In 2004, Florida Hospital facilities had a combined 18,701 or 54.1 percent of the "non-tertiary" discharges of patients residing in Seminole County, and ORHS facilities had a combined 9,473 or 27.4 percent of such discharges. By comparison, CFRH had 5,131 or 14.8 percent of such discharges. CFRH 25-2 and 25-3. Central Florida proposes to serve a ten zip code service area. Central Florida's primary service area consists of four zip codes in Seminole County, 32765 (Oviedo), 32766 (Oviedo), 32708 (Winter Springs), 32773, just south of CFRH and northeast of ORHS South Seminole Hospital, and zip code 32792 in Orange County. (Other cases from Seminole County are also included.) OV 23 and 26; CF 12, Table 1-15, at 1-25. Central Florida's secondary service area consists of two Seminole County zip codes 32707, south of zip code 32708 and just east of Florida Hospital-Altamonte, and zip code 32732 (Geneva and in the northeastern portion of Seminole County, and Orange County (bordering Seminole County to the north) zip codes 32817, 32826, and 32820, running west to east from zip code 32792. (Other cases from Orange County are also included.) Id. In five zip codes (out of ten) of Central Florida's proposed primary service area (32708, 32765, 32766, 32773, and 32792, which includes Winter Park Memorial Hospital on the western edge), see OV 27 and CF 12 at 1-28, in 2004, Florida Hospital facilities had a combined 63.9 percent non-tertiary market share and ORHS facilities had a combined 25.0 percent non-tertiary market share. Winter Park provided the most non- tertiary discharges (4,037 or 26.7 percent), followed by Florida Hospital-Orlando (2,961 or 19.6 percent), Florida Hospital- Altamonte (1,938 or 12.8 percent), and ORHS South Seminole Hospital (1,619 or 10.7 percent). CFRH's market share was 9.2 percent or 1,389 discharges. CF 25-7, 25-8, and 25-11. For Years 1 (2008) and 2 (2009), Central Florida projects that it will receive approximately 83 percent of its total cases from its primary service area, including cases from other Seminole County zip codes, of which approximately 75 percent are expected from the five zip codes, and approximately 17 percent from its secondary service area. CF 12 at Table 1- 15. Central Florida's projected occupancy levels for Years 1 and 2 were approximately 60 and 63 percent, respectively, and approximately 75 percent by Year 5 (2012). CF 12, Tables 1-15 and 1-16 at 1-25, 1-26, and 1-28; CF 42. Central Florida also provided adjusted numbers (downward) for Years 1 and 2 to account for the start-up phases of opening the new hospital, which yielded projected occupancy levels of approximately 45 and 55 percent, respectively. Central Florida's revenue projections were based on these adjusted occupancy levels. Central Florida also projected 66.4 percent occupancy for Year 3. Id. See also CF 12, Schedules 5 and 7A and CF 42. (Oviedo HMA's expert projected 61 percent occupancy for Year 5 for Central Florida.) Central Florida's projected occupancy levels for Year 5 appear reasonable. If Oviedo HMA's CON application is approved, the market share for Oviedo HMA's primary service area for the new Oviedo HMA hospital, in conjunction with ORHS facilities for 2009 (Year 2), is projected to be approximately 50 to 54 percent, with Florida Hospital facilities market share reduced to approximately 41 to 45 percent.9 For 2009 (Year 2), if Central Florida's CON application is approved and the five zip codes are used to determine market share, the market shares for Florida Hospital, ORHS, CFRH, Central Florida/Oviedo, and other facilities are projected to be 55.5 percent, 21.4 percent, 6.6 percent, 13.5 percent, and 3.0 percent, respectively. CF 25-13. The Proposals and applicants' commitment Central Florida's proposal Central Florida proposes to build a new, 60-bed hospital in Oviedo (on a purchased site) through the transfer (and delicensure) of 60 acute care beds from its existing hospital. The proposed hospital is modeled after and is an enlarged version of West Marion Community Hospital, a licensed and operational HCA facility in Ocala, Florida. The proposed hospital is made up of 173,335 gross square feet, with a projected construction cost of $36,400,350 or $210 per gross square foot. The total project cost is $93,630,559. The licensed bed complement includes 48 general medical-surgical beds and 12 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds. An obstetrics unit comprised of six labor-delivery-recovery (LDR) rooms will be located on the second floor (LDRs are not licensed beds). The twelve medical-surgical beds adjacent to the LDR rooms are "swing" beds that may be used for either general medical-surgical patients or as post-partum beds, as the need may require. All patient rooms in Central Florida's proposed hospital will be private rooms. In addition to general medical services and obstetrics, the services to be provided by the hospital will include emergency services, imaging, diagnostic cardiac catheterization, mammography, radiology, ultrasound, nuclear medicine, bone density imaging, surgery (including general and orthopedic surgery), and endoscopy. The design accommodates horizontal expansion of departments on the first floor by using "soft space," and the addition of 12 beds on both the second and third floors. The hospital can also be expanded vertically. A medical office building is planned to be phased in during construction. As a condition of its CON, Central Florida agreed to provide 7.8 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients and 1.74 percent of total patient days to charity patients. Central Florida intends to provide OB services, but not as a condition of approval. Central Florida's proposal has the support of its parent organization, HCA Inc. The project involves a capital expenditure of greater than $10 million and is subject to formal approval by HCA following the award of the CON. However, Chuck Hall, President of HCA's North Florida Division, stated that HCA's senior management understands the Central Florida proposal, and Central Florida can be confident of approval. Oviedo HMA contends that Central Florida did not address in its CON application the impacts (loss of cases or cannibalization) to CFRH if Central Florida's CON application is approved. There is evidence that the loss of 60 beds could require CFRH to add back beds or run in excess of capacity and that the loss of cases, such as OB cases, could have an impact on CFRH. During the hearing, Central Florida persuasively proved that, if its CON application is approved, the overall impact on CFRH would be minimal.10 Oviedo HMA's proposal Oviedo HMA proposes to build a new, 60-bed acute care hospital in Oviedo. The project involves 133,081 square feet at a construction cost of $26,616,200, or $200 per gross square foot. The total project cost is $62,734,334. HMA is committed to fund the project, even if it is as high as $82 million, so long as ORHS provides its financial and collaborative commitment as reflected herein. Oviedo HMA proposes to offer a full range of primary and secondary non-tertiary hospital services, such as medical- surgical care, emergency room case, ambulatory surgical care, cardiac catheterization laboratory services, outpatient services, etc., and expressly agrees to "provide Obstetrical Services." The floor plan for the hospital is taken from the replacement facility for Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center in Haines City, Florida, which HMA constructed in 1997. The design includes 47 medical-surgical beds, eight ICU beds, and five dedicated post-partum beds. The hospital will also have four LDR beds. The project includes 12 emergency treatment rooms and two non-licensed observation beds. All patient rooms will be private rooms. The hospital is designed to be expanded horizontally (for example, expanding the Emergency Department), and to be expanded vertically from three to five floors. While disputed by Central Florida, the proposed hospital, with surface parking, can be constructed on 15 to 20 acres, which can also accommodate future expansion. Additional acreage may be needed to accommodate a full build-out of a five- story hospital and additional surface parking. There are currently no plans for a medical office building on-site and additional acreage would be needed. Oviedo HMA did not propose a specific provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Rather, Oviedo HMA "commits to accept all Medicaid and Indigent [sic] patients that are clinically appropriate for services offered by Oviedo HMA, Inc." Oviedo HMA's proposal does not enjoy the unconditional support of its parent organization. Rather, the proposal is contingent upon a collaborative effort between Oviedo HMA and ORHS, whereby ORHS has agreed to contribute 20 percent of the project cost of Oviedo HMA's proposal and, in turn, receives 20 percent of the profits of the proposed hospital. HMA formed the belief that the Oviedo market cannot be penetrated by a hospital provider not affiliated with either Florida Hospital or ORHS, and HMA would not attempt to enter the Oviedo market on its own. Each applicant's experts found flaws with the competing applicant's plans for their respective hospitals. Each of the flaws can be remedied prior to construction. Land for the proposals Central Florida In June 2005, Central Florida purchased approximately 27 acres for its proposed hospital, at a cost of $7,864,439, within the $8.2 million budgeted for land in its CON application. The site comprises seven contiguous parcels centrally located in the Oviedo area (within zip code 32765), situated between State Road 417 and State Road 426 and between Red Bug Lake Road and Oviedo Marketplace Boulevard (south-to- north). Four of the seven parcels are currently within the City of Oviedo and Central Florida has requested the City of Oviedo to annex the remaining parcels. The proposed site is approximately ten miles from CFRH. While the subject of some criticism by Oviedo HMA, the site does not pose any significant road access issues which can not be reasonably cured. An amendment to the City of Oviedo's comprehensive plan is required before the site can be developed for hospital use. Central Florida filed its application in October, 2005, and a decision is expected in August or September, 2006. Having a hospital on the site proposed by Central Florida would provide the residents of the Oviedo area with a centrally located hospital site. Central Florida's budget for land costs and site preparation are reasonable. Oveido HMA Oviedo HMA budgeted $5.5 million for the acquisition of the hospital site in the Oviedo area. $3.4 million has been allocated for site development. Oviedo HMA does not anticipate purchasing any land for the project unless its CON application is approved. Oviedo HMA's experts reviewed several sites, which may be potentially suitable for the hospital. See OV 17A and 17-1 through 17-10. Mr. Harling, an expert in civil engineering and commercial site development, and Mr. Axel, an expert in commercial real estate sales, were quite familiar with the real estate market and development potential (for the proposed Oviedo HMA hospital) of several parcels in the Oviedo area. They did not perform a formal feasibility study or an estimate of the probable cost of site development for the sites. Mr. Harling was aware of the nature of the project, a 60-bed hospital, and some details regarding the parcels he examined, such as the existence of utilities and drainage outfall systems, but was not aware of the square footage of the proposed hospital and had not reviewed a site or floor plan. Despite challenges for the development of specific sites, such as the existence of wetland areas, and challenges in purchasing a site within the budgeted amount, based upon his review of the sites and assumptions regarding, in part, the amount of impervious coverage required, he opined that one or more of the parcels was suitable for the planned hospital and that $170,000 per acre for 20 acres was reasonable. The uncertainty regarding the location of the hospital site raises some concerns given Oviedo HMA's primary service area. A new hospital centrally located within the Oviedo area would be optimal to meet the needs of those residents. There was persuasive evidence that Oviedo HMA will be able to purchase a suitable hospital site at the cost reflected in the CON application. However, there are reasonable concerns whether a 15 to 20-acre site can accommodate a fully-expanded hospital with five floors, a medical office building, and any required additional parking. (Oviedo HMA does not have plans to build a medical office building on the 15 to 20-acre site. Such a building would require additional acreage.) Central Florida's proposal receives an edge here because it has already purchased a site which is centrally located for a hospital to serve the Oviedo area. Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes - The need for the health services being proposed The parties stipulated to the need for a new, 60-bed acute care hospital in Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida, AHCA District 7, subdistrict 7-4. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes - The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the district of the applicant Quality health care services proposed by the applicants are available to the residents of District 7, Seminole County, and in particular, the Oviedo area. As noted herein, the health care market in Orange and Seminole Counties is dominated by Florida Hospital and ORHS. The utilization of existing facilities in Seminole County is acceptable notwithstanding the maldistribution of acute care beds in Seminole County. Seminole County residents will continue to outmigrate from Seminole County to Orange County for tertiary care services if Oviedo HMA's project is approved. This outmigration may continue even if Central Florida's project is approved, although some curtailment would be expected in time. Neither applicant is favored by this criterion. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes - The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care Central Florida (specifically CFRH) has a history of providing high quality of care to its patients. CFRH has received awards for its health care services. Central Florida has the ability to provide quality of care should its project be approved. HMA hospitals have also been honored with several awards and recognitions for quality of care. Oviedo HMA, by virtue of its affiliation with HMA-affiliated hospitals and collaboration with ORHS, has the ability to provide high quality of care should its project be approved. Oviedo HMA proposes to develop its hospital through a clinical and financial collaborative effort with ORHS using ORHS as a tertiary care referral partner and incorporating ORHS' resources in developing a quality program. Both applicants expect that any patients needing tertiary care will be sent to ORHS (for Oviedo HMA hospital patients) or to CFRH (for Central Florida patients). It is anticipated that if certain tertiary care services are not offered at CFRH, Central Florida hospital patients would be referred to Florida Hospital or ORHS. The Oviedo HMA/ORHS collaborative effort offers advantages over the Central Florida/CFRH (or elsewhere) referral network. There is some evidence that hospital transfers within affiliated systems may be quicker and easier than from competing systems. Another advantage is the ability of using an integrated IT system among ORHS affiliated hospitals. It is often cumbersome for non-affiliated hospitals to exchange patient data electronically. Conversely, the transfer of patient information to and from CFRH and the new Central Florida hospital, if approved, will facilitate patient care between these hospitals. Certain tertiary services offered by and through ORHS may afford Oviedo residents a greater range of services than those offered by CFRH. This criterion favors Oviedo HMA in light of its collaborative arrangement with ORHS. Section 408.935(4), Florida Statutes - The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that the applicants have sufficient funds available for capital and operating expenses, for project accomplishment and operation. Central Florida questioned the reasonableness of Oviedo HMA's land cost projection. The parties also stipulated that the applicants' proposed staffing is adequate and that the proposed average annual salaries are reasonable for their respective hospitals. Oviedo HMA questions whether Central Florida's CON application failed to include the appropriate Schedule 6, whereas Central Florida reserved the right to question whether Oviedo HMA accurately reflected proposed staffing expenses in Schedule 8A. The ability of each applicant to attract the necessary medical and clinical staff necessary to implement their respective hospitals is also is dispute. Both applicants have the ability to recruit and retain nursing and other related medical personnel, including physicians. Oviedo HMA has an edge in recruitment of physicians and nurses by virtue of its collaboration with ORHS and given existing physician referral patterns. Central Florida has identified a need to recruit additional physicians in several practice areas, although they appear to have been recently successful in recruiting physicians for specialty services such as neurosurgery. Both applicants can appropriately manage and operate their respective hospitals. Central Florida's proposed hospital will have its own management team and will be administered separate and apart from CFRH. Oviedo HMA will also operate the proposed hospital notwithstanding the intended collaboration with ORHS. Oviedo HMA's projected land cost is reasonable. Also, Central Florida's Schedule 6 and Oviedo HMA's Schedule 8A are appropriate. By stipulation, the applicants have the ability to fund their respective projects and their construction and equipment costs are reasonable. This criterion is neutral except for Central Florida's purchase of a centrally located site. See Finding of Fact 173. Section 408.035(5), Florida Statutes - The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The parties stipulated that the hospitals proposed by the applicants will enhance health care for residents of the Oviedo area. At issue was which hospital project will better enhance such access. Both applicants proposed similar health care services, which are needed in the Oviedo community. As noted elsewhere in this Recommended Order, approval of the Central Florida proposal would afford patients and physicians with another choice of health care provider. It is expected that patients receiving health care services at a Central Florida hospital in Oviedo will be able to access certain tertiary care services (such as open heart surgery) at CFRH, and other tertiary care facilities. On the other hand, the Oviedo HMA proposal does not afford another choice to patients and physicians in the area in any meaningful way, given the current market share of ORHS in the Oviedo area and the expected collaborative effort. This negative is out-weighed by the prospect that patients accessing an Oviedo HMA hospital would be expected to access a full array of tertiary care services at ORHS facilities given the collaborative nature of the relationship. Both proposals would enhance access to health care for residents of the Oviedo area. But the Oviedo HMA project has a significant comparative edge, and it is this edge which ultimately favors approval of the Oviedo HMA project when all statutory and rule criteria are considered. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes - The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposals Immediate or Short-term financial feasibility 129. Generally, immediate or short-term financial feasibility refers to the ability of the applicants to fund construction and start up of the proposed project. Each applicant has this ability. Long-term financial feasibility Long-term financial feasibility refers to the ability of the project to break even or show a profit within a reasonable period in the future. There is no AHCA rule that states profitability must be shown within a specific period of years. Generally, applicants project financial feasibility within two years of operation. This may be due, in part, because AHCA requires detailed financial projections, including a statement of the projected revenue and expenses for the first two years of operation after completion of the proposed project. See § 408.037(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. CON applicants define their financial projections within these general parameters. Where there are two or more competing applicants and one demonstrates financial feasibility within two years and the others do not demonstrate financial feasibility until subsequent years, the competitive advantage often goes to the applicant showing a profit in year two, although AHCA has approved CON applications which projected profitability in later years. OV 69 at 34; CF 84 at 25. The financial projections of each applicant were based upon the hospital utilization projections discussed previously. To the extent the utilization projections were overstated, this would of course effect the financial projections. Each applicant presented evidence to demonstrate the reasonableness of their own financial projections, and offered criticism of the financial projections of the other applicant. A. Oviedo HMA Projections Oviedo HMA projects that it will achieve a net profit in Year 1 of operation of $82,000 (after taxes) and a net profit in Year 2 of $2.4 million (after taxes). The payor mix assumptions in Schedule 7A were derived from existing (historical) discharges generated from the zip codes in the primary service area. Oviedo HMA used three HMA hospitals in Florida, i.e., Brooksville Regional Hospital, Pasco Regional Medical Center (120-bed, excluding newborn nursery, hospital), and Sebastian Hospital, as proxy or target hospitals for the basis of the expense projections in the financial pro formas. (Brooksville and Spring Hill report on a consolidated basis.) Fiscal year 2003 financial data on these proxy hospitals was taken from AHCA Prior Year Actual Reports. See Ov 38. This was the most recent data available to Oviedo HMA's expert at the time the financial portions of the CON application were prepared. These reports are a detailed source of data submitted to AHCA and certified as accurate.11 Each of the three hospitals was profitable for the reporting fiscal year. A hospital's occupancy refers to the average head county divided by the number of days. Average daily census refers to the average number of patients in the facility over the year on average, generally a year. The projected occupancy for the Oviedo facility is 57.9 percent in Year 1 (2008) and 75.1 percent in Year 2 (2009). The average occupancy for the three proxy hospitals was between 55 and 59 percent. Central Florida's expert estimated occupancy levels (for the Oviedo HMA project) of 54 and 69 percent for Years 1 and 2. Compare OV 12, Schedule 5 - Projected Utilization Assumptions with CFRH 25-15. (In Year 2, the occupancy for the Oviedo HMA hospital is projected to be higher than the three proxy hospitals.)12 Central Florida criticized the use of the three proxy hospitals as not appropriate, in part, because one of the hospitals did not include a cardiac catheterization lab, and another did not have an OB program, which are services that will be available at the Oviedo HMA hospital. However, the evidence demonstrates that the three proxy hospitals were reasonable, as these hospitals included one hospital (Pasco Regional Medical Center) which was at the highest end of HMA's cost experience, and two hospitals that were in the middle of HMA's overall cost experience. It does not appear that HMA attempted to choose hospitals with lower- cost experience in an effort to overstate the expected profits. Use of "proxy hospitals" for cost experience is a common methodology, and the hospitals selected appear reasonable. Central Florida also claimed that Oviedo HMA's projected costs were understated because there was not a specific allocation for "fringe benefits" (estimated at 22 percent of salaries) added to the salary costs extrapolated from the FTE and salary projections in Schedule 6.13 Oviedo HMA's financial planner agreed that the financial model he utilized did not make a "straight line" mapping of the Schedule 6 FTEs and salary projections into Schedule 8A statement of expenses. However, an accounting of all salary and wages, as well as fringe benefits, was included in Oviedo HMA's Schedule 8A, based on the actual experience of the three proxy hospitals as reflected in the Prior Year Actual Reports. Each of the proxy hospitals is required to report all of its hospital costs, including salaries and fringe benefits, in the Prior Year Actual Reports, and all costs from these proxy hospitals were included in Oviedo HMA's financial model. Although the Prior Year Actual Reports do not have a specific "fringe benefits" line item, these expenses are included in the reports either under the columns for "salary and wages" or for "other" expenses. All of the costs were carried over into the financial model. The applicant also conducted a reasonableness test when the financial model and Schedule 8A were prepared, by comparing the total salaries and wages from the three proxy hospitals ($15.7 million) versus the extrapolation of total salary and wages from Schedule 6 ($15 million). The amount allocated in the model and placed on Schedule 8A for salaries and wages was more than sufficient to cover all salaries and wages on Schedule 6. Additional allocation for fringe benefits was included within the "other" cost centers in the Prior Year Actual Reports which also carried over to Schedule 8A. Oviedo HMA's expert also conducted a series of other "sensitivity analysis" verifying that the costs included on Schedule 8A for salaries and wages and fringe benefits, and other expenses were reasonable. Central Florida criticized the "sensitivity analysis" claiming one year of inflation for expenses was omitted in the analysis. However, even if accepted as true, applying an inflation adjustment of 3.5 percent for one additional year of expenses, does not materially change any of the sensitivity analysis, because revenues would also have to be inflated forward for the additional year. Further, Oviedo HMA's Schedule 8A included $15.7 million for salary and wage expenses, and included additional costs for fringe benefits in other line items. Central Florida also criticized Oviedo HMA for not including any interest expense to account for financing the proposed project. However, no interest is anticipated, as the project will be funded by the parent company through cash on hand and operating cash flow without borrowing; the company does not charge interest to its affiliates (even though for tax accounting and external audit reports it may impute interest to the affiliates). Moreover, to the extent any interest would be hypothetically imputed to the project as overall corporate overhead, it is captured in the financial pro formas through the management fee which was allocated as an expense in the pro formas. Moreover, even if Central Florida's claims of over $1 million in omitted expenses are accepted as valid, the project is likely to show a profit in the second year of operation. In sum, the financial model utilized by Oviedo HMA was a reasonable approach to financial forecasting. Given the Oviedo HMA's occupancy projections, the hospital is likely to be financially feasible in the long-term and likely show a profit by the second year of operation. B. Central Florida's Projections The revenues and expenses projected for the proposed hospital are based on the experience of CFRH's existing facility, with adjustments made to reflect the service lines and payor mix of the proposed hospital. Based on this record, in the past, it appears that CON applicants for a new hospital generally have projected financial feasibility by the first two or three years of operation. This does not necessarily mean that they have been successful at achieving these projections, only that the projections have been made. Central Florida projected that the proposed hospital, before taxes, will have net income losses before taxes of: $8,978,068 in Year 1; $6,641,454 in Year 2; $3,318,963 in Year 3; and $1,140,062 in Year 4 of operation. In Year 5, Central Florida projects a profit (net income before taxes) of $1,970,340 and a profit (net income after taxes) of $1,162,501 at 75 percent occupancy. CF 12 at Table 8A-2. (Central Florida projected profitable years (Years 1 through 5) on an EBDITA (earnings before depreciation, interest, taxes, and amortization) basis. Id.) Despite the projected losses for the first four years of operation of the project, HCA, by its representatives, considers the project to be financially feasible in the long- term and is committed to the project. The assumptions made for the revenue and expense projections are reasonable, notwithstanding criticisms by Oviedo HMA which have been considered. It is concluded that Central Florida's proposed hospital is likely to be financially feasible in the long-term and by Year 5.14 This criterion is neutral. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes - The extent that the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness The greater Orlando area is a competitive market. Nevertheless, Mr. Gregg, for AHCA, stated that he would want to see more diversity in the greater Orlando market. ORHS and Florida Hospital are large health care provider systems. Notwithstanding the potential improvement of the delivery of health care services to the residents of the Oviedo area, the net impact of a 60-bed acute care hospital is going to be minimal when compared to these systems. Currently ORHS, Florida Hospital, and to a much lesser extent CFRH compete for patients from the Oviedo area. ORHS and Florida Hospital are the dominant providers. If Oviedo HMA were sponsoring the project alone, it could be said that approval of its project would bring a new provider to the market. However, this is not the case. Notwithstanding the day-to-day management of the new hospital by Oviedo HMA, the expected collaborative arrangement between Oviedo HMA and ORHS, discussed in Oviedo HMA's CON application and presented as a significant feature at the final hearing, negates the suggestion that Oviedo HMA will be a new provider. This is especially so given the expected referrals to ORHS. Central Florida argues that its proposal would release the strangle-hold of Florida Hospital and ORHS on the greater Orlando area, including the Oviedo area. The presence of Central Florida would give the Oviedo area residents (and physicians) another choice for acute care related health care services and, in time, could be expected to cause a re-direction of patients needing certain tertiary care services away from ORHS and Florida Hospital, to CFRH. Nevertheless, the applicable statutory review criteria specifically states that it applies to competition that promotes "quality" and "cost effectiveness." ORHS and Florida Hospital provide high quality of care. No persuasive evidence was presented that either Oviedo HMA's or Central Florida's proposal will foster competition that will promote quality of care to any significant degree. As to cost-effectiveness, while there is an argument that having additional choices will enhance cost-effectiveness, it was not demonstrated by either applicant in this case. There was no persuasive analysis offered of the current costs of healthcare in the Oviedo area and what impact, if any, the addition of Oviedo HMA or Central Florida would have on those costs. The best that can be said about enhancement in competition is that another provider might have some impact on managed care rates. Without specific detailed analysis, this evidence can be given very little weight. Also, there is insufficient evidence to say which applicant would more likely impact managed care rates. In light of the statutory criterion, Central Florida and Oviedo HMA did not demonstrate that their proposals should be given any advantage under this criterion. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes - The costs and methods of proposed construction, including the costs and construction of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that each party meets this criterion and that costs are not in dispute in this proceeding. However, each party reserved the right to argue their design was better and the impact of cost on financial feasibility. Central Florida also reserved the right to argue that its proposal should be more favorably reviewed comparatively because it has purchased land in the Oviedo area and because Oviedo HMA cannot purchase enough land in the Oviedo area at the price reflected in the CON Application. Both applicants project reasonable costs and methods of construction and satisfy this criterion. Regarding this criterion, despite some criticism, Central Florida should receive an edge because it has purchased a desirable site, which is centrally located in the Oviedo area. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes: Applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent The parties stipulated that HMA's Florida hospitals and Central Florida have historically provided significant health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Central Florida proposes to provide 7.8 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients and 1.74 percent of total patient days to charity patients, as a condition of its CON. By comparison, Oviedo HMA did not propose a specific percentage of patient days dedicated to Medicaid or charity patients. Rather, Oviedo HMA commits to accept all Medicaid and indigent patients that are clinically appropriate for services offered by Oviedo HMA. Central Florida should receive a comparative edge regarding this criterion. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes - The applicant's designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility pursuant to Section 400.235, Florida Statutes, when the applicant is requesting additional nursing home beds at that facility The parties stipulated that this criterion is not applicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order approving Oviedo HMA, Inc.'s CON application No. 9807P and denying Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Central Florida Regional Hospital's CON application No. 9805. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 23rd day of August, 2006.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner may be presumed, pursuant to Rules 22A- 7.0l0(2)(a) and 22A-8.002(5)(a)3 F.A.C. to have abandoned her position and resigned from the State of Florida Career Service System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner started working for Florida State Hospital, a residential facility owned and operated by HRS, on August 8, 1986. On June 22, 1987, Petitioner was assigned to Unit 14, at Florida State Hospital, a unit which treated geriatric mentally ill patients. In that assignment, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor Shirley Greggly. It is an established policy at the HRS facility in question for employees who will be absent to notify their supervisors as soon as possible when they know they will be absent. During her employment, Petitioner had received printed copies of this general policy and of the State rules governing the presumption of abandonment of position in cases where an employee is on unexcused leave for three consecutive workdays. During her employment, Petitioner had been a less-than-exemplary employee with regard to absenteeism, tardiness and timely notification and had been counselled prior to April 1989 that she should make contact with the Hospital within seven minutes of the time she was due on shift if an absence was necessary. Only after review of such contact initiated by an employee can a superior determine to approve or disapprove the requested leave. If no contact were initiated by the employee, it was Ms. Greggly's standard procedure to attempt to initiate contact herself with the missing employee. Failure of an employee to notify Ms. Greggly or delayed notification of Ms. Greggly by an employee creates great hardship for the patients who may receive delayed care as a result, and also it creates considerable administrative turmoil for Ms. Greggly in rounding up a substitute employee. Petitioner had been disciplined with a ten-day suspension in September 1988 for failure to notify. She had received a prior written reprimand for absence without authorized leave in June 1988 and an oral reprimand for excessive absenteeism in December 1987. Petitioner had been frequently counselled in regard to these shortcomings. During the first few months of 1989, Petitioner was absent from work due to a work-related injury and, if not already filed, a workers' compensation claim pursuant to Chapter 440 F.S. was at least imminent. Petitioner's primary treating physician was Daniel Bontrager, D.C. By April 1989, Dr. Bontrager had determined that Petitioner could return to light duty work. On April 7, 1989 and again on April 13, 1989, Dr. Bontrager orally informed Petitioner that she could return to light duty work as of April 17, 1989. On April 13, 1989, Ms. Hobbs stated that she would not return to work. Dr. Bontrager communicated his advice to the Hospital. The best diagnostic evidence obtainable by Dr. Bontrager indicated that there was no valid medical reason why Petitioner could not return to work. Ms. Greggly expected Petitioner back at work on April 17, 1989. From that date until April 28, 1989, when Petitioner was deemed to have abandoned her position, Petitioner initiated no contact with her employer or Ms. Greggly, and therefore no leave was authorized for her. On the dates between April 17, 1989 and April 28, 1989, inclusive, Petitioner neither appeared at work nor informed the hospital that she was going to be absent. This period constitutes in excess of three consecutive workdays of absence without approved leave.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order ratifying its previous presumption that Petitioner has abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: None filed. Respondent' PFOF: 1-3, 8, 10, 12-14 Accepted. 4-5 Immaterial. 6-7, 9 Accepted as modified; unnecessary argument and detail is rejected as such. 11 Modified to reflect the record; rejected where it is not true to the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration Office of the General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ms. Clara Hobbs Route l, Box 186B Sneads, Florida 32460 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4082 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Aletta L. Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether J. Glenn Brown, Jr., was an "employee" of Northwest Florida Community Hospital for purposes of the State of Florida retirement system?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Board of Trustees of the Northwest Florida Community Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Board of Trustees"), is the governing body of the Northwest Florida Community Hospital. Petitioner, Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "County Commissioners"), is the governing body of Washington County, Florida, and the owner of the Northwest Florida Community Hospital. The Respondent, the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is the agency charged with responsibility for administering the Florida retirement system established by Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. Operation of Northwest Florida Community Hospital Prior to February of 1988. The Northwest Florida Community Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Hospital"), is a small, rural acute-care hospital located in Chipley, Washington County, Florida. During the mid-1980's, the Hospital suffered from a financial crisis that threatened its continued existence. As a consequence thereof, it was concluded that the Hospital should be sold. A contract was negotiated and entered into for the sale of the Hospital to National Healthcare, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "NHI"). As a part of the contract entered into with NHI, NHI was to operate the Hospital before the contract for sale was completed. J. Glenn Brown was an employee of NHI. NHI assigned Mr. Brown to the Hospital to act as the administrator of the Hospital. As administrator of the Hospital, Mr. Brown was the top manager of the Hospital. Mr. Brown, while employed by NHI, acted as the administrator of the Hospital from September 1986, until approximately September or October of 1987. At some time prior to February 1988, the contract for sale of the Hospital to NHI was cancelled and the Board of Trustees began to operate the Hospital. The Consulting Contracts. On or about February 1, 1988 the Hospital and Mr. Brown entered into a Consulting Contract (hereinafter referred to as the "First Contract"). Petitioner's exhibit 1. Mr. Brown agreed in the First Contract to operate the Hospital. Mr. Brown operated the Hospital pursuant to the First Contract until its expiration. Although the term of the First Contract ended January 31, 1991, Mr. Brown continued to operate the Hospital. A second Consulting Contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Contract"), was entered into on or about May 29, 1992 between Mr. Brown and the Hospital. The Second Contract applied to the period February 1, 1992, through February 1, 1993. Mr. Brown continued to perform services for the Hospital between the end of the First Contract and the beginning of the Second Contract. The differences between the First Contract and the Second Contract (hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Consulting Contracts"), were not substantial other than the amount of the annual fee to be paid to Mr. Brown. The Treatment of Mr. Brown for Purposes of the Florida Retirement System. During the period of time that Mr. Brown operated the Hospital from February 1, 1988 until he departed in the fall of 1992, the Hospital treated Mr. Brown as an "independent contractor" and not an "employee" for purposes of the Florida retirement system. Although the Hospital could have requested a determination of Mr. Brown's status for purposes of the Florida retirement system, the Hospital was not required to do so. The Hospital, as it was authorized to do pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, made the initial decision to treat Mr. Brown as an independent contractor. After Mr. Brown had left the Hospital, an audit of the Hospital was conducted by the management review section of the Division. As a result of the audit, the Division raised a question about the status of Mr. Brown for purposes of the Florida retirement system. As a result of the audit of the Hospital, the Division required the Hospital to submit a Florida Retirement System Employment Relationship Questionnaire form requesting a determination of Mr. Brown's status as an employee or independent contractor. The Hospital did so. See Respondent's exhibit 2. The Division reviewed the Questionnaire and determined that Mr. Brown was an "employee" for purposes of the Florida retirement system, and so notified the Hospital. The Hospital filed a request for a formal administrative hearing to contest the Division's determination that Mr. Brown was an employee. Based upon the foregoing, it is the Division that is attempting to change the status quo in this matter. But for the Division's audit and requirement that the Hospital file a Questionnaire, the Hospital's treatment of Mr. Brown as an independent contractor for purposes of the Florida retirement system would have been final. Services to be Provided by Mr. Brown Pursuant to the Consulting Contracts and Mr. Brown's Relationship with the Board of Trustees. Mr. Brown, referred to as the "consultant" in the Consulting Contracts, agreed to provide the following services: 1:1 The Hospital hereby contracts with Consultant to provide services to the Hospital to perform such services as may be necessary to properly and efficiently run the Hospital for the purpose of providing quality healthcare to the citizens of Washington County and a more productive business operation. 1:2 Consultant hereby contracts with the Hospital to perform such services as may be necessary to provide the Hospital advice, expertise and a more efficient and productive business operation. The Consulting Contracts also contained the following provision pertaining to Mr. Brown's operation of the Hospital: 2:1 Consultant agrees to devote such of his time and efforts to the performance of such services as are necessary to perform and achieve the objectives set forth in Article I above. Consultant agrees that he will not directly or indirectly render any service of a business, commercial or professional nature to any other Hospital in Northwest Florida, whether for compensation or otherwise, during the term of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Board of Trustees of the Hospital. Consultant agrees to comply with the Hospital's policies, rules and regulations as determined from time to time by the Board of Trustees of the Hospital. It was the intent of the Hospital and Mr. Brown that he would act as an independent contractor, and not an employee, in performing the services contemplated by the Consulting Contracts. Mr. Brown was to, and did, provide his services personally. Mr. Brown did not operate through a corporation or other business entity. Between February 1988 and the Fall of 1992, Mr. Brown administered the Hospital in essentially the same manner that he had prior to 1988 while employed by NHI. The Board of Trustees established policies for the operation of the Hospital during the term of the Consulting Contracts. Mr. Brown carried out policies adopted by the Board of Trustees. Mr. Brown was involved in the formulation of policies by the Board of Trustees and he advised the Board of Trustees concerning policies it adopted. The Board of Trustees had little experience in operating the Hospital. The day- to-day operations of the Hospital had been handled by NHI prior to entering into the First Contract. Prior to NHI's operation of the Hospital, the Hospital was administered by Hospital Corporation of America (hereinafter referred to as "HCA"). HCA had operated the Hospital through an employee, Buel Sapp. The Board of Trustees, therefore, relied heavily on Mr. Brown and his expertise in developing polices and for his efficient operation of the Hospital. The manner in which Mr. Brown administered the Hospital was also largely the same as the manner in which the Hospital has been administered by the person who replaced by Mr. Brown. The new administrator has been treated as an "employee" by the Hospital. Training. Mr. Brown was a professional hospital administrator with a number of years of experience operating hospitals, including the Hospital. In light of Mr. Brown's experience, especially at the Hospital, training was not required when Mr. Brown undertook the services contemplated by the First Contract. Integration. The services to be performed pursuant to the Consulting Contacts were integral to the operation of the Hospital. Mr. Brown performed services normally performed by an "administrator" or top manager of any hospital. Manner In Which Mr. Brown Performed Services. Mr. Brown did not hire any assistants or employees to assist him in the performance of the services required by the Consulting Contracts. The Consulting Contracts did not prevent Mr. Brown from using the services of others to carry out the services to be provided. Although Mr. Brown was ultimately obligated to insure that the services contemplated by the Consulting Contracts were provided, the manner in which services required by the Consulting Contracts were to be carried out was not specified. Continuing Relationship. Mr. Brown was required, as a condition of the Hospital entering into the First Contract, to move to Washington County. Pursuant to the First Contract, Mr. Brown was obligated to perform services for the Hospital for a period of four years. The First Contract expired February 1, 1991. The Second Contract obligated Mr. Brown to perform services for the Hospital for a period of one year. The Second Contract was effective February 1, 1992. Mr. Brown continued to perform services for the Hospital between February 1, 1991 and February 1, 1992, although the First Contract had expired and the Second Contract had not yet been entered into. The evidence failed to prove why Mr. Brown continued to perform services for the Hospital between February 1, 1991, and February 1, 1992. Mr. Brown performed services for the Hospital after he left NHI for between 3 and 4 years. Mr. Brown's Working Hours. Mr. Brown's working hours were not specified in the Consulting Contracts. Mr. Brown, therefore, was not legally required to perform services during any set period of time. Mr. Brown generally performed services for the Hospital from the early morning until the early evening. Mr. Brown's hours were consistent with the hours worked by employees of the Hospital. Mr. Brown did not keep time-sheets indicating the hours he worked. Nor did Mr. Brown use, or "punch," a time-clock which employees of the Hospital used. Full-Time or Part-Time Work. Mr. Brown was not required to work any set amount of hours pursuant to the Consulting Contracts. The services expected of Mr. Brown pursuant to the Consulting Contracts reasonably contemplated that Mr. Brown would perform services full- time, only if necessary. The Consulting Contracts also provided that Mr. Brown was not required to perform services on days he attended seminars or meetings to improve his position. The Consulting Contracts also required that Mr. Brown make himself available "for all reasonable meetings, engagements, and any and all other reasonable attempts by the Hospital to promote the Hospital." Mr. Brown did not receive annual or sick leave. Mr. Brown did not work at the Hospital every day of the week. During some weeks, he only worked three or four days. Where Mr. Brown Performed Services. Although not specifically required to do so, Mr. Brown performed the services contemplated by the Consulting Contracts essentially on the premises of the Hospital. In order to effectively administer the Hospital, it was necessary that Mr. Brown be available at the Hospital. Reports from Mr. Brown to the Hospital. Mr. Brown regularly reported to the Board of Trustees and kept the Board informed of his actions. Compensation for Mr. Brown's Services. Pursuant to the First Contract, Mr. Brown was paid an annual fee of $70,555.00. The annual fee was paid biweekly in twenty-six equal installments. Payments were made on the last day of every other week. The annual fee to be paid to Mr. Brown pursuant to the First Contract was agreed upon during negotiations based upon the average salary paid to administrators of similarly sized hospitals who were serving as employees, and adding thereto the amount of withholding tax, retirement contributions and other amounts which would be paid on behalf of an "employee." Had Mr. Brown been hired as an "employee", presumably he would have only been paid an amount based upon the average salary of other employee/administrators. Pursuant to the Second Contract Mr. Brown was paid an annual fee of $98,770.00. The annual fee was paid monthly on the first day of each month and upon the submission of an invoice from Mr. Brown. The Consulting Contracts also provided the following: Consultant hereby acknowledges and agrees that he is an independent contractor individually liable for self employment and all other taxes of any nature due on the fees paid by the Hospital to Consultant. Payments of Mr. Brown's annual fee were made to him by the Hospital out of a separate account and not the Hospital's "payroll" account from which Hospital employees were paid. Payments were made at the same time that Hospital employees were paid. The Hospital also paid for group health insurance for Mr. Brown. Health insurance benefits provided to Mr. Brown were the same benefits provided to Hospital employees. The Hospital also paid for disability insurance for Mr. Brown and a life insurance policy larger than provided to Hospital employees. Mr. Brown's Expenses; Tools and Materials; Investment. Pursuant to the Consulting Contracts, the Hospital paid dues Mr. Brown was required to pay to maintain "membership in applicable organizations or associations deemed necessary for promotion of the Hospital " The Hospital paid expenses incurred by Mr. Brown to attend meetings and seminars on new federal and state health care regulations which impacted the operation of the Hospital. The Hospital paid Mr. Brown a vehicle allowance of $250.00. The Hospital also provided Mr. Brown with an office, furniture, office supplies, a secretary (who was an employee of the Hospital) and with telephone and other services necessary to operate as the administrator of the Hospital. The office provided to Mr. Brown was the office used by the Hospital administrator. Other then Mr. Brown's education, Mr. Brown did not have any substantial investment in his position with the Hospital. Capital investment necessary for Mr. Brown to carry out his duties was provided by the Hospital. Profit and Loss Potential. In light of the fact that Mr. Brown was guaranteed payment for his services and the lack of investment and expenses Mr. Brown was required to provide, there was no reasonable potential Mr. Brown would incur a loss. Mr. Brown operated as an individual. Offer of Services to the General Public. The Consulting Contracts prohibited Mr. Brown from providing his services to others in "Northwest Florida." Mr. Brown was, therefore, free to perform services elsewhere. During the term of the Consulting Contracts, Mr. Brown did perform services for other companies located outside of Florida. Article X of the Consulting Contracts provided, in pertinent part, the following: . . . . Consultant further agrees that he shall not participate, directly or indirectly, individually or as a partner, shareholder, employee, agent, consultant, officer, director or otherwise, in any other business where such participation will in any manner interfere (as reasonably determined by the Board of Trustees and Consultant) with the business of the Hospital or which ultimately, in the final opinion of the Board of Trustees, could result in the integrity of the Hospital being subject to doubt. Right to Terminate Mr. Brown and Mr. Brown's Right to Quit. Pursuant to the Consulting Contracts, the Hospital had the right to terminate Mr. Brown's services for "good cause" as determined by majority vote of the Board of Trustees and "upon sixty (60) calendar days written notice of termination to the Consultant." The Hospital was required, however, to pay Mr. Brown for four months of service. The Hospital also had the right to terminate Mr. Brown's services if he were convicted of a felony, required to take treatment for drug or alcohol abuse, engaged in activity harmful to the reputation of the Hospital or failed to comply with the terms of the Consulting Contract. Mr. Brown was authorized by the Consulting Contracts to terminate his services upon sixty days written notice. The Consulting Contracts provide that the agreement terminated upon the death of Mr. Brown. Weighted Consideration of the Facts. Several of the facts in this case indicate that Mr. Brown was an independent contractor of the Hospital and several of the facts indicate that he was an employee. Based upon a weighted consideration of the facts in this case, it is concluded that Mr. Brown operated as an independent contractor, and not an employee, for the Hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order concluding that J. Glenn Brown, Jr., was not a compulsory member of the Florida retirement system pursuant to Section 121.051, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1635 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Hospital's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 2 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 7-8. Accepted in 28. Accepted in 10. See 11-13 and 38-39. The First Contract expired January 31, 1991, and not January 31, 1992. Accepted in 16 and 24. Accepted in 35. Accepted in 54 and hereby accepted. The last sentence is not relevant. 9 Accepted in 26, 42-43, 52, 57 and 63. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 68. Accepted in 48. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 30-31. Accepted in 3. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 4-6. Accepted in 7. Accepted in 9 and hereby accepted. 4 Accepted in 10,53-54, 58-59 and 62. Accepted in 28. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 23 and 69. The first sentence is not relevant. 8 Accepted in 41-42, 44, 47, 52-53 and 63. See 41-43 and hereby accepted. Although Ms. Ward did testify consistent with this finding of fact, the testimony was not sufficiently detailed to conclude that Mr. Brown and Mr. Mason provided services in exactly the same manner. Accepted in 61. 12 Accepted in 11-14, 38-39 and 55. Accepted in 14, 25 and 66. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 60-61. See 73. See 53-62. The conclusion on page 10 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Holley, Esquire Post Office Box 268 Chipley, Florida 32428 William S. Howell, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 187 Chipley, Florida 32428 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement Department of Management Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing, under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Petition for Relief was not timely filed pursuant to Sections 760.11(8) and 760.11(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 57-year-old male and a former employee of the Respondent. Respondent is an executive agency of the State of Florida with more than 15 full-time employees and is, therefore, an employer under Sections 760.02(6) and (7), Florida Statutes. On May 19, 1995, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. He charged his former employer, Respondent, with gender and age discrimination for failure to promote him. The Florida Commission on Human Relations conducted an investigation of the charges. It did not issue a Notice of Determination. The staff of the Commission misled or lulled Respondent into inaction, for a period of time, as follows: Day 0000 - 19 May 1995: Charge of Discrimination submitted to Commission. Day 0061 - 19 July 1995: FCHR Notice of Receipt, Docketing and Dual Filing with EEOC. Day 0110 - 6 September 1995: Respondent submitted response to Commission request for information. Day 0255 - 29 January 1996: Petitioner drove from Orlando to FCHR in Tallahassee and met with Iliana Haddock, who advised him that she had just been assigned to investigate the Discrimination Complaint. Haddock took the opportunity to interview the Respondent relative to the complaint. Day 0312 - 26 March 1996: Telephone conversation between Haddock and Petitioner. Haddock stated that she had reviewed all the applications submitted for the Environmental Manager position and had found evidence of age discrimination. Day 0340 - 23 April 1996: Telephone conversation between Haddock and Petitioner. Haddock stated the investigation was almost complete, but they were waiting for Respondent to submit criteria used for determining who would be interviewed for the Environmental Manager position. Day 0431 - 23 July 1996: Petitioner drove from Orlando to FCHR headquarters in Tallahassee and met with Haddock and her supervisor, Harry Lamb. They told Petitioner that Haddock's investigation was completed and that her report would be submitted to Lamb in 30 to 45 days and from there Lamb would submit it to the FCHR legal staff and then it would go to the Executive Director for his approval and determination. Day 0494 - 24 September 1996: Assistant Enforcement Director Singleton sent Petitioner a letter stating that the Commission had not been able to complete the investigation in this case and stated four options of proceeding, (1) file a civil action in civil court; (2) file petition to have case heard by ALJ in DOAH; (3) request a right to sue so I could bring an action in Federal Court; or (4) allow the commission to continue with the processing, investigation and final action in this matter. Day 0509 - 9 October 1996: Petitioner responded to Singleton's letter by pointing out the contradictions between her letter and what Petitioner had been told at the meeting with Haddock and Lamb on 7/23/96. Petitioner requested more information in order to make a decision concerning the future course of this case. Petitioner submitted 11 questions to Singleton. Day 0521 - 21 October 1996: Commission Investigator Iliana Haddock submitted her report to the FCHR Office of General Counsel. Day 0573 - 12 December 1996: Petitioner sent follow-up letter to FCHR Executive Director advising him that he had not received a reply to the 10/9/96 letter to Singleton. Day 0644 - 21 February 1997: Mathis sent Petitioner a letter about the status of the original complaint of discrimination. Mathis stated that Haddock had submitted her report of investigation, with a recommendation for a cause finding to Harry Lamb; that Haddock was no longer with the Commission; that Lamb was no longer with the Commission but had not forwarded the investigation report before he left; and that the report was now in the hands of Otis Mallory. Day 0795 - 22 July 1997: Mathis sent Petitioner a letter advising that the "initial charge is still located in Mr. Mallory's office and will be reviewed." Day 0805 - 1 August 1997: Assistant Director Snell sent Petitioner a letter stating: "The investigation of your first case has been completed and is in the Employment Enforcement Manger's office for review". Day 0809 - 5 August 1997: The EEOC State and Local Coordinator advised Petitioner by letter that the cases were still being processed by the FCHR. Day 0852 - 27 September 1997: Petitioner sent letter to FCHR Executive Director advising him that Otis Mallory had Discrimination Report for almost a year; that Mallory also had received the Retaliation Report in August 1997; and since Mallory now had both reports, he ought to be able to complete his review and move this matter forward. Day 0986 - 29 January 1998: Petitioner sent letter to FCHR Executive Director attempting to get Investigators' Reports through the internal FCHR review system. Day 1076 - 29 April 1998: Commission issued Notice of Determination on Retaliation Complaint. No action on original discrimination complaint. Day 1252 - 22 October 1998: Petitioner mailed Petition for Relief and Administrative Hearing concerning Discrimination Complaint to FCHR. After filing the Complaint of Discrimination with the FCHR, Petitioner actively pursued the progress and status of the Discrimination Complaint with the Commission. In response to his pursuit, the staff of the Commission told the Petitioner throughout the above time-line, that his Complaint was being investigated; the investigation was completed; the report would be submitted; the report was submitted; the report was in for review; and the report would be reviewed. Thus, the Petitioner was misled or lulled into believing by the staff of FCHR not only that the Complaint was going to result in a Determination, but also that the Determination was going to be a cause-finding. On September 24, 1996, a year and four months after filing the Complaint, the Commission advised Petitioner that he had four options relating to the charges, including having the Commission continue with the processing, investigation, and final action in this matter. When Petitioner requested further information so he could make an informed choice, the staff of the Commission failed to respond to his letter. In addition, other staff took no further action on his case. However, Petitioner waited more than two years from issuance of the letter of September 24, 1996, to the filing of his Petition for Relief, dated October 22, 1998. Although Petitioner was misled or lulled into inaction for a period of time by the staff of the FCHR, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate equitable estoppel or excusable neglect in his failure to file the Petition within a reasonable period of time after the statutorily mandated time limit.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction on the parties and the subject matter pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1) and 760.11, Florida Statutes. The Florida Commission on Human Relations has the authority to investigate a charge of discrimination with alleges that an employee has committed an unlawful employment practice by its failure to promote Petitioner based on his sex and/or age. Section 760.10(1) and 760.11, Florida Statutes. When a complaint has been filed with the Commission, it has the duty to investigate the allegations in the complaint and make a determination within 180 days of the filing of the Complaint, if there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. After a determination is made, the Commission is charged with the duty to notify the aggrieved person and the Respondent of the determination, the date of such determination, and the options available under the law. Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes. In this case, the Commission failed to make a reasonable cause determination; and three and one-half years after first filing his Complaint, Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Therefore, Sections 760.11(8), (4) and (6), Florida Statutes, applied to this case. These sections read, in pertinent part: In the event that the commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, the aggrieved person may either: Bring a civil action against the person named in the complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction; or Request an administrative hearing under ss 120.569 and 120.57. The election by the aggrieved person of filing a civil action or requesting an administrative hearing under this subsection is the exclusive procedure available to the aggrieved person pursuant to this act. * * * (6) Any administrative hearing brought pursuant to paragraph (4)(b) shall be conducted under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. . . . An administrative hearing pursuant to paragraph (4)(b) must be requested no later than 35 days after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission. . . . * * * (8) In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause. Although it appears unjust that Petitioner's case should be dismissed because of the failure of a state agency to complete its statutory duty to make a reasonable cause determination, nevertheless, the court in Milano v. Moldmaster, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1093 at 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) held that the 35-day limitation on requesting an administrative hearing begins to run at the expiration of the 180-day period in which the Commission was to make a reasonable cause determination. Therefore, the Petition for Relief is untimely because it was filed nearly three years after the presumed date of determination of cause by the Commission. See Section 760.11(6), Florida Statutes (1997); Wright v. HCA Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc., 18 FALR 1160 (1995); Pusey v. George Knupp, Lake County Sheriff's Office, 20 FALR 791 (1997); cf. St. Petersburg Motor Club v. Cook, 567 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) and Milano v. Moldmaster, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This procedure has been determined to be constitutional, under Florida law. McElhath v. Burley, 707 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The record does establish some evidence of excusable neglect, which might, under certain circumstances, excuse delinquent filing. See, for example, Machules v. Department of Administration 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1988). In Machules, the Florida Supreme Court described the parameters of the "equitable tolling" doctrine as follows: Generally, the tolling doctrine has been applied when the plaintiff has been misled or lulled into inaction, has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his rights, or has timely asserted his rights mistakenly in the wrong forum. 523 So. 2d at 1134. Petitioner asserts that the staff of the Commission lulled him into inaction. That assertion is accepted as true for purposes of ruling on the Motion for Summary Recommended Order. However, Petitioner is claiming he was lulled into inaction for two additional years after he was advised of his options under the statute. The District Court of Appeal has held that Petitioner may not enjoy a manipulable open-ended time extension which could render the statutory limitation meaningless. It held that a Petitioner should be required to assume some minimum responsibility himself for an orderly and expeditious resolution of his dispute. Milano v. Moldmaster, Inc., supra, at 1095. Although this result is harsh, two other district courts have followed this precedent and it is, therefore, binding on this tribunal. Joshua v. City of Gainesville, So. 2d , 1999 WL 71523 (Fla. 1st DCA, February 17, 1999) and Adams v. Wellington Regional Medical Center, Inc., So. 2d , (Fla. 4th DCA, March 17, 1999).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the petition of Donald A. Garrepy in DOAH Case No. 98-5090; FCHR Case No. 95-5752. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary C. Smallridge, Senior Attorney Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Donald A. Garrepy Post Office Box 276 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by Petitioner, Bobby Jones, for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, Petitioner would be allowed to return to work as a unit treatment rehabilitation specialist in a unit for developmentally disabled adults at Florida State Hospital (FSH). Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. In a preliminary decision entered on an unknown date, a DCFS committee denied the request. Petitioner is now barred from doing such work because of a disqualifying offense which occurred on June 4, 1989. On that date, Petitioner was arrested for the offense of "battery- domestic," a misdemeanor under Section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). According to Petitioner, the victim in the incident was his former wife. Thus, the offense constituted domestic violence as it subsequently became defined in 1994 by Section 741.28, Florida Statutes. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of "battery" on August 10, 1989. He was fined $75.00, and he was placed on probation for a period of "up to 9 months." In addition, the court retained jurisdiction "to [o]rder rest[itution]," and Petitioner was required to complete a mental health counseling program. Petitioner successfully completed all terms of his probation, including the counseling course which lasted around "six to nine months." In October 1989, Petitioner began working at FSH as a human services worker in a unit for developmentally disabled adults. Eventually, he attained the position of unit treatment rehabilitation specialist, a position involving supervision of developmentally disabled adults. Due to a change in the law, in 1996, he was required to undergo a background screening. That screening uncovered his 1989 offense, and on July 14, 1997, he was disqualified from working in a position of special trust with developmentally disabled adults. Petitioner was then offered a temporary assignment effective July 24, 1997, without any "direct care duties." Most recently, however, he has been employed at a Wal-Mart store in Tallahassee, Florida. Because of his desire to return to his former position, he has applied for an exemption from disqualification. Since the disqualifying incident in 1989, Petitioner worked continuously at FSH for almost eight years. Since leaving FSH, he has been steadily employed by Wal-Mart. Petitioner was described by a former supervisor at FSH as being "dependable," "very good" with residents, and someone who got along well with other staff. Three former co-workers echoed these comments. A present co-worker at Wal-Mart also described Petitioner as friendly, helpful, and courteous with customers. Except for the fact that a former wife was the victim, the circumstances surrounding the incident for which the exemption is sought are not of record, and the "harm [if any] caused to the victim" is unknown. Despite the glowing comments of other workers, the adverse testimony of a former supervisor at FSH must be taken into account. In December 1995, she found Petitioner engaged in a verbal confrontation with another worker. She then directed that Petitioner report to her office. On the way to the office, he told her that the other employee was "going to make [Petitioner] put a board on his ass." At the ensuing meeting, Petitioner became extremely upset and told the supervisor that he wished she were dead, that she would get killed in a traffic accident on the way home, and that he would "spit on her grave." Petitioner subsequently received a written reprimand for using "Threatening and/or Abusive Language" towards his supervisor. In another incident that occurred on May 22, 1997, Petitioner was observed by the supervisor "horseplaying with another employee" in the dining room. When told by the supervisor that such conduct was inappropriate for the workplace, Petitioner stated in a loud, hostile manner, in the presence of both co-workers and clients, that he "would choke the motherfucker out." For this conduct, he received another written reprimand for "Threatening and/or Abusive Language," and he was suspended from work for three days. According to the same supervisor, Petitioner has an "explosive" temper, and she would not want him returning to her unit. Given this testimony, it is found that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he will not present a danger if continued employment is allowed. Besides the disqualifying offense, Petitioner has a long string of misdemeanor convictions beginning in 1979 and continuing through 1992. The specific crimes are described in Respondent's Exhibits 1-7 and 9-31 received in evidence. Petitioner himself acknowledged that he has been convicted of passing worthless bank checks approximately thirty times. Most recently, he was convicted for the offense of disorderly conduct in November 1992. In addition, he was convicted for the offense of simple battery on a former wife in October 1990. These convictions, by themselves, are not disqualifying offenses, and many are so old as to be arguably remote and irrelevant. They do, however, establish a continuing pattern of misconduct, especially since Petitioner has at least eight convictions for various misdemeanors since the disqualifying offense in 1989. Given these circumstances, it is found that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of rehabilitation since the disqualifying event. This being so, his request for an exemption should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949
The Issue Whether there is need for a new 60-bed general acute care hospital in Seminole County? If so, to which of two applicants should a CON be awarded to construct and operate the hospital: Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. (CON 9496), or Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital (CON 9497)?
Findings Of Fact The Battleground: District 7 At the heart of the conflict in this proceeding is that the two corporate combatants are the dominant providers of hospital services in major metropolitan Orlando and both are providers of very high quality acute care hospital services. Each seeks authority to construct and operate a 60-bed general acute care hospital in the fast-growing community of Oviedo, Florida. The Agency for Health Care Administration, arbiter of the conflict, has introduced a quarrel of its own by its determination that there is no need for the hospital in Oviedo, a determination with which the hospitals decidedly take issue. Oviedo is an incorporated area in east Seminole County. Seminole County, in turn, is a county that with two other counties makes a contribution by suburb or city center to the conurbation in and around Orlando, Florida's largest non-coastal city. Seminole County is also one of four counties that comprise District 7, one of eleven health service planning districts into which the Legislature has partitioned the state. See Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. The other three counties in the District are Orange, Osceola and, removed from the controversy in this case, Brevard. The four counties are each considered by rule of AHCA to constitute a sub-district of District 7. Brevard is Sub-district 1; Orange, sub-district 2; Seminole, sub-district 3; and, Osceola, sub-district 4. The parties consider parts of Seminole and Osceola Counties to constitute the major metropolitan area of the City of Orlando together with, of course, parts of Orange County, the county that contains incorporated Orlando. As indicated above and by its irrelevance to this proceeding, no part of Brevard County is considered by the parties to make up any of metropolitan Orlando. There is also one county outside District 7 about which the parties introduced evidence, Lake County in District 3. Nonetheless, District 7 remains the primary battleground with a focus on sub-district 3 as the site of the CON sought by the parties. The Parties AHCA The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. ORHS One of the two dominant health care providers in the Orlando area, Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates eight facilities in the four-county area of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Lake Counties, "the only market" (tr. 22) that it serves. Half of ORHS's facilities are in Orange County. These four facilities are: Orlando Regional Medical Center, a 517-bed general acute care hospital that provides tertiary services in addition to routine acute care hospital services and that is the site of a trauma center; Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children and Women, a 281-bed specialty hospital that provides women's and children's services including neonatal services; Orlando Regional Sand Lake Hospital, a 153-bed general acute care facility that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation services; and Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital, a 267-bed general acute care hospital that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation and skilled nursing unit services. In Seminole County, ORHS wholly owns and operates Orlando Regional South Seminole Hospital ("South Seminole"), a 206-bed general acute care facility that provides adult/child psychiatric and adult substance abuse services as well as general acute care services. In Osceola County, ORHS owns Orlando Regional St. Cloud Hospital, an 84-bed general acute care facility. In Lake County, ORHS jointly owns and operates two health care facilities under joint venture business arrangements: South Lake Hospital, a 68-bed general acute care facility and Leesburg Regional Medical Center, a 294-bed general acute care facility. The wholly owned facilities operate under a single license and are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations ("JCAHO"). One of six statutory teaching hospitals in the state, ORHS has been in continuous existence since 1918. Its mission is to be a local, unaffiliated health care provider, providing health care services to the citizens of Central Florida. Recognized as one of the top 100 hospitals in the United States by US News and World Report, ORHS has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions. As but one example, it was the winner of a Consumer Choice Award from the National Research Corporation for the years 1999 through 2001. Orlando Regional Healthcare System provides outstanding health care of the highest quality to patients at its eight facilities in three of the four counties in AHCA's Health Care Planning District 7. Florida Hospital The other dominant health care provider in the Orlando area is Florida Hospital. Founded as a sanitarium, Florida Hospital has been in existence and a presence in the Orlando medical community since 1908. Florida Hospital is part of the Adventist Health System, a not-for-profit hospital organization that operates hospitals throughout the country. In the Orlando area, Florida Hospital has seven acute care campus systems operated under a single license in a three- county area: Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties. The original and main campus is located in downtown Orlando. A second campus is in East Orlando. The five other facilities are in Altamonte Springs, to the northwest of Orlando; Apopka, further northwest; Winter Park, just north of Orlando; and Celebration and Kissimmee, both southwest of the city. Florida Hospital also operates Florida Hospital Waterman under a separate license in Lake County in District 3. The seven campuses in District 7 are unified by more than just licensure. Consistent with their operation under a single license, all seven operate under a single provider number with Medicare/Medicaid. They have a single medical staff and a single accreditation with JCAHO. The seven Florida Hospital campuses operate under a single leadership structure; all policies, procedures and matters that pertain to the operation of the hospital are part of the single body of operational guidelines and procedures that are provided by the organization. The seven campuses also operate under a single price structure, a single charge master that runs across the entire organization. The goal of operating the seven campuses in a unified manner is to maintain continuity and promote one standard of care so that when a patient enters any of the facilities, the patient can rely on receiving the same high standard of care as would be received at any other Florida Hospital facility. Operation under a single structure also provides a patient with the coverage of physicians and staff throughout the system to cover any and all needs of the patient. From its inception, the mission of Florida Hospital has been to extend a religious ministry of healing to the community consistent with Adventist principles. Among these principles are awareness of the eternal nature of the moment at which care is extended to the patient as well as recognition of each patient as a child of God, entitled to the highest possible quality of care embodied in "whole person health" (tr. 876) composed of physical, mental and spiritual well-being. Florida Hospital carries out its mission with "a strong sense of stewardship for providing care in the communities that [the hospital] serve[s] . . . ." (Tr. 875). The success of Florida Hospital's philosophy of care is evident in recognition bestowed by others. For example, Florida Hospital was recognized as being among the top 50 hospitals in the country for nine specialties in the July 2002 edition of U.S. News & World Report's "America's Best Hospitals." To take but one of the nine, "Heart & Heart Surgery," Florida Hospital is ranked 12th in the nation in the company of those ranked just above: Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic (Rochester), Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Duke University Medical Center, Johns Hopkins, Texas Heart Institute-St. Luke's in Houston, Emory University Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and the UCLA Medical Center. Well-Matched Applicants In its state agency action report ("SAAR"), AHCA noted that ORHS and Florida Hospital are two large, well-matched hospital systems. Both operate over 1,500 beds in the Orlando area. Both generate approximately two billion dollars of gross charges annually. Both deliver over 300,000 patient days of patient care. Together, they are the overwhelmingly dominant providers of health care in the major metropolitan Orlando area. In the SAAR, the Agency discussed distinctions between the two applicants. Had AHCA determined that there was need for the facility, it would have had a difficult time deciding which corporation should be awarded the CON. None of the distinctions between the two were found by AHCA to be substantial enough to serve as a basis for choosing either applicant over the other. Other District 7 Hospitals Besides the two applicants, the dominant providers of hospital services in District 7 by virtue of number of facilities (13 hospitals in the District and three hospitals in Lake County immediately adjacent to the District), among other reasons, there are three other hospitals in the District. Health Central is a hospital operated by a statutorily created tax district in the City of Ocoee, in Orange County. Central Florida Regional Hospital is owned and operated by Hospital Corporation of America ("HCA") located in the City of Sanford in Seminole County. It is approximately 14 miles from the proposed locations of the applicant's facilities. Osceola Regional Medical Center, another HCA facility, is located in Kissimmee in Osceola County, not far from Florida Hospital's Kissimmee and Celebration facilities. Stipulation The parties stipulated to the following: The applicable fixed-need is zero. Both applications complied with the requirements of Sections 408.037, 408.038 and Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 408.039, Florida Statutes, and the requirements of Rules 59C-1.008 and 59C-1.010, Florida Administrative Code. Both applications meet the review criteria contained in Subsections 408.035 (3),(6),(8),(10) and (11), Florida Statutes and the review criteria in Subsections 408.035(4),(5) and (12), Florida Statutes, are not applicable in this case. The statutory review criteria at issue in this case are Subsections 408.035(1), (2), (7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need Numeric need for general acute care beds is determined pursuant to Agency rule, Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code. The rule's methodology for the calculation of numeric need for general acute care beds is by sub-district. Since "there really is no longer a future projection methodology in the rule . . . it was stricken out two or three years ago," Gene Nelson, one of ORHS' experts in health planning, refers to the rule as containing a "retrospective occupancy model." (Tr. 619). Under the methodology, additional beds are not normally approved in any sub-district where historic occupancy is less than 75%. If occupancy exceeds 75%, beds will be awarded to bring occupancy down to 75%. In other words, instead of projecting forward as it once did to determine need, the rule looks back to occupancy. If occupancy in the sub- district has met the threshold, then positive numeric need is established. Criticism has been leveled at the methodology. Not taking into account future population growth or occupancy rates at times other than midnight, are but two examples. Criticism, however, of the rule is of little moment in this case since the case is a challenge to agency action not to the rule that contains the methodology. Whatever the appropriateness or validity of the criticism, the calculations pursuant to the methodology have not yielded a fixed-need pool above zero for any of the many sub- districts in the eleven districts of the state for some years now. Nor is numeric need for general acute care beds expected by the Agency to exceed zero anywhere in the state for the foreseeable future. During this time of numeric need "drought," AHCA, nonetheless has awarded CONs for new general acute care beds and even new hospitals on a number of occasions. For example, "[d]espite the fact that there was an applicant proposing to relocate beds within the subdistrict, which wouldn't have affected the bed inventory at all, the state elected to approve [another] applicant . . . that applied for a brand-new 60 bed hospital" (tr. 635) in the community of Lady Lake in District 3. The application in that instance had been filed in the fall of 1998. In a second example, in the fall of 2001, a few years later, Osceola Regional and Florida Hospital Celebration were each approved to add beds to existing facilities despite the fact that there was no numeric need and the hospitals did not meet the statutory occupancy levels for additional beds. Mr. Nelson also testified about a third recent example where a new hospital was built when the subdistrict occupancy was low, the facts of which compare favorably, in his view, with the facts in this case. As he tells it, these three cases, compared to this case, produce inconsistency: In the fall of 1999, Sacred Heart Hospital applied to build a new 60-bed hospital in the southern portion of Walton County. That particular subdistrict is actually a two-county subdistrict consisting of Okaloosa and Walton counties, has some existing hospitals, current subdistrict occupancy in that area is 56.3 percent. Despite . . . the low occupancy . . . the state recognized the validity of the arguments about a growing population, about accessibility, many of the same issues that you have here and approved Sacred Heart to build a new 60-bed hospital in that location. * * * I am not criticizing any of these approvals. I . . . am criticizing [that the state was] presented with a similar set of circumstances in this case [and] the applications were all denied. And I think there is an inconsistency here. (Tr. 637-8). During the same period, moreover, beds have been added to existing hospitals without CON review, accomplished by way of Section 408.036(n), Florida Statutes. The statute allows 10 beds or 10% of licensed bed capacity to be added to a hospital's acute bed inventory upon certification "that the prior 12-month average occupancy rate for the category of licensed beds being expanded at the facility meets or exceeds 80% . . . ." Section 408.036(n)(1)a., Florida Statutes. See also Rule 59C-1.038(5), Florida Administrative Code. The bed additions made with and without CON review contribute to current numeric need determinations of "zero" and the continued reasonable expectation that AHCA's methodology for determining acute care bed numeric need will not yield numeric need in excess of zero for years to come. Most pertinently to this case, these additions erode AHCA's position advanced in hearing in this case for a preference to keep open the option for a future competitor, a competitor other than one of the two dominant providers, presumably when numeric need has been determined to exist, a condition not likely to come into play for the foreseeable future. However the future plays itself out and the effect on AHCA's current methodology, there remains one point central to consideration in this case. In light of a numeric need of "zero" for the applicable batching cycle, for a CON to be awarded as a result of this proceeding, as a first step, the applicants must demonstrate the existence of "not normal" circumstances that support an award. The two applicants attempt that step in tandem. Both ORHS and Florida Hospital contend that rapid population growth, problems of access to acute care and emergency services in the Oveido area, and mal-distribution of beds in the sub-district and district constitute circumstances that justify need for their proposed facilities. In other words, they are "not normal" circumstances. Not Normal Circumstances - Population Growth A rural farm community not long ago with a population of about 7,500, the City of Oviedo, in the last 15 years, has grown into an Orlando bedroom community. The population increase within the city limits is proof of the city's metamorphosis from countryside to suburb. During this period of time, the municipal population has nearly quadrupled to 28,000 with no end in sight to continued growth in the area as explained by ORHS' expert, Dr. Rond: The special circumstances . . . that drive this application are, first, the unprecedented population growth. As we have seen, we are experiencing population growth in excess of a hundred percent in the east Seminole area. In the adjacent Winter Springs area, we are experiencing a rate in excess of 51 percent. We are talking about a population that is going to reach almost 200,000 people by the year 2006. (Tr. 377-8). The area is projected for an additional 18.2% growth by 2006, when as testified to by Dr. Rond, the population will reach nearly 200,000. The municipal population is not the only population of a political entity in the area to quadruple in modern memory. Over the past three decades Seminole County has grown fourfold - from 83,692 in 1970 to 365,196 in 2000. As a result, the county is the third most densely populated of the state's 67 counties. Until the mid-1990's, population growth was concentrated in the western half of the county as Orlando area development spread north into Seminole County along the I-4 and U.S. Highway 17/92 corridors. Since then the rate of population growth has been dramatic in east Seminole County in part because of the opening of another major transportation corridor, the "Greenway," Highway 417. Between 1990 and 2001, east Seminole County more than doubled in size (24,840 to 51,287; a 107% increase) while West Seminole grew by only 22%. East Seminole County is expected to remain the fastest growing portion of the county into the foreseeable future. With approximately 43% of the total land area of the county but only about 16% of the population, it remains much less densely populated than the remainder of the county, affording greater opportunities for future growth. Seminole County is unique in the state from the perspective of bed-to-population ratios. The three hospitals in Seminole County with a combined total of 575 licensed beds, yield a ratio of 1.55 beds per 1,000 population; tied for lowest bed to population ratio of the sub-districts in the state. The only area with a comparable ratio is Sub-district 8-4, comprised of Glades and Hendry Counties, located southwest of Lake Okeechobee, "a very rural area." (Tr. 625). While these two sub-districts are similar in bed to population ratio, they are at opposite extremes in terms of population density. The population of Seminole County, at 371,000 is nearly nine times the combined populations of Glades and Hendry Counties at slightly more than 42,000. Sub-district 8-4 is "totally unlike Seminole County from the standpoint of population demographics; and yet in terms of resource availability, . . . it has a comparable amount of resources per thousand population." (Id.) Thus, Seminole County occupies a unique place in the state for its low bed-to- population ratio considering its overall population. Population forecasts for the next five-year period support the expectation of continued strong growth in east Seminole County. For example, the downtown area of Oviedo plans a residential area with a density up to 50 dwellings per acre, at least one of the highest in the County. In the City of Oviedo vicinity, median densities are increasing from 4 homes per acre to 10, to allow for townhouses. East Seminole County is reasonably expected to have 60,597 residents by the year 2006, an 18.2% increase over 2001. By comparison, West Seminole County is expected to experience only a 6.3% rate of growth. Projected growth in the City of Oviedo, moreover, is in all likelihood understated due to significant residential developments currently underway that alone are expected to add up to 6,238 new residents to the city's population. One need only look to actual growth in the area for support for such a prediction. Actual growth has consistently outpaced projected growth governed by methodologies that have repeatedly failed to reflect the reality of population growth in Oviedo. Related to population growth are utilization projections by the applicants' health planning experts for an Oviedo hospital. Judy Horowitz, Florida Hospital's expert health care planner, explained Florida Hospital's: [W]e looked at historically what had come out of the service area as we defined it. We projected that that volume would grow in proportion to population growth. We looked at a subset of services, those that were likely to be provided at a community hospital as was being proposed by Florida Hospital Oviedo. We looked at what we thought a reasonable market share would be; and our overall forecast is that within two years of opening this facility, that we would reach 77 percent occupancy at a 60-bed facility. So our year two, which is the 12 months ending June of 2007, . . . . we would already be at 77 percent occupancy. Then our first year we would be at approximately 68 percent occupancy. * * * [T]here is clearly sufficient demand to support the hospital as proposed; and the fact that we are projecting a relatively high utilization very quickly shows the magnitude of that demand. (Tr. 1352, 1353). With the high level of population growth and the demand for hospital services that such growth generates, the citizens of Oviedo expect access to hospital care within the community. In keeping with citizen expectation, the City of Oviedo has adopted a resolution that urges AHCA to approve a new hospital in the Oviedo community. It has been joined in its resolve by the Board of County Commissioners for Seminole County through a resolution of its own. To underscore the force of the two resolutions, the corporate parties presented the testimony of representatives of both the City Council and the County Commission. Grant Malloy, the County Commissioner for County District I who grew up in the area with fond childhood memories of "being overcome by the orange blossom smells, they were so intense," (tr. 802) described the growth observed first-hand by him during his lifetime as "phenomenal." (Tr. 806). In answer to the question whether his constituents would benefit by a new 60-bed hospital, Commissioner Malloy testified I do believe so. There is . . . the growth that's occurring there. And I heard . . . discussion about getting to some of the other hospitals. And once you get out of Seminole County . . . the roads are very, very difficult to travel on especially getting into Orlando. Especially rush hour . . . . . . . [T]he growth . . . would support such a facility. I know our board passed a resolution, along with the City of Oviedo[.] [O]ur board, and all the commissioners are unanimously supportive of a hospital in the area. I haven't heard from any residents or constituents that have said it was a bad idea. . . . [P]eople are pretty excited about it. (Tr. 807-8). Tom O'Hanlon, Chairman of the City Council, in the company of three other members of the council, unequivocally backed up Commissioner Malloy's appeal for a new hospital. The changes he has seen in Oviedo, he described as: Dramatic changes. When I moved there, [Oviedo] was a very rural area, and it is no longer . . .; it’s a highly compacted urban area. [W]e are working on a new master plan for downtown, which will have higher densities than we have in our city today. (Tr. 812). Chairman O'Hanlon went on to describe how the pace of the growth continuously outstrips population projections that are the product of the City's best efforts to follow appropriate methodologies for making such projections: [T]he city continually makes population projections. I have always been involved with them[.] [T]here are guidelines . . .; and everytime we make them, the city grows far in excess of th[e] projections. The area is such a dynamic area because we have got the University of Central Florida there, which is just growing as fast as the city is, maybe even faster. You have the Research Park there and you have got excellent schools. And for that combination . . . everybody wants to move there. (Tr. 812-3). The university is just south of the city limits. It has minimal dormitory facilities on campus. The result is that "a vast majority [of students] live off campus in housing and apartments [and they are impacting all the services that must be provided in Oviedo.]" (Tr. 814). Following this testimony of Chairman O'Hanlon, the following colloquy ensued between him and counsel for ORHS: Q Is it fair to say, Councilman O'Hanlon, that the City of Oviedo and surrounding area is in growing urban area that has everything but a hospital? A That is a true statement. Q Are you familiar, Councilman O'Hanlon, with the proposals of Orlando Regional Healthcare System and Florida Hospital to locate a 60-bed hospital in the City of Oviedo? A Yes. Q Do you support that effort? A A hundred percent. Q Do you believe, Councilman O'Hanlon, it would be of benefit to your constituents to have that [hospital] in the city of Oviedo? A Absolutely. People approach me every week wanting to know where our hospital is. Q Can't understand why it's not there already?A Well what they understand is that there is a tremendous need for a hospital and they don't understand why it's not in the process. (Tr 816-7). Residents of Oviedo also do not understand why they have to drive for such a long time to reach a hospital particularly when their goal is the emergency department. This concern about which Councilman O'Hanlon hears from a constituent "at least once a month" (tr. 819) also made its way into the resolutions of the two political bodies in the form of an identical introductory clause, as follows: "WHEREAS, there are increasing problems with timely access to care especially for emergencies," (Joint ORHS/Florida Hospital Nos. 8 and 10). It is, moreover, a concern that takes up the second prong of the applicants' case for "not normal" circumstances: issues of access. - Access The Oviedo Service Area Although similarities exist between the two, the Oviedo Service Areas defined by the two applicants are somewhat different. The service area selected by ORHS is larger than the service area selected by Florida Hospital. The Primary Service Area ("PSA") for ORHS' proposed hospital is composed of four zip codes: 32765, 32732, 32766, and 32708. Of the four, the first three are in eastern Seminole County, that is, east of Highway 417, the Greenway, and south of Lake Jessup. The fourth, 32708 in the Winter Springs area, is just west of the Greenway. The Winter Springs zip code was included in ORHS' PSA in part because it is adjacent to the Greenway. It has also experienced tremendous population growth and is very close to the proposed site for ORHS' hospital. A secondary service area proposed by ORHS is composed of a zip code in Seminole County north of Lake Jessup, 32773, and three zip codes in Orange County, 32817, 32820, and 32826. Located in the midst of the three Orange County zip codes is zip code 32816. It appears on ORHS exhibits as part of the secondary service area. As the zip code for the University of Central Florida, it has a very low residential population so that there are only a few students who might live in a dorm that would list it as their residence when receiving hospital services. There are actually "very few" (tr. 302) discharges from zip code 32816. If one does not include zip code 32816 then ORHS' service area is a comprised of eight zip codes. The April 1, 2001, population for the primary and secondary service areas or the service area designated by ORHS is 170,774. This service area has more than doubled in population over the last decade. Over the next five years, the service area is expected to reach 193,408 residents, of which 45% will be of prime child bearing age (15-44), "a dominant position for that age cohort within the population." (Tr. 315). The Oviedo service area is defined by Florida Hospital as four zip codes in Seminole County, 32708, 32732, 32765, and 32766 and one in Orange County: 32826 (all zip codes in ORHS' service area) with a population of more than 100,000. Florida Hospital's service area does not include Zip Code 32773 (the zip code north of Lake Jessup) that is in ORHS' service area nor, with the exception of 32826, does it include any of the Orange County zip codes that are in ORHS' service area. Thus, there are five zip codes in what Florida Hospital regards as the Oviedo Service Area and eight in what ORHS regards as the Oviedo Service Area if zip code 32816 is excluded. Although somewhat different, for purposes of examining travel distance and time between Oviedo and area hospitals, the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants are similar enough to be considered to be the same. Or, as William E. Tipton, an expert in traffic transportation and civil engineering, testified at hearing, the results of his study entitled "Travel Time Analysis Proposed ORHS Oviedo Campus, Oviedo, Florida" (ORHS Ex. 14) would not be substantially different if he had focused on the Florida Hospital site instead of the ORHS site. Travel Time Analysis Mr. Tipton prepared a travel time analysis to evaluate the differences in travel time that could be anticipated with the development of a hospital campus in Oviedo. Mr. Tipton's study concluded that there would be a reduction of average daily travel time from the ORHS PSA to a hospital by 64% or 18 minutes. The maximum reduction will be 75% of the time or 21 minutes. In the critical peak afternoon hour, there will be a maximum reduction of 79% or 22 minutes in time from that which exists today. The reductions in drive distance for Oviedo area residents if a hospital were in Oviedo would be significant especially in the arena of emergency services. Emergency Services Access to emergency services at a hospital emergency department ("ED") is one of the most important factors in making sure people have reasonable access to community hospitals. "[Y]ou really need . . . immediate care for emergencies, and so it's important to be able to get to the emergency department quickly and to receive care rapidly once you get there." (Tr. 336). Between 1997 and 2001, the hospitals experiencing the highest percentage of ED visit increase, other than Health Central, were Florida Hospital East in Orange County and South Seminole Hospital in Seminole County. During the period between 1997 and 2001, although the population of Seminole County grew less than Orange County, Seminole County had a larger percentage of ED visits. Specifically, the population of Seminole County grew 12% but its ED visits increased 23%, twice its population growth. During the same period, the population of Orange County grew by 15% but its ED visits only increased by 17%. Closer examination of these statistics reveals that ED visits in the downtown area of Orlando, to include Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, were below the county average. However, suburban hospitals, or those in outlying areas, particularly near Oviedo, had much greater ED visit growth: ED visits grew 27% at Florida Hospital Apopka and 37% at Florida Hospital East. Florida Hospital East is the closest hospital in Orange County to the Oviedo area. Of the hospitals in Seminole County, South Seminole was the most severely affected by ED visit increase with a 38% increase of ED visits between 1997 and 2001. (ED visits in excess of 27,000 by area residents are projected in 2006.) In the Oviedo area there are unfortunate but not uncommon delays in emergency transport. More than 20% of emergency transports involve delays of in excess of 45 minutes after arrival at the hospital. These delays are serious because patient outcomes decline dramatically if definitive care is not delivered within the "golden hour," a concept that: reflects the fact that patient outcomes decline [dra]matically in terms of . . . mortality rates if definitive care is not delivered within one hour of the traumatic injury that has been sustained. In cardiology, they tend to . . . say "time is muscle," * * * the longer it takes for a patient to get definitive care following a major cardiovascular event, the more muscle mass is likely to be damaged. . . . [Y]ou can go on and talk about stroke victims, cerebral vascular patients and just a whole array of patients who [fare] much better in terms of morbidity and mortality if they receive definitive care within an hour of the episode. (Tr. 336). Part of the delay for patients in need of prompt emergency services is due to ambulance standing time. Standing time is the time a patient waits in the ambulance or hallway of the emergency department before the patient is seen by medical staff. This standing time does not include the time it takes the ambulance to respond to the call or the time the EMS personnel spend at the scene to stabilize the patient. Nor does it include the travel time to the hospital from the scene. Ambulance standing time for patients from the Oviedo area on average is between 42 and 47 minutes. When average travel times established in Mr. Tipton's study are combined with the standing times, there is not one existing provider of emergency services that can provide a patient from Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area or ORHS' PSA with emergency care within the "golden hour." This combination, moreover, as stated above, does not take into account the dispatch time and time of the ambulance at the scene. The typical types of emergency calls EMS personnel see in Oviedo include difficulty breathing, auto accidents, kids falling off bicycles, heart attacks, and drug overdoses. The largest majority of calls would go to a local community hospital as opposed to trauma center in downtown Orlando. Jeffrey M. Gregg, Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, which includes the Certificate of Need Program for the Agency for Health Care Administration, testified that emergency room access is a problem that has gotten worse over time. Mr. Gregg also stated that a new hospital in the area will improve emergency access for people in the immediate area. A new hospital in Oviedo service area would also benefit and improve emergency access for patients in Orange County emergency rooms by lessening the emergency patient loads they experience. Wayne Martin, Fire Chief, Emergency Management Director, City of Oviedo, testified that the standing times and delays at the area hospital emergency rooms tie up Oviedo area ambulance services for an extended period of time. Emergency Medical Service ("EMS") staff must stay with their patient until the patient is taken into the emergency room and given medical care by emergency department staff. Because of these delays, EMS staff are out of their service area for extended periods of time. This decreases the level of service for the residents of the Oviedo area. One aspect of the problem influences another so as to create a compounding effect. Dr. Robert A. Schamberger, a family practitioner in Oviedo, testified that recently a patient went to the emergency room at an area hospital and it took 16 hours from the times she arrived until she was seen by the emergency room personnel. Dr. Schamberger tried to admit another patient of his in an area hospital on a recent Friday and was informed there were no beds. The hospital said they would call when they had an available bed. The patient was finally admitted on Monday. Emergency room waiting times across the entire community are several hours, which is an unacceptable care standard. Dr. Zulma Cintron practices internal medicine in Oviedo. Dr. Cintron testified that there is a "huge need" for a hospital in the Oviedo area. "We definitely need the beds." Dr. Cintron has had patients with chest pains who ended up waiting in the emergency room for four, five, and six hours before receiving care. Patients with less imminent needs have waited 12, 16 even 24 hours. Dr. Cintron's testimony for Florida Hospital was confirmed by the testimony produced by ORHS of Scott Greenwood, M.D., a cardiologist who heads a cardiology group. The evidence provided by Drs. Schamberger, Cintron And Greenwood, anecdotal though it may be, supports the existence of a problem with emergency services access in the Oviedo area that is shown by the analysis provided by the combination of Mr. Tipton's traffic study and ambulance standing time. So does projected volume for ED visits. Projected volume at Florida Hospital Oviedo in year two would be in excess of 27,000 visits. The Oviedo area has a population that "is adequate to support a hospital at high utilization levels within [a] short period of time and also will generate a significant number of emergency visits." (Tr. 1355). A new hospital facility in the Oviedo service area would help to alleviate the delays currently being experienced in the area hospital emergency departments. The Agency is not unaware of the problem and the solution that an Oviedo hospital would provide. The issue for AHCA is "[w]ould the improvement that would result for some people justify the construction of an new hospital?" (Tr. 726). The applicants claim that the three existing Seminole County hospitals are not appropriately located to provide emergency services required by the growing population of Oviedo. Put another way, within the sub-district and District 7, ORHS and Florida Hospital assert there is a mal-distribution of beds. Mal-distribution of Beds While population growth has increased dramatically in east Seminole the opening of health care facilities in the east part of the county has lagged behind; the area has more than 100,000 people but no hospital. The three acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 7-4 are all located in the western portion of Seminole County. People tend to use hospitals closest to them especially for emergency services. Because of the north/south nature of the road corridors in Seminole County and the congestion and distances involved in east/west travel in the county, the Oviedo area population's access to existing hospital service in the district is problematic. The population has better access to resources in Orange County, a different subdistrict, and, in fact, 66% of the Oviedo population take advantage of that better access. Consistent with the pattern of transportation development in Seminole County, all three hospitals in Seminole County are located between I-4 and U.S. Highway 17-92. Florida Hospital Altamonte is situated along the 436 corridor, whereas South Seminole Hospital is located further to the north on State Road 434, while Central Florida Regional Hospital is situated at the northern border of the county along the U.S. Highway 17-92 corridor. Dr. Rond had this to say about the locations of the three Seminole County hospitals in relation to the population in east Seminole County: The resources in the western part of the county are not situated in such a way that they are being utilized effectively by residents of [ORHS'] service area. Instead, they seek to move along the north/south corridor, primarily the Greenway, to utilize the services located in Orange County or … they take other routes of access to reach Winter Park Hospital, which is . . . in Orange County. (Tr. 319). The problem of distribution of hospitals is not restricted simply to inside the county. There is a mal- distribution in District 7 as well. Overall in the district, there are 2.3 beds per thousand. Orange County enjoys a ratio that is very high when compared to Seminole County's. Orange County's bed to population ratio is 2.7 beds per thousand, whereas Seminole County's is only 1.55 beds per thousand. The average bed ratio in Florida is 2.85 per thousand. Whether measured against the state ratio or the Orange County ratio, general acute care hospital beds per thousand population in Seminole County is low. The ratio comparison between Orange County and Seminole County will improve with an Oviedo Hospital although it makes the overall ratio only "a little closer; so that Orange County has beds per thousand and Seminole County would have 1.6 beds per thousand." (Tr. 316). The applicants intend to make that improvement with their proposed projects. The Proposed Projects ORHS' Orlando Regional proposes to construct a new 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. The location was described at hearing by Karl W. Hodges, ORHS vice president of Business Development: [T]he hospital [will be built] within a two- mile radius of . . . Highway 426, also called Loma and Mitchell Hammock Road which is also called Red Bug Road. [The CON Application] further stipulates we'll be east of 417. (Tr. 20). Within that area, ORHS proposes to build a three-story 155,000 square foot facility on approximately 35 acres of land. Although a site has not yet been purchased, there is at least one parcel of 35 acres of land available in the area that can be acquired by ORHS at a price of $7,000,000 or less, as indicated in its application. The bed complement of the proposed facility will be eight ICU beds, ten labor-delivery-recovery and post-partum ("LDRP") beds serving the obstetrics department, 15 telemetry monitored beds, and 27 medical/surgical acute care beds. The proposal will add 30 beds to the inventory of beds in the sub-district but it will not add beds to the inventory of District 7. The 60 beds will be transferred by ORHS from two facilities. Thirty of the beds will come from South Seminole Hospital (in Seminole County). By itself, moving the 30 beds within the sub-district "for the stated goal of enhancing access . . . is a non-controversial project" (tr. 627) that is not subject to a certificate of need methodology but that still requires CON review and approval. The other thirty beds will come from Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital in Orange County. However attractive for its minimization of controversy, all 60 beds could not have been transferred from South Seminole because to do so would have raised its occupancy above 80%, "an untenable result." (Tr. 630). For the additional 30 beds, "Lucerne seemed like a logical choice, given its bed size and its utilization." (Tr. 628). The design of the proposed hospital is based on another ORHS facility: South Lake Hospital, a replacement facility that opened in January of 2000. Florida Hospital's Florida Hospital also proposes to construct a 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital owns the site, 15 acres at 8000 Red Bug Lake Road near an intersection with the Greenway. The site currently includes a two-story, 41,000 square foot medical office building and a one- story, 6,000 square foot urgent care center. A two-story, 161,000 square foot facility is proposed to be constructed on the remaining vacant space at the site that has been approved under the Development of Regional Impact process for a 120-bed hospital. Ownership of a DRI-approved site will save Florida Hospital time and expense entailed by permitting requirements. All 60 beds will be part of an innovative design referred to as a "universal room and universal care delivery model." For the present, Florida Hospital does not intend to provide obstetrics at the Oviedo facility but "all of the universal patient rooms are capable of being LDRP rooms" (tr. 1181) should Florida Hospital decide in the future to provide obstetric services at the hospital. Florida Hospital will transfer 60 beds from Orange County facilities so that Florida Hospital's proposal will increase the sub-district's bed inventory by 60 beds, 30 more than the increase that will be affected by ORHS' proposal. Just as with ORHS, Florida Hospital's proposal will not increase the bed inventory in District 7. Fifty beds will be transferred from Florida Hospital's Winter Park facility and 10 beds will transferred from Florida Hospital's Apopka facility. AHCA's View of the Proposals The Agency's conclusion that the applications did not demonstrate "not normal" circumstances was reached with difficulty. Review of the applications taxed the agency's decision-making process because of the challenging circumstances presented by the applicants. As Jeffrey Gregg testified for the Agency, when there is "no fixed-need pool," AHCA look[s] at applicants in terms of a unique set of circumstances that they present . . . and in this instance, The circumstances . . . in this case challenge the system, make it more difficult for [the Agency] to make a sound decision in the tradition of the CON program. (Tr. 723). However much in keeping or not with the tradition of the CON program, the determination that there were no "not normal" circumstances to justify need afforded a benefit to the Agency; it would not have to make the difficult choice between the applications. While it could have granted both applications, an option considered by the Agency (see tr. 729), no party contended in this proceeding that circumstances justify two new 60-bed hospitals in Oviedo. If need is proven for but one hospital, then a selection must be made. Yet, at every turn, AHCA has found one advantage held by an applicant to be defeated by another held by its opponent or one set of circumstances that would normally be an advantage neutralized by other considerations. For example, in view of the nature of the Orlando market, AHCA reasonably did not give much weight to ORHS' proposal to add fewer beds than Florida Hospital to the sub- district despite the fact that usually there would be advantage to a mere intra-sub-district move. In the absence of fixed need, for example, such a move would not have to be supported by "not normal" circumstances. To the contrary, however, from the point of view of practicality, it makes more sense "to take beds from a more urban setting [in Orange County, a different sub-district] where they are not being used [as proposed by Florida Hospital] and move them to a new rapidly growing area where there are not hospital beds." (Tr. 739). A sense of practicality guided AHCA throughout its CON review in this case. The Agency, in fact, approached the applications by "trying to be as practical as possible." (Id.) As explained by Mr. Gregg, again on behalf of AHCA: [The Agency] do[es] not give much weight to the fact that [the applicants] would be crossing subdistrict lines here and that one of them [ORHS] is in a position to . . . add fewer beds to the planning area. That's noted in the SAAR, but practically speaking, we are talking about a metropolitan area here. We are talking about in both cases large systems wanting to move beds from one part of their system to another part. So in many ways, . . . once again, [ORHS and Florida Hospital] are really well-matched and difficult to distinguish. (Tr. 724, emphasis supplied). The difficulty inherent in distinguishing between the applicants was repeatedly emphasized by the Agency. The point was brought home once more in questioning of Mr. Gregg by counsel at hearing: Q [W]ith regard to the minute distinctions between the applicants, at your deposition, some of the statements you made in that regard included [that ORHS and Florida Hospital] are both good citizens. All of these things in this case, coming up so close and so equal, that . . . in terms of CON analysis, it becomes very difficult . . . to make a distinction between the two of them. They are both just that good. And then also [the Agency] think[s] they compare very favorably, and very evenly, noting again and again and again that they are very, very close, very, very comparable. Is that still your position here today? A Yes. (Tr. 766-7). However close the Agency regards the two, there are differences in the applications. While some may not be of great benefit to a decision, others may serve to sustain a principled choice. Differences in the Applications Obstetrics The leading reason for hospitalization among area residents is the need for obstetrical services with births running at more than 2,000 per year. During the 12-month period ending June 2000, for example, childbirths accounted for 2,041 discharges. Of the top ten DRGs for discharges among area residents, uncomplicated vaginal delivery accounts for the most discharges, cesarean section ranks third and vaginal delivery with complications is seventh. In keeping with the demand for obstetrical services, the utilization patterns of the population in the Oviedo Service Area and the area's age composition, upon the opening of its facility, ORHS proposes to provide obstetrical services. The proposal is also due, in part, in response to the closing of the obstetric program at Florida Hospital East in May of 2001. There is physician support for ORHS' proposed obstetric services. Robert Bowles, M.D., testified by deposition that his group practice, Physician Associates of Florida, comprised of 14 obstetricians and gynecologists would cover obstetrics at an Oviedo hospital. While Dr. Bowles would not personally admit obstetrics patients at the new hospital, three of his partners would. Florida Hospital does not propose to provide obstetrics upon opening although it has designed its physical plant to provide an OB unit so that Florida Hospital would have the capability of initiating that service without a problem. In other words, Florida Hospital's proposed facility would be "OB- ready." (Tr. 725). Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital does not have physician support for providing obstetric services at its proposed facility, a part of the reason for not offering OB. The basis for Florida Hospital's lack of physician support is a malpractice insurance crisis for obstetricians. Florida Hospital's proposed facility is not projected to open for another three years. If, during that time, the malpractice crisis eases and there is greater physician coverage availability, Florida Hospital could open obstetric services at the same the hospital opens since it will be OB-ready. Another reason that Florida Hospital has decided against offering obstetrics upon opening is that most maternity patients are more comfortable delivering babies in a setting that has neonatal intensive care services available. Two such settings are ORHS-Arnold Palmer and Florida Hospital's main campus. Indeed, a significant number of maternity patients from Oviedo are choosing to travel past multiple hospitals that offer obstetric services to have their babies delivered at one or the other of these two hospitals. Arnold Palmer, in fact, is the leading provider of obstetrical services to the residents of the Oviedo area's two most populous zip codes: 32708 and 32765, both more than 30 minutes driving time away from the hospital. Medicaid and Charity Care Conditions Approval of ORHS' CON is conditioned on a minimum of 7% of total annual patient days for Medicaid patients and 1% for charity care. Florida Hospital's application offers no conditions with regard to Medicaid or charity care. Like ORHS, Florida Hospital is one of the top ten providers in the State of indigent care, and a disproportionate share Medicaid provider. The Agency's view of the difference between ORHS' provision of indigent care conditions and Florida Hospital's decision to not condition its application was explained by Mr. Gregg: Conditions [such as those for indigent care] are important when it allows us to distinguish between applicants. They are less important when we have competing applicants, both of whom has such strong track records as these two do. . . . [W]e look at evidence of past performance relative to indigent care . . . . [I]n a case like this . . . both of these applicants have such good records in th[e] area [of indigent care]. They are both in the top ten statewide. . . . [A] promise of this condition or that condition [does not] give us particular concern one way or the other. They are both very good in that area [of Medicaid and charity care] and very tough to distinguish between. (Tr. 735-6). Architectural Design and Site The architectural plans of both applicants meet all codes that apply to a new hospital in the state of Florida. The ORHS design is tried and proven at ORHS' South Lake facility and will work on a 35-acre site. The size of Florida Hospital's site, 15 acres much smaller than ORHS', led to criticism of the site from ORHS experts. But the site is large enough to incorporate growth in the future. It can accommodate 320 beds and ancillary services. The design, moreover, takes these expansion capabilities into account. Related to the size of the site, the site's conservation area, comprised of wetlands and a forested upland buffer that will remain undeveloped indefinitely also produced criticism that the site is too cramped for a new hospital. But the conservation area, with its mature tree canopy, presents advantages. The hospital was designed to incorporate the view of the conservation area from hospital rooms because such a view is beneficial to the healing process. Furthermore, the conservation area can be used to satisfy water retention requirements. Florida Hospital's site is DRI-approved and part of a DRI master storm water plan that connects many ponds and wetlands. Surrounded by three roads, it has excellent access from existing roadways. Vehicular circulation is split to provide different public, service and emergency entrances. Innovation by Florida Hospital Unlike traditional hospital care models where the patient is moved from room to room depending on type and intensity of care, all care and services are provided to the patient in one "universal" room under the "universal delivery of care model." The model was developed by Florida Hospital. "The nursing leadership of the universal room design . . . was under the direction of Connie Hamilton." (Tr. 1080). Ms. Hamilton, accepted as an expert in nursing and nursing administration, explained at hearing that under the model, the room is designed to provide any type of care the patient might need. Whether the patient is admitted in acute care and then moves to intermediate care or med-surg, all care is provided within one "universal" room. Not only does the patient stay in one place, but as Ms. Hamilton testified, "[t]he nurses stay in one place in providing that care to [the patient] and the families know where the patient is and the physician knows where the patient is [at all times]." (Tr. 933). The universal care model streamlines the interactive processes of care of a patient. The care and attention of physicians, nursing staff and families devoted to moving the patient from room to room and keeping track of the patient as type and intensity of care changes is reduced to nearly zero if not eliminated entirely. The time, energy and resources formerly devoted to all that is entailed with changes in the patient's room is then free to be re-directed to care and attention paid to the patient. The result is enhancement of Florida Hospital's ability to provide "whole person" care consistent with Adventist principles of health care. The universal care delivery model is an innovative approach to the delivery of healthcare. Pioneered by Florida Hospital at Celebration Health, the universal care delivery model has been shown there to reduce medical error, reduce length of stay, reduce pharmacy costs, reduce nursing workload, reduce housekeeping work, and probably to reduce infection rates. Following the universal care model employed at Celebration Health, Florida Hospital has designed its proposed Oviedo hospital facility with universal rooms. Consistent with the universal care delivery model, the rooms are designed to improve the healing experience during hospitalization and minimize the patient's feeling of being in a hospital setting. Another benefit of the universal care model is high physician satisfaction due to continuity of nursing care and other factors. The physicians know where the patient is, that is, in the same location every day. Physicians, moreover, are not called at all hours of the day and night to effectuate patient transfers to other rooms. Kathleen Mitchell has studied the universal care model and published and submitted articles on the model to nursing journals. She has consulted with hospitals around the country interested in the model as well as the "health care arm of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Army, Navy, Veteran's Administration." (Tr. 1084). Ms. Mitchell, accepted as an expert in nursing amplified the testimony of Ms. Hamilton. With regard to the problem the universal care delivery model is designed to address, Ms. Mitchell testified: [T]ransferring patients for different levels of care . . . fractures continuum of care. It is . . . disruptive to everyone . . . involved . . . to the patient and their families . . ., to nursing, pharmacy, the physicians . . . . It creates a great deal of anxiety for patient and the families . . . even [those] who are getting better and moving to a lower acuity of care. One of the most significant things about transferring patients for different levels of care is it involves a great deal of work. Not only bundling the patient up, but the documentation and all the communication that goes along with securing a new location for the patient and expediting a transfer. And moving patients around creates a risk of medical error. The length of stay in hospitals has gotten so short and everybody is focused on reducing the length of stay that in the traditional model of care, nurses are turning over more than half their patient assignment daily . . . . [T]here is the confusion and risk that goes along with that. (Tr. 1086-1088). The benefits of the reduction and elimination of transfers produced by the universal care model were listed by Ms. Mitchell: increase in the continuity of care, reduction in nurse workload, high physician satisfaction, reduction in emergency room waiting time, family satisfaction, connectivity between patient, family and staff. Others were elaborated on by Ms. Mitchell. For example, reduction in pharmacy costs, probable reduction in infection and reduction in housekeeping costs: When you are meeting the needs of the patient in one location, you are not leaving medications behind or sending them to the wrong place, and there is work that nurses and pharmacists do with calling each other with ['] where is it, I can't find it, I sent it[',] all that goes away. We are demonstrating a low incidence of nosocomial infections because we expose our patients to one environment of organisms. This is a very difficult one to prove; even though we have a low incidence of nosocomial infections, we also have a fairly new facility [at Celebration], but it makes common sense that if you are reducing the transfer of the patient and the exposure . . . to different environments, you are reducing their exposure to organisms and will have a lower . . . infection rate. . . . [W]e don't strip linens off the beds and clean the beds where the bed was just made three hours ago, with all the patient transfers that are involved. So there is a reduction in . . . housekeeping work and . . . linen expense. (Tr. 1089-1090). Like the housekeeping efficiencies, the nursing staff benefits from the efficiencies associated with supplies. All of the supplies the nurse needs to care for the patient are close by, so the nurse saves time otherwise retrieving supplies from down the hall or in other areas of a hospital wing. Another benefit of the design is "connectivity to the outside world. The rooms have large windows . . . patients feel connected to the outside world . . . . " (Tr. 1091). This design feature will make use of the conservation area on the Florida Hospital site and the soothing vista it will provide to the patient, and assist in the healing process. Other Design Features Design drawings are a living and continually evolving process. The planning process of Florida Hospital for the design of its new Oviedo hospital involved specialty department experts and ancillary representatives discussing delivery of quality care for a patient throughout the system. The specialty experts and ancillary representative include radiology, emergency department, lab, pharmacy, and respiratory. The involvement of these people assures optimal patient flow throughout the system. In Florida Hospital's design plans, the patient flow and interaction between departments are well designed and well laid out so as to minimize the opportunity for confusion. In order to maximize efficiency, a larger number of beds in one nursing unit works better than smaller pockets. Florida Hospital's design plans have one 40-bed unit and one 38- bed unit. This design gives more flexibility and can expand or shrink more easily as needed. You don't have to open up another unit and staff it so often, when adding only one or two patients. Florida Hospital designed its facility specifically to take advantage of the economies of scale that being a satellite hospital in a larger system provide. For example, Florida Hospital's general storage, central lab, and other areas were purposely designed smaller than one would typically find because Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central warehouse, thus greatly reducing the need for central storage areas. Likewise, Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central clinical lab, thus minimizing the space necessary within a hospital like Oviedo for lab space. ORHS did not design its facility to take advantage of the economies scale of being part of a system. Presence in Oviedo Florida Hospital has had a presence in the Oviedo community since the 1970's, when it purchased land in the Red Bug corridor area. In the 1980's, Florida Hospital built a medical office facility in Oviedo and began to recruit and encourage physicians to practice in the area. When Florida Hospital acquired Winter Park Hospital, its commitment to the community of Oviedo increased by virtue of the fact that the Winter Park Hospital organization already had property and outpatient facilities in Oviedo. The result of Florida Hospital's early presence in Oviedo is that it has a high degree of physician support in place in the Oviedo community. Many of the primary care physicians in Oviedo refer their surgical cases to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital purchased Winter Park Hospital on or about July 1, 2000. With that purchase, Florida Hospital acquired the hospital site in Oviedo. With the purchase of Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital also "purchased" Winter Park's plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. The Florida Hospital site has long been recognized as the "Hospital Site" in Oviedo. Immediately after purchasing Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital went to work on developing a plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. Florida Hospital began meeting with Oviedo city leaders in the fall of 2000 and early 2001; Florida Hospital also assembled a team of people from all areas of Florida Hospital including radiology, clinical services, marketing, finance, facilities, and engineering to work toward the development of a Certificate of Need application for a hospital on its site in Oviedo. Florida Hospital's two existing medical office buildings in Oviedo contain over 60,000 square feet of medical office space, in which are housed physicians practicing in a wide range of areas including Family Practice, Internal Medicine, General Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, Urology, Radiology, Gastroenterology, Ear, Nose and Throat, OB/GYN, and Dental and Psychological Practitioners as well. These physicians are all currently on the staff of Florida Hospital. Also included in these facilities are a Florida Hospital owned and operated radiology center, outpatient rehabilitation center, and outpatient lab. The radiology center offers general radiology services, including CT scanning and ultrasound. The larger of the two medical facilities that Florida Hospital owns in Oviedo is located on the site where the new hospital will be located. This is the facility that includes the outpatient radiology, rehabilitation and laboratory services. An urgent care center is also located on the site. As a result, residents of Oviedo are used to coming to Florida Hospital's site for medical services and already recognize it as a medical facility site. The fact that Florida Hospital has such a significant presence in the Oviedo Community, and that a large number of staff physicians are already in place in Oviedo, is a great benefit because of the existing referral patterns in place between the physicians at the existing Florida Hospital facilities in Oviedo and specialists and sub-specialists on Florida Hospital's staff. In contrast, ORHS had an outpatient surgery center in Oviedo; however, it has been closed due to lack of physician support. Likewise, ORHS originally offered radiology diagnostics at its Oviedo office building, but has since sold that business to the radiologists. Finally, ORHS does not own the medical office building in Oviedo anymore, having sold it two weeks before this final hearing commenced. Dr. Joseph Portoghese, a Board Certified Surgeon, practicing in the Orlando area for over 13 years and president- elect of the Florida Hospital medical staff, testified that his group, Surgical Associates, which is made up of six surgeons, derives approximately 20% of their patients from the Oviedo area. In his opinion, Florida Hospital knows the Oviedo population best as evidenced by its "major presence" in Oviedo with its two facilities. Dr. Portoghese also testified that his group knows most of the primary care physicians in the Oviedo area and that a good many of them send their surgical cases to his group. Dr. Portoghese is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger, a family practitioner who has practiced in Oviedo for 16 years and whose patients come primarily from the Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs and East Orlando area testified that Florida Hospital has the best infrastructure for the provision of medical care in the Oviedo area. "The physicians who provide a great bulk of the care for that Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs area practice at Florida Hospital. Their referral patterns are to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital provides us with all the specialty and sub- specialty care we need for our patients." Dr. Schamberger is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but he is not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger further testified to the disruption in continuity of care that would occur for many Oviedo area patients whose physicians are on the staff at Florida Hospital if Orlando Regional were to be the only applicant approved to build a hospital in Oviedo: "[I]ts a negative impact for continuity of care. If I have been attending a patient for many years, the first thing that happens to a patient when they get in the hospital is that they have a history and physical examination done to establish what their underlying medical conditions are. I know a lot more about that from my patients than someone who doesn't see them and doesn't know them." (Tr. 1318) Dr. Cintron, a physician practicing in the area of Internal Medicine, whose main office is in Oviedo at the Florida Hospital site, testified that she has approximately 3,000 active files and 75% to 80% of those are in the Oviedo area. She has been practicing in Oviedo since 1994. Dr. Cintron testified that approximately 85% of her patients that get admitted to a hospital are admitted to one of Florida Hospital's facilities. Also, when she makes a referral to a specialist or a sub-specialist, approximately 85% of those patients go to a Florida Hospital facility. Competition "[T]he U.S. health care system is a competitively driven market . . . with some regulatory components and based on a managed care model." (Tr. 485). Rather than every insurance plan having a contract with every provider, the managed care model uses selective contracting. Competing health insurance plans select providers with which to contract for the provision of health care services to their subscribers. The ability of the competing insurance plans to engage in selective contracting requires providers such as the two hospitals in this case to compete along a number of dimensions including price. When successful, this competitive price model holds down price and maintains quality. The State of Florida has a "fairly well developed and active managed care sector." (Tr. 507). "[M]anaged care in and of itself [however] is not really able to save much money for consumers. . . . [T]he key ingredient in the ability of managed care plans to control health care cost increases is the competitiveness of the hospital market, the structure of the market in which they are negotiating on behalf of their health plan subscribers." (Tr. 500). The parties define the "market" differently. Florida Hospital uses the Elzinga-Hogarty ("EH") Test. The test, along with appropriate supplemental information, indicates that the market is all of Orange and Seminole Counties or the tri-county area that also includes Osceola County. Whether a two county or tri-county market, Florida Hospital refers to its market as the metropolitan Orlando market or the "overall Orlando market." Orlando Regional identified a smaller area as the relevant market, one that is more local to Oviedo. The reason for this more local market was explained by Glenn Alan Melnick, Ph.D., and an expert in health care economics who testified for ORHS: [I]n order for [managed care plans] to attract subscribers, they have to have a health plan that's attractive to people. And one of the features that people look for in their health plans is the availability of local hospital services. . . . [I]n order to make their products marketable, they have to include reasonably accessible hospitals . . . [I]f there is limited local competition, then the opportunities for them to generate price competition by leveraging competitive conditions . . . are very limited and [the managed care] model will not be successful. (Tr. 489). Dr. Melnick used the five and eight zip code Oviedo Service Areas as defined by the applicants as the market. He calculated Herfandahl-Hershman Index ("HHI") valuations for each zip code in the two Oviedo Service Areas. He also calculated HHI valuations for another seven zip codes in Orange County "to provide background to [his] understanding of the allocations in [the] area . . . . ." (Tr. 516). Dr. Melnick's calculations showed that Florida Hospital has a market share between 60 and 69% for the five zip codes in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area and it showed a market share of between 25% and 59% for the three zip codes in ORHS' Oviedo Service Area that were not included in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area. In each of the seven zip codes in the area outside the Oviedo Service Area, Florida Hospital's market share was higher: in excess of 70%. The analysis led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market is highly concentrated in favor of Florida Hospital. Using the zip codes in the Oviedo Service (and it appears from the record the seven not in either applicant's Oviedo Service Area that Dr. Melnick had analyzed for background purposes), Dr. Melnick concluded that if the CON is awarded to Florida Hospital "[i]t would make an already concentrated market much more concentrated." (Tr. 524). Florida Hospital's relative market share would rise from 65.8% to 85.7%. Orlando Regional's would drop from 27.4% to 11.5%. The award of the CON to Florida Hospital would, moreover, "seal its already existing market power into the future." (Id.) Conversely, awarding the CON to ORHS led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market as he defined it would be more competitive; Florida Hospital relative market share would drop to 51% and ORHS' would rise to 44%. What Dr. Melnick's relative market shares would have been had he not used the seven zip codes he selected outside the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants does not appear to have been shown by ORHS. Including the seven zip codes outside the Oviedo Service Areas for determining the relative market share that led to Dr. Melnick's conclusions runs counter to his premise that the market should be a local one, that is, an Oviedo market. It is not clear what relevance these seven zip codes had to his analysis since their inclusion runs counter to the underpinnings of his approach to the issue. If the overall Orlando market used by Florida Hospital is considered the market, the conclusion is that, whether a CON for an Oviedo hospital is awarded to ORHS or Florida Hospital, the impact on relative market share is minimal. As for pricing, there has been no significant pricing difference between Florida Hospital and ORHS for Oviedo residents. Furthermore, both Florida Hospital and ORHS contract with managed care companies on a system-wide basis; Florida Hospital, moreover, uses a single master charge structure for all of its Orlando area campuses. It is not likely that the presence of a hospital in Oviedo would enable either Florida Hospital or ORHS to control pricing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order on the basis of the facts found in this order concluding that "not normal" circumstances exist for the construction and operation of a new 60-bed hospital in Oviedo and that Florida Hospital's CON application be approved and ORHS' be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 James M. Barclay, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer & Harbert, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone, Hines & Koda, P.A. 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Suite 310G St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
