Findings Of Fact Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc., ("Good Samaritan") is a 341 bed not-for- profit acute care community-based hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida. The hospital has operated in West Palm Beach, Florida, for more than 70 years. It is the third largest hospital in Palm Beach County, which is the largest county in the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") District IX. Good Samaritan has an open medical staff and provides a high level of quality care to its patients. There are approximately three hundred eighty physicians on the active medical staff at Good Samaritan, including twelve cardiologists and eighty-four internal medicine physician, many of whom have expressed support for the application for an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at Good Samaritan. The hospital provides a full scope of diagnostic capability up to invasive cardiac catheterization, operates a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation program, and an active community education program. Good Samaritan is presently in the process of constructing a new six- bed coronary care unit to complement existing medical and surgical intensive care units. Good Samaritan operates a thirty bed telemetry unit, as well as a progressive care unit. Good Samaritan expected to begin offering Thallium Stress Tests in December, 1991. Good Samaritan is seeking by its CON application a diagnostic cardiac catheterization laboratory for inpatients with a project cost of approximately $1,636,200. Normal operating hours for the laboratory will be 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Emergency procedures will be available in approximately thirty minutes, twenty-four hours a day, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.032(4)(b). St. Mary's Hospital, Inc., ("St. Mary's") located approximately 10 minutes from Good Samaritan, is the largest hospital in Palm Beach County, with 430 beds. St. Mary's ranks in the top ten state hospitals in the provision of Medicaid services and is a disproportionate share provider. St. Mary's adult cardiac catheterization laboratory opened in February 1988. St. Mary's challenged the published need for two adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories in District IX, and initially HRS' intent to approve CONs for Good Samaritan and Lawnwood Memorial Hospital, although the challenge to Lawnwood was voluntarily dismissed prior to final hearing. In February, 1991, HRS published a need for two additional adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories in District IX for the July 1993 planning horizon. On March 22, 1991, Good Samaritan filed a letter of intent to file an application for an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program, followed by the timely filing of an application and responses to HRS' omissions request. On or about July 8, 1991, HRS issued its intent to approve the application filed by Good Samaritan. Numeric Need HRS published a need for two adult cardiac catheterization laboratories on February 8, 1991, in Volume 17, Number 6, Florida Administrative Weekly. On March 11, 1991, St. Mary's challenged the published pool, asserting that HRS used an incorrect number of actual adult cardiac catheterization program volume ("ACCPV") in computing net need. The formula is established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.032(8). St. Mary's asserted that the correct ACCPV is 5668, while HRS used 5427 as the ACCPV in its computation of need. The higher ACCPV, when used in the formula, results in a net need for 458 admissions or one additional adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. The lower ACCPV results in a net need for 699 admissions, or two additional adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories. The need for a minimum of three hundred (300) admissions is the equivalent of the need for one catheterization laboratory. St. Mary's ACCPV used corrected information on utilization reported to HRS by Delray Community Hospital ("Delray"), for April through June, the second quarter of 1990. The data shows a higher number of procedures at Delray, resulting in a lower net need. The corrected data, according to St. Mary's expert, was received by HRS sometime between the August 1990 and the February 1991 cycles, although St. Mary's failed to demonstrate when HRS became aware of the error. HRS had previously used 5427 as the ACCPV in computing its fixed need pool of August 1990, which resulted in a net need ("NN") for 67 admissions, below the three hundred minimum, and, therefore, in zero need for new adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories. The August 1990 publication was used as a measure of numeric need for the first batching cycle under the rule. Rule 10-5.032(8)(d), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: Need Determination for Subsequent Batching Cycles. If NN is less than 300 in the first batching cycle after the rule becomes effec- tive, the ACCPV value which is subtracted from the PCCPV will be the same value as ACCPV in the first batching cycle until the projected net need in a future batching cycle reaches a program volume of 300 or more. St. Mary's expert agreed with HRS that subsection (d) of the rule requires that you go back to the previous cycle and use the same ACCPV, but asserted that the data should be corrected, although "the rule doesn't actually specify that." The expert relied on subsection (c) of the rule, for calculating ACCPV for the first cycle, which provides in relevant part: ACCPV equals the adult cardiac catheterization program volume for the most recent 12-month period for which data are available to the department 3 weeks prior to the publication of the fixed need pool. Rule 10-5.032(8)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Based on Rule 10-5.032(8)(d), HRS correctly published numeric need in February 1991, using the same ACCPV that had been used in August 1990, which was, in August 1990, the most recent data available to the department 3 weeks prior to that publication. A numeric need exists for two additional adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories in HRS District IX, as published on February 8, 1991. See, Vol. 17, No. 6, Florida Administrative Weekly. Compliance With State and District Health Plans Subsection 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the need for the proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan. The 1989 Florida State Health Plan contains four preference statements relating to inpatient cardiac catheterization services. The first preference in the state plan and the second recommendation in the District IX plan both apply if an applicant is proposing to establish both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgery services, provided that a need for open heart surgery and/or both is indicated. Since there is no indicated need for open heart surgery in the July, 1993 batch cycle, this preference is not applicable to the Good Samaritan application. Secondly, the state health plan requires preference to be given an applicant proposing to establish a new cardiac catheterization program in a county without a cardiac catheterization program if the applicant can demonstrate that patients are currently seeking cardiac catheterization services outside the respective county or HRS district. Currently, there are five operational inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories located in Palm Beach County, at St. Mary's, Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, John F. Kennedy Medical Center, Boca Raton Community Hospital, and Delray Community Hospital. In addition, another Palm Beach County hospital, Bethesda Hospital, has received final approval for an inpatient adult cardiac catheterization laboratory. Outside Palm Beach County, but also in District IX, there is a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Martin Memorial Hospital in Martin County. In addition, laboratories have been approved for Indian River Memorial Hospital in Indian River County, and Lawnwood Medical Center, in St. Lucie County, the latter as a result of St. Mary's voluntary dismissal of its petition in a case previously consolidated with these cases. The Good Samaritan application is not entitled to the second state health plan preference, since Palm Beach County currently has six existing or approved providers, and there is no showing of a significant volume of people leaving the Palm Beach County area to obtain cardiac catheterization services, who would not leave if the Good Samaritan application is approved. See, Findings of Fact 35, 36 and 37, infra. The third preference in the state health plan is for hospitals with a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share criteria. Good Samaritan stipulated that it is not currently a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid services nor has it ever qualified as such. Finally, the state health plan includes a preference for an applicant who agrees to provide services to all regardless of ability to pay. Good Samaritan proposes to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization to patients regardless of their ability to pay. St. Mary's asserts that Good Samaritan's history indicates the lack of commitment to Medicaid and charity care. Good Samaritan's stated commitment to serve cardiac catheterization patients without regard to their ability to pay is accepted. HRS enforcement mechanisms are available and appropriate for use if health care providers violate the conditions of a CON. The first recommendation of the District IX Health Plan for 1990 is that priority be given to area facilities proposing specialized services which can show a commitment to, or an historical record of, service to the Medicaid/indigent, handicapped and under served population groups. Good Samaritan did not accept Medicare patients until 1984, and did not begin participating in the Medicaid program until 1988. In 1989 and 1990, the number of Medicaid and indigent care increased to six percent of Good Samaritan's revenue base. Good Samaritan, according to St. Mary's, only participated in Medicaid to recoup a portion of its 1 1/2% assessment from the Patient's Medical Assistance Trust Fund. Assuming, arguendo, that Good Samaritan's participation in Medicaid is only a reaction to financial incentives, Good Samaritan now ranks fifth in the district and second in the subdistrict in the provision of Medicaid services. Good Samaritan, in its proposal, shows a commitment to serve Medicaid patients, in compliance with the local health plan. Good Samaritan does not, however, comply with Subsection 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes, which favors applicants with both a proposal to serve and an historical commitment to serving Medicaid and indigent patients, because its services to these groups only began in 1988. By contrast, St. Mary's reported 8,000 Medicaid patient days as early as 1983 and 1984. Like and Existing Services St. Mary's cardiac catheterization laboratory opened in February, 1988. Currently, St. Mary's is performing approximately 375 catheterizations a year, having increased approximately 10% each year, beginning with 235 catheterizations in 1988. For the first six months of 1991, St. Mary's performed 267 inpatient cardiac catheterizations. St. Mary's inpatient cardiac catheterization services are adequate, accessible and available. St. Mary's provides a high quality of care, exceeding HRS requirements, in compliance with industry standards. See, Subsection 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Projected Utilization at Good Samaritan Good Samaritan projected that it would have, in its inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, 275 procedures in year one and 378 procedures in year two. St. Mary's asserts that the projections are unreasonable and overstate the likely utilization of the Good Samaritan catheterization laboratory, based on St. Mary's experience. St. Mary's asserts that its experience is a valid measure of Good Samaritan's projected utilization based on Good Samaritan's own zip code definition of its primary service area which completely overlaps that of St. Mary's. Ninety percent (90%) of St. Mary's cardiac catheterization cases come from the same zip codes that are projected to provide Good Samaritan's inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures. St. Mary's and Good Samaritan's medical staffs also overlap and are essentially the same physicians. Good Samaritan's laboratory could be expected to compete with St. Mary's for skilled staff and patients. Good Samaritan projects that its experience would be more comparable to that of Boca Raton Community Hospital, which experienced a higher start-up volume than did St. Mary's. At Boca Raton Community Hospital, there were 621 procedures in 1988, 658 in 1989, and 635 in 1990. Boca Raton Community Hospital, however, is in a different subdistrict of the county from that in which St. Mary's and Good Samaritan are located. Good Samaritan's projected experience is more reasonably comparable to that of St. Mary's due to location, range of other available cardiac-related services, which are fewer at Good Samaritan than at St. Mary's, and due to the overlapping physician staff. St. Mary's experiences the transfer of approximately 50 patients a year for cardiac services. Physicians will not typically admit a patient to the St. Mary's catheterization laboratory if they believe the patient's condition will require additional services, to avoid the need for a subsequent transfer to a hospital at which angioplasties and open heart surgery are performed, particularly if the same physicians are on the staff of both hospitals. This competitive disadvantage at St. Mary's is reasonably expected to limit procedures at Good Samaritan. Seventy-nine (79) to eighty-two (82) patients were transferred from Good Samaritan to other facilities for cardiac catheterization procedures in 1990. Good Samaritan correctly points out that transfers are costly and disruptive for the patients. As of October 15, 1991, Good Samaritan had 53 cardiac transfers, or annualized approximately 70 patients were expected to be transferred in 1991 to other hospitals for cardiac catheterization procedures. Good Samaritan, based on the experience of St. Mary's, will not be able to retain all of these patients for inpatient cardiac catheterization services. The assumptions that Good Samaritan would have 115, not 70 transfers in 1991, and that with a cardiac catheterization laboratory, all the transfers would remain at Good Samaritan are the bases for Good Samaritan's projected utilization, and are rejected. St. Mary's expert projected utilization at Good Samaritan's cardiac catheterization laboratory at 143 admissions in year one, and 157 in year two. That projection was flawed and skewed downward by the omission of outpatient cases at Bethesda. When corrected, however, the projected utilization at Good Samaritan does not reach 300 admissions by year two. None of the parties questioned the need for the requisite minimum of admissions to assure patient safety, by keeping the staff proficient and the equipment operational. The safe operation of the laboratory outweighs the cost and inconvenience to patients which results from the need to transfer to other facilities for inpatient cardiac catheterization services. Good Samaritan also based projected utilization on capturing current out-migration, and on having strong physician support, and a high emergency room cardiac volume. Approximately 18.54 percent of total district patients, or 365 people, left the district for cardiac catheterizations in the 12 months ending June 30, 1990. HRS expert's testimony that some transfers are to major national heart institutes, or specialty hospitals, and that Good Samaritan has failed to demonstrate that it will capture any of this group of patients is accepted. Good Samaritan has not demonstrated that it will generate enough cardiac catheterization cases to reach an annual program volume of 300 admissions within two years after the program becomes operational, as required by Rule 10-5.032(8)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Good Samaritan is capable of providing immediate endocardiac catheter pacemaking in cases of cardiac arrest, and pressure recording for monitoring and to evaluate valvular disease, or heart failure, in compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.032(3)(a). Hemotology, coagulation, electrocardiography, chest x-ray, blood gas, clinical pathology and blood chemistry analysis studies can be performed at Good Samaritan, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.032(3)(b). Good Samaritan's program will include a special procedure x-ray room, a film storage and darkroom for proper processing of films, x-ray equipment with the capability in cineangiocardiography, or equipment with similar capabilities; an image intensifier, an automatic injector, a diagnostic x-ray examination table for special procedures, an electrocardiograph, a blood gas analyzer, a multichannel polygraph and emergency equipment including a temporary pacemaker unit with catheters, ventilatory assistance devices and a DC defibrillator. See, Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.032(3)(c). Good Samaritan is accredited by the Joint Commission of Accreditation of Health Care Organizations for special care units, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.032(5)(a). St. Mary's asserts that Good Samaritan's proposed staffing of its laboratory with the full time equivalent of two registered nurses is inadequate. St. Mary's demonstrated that the industry standard is a minimum of three to four employees present during any cardiac catheterization. Good Samaritan's proposed staffing of its cardiac catheterization laboratory is adequate, and meets the minimum standards required by HRS in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.032(5)(b). In addition, Good Samaritan demonstrated that it has the ability to attract a qualified invasive cardiologist. Good Samaritan has entered into an agreement to transfer patients requiring open heart surgery to either JFK Memorial Hospital or Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, both of which are within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicles, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.032(6)(a). Compliance With Other Statutory Criteria Good Samaritan established that it has an excellent record of providing high quality of care and is among the lower cost providers within the district. Its ability to provide the same quality of care for inpatient cardiac catheterization services at a lower cost is compromised solely by patient safety concerns based on the projected under-utilization of the staff and equipment. See, Subsection 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. There are no outpatient or other less costly alternatives to the need for inpatient cardiac catheterization services, which are adequate or available, as described in Subsection 381.705(1)(d), and (2)(a), Florida Statutes. Good Samaritan is not proposing to provide special equipment or services not reasonably and economically available in adjoining areas, as specified in Subsection 381.705(1)(f), Florida Statutes; nor is there any serious consequences to patients in the absence of the establishment of the proposed services, as specified in Subsection 381.705(1)(d), Florida Statutes. In fact, the most serious risks exist if, as a result of Good Samaritan's proposal, both Good Samaritan and St. Mary's are underutilized. Financial Feasibility Good Samaritan has the cash on hand to fund the project. Approximately seventy percent of the hospital's cardiac catheterization referrals are to John F. Kennedy Medical Center and fifteen percent to Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, both of which have open heart surgery services, and the remainder to a variety of different hospitals. Good Samaritan will not be able to achieve the utilization projected on Table 10 of its application which is the basis for its revenue projections. Good Samaritan failed to show that it will be able to retain all of those cardiac catheterization patients who are currently transferred, if the service were available at Good Samaritan. Good Samaritan's program, with projected utilization in year one at some number in excess of 143, but less than 275, and in year 2 at more than 157, but less than 300, will not be financially feasible in the short term. Due to projected rising district wide utilization rates and the fact that the proposed service generally is a positive contribution to hospital revenues, it is impossible to conclude that Good Samaritan's proposal is not financially feasible in the long-term. However, Good Samaritan did not demonstrate when, in the future, it could capture a sufficient percentage of the district wide growth to become financially feasible. Schematic Design St. Mary's presented expert testimony critical of the proposed design of the Good Samaritan laboratory. The criticisms of the procedure room were that it was (1) undersized with a total of 454 square feet, (2) too narrow at 16 feet, and (3) not designed to have walls lined with lead, as required. The criticisms of the layout of the laboratory included (1) the location of the scrub sink within the control room, (2) the location of the film viewing and developing areas adjacent to the control room, (3) the inadequate size of the film viewing and storage areas, and (4) the absence of the required stretcher alcove area. The HRS expert architect, who reviewed the schematic design, described the procedure room as smaller than the minimum size recommended by the Intersociety Commission for Heart Diseases. Nevertheless, he noted that HRS has approved smaller, operational catheterization laboratories around the state, and size is not regulated by any HRS rules. In addition, the HRS expert reviewed the design with an understanding that Good Samaritan can and will satisfy the requirements for providing additional support spaces in areas adjacent to, but not shown on the schematic design. Good Samaritan's expert in architecture, also confirmed that recovering cardiac catheterization patients and other additional space needs can be accommodated in an adjacent surgical suite. He testified that he had designed two similarly sized laboratories in renovated spaces, which were functioning well in Maine and New York. The size of the procedure room in Maine is 486 square feet, as compared to 454 square feet proposed at Good Samaritan. He was unable to provide information on the size and arrangement of the equipment used in the procedure room in Maine. Good Samaritan's total laboratory size is adequate, given the proposed use of adjacent areas for support services. The availability of that space allows corrections in the placement of the scrub sink, film viewing, developing and storage areas and other adjustments in the schematic design. The schematic design can be corrected in subsequent, more detailed plans to show lead lined walls. Good Samaritan has also demonstrated that the total size of 454 square feet in its procedure room is also adequate. St. Mary's expert testified that 600 to 800 square feet is optional, that the Intersociety Commission for Heart Diseases minimum size is 454 square feet, and that 400 square feet is the minimum size under New York state regulations. Good Samaritan has not demonstrated that the width of the procedure room is adequate to accommodate the staff and equipment necessary to respond to emergencies during cardiac catheterization procedures. No information was presented from which any conclusions can be drawn about the placement and size of equipment in other similarly sized procedure rooms, and whether the same size equipment will be used and may be arranged similarly at Good Samaritan. Good Samaritan's projected cost of $1.3 million for equipment is reasonable, and sufficient to allow the purchase of an additional Sensitometer and Densitometer, intraaortic balloon pump, radiographic sensing equipment, and a pulse oximeter. The estimated cost for renovation and construction at $266,200, which includes a 10% contingency, is also reasonable, as are construction forecasts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered determining that the fixed need pool for adult inpatient cardiac catheterization for District IX, published on February 8, 1991, in Volume 17, Number 6, Florida Administrative Weekly, is valid; and denying the application of Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc., for Certificate of Need Number 6626. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 91-2147 and 91-5718 Rulings on findings proposed by Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc.: Accepted in Findings of Fact 1, 7 and 8. Accepted, in relevant part, in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 2. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. Accepted, in relevant part, in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 7 and 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 40. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 11 and 12. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings 4 and 42. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Rejected, first sentence, in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected, except second sentence, in Finding of Fact 36. Accepted, except second sentence, in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Subordinate, first sentence, to Finding of Fact 2. Rejected, second sentence, as irrelevant. Rejected, first sentence, in Findings of Fact 20 and 26. Accepted, second sentence, in Finding of Fact 45. Rejected, first sentence, in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected in Finding of Fact 46. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted, in relevant part, in Finding of Fact 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32 and 44. Accepted, first two sentences, in Findings of Fact 2 and 34. Rejected, last sentence, in Finding of Fact 46. Subordinate, except sixth and seventh sentences, to Finding of Fact 2. 29 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2 and 28. Accepted, except last sentence, in Finding of Fact 35. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 30. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33 and 36. Rejected, in relevant part, in Finding of Fact 36. Accepted in Finding of Fact 42. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6, 9 and 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5, 10 and 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12. 45 and 46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12 and 16. 51 and 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. 53. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. 54 - 56. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12 and 13. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Rejected conclusion in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected, in part, in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted, in part, in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25 and 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25 and 32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57 and 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 57. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 58. 68 and 69. Accepted in Finding of Fact 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 54. Accepted in Finding of Fact 58. Accepted conclusion in Finding of Fact 42. Accepted in Finding of Fact 42. 74 - 76. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 42. 77. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. 78 and 79. Rejected in Findings of Fact 49 and 50. 80 and 81. Accepted in Finding of Fact 44. Rulings on findings proposed by St. Mary's: 1 - 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as not relevant. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 10. 10 and 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Rejected in Finding of Fact 16. 14 - 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 19 and 20. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. 24 - 26. Accepted in Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected, in relevant part, in Finding of Fact 44. Accepted, in substance, in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted, first sentence, in substance in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. 32 - 36. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 37. Rejected, in relevant part, in Finding of Fact 23. 38 and 39. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted in Conclusions of Law. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 42 and 43. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28, 41 and 57. 44 and 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 28. 49 - 52. Rejected as not relevant. 53 - 56. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 26. Accepted in Finding of Fact 30. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 29. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. 63 and 64. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. 67 and 68. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 36. Accepted in Finding of Fact 35. 71 - 73. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. 78 and 79. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34 - 36. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 46. First sentence, rejected as hearsay. Second sentence, subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected, in substance, in Finding of Fact 55. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. Accepted as not demonstrated by applicant in Finding of Fact 56. Accepted in Finding of Fact 55. Accepted in Finding of Fact 56. Rejected in Findings of Fact 54 and 55. 91 - 95. Accepted in Finding of Fact 54. Rejected in Finding of Fact 58. Rejected in Finding of Fact 42. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 52 and 53. 101 and 102. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 26. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 57. Accepted in Finding of Fact 49. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 49 and 50. 110 - 112. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 49 and 50. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50. 115 - 117. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 49. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50. Rejected as not relevant. 120 - 129. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28, 30 and 46. 130 - 139. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 33 and 46. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 33 and 46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted, except "less costly", in Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32, 33 and 46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. 149 - 151. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. 152 and 153. Rejected, as not applicable, in Finding of Fact 17. 154. Rejected. 155 - 157. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 6. 158. Rejected, as to "cost", but accepted as to "quality" in Finding of Fact 44. Rulings on findings proposed by HRS: Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Finding of Fact 10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Finding of Fact 5. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Finding of Fact 5. 5 - 10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 11. Subordinate to Preliminary Statement and Finding of Fact 5. 12 - 16. Rejected as not relevant subsequent to Order Closing File in Case No. 91-5717 dated October 17, 1991. 17. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 23 - 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19, 21 and 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18 and 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5 and 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10, 11, 13 and 14. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. 37 - 41. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 14 and 15. 45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. 46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. 47 - 50. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 51. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12 and 13. 53. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12, 13 and 16. 55. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. 56. Accepted in Finding of Fact 37. 57. Accepted in Finding of Fact 38. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 59. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 60. Accepted in Finding of Fact 40. 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 41 and 42. 62. Accepted in Finding of Fact 43. 63. Accepted in Finding of Fact 44. 64. Rejected in Findings of Fact 36 and 44. 65. Accepted in Finding of Fact 47. 66. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 67. Accepted in Finding of Fact 48. 68. Rejected in Finding of Fact 36. 69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. 70. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 71. Accepted in Finding of Fact 57. 72. Accepted, in part, and rejected, in part, in Findings of Fact 55 and 56. 73. Accepted in Finding of Fact 58. 74. Accepted in Finding of Fact 58. 75. Rejected in Finding of Fact 50. 76. Accepted in Finding of Fact 50. 77. Rejected in Findings of Fact 49 and 50. 78. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 79. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. 80. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 81. Rejected, in relevant part, in Finding of Fact 44. COPIES FURNISHED: Lesley Mendelson, Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 W. David Watkins, Esquire Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 William B. Wiley, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire McFarlain Sternstein Wiley & Cassedy Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Byron B. Mathews, Jr., Esquire McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY Miami Center, 22nd Floor 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4336 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether there is need for a new hospital in AHCA Acute Care Subdistrict 5-2 (eastern Pasco County)? If so, whether AHCA should approve either CON 9975 or CON 9977?
Findings Of Fact The Applicants and Background Pasco-Pinellas Pasco-Pinellas, the applicant for CON 9975, is a joint venture between two nonprofit healthcare organizations: University Community Hospital, Inc. (UCH) and Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation (Adventist). A not-for-profit healthcare system, UCH has served the Tampa Bay area for the last 40 years. It owns and operates two hospitals in Hillsborough County and one in Pinellas County. UCH has approximately $100 million available for capital expenditures to fund the hospital proposed by CON 9975. One of its Hillsborough County facilities, University Community Hospital, is located on Fletcher Avenue in northern Hillsborough County, AHCA Health Planning District VI. Across the street from the main campus of the University of South Florida (USF) and its College of Medicine, University Community Hospital has an agreement with USF for GME. University Community Hospital at present serves the Wesley Chapel area in eastern Pasco County. The other member of the joint venture, Adventist, is a financially successful not-for-profit healthcare organization. It operates 17 hospitals in the state of Florida. As of December 31, 2007, Adventist's cash on hand, including investments, exceeded $3.6 billion and net revenue for 2007 was approximately $368 million. The joint venture between UCH and Adventist was formed to establish a hospital to serve the Wesley Chapel area of Pasco County and to provide other healthcare services in the county. At present, the two members of the joint venture compete to serve the Wesley Chapel area through University Community Hospital and Adventist's Florida Hospital Zephyrhills (FHZ), a 154-bed general acute care hospital in Pasco County. The collaboration of competing hospitals in seeking approval for a new hospital through Florida's CON process is unusual. But by bringing the similar missions, strength in community interests and capable leadership of UCH and Adventist together, the Pasco Pinellas joint venture poses potential healthcare benefits to eastern Pasco County. BayCare The Applicant for CON 9977, BayCare of Southeast Pasco, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation formed to develop the hospital proposed in the application. The sole member of BayCare is BayCare Health System, Inc. ("BayCare System"). BayCare System is the largest full-service community- based health care system in the Tampa Bay area. It operates 9 nonprofit hospitals and 11 ambulatory/outpatient centers in Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties. Initially organized in 1997 under a joint operating agreement between several hospitals, BayCare System's purpose has been to compete effectively in managed care operations in order to reduce the expenses of the individual organizations that are its members. In the first 5 years of operation, BayCare System saved its members a total of $90 million because of the enhanced cost efficiencies it achieved through business function consolidations and group purchasing. Its members are all not-for-profit hospitals. BayCare System's focus is on the treatment of one patient at a time. Its mission is to improve the lives of people in the community it serves, to operate effectively as a group of not-for-profit hospitals, and to provide high quality, compassionate healthcare. BayCare's application, because it provides potential for its proposal with its teaching aspects, draws significant and considerable support from USF, a national research university. USF has a College of Medicine, a College of Nursing, and a College of Public Health, collectively "USF Health." USF Health will collaborate with BayCare in the development of the hospital BayCare proposes, should it be approved and should its teaching functions come to fruition. The Agency The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency that administers the CON program pursuant to Section 408.034, Florida Statutes. It will make the final decisions to approve or deny the two CON applications at issue in this proceeding. Community Community Hospital is a general acute care for profit hospital with 386 beds. It is located within the City of New Port Richey in western Pasco County, Acute Care Subdistrict 5-1. With the exception of neonatal intensive care, open heart surgery and organ transplantation, Community is a full- service community hospital. It provides OB services. It is licensed for 46 adult psychiatric beds. It offers a variety of outpatient services including outpatient surgery, endoscopy, and outpatient procedures and lab testing. Its medical staff consists of approximately 400 physicians. Community serves patients without regard to ability to pay, and does not discriminate in any manner. Accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations, it has received numerous awards and recognition for the quality of its health care services. Community's hospital facility is over 30 years old. Access to the campus from US 19, the closest major thoroughfare approximately 1.5 miles away, is gained via a two-lane street through a residential area. Land-locked but for the two-lane street, the campus is sandwiched between the residences and a high school. There are no medical office buildings ("MOB") owned by Community on the campus; less than 20 acres in size, it is completely built out. Community's Replacement Hospital Community has a replacement hospital facility currently under construction in Acute Care Subdistrict 5-2. Approximately five miles southeast of Community's New Port Richey location, the replacement facility is located at the intersection of Little Road and State Road 54. Expected to open in late 2010 at a cost in excess of $200 million, it is to be known as Medical Center of Trinity ("Trinity"). All current Community services will be offered at Trinity. At the same time, the new hospital will offer many advantages over the old facility. Trinity will initially be five stories in height, with fewer licensed beds, but constructed with the ability to expand. It will offer new medical equipment with the latest technology. Situated on 52 acres, with a new three-story MOB adjacent to the hospital, Trinity has plans to add a second MOB at some time in the future. Unlike existing Community Hospital, Trinity will have all private rooms. Its more efficient layout among service areas will improve efficiencies and patient satisfaction. Trinity's location is more accessible than Community's current location in New Port Richey. It is on State Road 54 (SR 54), a six-lane highway that runs east/west through Pasco County. The road has recently undergone major construction and expansion which was nearly complete at the time of hearing. Suncoast Parkway (a/k/a Veterans Expressway), furthermore, is an expressway toll road system that runs north/south from Hernando County through Pasco County to Tampa airport. From the intersection of Suncoast Parkway and SR 54, it takes approximately seven minutes to reach Trinity. Little Road runs north/south along the Trinity site, and north through Pasco County to Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point ("Bayonet Point"). Community's poor financial performance in recent years is expected to improve after the opening of Trinity. The Proposals Although both applicants propose a new hospital in roughly the same location in Subdistrict 5-2, the two are different both in scope and approach. Pasco-Pinellas' Proposal Pasco-Pinellas proposes to build an 80-bed acute care hospital on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in the area known as Wesley Chapel in eastern Pasco County. If approved and constructed, the hospital will include 36 medical/surgical beds, 8 labor/delivery/recovery/post partum beds, 12 critical care beds, and 24 progressive care beds. The project would involve 184,000 gross square feet of new construction, at a total estimated cost of $121 million. Pasco-Pinellas proposes a typical primary service area (PSA). Five and one-half zip codes comprise the PSA; Pinellas- Pasco reasonably projects 82% of its admissions will come from the PSA. Two and one-half zip codes comprise the secondary service area (SSA). The zip code that is shared by the PSA and the SSA (33559) is split roughly in half between Pasco County and Hillsborough County. The half that is in Pasco County is in Pasco-Pinellas' PSA. The five full zip codes in the PSA are 33541, 33543, 33544, 34639, and 33576. The two full zip codes in the SSA are 33549 and 33647. Pasco-Pinellas' in-migration from outside its proposed service area (the PSA and the SSA) is forecast by Pasco- Pinellas's health planner at 12%. For a community hospital in the Wesley Chapel area without tertiary services, the in- migration percentage projected by Pasco-Pinellas is reasonable. BayCare's Proposal BayCare proposes to establish a general acute care hospital with 130 beds. The application proposes that it be collaboratively developed by BayCare System and USF Health so as to provide teaching functions associated with the USF College of Medicine and other health-related university components of USF Health. Consisting of approximately 476,000 square feet of new construction at an estimated total project cost of approximately $308 million, the hospital will have 92 medical/surgical beds, 24 critical care beds, and 14 post-partum beds. Like Pasco-Pinellas' proposal, BayCare's proposed hospital will be located on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in the Wesley Chapel area of southeastern Pasco County. BayCare's proposed PSA is circular. The center point of the PSA is the proposed BayCare hospital site in the Wesley Chapel area. The circumference is along a series of seven-mile radii so that the diameter of the circular PSA is 14 miles. The seven-mile radius was chosen to approximate a fifteen-minute travel time by automobile from the outer edge of the circular PSA to the hospital site. BayCare's PSA includes some part of seven zip codes. Two are Wesley Chapel zip codes: 33543 and 33544. Two are Lutz area zip codes: 33549 and 33559. Two are Land O'Lakes zip codes: 34639 and 34638, and one is a zip code in Hillsborough County: 33647. Relative to typical PSAs for most proposed hospitals, the PSA proposed by BayCare's application was described at hearing by BayCare's health planner as "small." See Tr. 1855. For calendar years 2013 and 2014, BayCare projects that 19,0976 and 20,008 patient days, respectively, will be generated from within the PSA. These projections constitute a projection of 60% of all patient days projected for the two years, a percentage substantially lower than would be generated from a typical PSA. The remaining 40% of projected patient days is roughly double what would be expected from beyond a PSA under a more typical proposal. The high number of projected patient days for patients originating outside the PSA was explained at hearing by BayCare's health planner. The involvement of the USF Physician's Group and the "teaching" nature of the proposal "pumps up and provides an additive level of in-migration that would not be experienced without the USF combination with BayCare in [the] project." Tr. 1856-7. Pasco County Hospitals There are five hospitals in Pasco County. Two in western Pasco County will continue to remain in Subdistrict 5-1 in the near future: Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, located in northwest Pasco County and Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, located in New Port Richey. Two are in eastern Pasco County, Subdistrict 5-2: Pasco Regional Medical Center in east central Pasco County, and FHZ, located in southeast Pasco. The fifth is Community/Trinity. No Need for Both Hospitals None of the parties contends there is need for both hospitals. Nor would such a contention be reasonable. Indeed, the record does not demonstrate need for both a new 80-bed community hospital as proposed by Pinellas-Pasco and a new 130- bed hospital that BayCare denominates a "teaching" hospital, each with an intended location on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in the Wesley Chapel area of southeastern Pasco County in Subdistrict 5-2. The question remains: is there a need for one new hospital? If so, which of the two applications, if either, should be approved? Need for a New Hospital; Access Enhancement Among the counties in the Tampa Bay area, Pasco County has been the fastest growing in recent years. From 1990 to 2000, its population grew 22.6%. Three times higher than the state average, this represents tremendous growth for any locale. The Wesley Chapel area of south Pasco County roughly coincides with the PSAs of the two applicants. Dramatic growth over the last 20 years has marked the Wesley Chapel area's transformation from an agricultural area to a suburban community. North of Hillsborough County and its largest city, Tampa, improvements in the transportation network has made south Pasco County and in particular, the Wesley Chapel area, a bedroom community for workers commuting to Tampa. Claritas, a national demographic data service, is a generally accepted population projection source for CON applications. Claritas projects the growth in Pasco County to continue. For example, the projected population for Pasco- Pinellas' proposed PSA, which substantially overlaps with BayCare's proposed PSA, is 113,397 in 2011 and 118,505 in 2012. The Claritas projections are based on the most recent decennial U.S. Census, that is, 2000, and do not take into account data of impending population growth, such as new housing starts and new schools. Claritas, therefore, may understate projections in areas that have experienced more recent, rapid growth. The University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR") also provides reliable population data by county. In the year 2000, the census for the Pasco County population was 344,765. By 2030, that population is projected by BEBR to grow to 526,100 based on low projections, 681,100 based on medium projections, and 876,900 based on high projections. For the high projection rate, this would constitute a 154% increase in population. Even assuming the low growth rate, the population would increase by 53%. According to BEBR data, the county can be expected to grow at a rate of 4.71% per year. Another source of population data relied upon by population experts is Demographics USA. The Demographics USA data shows a substantial growth in population for Pasco County. According to Demographics USA, the population for Pasco County can be expected to grow from 343,795 in the year 2000 to 440,527 in the year 2010 and then to 504,277 by the year 2015. Based on the Demographics USA data, the county can be expected to grow at a rate of 3.11% per year. The Wesley Chapel area is considered to be the area of Pasco County with the most development and development potential now and in the future. Of 175 major projects actively undergoing development in Pasco County, 76 are in the Wesley Chapel area. Between 2010 and 2012, the population in the area is projected to grow by 5,000 persons per year. With the increase in the general population in the area comes an expected increase in the need for schools. Of 37 schools identified by the Pasco County School Board to be built in the near future, 19 are to be located in the Wesley Chapel area. Whether the historic growth rate of the last few decades will continue for sure is an open question with the downturn in the economy and the housing market that commenced in Pasco County in mid-2007. Absent a major recession, however, it is reasonable to expect growth in the Wesley Chapel area to continue even if not at a rate as rapid as in the recent past. Whatever the future holds for Wesley Chapel's growth rate, there is clearly a demand for inpatient general acute care services in the Wesley Chapel area. The total non-tertiary discharges from the Pasco-Pinellas service area was 15,777, excluding newborns, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2006. As a result, AHCA found the existing and growing population in the Wesley Chapel area warranted a new hospital. Along with significant growth in the Wesley Chapel area comes resulting traffic and healthcare and hospital access issues. Drive time analysis shows the average drive time from each of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA six area zip codes to the eight area hospitals in 2007 to be 46.11 minutes. The analysis shows that future drive time is expected to be lengthier, strengthening the need for a hospital in the Wesley Chapel area. In 2012, the average time increase is expected to 57.68 minutes. A Drive Time Study Report prepared by Diaz Pearson & Associates compared drive times to the proposed site for Pasco- Pinellas hospital to eight existing hospitals: UCH, Pasco Regional, FHZ, Tampa General, University Community Hospital on Dale Mabry in Tampa, St. Joseph's North, St. Joseph's in Tampa, and the site for Community's replacement hospital. The study concluded: The results of this travel study demonstrate that the vehicular travel times for access to the proposed PPHCHS Hospital [Pasco- Pinellas' Hospital] are consistently LESS for residents within the six Zip codes of the Primary Service Area for years 2007, 2011, and 2012 than for comparable trips to any of the eight area hospitals for alternate choice. Pasco-Pinellas 36, p. 27. Of particular note are the travel times from each of the six zip codes in Pasco-Pinellas' PSA to UCH, FHZ, and Tampa General. For example, a patient driving from the centroid point in zip code 33559 to UCH would take 24.28 minutes and to FHZ would take 37.97 minutes in 2007. This increases to 29.55 minutes and 50.94 minutes in 2012. Another example, the time it takes a patient to travel from zip code 33541 to Tampa General was 75.51 minutes in 2007. In 2012, the travel time is projected to increase approximately 20 minutes to 95.33 minutes. In contrast, a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area would decrease travel times significantly for patients in the six zip code areas of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA. For example, in 2007, it would only take a zip code 33559 patient 11.41 minutes to reach the proposed site for Pasco-Pinellas. This represents a time savings of 12.87 minutes compared to the average driving time to UCH and 26.56 minutes compared to the average driving time to FHZ. In 2012, the reduction in time to drive to Pasco- Pinellas' proposed hospital site instead of UCH is 18.34 minutes and for FHZ, it is 39.53 minutes. The time savings for patients from the 33541 zip code traveling to Tampa General for non- tertiary services is even greater. Using Pasco-Pinellas' site in the Wesley Chapel area would save the patient 52.67 minutes in 2007 and is projected to save 63.88 minutes in 2012. Anecdotal evidence supports the need for a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area. Dr. Niraj Patel practices obstetrics and gynecology in the Wesley Chapel area. A drive for him in good traffic is typically 20 minutes to UCH (the only hospital at which he practices because the distance between area hospitals is too great). In morning traffic during "rush" periods, the drive can exceed 40 minutes. Caught in such a drive in January of 2008, Dr. Patel missed the delivery of a patient's baby. He was required to appear before the UCH Medical Staff's credentials committee to "explain the situation . . . [because it] was the third or fourth [such] episode." Pasco-Pinellas 47, p. 11. As Dr. Patel explained in a pre- hearing deposition, "it doesn't fare well for me . . . credential and requirement wise but it doesn't fare well for the patient [who] had to be delivered by the nursing staff which [without a physician present] increases patient risk and [the chance] of complication[s]." Id. A new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area will provide residents of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA or the BayCare PSA with shorter travel time to a hospital compared to the time necessary to reach one of the eight existing hospitals in the region. In 2007, residents of the six zip codes in the Pasco-Pinellas' PSA could be expected to access Pasco-Pinellas' proposed hospital in a range of 10.9 to 21.8 minutes. For the year 2012, the time can be reasonably predicted to range from 17 to 31.4 minutes. In comparison the drive times to the eight hospitals in the region for residents of Pasco-Pinellas' PSA are significantly longer. In 2007, it took a resident in zip code 34639 approximately 55 minutes to get to UCH and 73 minutes to get to St. Joseph's Tampa. By 2012, those drive times are reasonably projected to increase to 64 minutes and 83 minutes, respectively. Simply put, travel times are expected to increase as the population increases in coming years. The site of Pasco-Pinellas' hospital is approximately one mile from the site of the proposed BayCare hospital. The travel times suggested for the residents of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA to the proposed Pasco-Pinellas hospital can be expected to be similar to travel times to the proposed BayCare hospital. Given the proximity of the two proposed sites, either will significantly reduce travel time to hospitals for patients in the Wesley Chapel area. The existence in the Wesley Chapel area of a community hospital with an emergency room and primary inpatient services will benefit doctors, patients and their families. Heightened driving concerns among elderly patients and traffic congestion and inadequate roadways that delay Emergency Medical services support the need for a Wesley Chapel area hospital. The support is based not only on 2007 travel times but also on the reasonable expectation that travel time will be greater in the future. Existing hospitals are capable of absorbing the increased need for acute care hospital services that result from the increased growth that is reasonably projected to occur in Subdistrict 5-2. If there is to be a new hospital in the subdistrict, the Wesley Chapel area is the best location for it. A new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area will enhance access to acute care services for residents of Subdistrict 5-2. Preliminary Agency Action; the SAAR The Agency determined that there is a need for a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel Area when it issued its State Agency Action Report on CONs 9975 and 9977. The Agency also determined that between the two applications, Pasco-Pinellas was superior and should therefore be approved over BayCare's. This determination was founded primarily on Pasco-Pinellas' application being more reasonable in terms of size and impacts on existing providers. The Agency maintained at hearing the position it took in it preliminary action memorialized by the SAAR. Jeffrey Gregg, Chief of AHCA's Bureau of Health Facility Regulation received in this proceeding as an expert in health planning and CON Review explained when called to the stand to testify: The proposal by [Pasco-Pinellas] was on the smaller side and gave us more comfort [than BayCare's] . . . [W]hile we . . . agree with these applicants that there is a hospital in the future of [the Wesley Chapel area], we are more comfortable with the conservative approach, the smaller approach [of Pasco- Pinellas], particularly given that should it be necessary in the future, any hospital can add beds, acute care beds, merely by notifying us. And we were more comfortable that [Pasco-Pinellas'] approach would be able to expand access and improve services for people in this area while at the same time minimally impacting all of the competitors. Tr. 1995. As detailed below, AHCA's determination that the Pasco-Pinellas application is superior to BayCare's is supported by the record even if the basis for the determination made on the state of the record is not quite the same as the basis advanced at hearing by AHCA. Size and Cost Pasco-Pinellas proposed hospital involves about 184,000 square feet of new construction at a cost of approximately $121 million dollars. It is much smaller and less costly than BayCare's proposed hospital of 476,000 square feet of new construction for about $308 million. The Pasco-Pinellas proposal is more reasonably sized to meet the needs of the Wesley Chapel area and, in turn, Subdistrict 5-2. The difference in size and cost of the two proposals, however, is a function of a major difference in approach in the applications. Pasco-Pinellas' proposal is for a typical community hospital that would start out with a bed size within a range that includes 80 beds. BayCare, on the other hand, proposes to serve not only the Wesley Chapel area and Subdistrict 5-2, but also a substantial population of patients to be drawn to the subdistrict particularly from Hillsborough County. Patients migrating to the hospital from outside the subdistrict will for the most part be the product of BayCare's affiliation with USF Health and its service to the USF College of Medicine in its proposal denominated in the application as a "teaching hospital." Need for a New Teaching Hospital "Teaching hospital" is a term defined in the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes: "Teaching hospital" means any Florida hospital officially affiliated with an accredited Florida medical school which exhibits activity in the area of graduate medical education as reflected by at least seven different graduate medical education programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the Council of Postdoctoral Training of the American Osteopathic Association and the presence of 100 or more full-time equivalent resident physicians. The Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration shall be responsible for determining which hospital meets this definition. § 408.07(45), Fla. Stat. The Agency has not determined that BayCare's proposal meets the statutory definition as directed by the statute for it to qualify as a "teaching hospital." The record indicates that the proposal is not a typical teaching hospital. For example, teaching hospitals in the United States are usually located near indigent populations to achieve the efficiency of training future practitioners with treating people who otherwise could not afford services. BayCare's proposal in a small county with a more affluent population does not serve that purpose. BayCare contends neither that it is a "statutory" teaching hospital nor that it should be determined by the Agency to meet the statutory definition of "teaching hospital." Instead it grounds its case for need in the teaching functions its proposal would fulfill for USF Health and in particular for the GME needs of the students of the USF College of Medicine and the results those teaching functions would produce. Considerable testimony was offered by BayCare at hearing with regard to GME and the needs and aspirations of the USF College of Medicine. The Dean of the College, Stephen K. Klasko, M.D., spiritedly and eloquently related a narrative of need which was supported and amplified by other witnesses including faculty members at the college. There were many elements to the narrative. Highlights include the hybrid nature of the USF College of Medicine, "acting like a research intensive medical school . . . in a community-based body" (tr. 1132)," its on-going successful striving towards becoming an academic center for world class physicians as evidenced by this year's receipt of a research grant from the National Institute for Health, "the largest . . . given to a medical school in the last four or five years," id., and the GME challenges the college faces in the Tampa Bay area such as the recent loss of its anesthesiology residency program. BayCare's opponents point out the many ways in which the proposal is not only not a statutory teaching hospital but does not fit a nationwide model for teaching hospitals. BayCare counters that its model is one of many different models for a teaching facility. Whatever the merits of the various assertions of the parties on the point, USF's need for a teaching facility will be filled at least in part by the BayCare proposal. It is not an exaggeration, moreover, to call USF's need in this regard compelling. USF's institution-specific need, however, does not fall under any of the CON review criteria. See paragraphs 167- 8, below, in the Conclusions of Law. Perhaps not unmindful of the limits of the criteria, BayCare's presented other evidence that flows from the teaching function of the BayCare proposal. Relevant to the general criterion of "need" in subsection (1) of the Statutory CON Review Criteria, the evidence relates to physician shortages. The Physician Shortage There is a shortage of physicians in the district as there is in Pasco County. The problem has statewide dimensions. The state is not doing enough to replace aging doctors in Florida with younger doctors. Nor are aging doctors providing sufficient emergency room call coverage. The physician shortage both in general and in emergency rooms in the state is likely to increase. Residents are more likely to remain and practice in the community in which they train. Residents in the Tampa Bay area, in particular, are more likely to remain in the Tampa Bay area to practice. Even 20 residents per year in training at BayCare's proposed hospital would make a difference in existing physician shortages. Should BayCare's proposed hospital be built and operated as contemplated, the teaching functions that BayCare's application proposes to offer at the hospital would serve as a step, however small, toward meeting Florida's physician shortage as well as the shortage in District V, Pasco County, Subdistrict 5-2 and the Tampa Bay area. Nonetheless, there is a feature of this case that undermines BayCare's claim that the proposal will aid the physician shortage and its denomination in the application of the proposal as a "teaching hospital." The feature is present in the agreement between USF and BayCare (the "BayCare and USF Agreement) to make the BayCare proposed hospital a University Hospital. The BayCare and USF Agreement The BayCare and USF Agreement contains a section devoted to implementation and termination. The following is excerpted from the section's six separately numbered paragraphs: The Parties [the University of South Florida Board of Trustees or USF and BayCare Health System, Inc.] shall negotiate in good faith all other terms and conditions relating to the execution and implementation of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any revisions to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Hospital Corporation, the terms and conditions of the Health Affiliation Agreement, the design and layout of the University Hospital . . . [etc.] and such other documents and instruments as the Parties may find necessary or desirable to implement the terms of this Agreement. In the event the Parties are unable to agree on all such terms and conditions and all such documents required to implement the terms and provisions of this Agreement despite their good faith efforts to do so, either Party shall have the option after a period of at least twenty four months from the Effective Date or six months after the final approval of the Certificate of Need for the University Hospital is received, whichever is longer, to terminate this Agreement on the terms described in this [s]ection . . . . BayCare 2, Appendix C, BayCare and USF Agreement, Section G, p. 8. (Emphasis supplied.) For USF to terminate, the terms include payment to BayCare of $500,000 and agreement that for five years after termination it will not enter into an affiliation or other agreement with any other provider for the establishment of a university hospital in Pasco County. See id. The ability of USF to terminate the agreement is not "at will." It requires good faith efforts to have been made at implementations that fail to work. Furthermore, termination is not without consequences. But the termination provision in the agreement is consistent with the lack of a condition in BayCare's application that the BayCare proposal be a teaching hospital, "one more detail that made [AHCA officials] scratch our heads about the characterization of this hospital as a teaching hospital." Tr. 2011. It is also consistent with USF's support for "legislation that would be statewide that would allow state medical schools at some point, if they chose to, to make it easier . . . to have a hospital or research hospital on campus . . . [of which] USF would be one . . . " Tr. 1190-91. Adverse Impact Providers Outside the District Evidence was produced at hearing about the adverse impact of approval of either of the two applications on providers outside the district. Objections to the evidence were taken under advisement pending consideration of post-hearing memoranda submitted by the parties. Upon consideration of the memoranda, the objections are sustained. See paragraphs 159-66, below, in the Conclusions of Law. Providers Within the District The Pasco-Pinellas proposal will have minimal impact on Community/Trinity Medical Center. Its impact on other hospitals will be minimal with the exception of its two partner hospitals--UCH and FHZ--and of those two, only FHZ is in the District. There will be no adverse impact on Community as a result of the BayCare proposal. There is little patient flow from eastern Pasco to the western Pasco hospitals. Only about 1% of the patients in eastern Pasco travel west for services at Community, Morton Plant or Bayonet Point. It is reasonable to project that there will be no material change in Community's patient draw as a result of the new Trinity Medical Center. The projections by Community's health care and financial experts of patient days that would be lost and adverse financial impact to Community/Trinity should the BayCare proposal be approved were based on faulty assumptions. The majority of the adverse impact from BayCare's proposal, as in the case of Pasco-Pinellas' proposal, will be on UCH and FHZ. Availability of Resources Nursing and Non-Nursing Staff Pasco-Pinellas should be able to recruit and retain nursing and other staff for its hospital based on the Adventist experience at FHZ. The nursing vacancy at FHZ is 1% lower than the vacancy rate reported by the Florida Hospital Association (7.5% and 8.5%, respectively.) The turn-over rate for nurses at FHZ is 12%, significantly lower than the national rate in the 18-19% range. Recruitment of nurses has been successful at FHZ particularly in the last few years. In 2007, FHZ hired 100 nurses and reduced its use of agency nursing staff by roughly 75%. Among its different recruitment tactics have been a foreign nursing program, education and training incentives, scholarships at local colleges and specialty pay programs. Pasco-Pinellas will use many of the same recruiting techniques that have been successful at FHZ. It is reasonably anticipated that the same recruitment practices employed by FHZ will work for Pasco-Pinellas. Many members of the current nursing staff at FHZ, moreover, live in the Wesley Chapel area and have expressed an interest in working at Pasco-Pinellas. Retention programs at FHZ have been aimed at retaining better nurses. These include the magnet concept and a self- governance program with "a unit based council and nursing council so nurses . . . practicing . . . at the bedside have the opportunity to help govern the practice of nursing." Tr. 225-6. Retention programs similar to those used at FHZ will be implemented at Pasco-Pinellas. Schedule 6 in Pasco-Pinellas application reflects anticipated staffing for its new hospital. The staffing model is consistent with staffing at other Adventist facilities, specifically FHZ. The average salaries and wages are based on actual salaries inflated forward to the projected date of opening. The FTEs per adjusted occupied bed are adequate and consistent with the staffing patterns at FHZ. All necessary staffing positions are accounted for and the number of FTEs and salaries are sufficient for the hospital to operate and provide high quality of care. The registered nurse FTEs, as opposed to LPNs and lower-level nursing care, in Schedule 6 offer optimal staffing to provide high quality care and positive patient safety. The nursing salaries are adequate for the time frame in which Pasco-Pinellas will open with a one-time 5% increase and a 4% increase per year from present until opening. Schedule 6 supports the reasonable expectation that Pasco-Pinellas will be able to recruit and hire nursing staff and retain an adequate staff. The proposed staffing pattern in Schedule 6 of the Pasco-Pinellas application, which includes nursing staff, moreover, is reasonable. BayCare has a comprehensive recruitment program for recruiting and retaining nursing personnel as well. The strategies include a partnership with the nursing programs at USF and St. Petersburg College. BayCare System provides additional training to its nurses and with regard to salaries has committed to remaining competitive in the market. BayCare's recruitment and retention initiatives have been successful. In the 2008 year to date at the time of hearing, BayCare System had been able to hire more experienced nurses that it did in 2007 for the same time period. Overall, the BayCare System has a turnover rate of about 15%. The RN vacancy is 10% with a 13% turnover rate. These figures are comparable to state and national figures; in some cases they are lower. With regard to non-nursing employees or team members, BayCare System also had developed recruitment initiatives that are targeted toward those individuals. BayCare System has a positive reputation in the community as a good place to work. As an example, the three St. Joseph's hospitals (St. Joseph', Women's and Children's) and South Florida Baptist received recognition among the "Best Work Places in Health Care" for the years 2005 and 2006. The award recognizes outstanding practices related to employees. BayCare has the ability to recruit and retain the staff necessary to staff the proposed BayCare SE Pasco hospital. The staffing projections in Schedule 6 of BayCare's application, which includes nursing staff, are reasonable. Physician Support Despite the physician shortage, both applicants should be able to adequately staff their hospitals with physicians as shown by the evidence with regard to physician support for the hospitals. Florida Medical Clinic (FMC), a multi-specialty physician group practice with 85 physicians, is the primary physician group that serves the Wesley Chapel area. Thirty percent of its members are family practitioners or specialists in internal medicine. The remainder of the members cover 20 or so specialties that include both secondary and tertiary specialties. FMC has determined that it will support the Pasco- Pinellas proposal through its physicians, admissions and outpatients activity. Ninety percent or more of the clinic's patients use the UCH and FHZ facilities. FMC has a long- standing relationship with the administrators, personnel, and strategic issues of FHZ and UCH and is comfortable developing future plans for a hospital facility in Wesley Chapel with the two organizations FMC is able to meet the needs of the Wesley Chapel community both today and in the future. In addition, there are numerous other individual physicians who practice in the Wesley Chapel area who "predominantly support University Community Medical Center and Florida Hospital in Zephyrhills." Tr. 63. Having relationships with physicians already in a market when a hospital is being developed is advantageous to the new hospital. Among other advantages, it minimizes resources used to recruit and move new physicians into the area. In contrast to support for the Pasco-Pinellas proposal, FMC has not made a commitment to BayCare as to its proposal because of lack of knowledge about the structure of the facility, its strategic plans and whether or not FMC's interests align with the BayCare proposal but it has not foreclosed such a commitment. The USF physicians group will be a source of many of the physicians who will staff the BayCare proposed hospital, a likely reason for FMC's lukewarm to non-existing support for BayCare's proposal. USF emergency physicians will staff the Emergency Department. The BayCare System has approximately 28 physicians with privileges at BayCare System facilities with offices in the Wesley Chapel area. The proposed BayCare hospital will be staffed by recruited physicians and USF faculty physicians. Other physicians from the Wesley Chapel area provided testimony of their support for the BayCare proposal. It is reasonable to anticipate that some local Wesley Chapel area physicians will join the medical staff of the proposed BayCare hospital. Despite the physician shortages in the subdistrict, District V and the Tampa Bay area, both Pasco-Pinellas and BayCare will be able to staff their hospitals adequately with physicians. Charity and Medicaid; Conditions Pasco-Pinellas committed to a number of conditions of its applications. These include a 12.6% commitment to charity and Medicaid; the establishment of funding for a clinic for the underserved, provision of educational programs for the community, and two neonatal transports and funding for local fire and rescue services. BayCare projects a 6.1% level of charity care, 2.4% higher than Pasco-Pinellas' charity care commitment. It projects 10.3% of its Medicaid and Medicaid HMO patients will be attributable to Medicaid and Medicaid HMO patients versus 8.9% at Pasco-Pinellas. BayCare System has a history of providing services to Medicaid and Charity Patients. In 2006, for example, as not- for-profit entities, BayCare System facilities and related entities provided a total community benefit of $135 million in uncompensated care. Approximately 50% was pure charity care. BayCare System facilities currently serve patients from the Wesley Chapel area, including, of course, Medicaid and charity patients. BayCare System facilities provide 57% of the charity care and 31% of the Medicaid in the market. St. Joseph's Children's Hospital and St. Joseph's Women's Hospital operate at approximately 50-to-60% Medicaid and un-reimbursed care. St. Joseph's Hospital currently serves approximately 20% of the patients from the Wesley Chapel area. St. Joseph's, however, provides 36% of the total charity, Medicaid, and Medicaid HMO care rendered to patients who reside in the Wesley Chapel area. Thus, the facilities within the BayCare System have a demonstrated track record of providing care without regard to a patient's resources. In light of the record, it is reasonable to expect BayCare to carry on in the same vein under the BayCare proposal. Utilization Schedule 5 relates to projected utilization after project completion. The projections in the schedule in Pasco- Pinellas' application were developed by looking at service area population, applying a use rate growth and taking a market share by individual zip code. They are based on the expectation that the hospital would be operating at approximately 70% occupancy in its third year of operation, which equates to an average census of approximately 56 patients. The assumptions contained in the schedule are reasonable. The utilization projections in Schedule 5 in Pasco- Pinellas' application are reasonable; they indicate that an 80- bed hospital is appropriate to meet the need for a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area of the subdistrict. BayCare will able to achieve its projected utilization from its primary service area and from the 40% of its patients it expects to receive by way of in-migration. The population forecast and market share forecast for the primary service area are reasonable. While the support among local physicians is much stronger for the Pasco-Pinellas proposal, it is likely that they will admit patients to the BayCare proposed hospital since it will be in the Wesley Chapel area, the area of the subdistrict that is most suitable for a new hospital. The 40% projected in-migration from outside of the seven mile service area is a reasonable projection. It is reasonable to expect that the bulk of these admissions will come from USF physicians located at the USF north Hillsborough campus. Projected Revenues Schedule 7A governs projected revenues. The payor mix in Schedule 7A of Pasco-Pinellas' application is based on historic admission and patient days by payor class occurring in the proposed Pasco-Pinellas service area based on the most recent available AHCA data. Gross charges and net revenues were developed based on historical data from FHZ as reported to AHCA. These figures were inflated forward using a net increase over all in revenue payments of approximately 3%. The projected revenues including net revenues in Schedule 7A of Pasco- Pinellas' application are reasonable and consistent with the marketplace. The payor mix in BayCare's Schedule 7A was based on an analysis of patient discharge data from the proposed primary service area plus an analysis of the experience of other BayCare System facilities in the same market. It is a reasonable payor mix. It allows for consideration of the experience of BayCare System, including the high level of charity care and Medicaid and Medicaid HMO services and at the same time reflects that the Wesley Chapel area is more affluent and younger than other areas of Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. BayCare's revenue assumptions were based on an analysis of gross and net revenue per patient day from another BayCare System facility, South Florida Baptist. Financial class specific projected patient days were applied to derive a gross and net revenue number for each of the three pro forma years for the proposed project denominated by Schedule 7A as "Projected Operating Year 1, 2 and 3" and ending "12/31/11, 12/31/12 and 12/31/13" respectively as indicated by BayCare in the application. See BayCare 2, pp. 133-135. The 2006 South Florida Baptist gross and net revenue per patient day were trended forward for each of the three projected operating years to reach the projected revenue figures in Schedule 7A. The projected revenues in Schedule 7A of the BayCare application are reasonable. Projected Income and Expenses Schedule 8A in a CON application contains projected income and expenses for the proposal. Pasco-Pinellas' application used a methodology in Schedule 8 that its expert had used in other CON cases. The methodology is consistent with methodologies of other health care experts and has been accepted in recommended and final orders in CON cases. The projections in Schedule 8 of Pasco-Pinellas' application are appropriate and reasonable. BayCare's methodology used to project income and expenses in Schedule 8A is also appropriate and reasonable. BayCare's healthcare finance expert asked BayCare financial analysts to look at his initial projections. They recommended that expenses be increased in physical therapy, radiology lab and pharmacy and that expense be reduced in plant operations. The recommendations were accepted; the projections were adjusted. Medicare GME reimbursement in year 3 of operations was assumed to be $1.7 million. If no addition Medicare GME reimbursement were received, BayCare's proposal would still show a profit of $2.8 million by year 3. It is virtually certain, moreover, that some portion of the $1.7 million included in calculation of BayCare's income projections will be realized. However valid criticism of the inclusion of the $1.7 million, BayCare's proposal remains financially feasible in the long- term. Financial Feasibility Pasco-Pinellas proved the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposal. The schedules in its application related to financial feasibility used reasonable methodologies that yielded reasonable projections. Analysis of capital costs and funding is contained in Schedules 1 through 3. Schedule 1 presents an accurate summation of total project cost. That figure, $121 million, is a reasonable and typical cost for a new 80-bed community hospital. The $149 million on Schedule 2 reflects an accurate summation of anticipated capital costs, including the hospital project and necessary capital expenditures for the first tow or three years of operation. Schedule 3 set forth the sources of funding, a combination of equity and debt financing, discussed below. Both UCH and Adventist are financially successful systems. They will have not difficulty funding the Pasco- Pinellas proposal. As of December 31, 2007, Adventist's net revenue was approximately $368 million. About $100 million in funds were available to UCH at the time of hearing to contribute to development of the project. Due to the financial strength of its members, Pasco- Pinellas will easily be able to fund the project through a combination of equity and debt. The equity, $45 million, will be provided equally by Adventist and UCH, $22.5 million each. The remaining $76 million will be financed through tax-free bonds issued by Ziegler Securities. The project is immediately financially feasible. The Pasco-Pinellas project is also financially feasible in the long-term. Schedule 8 in the application, year 3, shows the project will generate a return of approximately $5.3 million in revenue over expenses, an amount that "more than meet[s] the test for financial feasibility in the long-term." Id. Based on the sources of BayCare System, BayCare has access to the financial resources to implement its proposed hospital. Funding for the hospital will come from BayCare System on the basis of 50% debt and 50% equity investment. As of early 2008, BayCare System had approximately $1.2 billion in unrestricted cash on hand. BayCare System's financial strength will allow BayCare to obtain the financing it needs for the project. Schedule 3 of the BayCare application sets forth an accurate and reasonable statement of the sources of funds necessary to develop the project. The immediate financial feasibility of BayCare's proposal is demonstrated by the evidence presented by BayCare. By year three of the pro forma, the BayCare proposal is reasonably projected to generate a net income over expenses in the amount of $4,498,637. BayCare demonstrated that the proposal's long-term financial feasibility. Costs and Construction Methods The costs and methods of the proposed construction of the Pasco-Pinellas project are reasonable. The facility is adequately sized and programmed for the services included in the Pasco-Pinellas application. All of the departments, including central storage, fall within an appropriate benchmark range for community hospitals. The 2,300 square feet per bed is reasonable as are the construction costs when compared to similar community hospitals. The proposed Pasco-Pinellas facility meets the codes for all of the services included in the application. The design of the Pasco-Pinellas facility enable expansion. The designed expansion capabilities are reasonable, logical and appropriate to meet the needs of the Wesley Chapel community. The drawings contained in the CON application show an efficient community hospital. The departments allow for efficient intra-department circulation and department-to- department circulation. There are adequate separation of public and staff flow corridors. All of the areas and departments as shown in the Pasco-Pinellas plans are code compliant. The layout of the patient rooms is consistent with industry standards for the design of single patient rooms. The number and size of the operating rooms are adequate and appropriate for an 80-bed community hospital not offering tertiary services. The emergency department, including the trauma room, complies with code and its layout is adequate and appropriate for an 80-bed hospital. The ambulance entrance in relation to the trauma bay allows for efficient location of patients based on acuity level. The number of treatment beds, treatment bays, including observation areas, provide adequate emergency department capacity. The Schedule 1 costs set forth in the BayCare application are reasonable. These costs include projected costs associated with necessary medical equipment. The medical equipment costs set forth in Schedule 1 are reasonable and BayCare has properly accounted for the items and costs of equipment necessary to operate the hospital. The Schedule 9 construction costs of approximately $180 million are reasonable as are the construction costs per square foot ($347 versus $325 for Pasco-Pinellas). Contingencies and escalation factors have been built into the projected costs. Facilities, Sites, Related Costs At the time the UCH and Adventist joint venture was formed, UCH had a parcel of land under contract located on State Road 54 across from the Saddlebrook Resort (the "UCH Parcel"). When it filed its application, Pasco-Pinellas hoped the UCH Parcel would serve as the site of its hospital. In fact, Pasco- Pinellas touted the location of the parcel for meeting the need of the growing population in Pasco County when it represented in the application that the UCH Parcel is the center point of the Wesley Chapel area. Close to Interstate 75, the UCH Parcel is a good location for a hospital. Pasco-Pinellas' aspiration for the use of the parcel was defeated, however, when the Pasco County denied a request to re-zone the UCH Parcel for use as a hospital. After the inability to have the UCH Parcel re-zoned, Pasco-Pinellas changed the site for the hospital to a parcel owned by FHZ (the "Pasco-Pinellas Site"). Located on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, a major north-south corridor in the Wesley Chapel area, the site is 51.5 acres. The Pasco-Pinellas Site had been purchased by FHZ in 2001 with the intention of using it for a hospital. Subject to a height variance to allow a seven-story building, the site is zoned for special use as a hospital and related medical uses. The site has good visibility and access from Bruce B. Downs Boulevard as evidenced by its compliance with the State Road 581 (Bruce B. Downs Boulevard) access management plan. It meets other regulatory requirements such as the minimum spacing criteria for Pasco County. The Pasco-Pinellas Site is governed by a development order associated with the Wiregrass Ranch Development of Regional Impact (the "Wiregrass DRI DO"). The Wiregrass DRI DO "indicates that the phasing schedule assumed 100 hospital beds would be developed within the building phase." Tr. 597. As explained at hearing by Lara Daly, Pasco-Pinellas' expert in civil engineering and property site development, there are other aspects of the Wiregrass DRI DO, "like trade-off matrices" and "entitlement advancements" that indicate "entitlements are not limited on a parcel-by-parcel basis." Tr. 598. The assumption, therefore, does not necessarily restrict the number of hospital beds on the Pasco-Pinellas Site; rather it allows impacts associated with 100 hospital beds. The number of allowable beds may be increased following action taken under other provisions of the Wiregrass DRI DO. A significant portion of the Pasco-Pinellas Site is wetlands: some of low quality, some of high quality. The higher quality wetlands, referred to in the record as "a high quality category 1 wetland as defined by Pasco County," tr. 552, (the "Category 1 Wetland") are on the north and east perimeter of the site. The project is designed so as to have no impacts on the Category 1 Wetland. The only potential impact to these high quality wetlands is if there were a county-mandated road to be built in their vicinity. The lesser quality wetlands located in the interior of the site are herbaceous in nature or an open water feature that is "an older borrow pit that naturalized over time." Tr. 552-53. These lower quality wetlands constitute roughly 11.5 acres of the site. They will be impacted by the project but it is reasonable to expect that the impacts will be permitted. As Ms. Daly put it at hearing, "[a]fter reviewing, running stormwater models, looking at the proposed wetland impacts, coming up with appropriate mitigation ratios based on our experience elsewhere on the Wiregrass site, the site will accommodate all the necessary wetland and floodplain historic basin compensation . . . ." Tr. 550. The costs contained in Schedule 1 of the application were arrived assuming the use of the UCH Parcel as the site for the Pasco-Pinellas project. The Pasco-Pinellas Site requires expenditures for site preparation and other expenditures, such as wetland mitigation, related to the site that were not required had the UCH Parcel been used. For example, three potential foundation systems have been suggested for the hospital because of the wetland and subsurface conditions on the Pasco-Pinellas Site had the UCH Parcel been the site. Using the most expensive of the three, however, would not cause Pasco- Pinellas to exceed the construction costs contained in Schedule 1 of the CON Application. The land acquisition costs were reasonably projected to be less for the Pinellas-Pasco Site than for the UCH Parcel as reflected in the application. All told, the estimated project cost using the Pasco-Pinellas site was not materially different from the cost projected in the application and presented the possibility of being less than the $121 million reflected in the application. Likewise, the equipment cost figure shown in Schedule 1 of the Pasco-Pinellas application is reasonable and achievable. The total of the costs for the project sited at the Pasco-Pinellas Site, despite the change of site that occurred after the filing of the application, should not exceed the total of the costs listed in the Pasco-Pinellas application. The preponderance of the evidence is that the Pasco- Pinellas Site should ultimately qualify as an appropriate, developable site for the Pasco-Pinellas project. The BayCare site, north of Highway 56 and bordering I-75, (the "BayCare Site") includes two parcels of 54 and 17 acres. The 54 contiguous acres will be used for the hospital, outpatient services, and a planned medical office building. The 17 acres will be used for research space, physician office space, and academic training space necessary for the research and education function at the project. BayCare has the appropriate zoning and approvals necessary to develop the hospital. The hospital will have all private beds. It will be fully digital and will rely on electronic medical records. The BayCare Site is well suited for construction of the hospital and related buildings. The available footprint and design of the hospital, which includes shelled-in space, will readily allow for future expansion of the hospital up to 300 beds. Design of the BayCare facility is based on principles of family-centered care, flexibility to allow for change and future growth, efficiency, a quality of environment for teaching, a sustainable, green building, and patient safety. A "health building" with improved environmental quality and energy efficiency, the facility will seek LEED certification given to facilities constructed to have minimal adverse environmental impact. In keeping with the teaching function intended by the application, the facility's design includes additional work space, reading areas, sleep areas and conference rooms to facilitate teaching. Overall, the BayCare facility is twice as large as the Pasco-Pinellas facility. Size has its advantages. For example, it allows for larger treatment patient areas. But the facility is much more expensive to build. It is reasonably projected to cost more than $180 million above the costs associated with the Pasco-Pinellas facility which is more than twice as much. The high expense associated with the BayCare facility is shown by its cost per bed: in excess of $2 million-- much more than the cost per bed of the Pasco-Pinellas facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration approve CON 9975, Pasco-Pinellas' application for a new hospital in AHCA Subdistrict 5-2, and deny CON 9977, BayCare's application for a new hospital in the same subdistrict. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 28th day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karin M. Byrne, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone, Koda & Frook, P.A. 1001 Avenida Del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) should grant Hospice Integrated’s Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 8406 to establish a hospice program in AHCA Service Area 7B, CON Application No. 9407 filed by Wuesthoff, both applications, or neither application.
Findings Of Fact Hospice Hospice is a special way of caring for patients who are facing a terminal illness, generally with a prognosis of less than six months. Hospice provides a range of services available to the terminally ill and their families that includes physical, emotional, and spiritual support. Hospice is unique in that it serves both the patient and family as a unit of care, with care available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for persons who are dying. Hospice provides palliative rather than curative or life- prolonging care. To be eligible for hospice care, a patient must have a prognosis of less than six months to live. When Medicare first recognized hospice care in 1983, more than 90% of hospice cases were oncology patients. At that time, there was more information available to establish a prognosis of six months or less for these patients. Since that time, the National Hospice Organization (“NHO”) has established medical guidelines which determine the prognosis for many non-cancer diseases. This tool may now be used by physicians and hospice staff to better predict which non- cancer patients are eligible for hospice care. There is no substitute for hospice. Nothing else does all that hospice does for the terminally ill patient and the patient’s family. Nothing else can be reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid for all hospice services. However, hospice must be chosen by the patient, the patient’s family and the patient’s physician. Hospice is not chosen for all hospice-eligible patients. Palliative care may be rejected, at least for a time, in favor of aggressive curative treatment. Even when palliative care is accepted, hospice may be rejected in favor of home health agency or nursing home care, both of which do and get reimbursed for some but not all of what hospice does. Sometimes the choice of a home health agency or nursing home care represents the patient’s choice to continue with the same caregivers instead of switching to a new set of caregivers through a hospice program unrelated to the patient’s current caregivers. There also is evidence that sometimes the patient’s nursing home or home health agency caregivers are reluctant, unfortunately sometimes for financial reasons, to facilitate the initiation of hospice services provided by a program unrelated to the patient’s current caregivers. Existing Hospice in Service Area 7B There are two existing hospice providers in Service Area 7B, which covers Orange County and Osceola County: Vitas Healthcare Corporation of Central Florida (Vitas); and Hospice of the Comforter (Comforter). Vitas Vitas began providing services in Service Area 7B when it acquired substantially all of the assets of Hospice of Central Florida (HCF). HCF was founded in 1976 as a not-for-profit organization and became Medicare-certified in 1983. It remained not-for-profit until the acquisition by Vitas. In a prior batching cycle, HCF submitted an application for a CON for an additional hospice program in Service Area 7B under the name Tricare. While HCF also had other reasons for filing, the Tricare application recognized the desirability, if not need, to package hospice care for and make it more palatable and accessible to AIDS patients, the homeless and prisoners with AIDS. HCF later withdrew the Tricare application, but it continued to see the need to better address the needs of AIDS patients in Service Area 7B. In 1994, HCF began looking for a “partner” to help position it for future success. The process led to Vitas. Vitas is the largest provider of hospice in the United States. Nationwide, it serves approximately 4500 patients a day in 28 different locations. Vitas is a for-profit corporation. Under a statute grandfathering for-profit hospices in existence on or before July 1, 1978, Vitas is the only for-profit corporation authorized to provide hospice care in Florida. See Section 400.602(5), Fla. Stat. (1995). HCF evaluated Vitas for compatibility with HCF’s mission to provide quality hospice services to medically appropriate patients regardless of payor status, age, gender, national origin, religious affiliation, diagnosis or sexual orientation. Acquisition by Vitas also would benefit the community in ways desired by HCF. Acquisition by Vitas did not result in changes in policy or procedure that limit or delay access to hospice care. Vitas was able to implement staffing adjustments already contemplated by HCF to promote efficiencies while maintaining quality. Both HCF and Vitas have consistently received 97% satisfaction ratings from patients’ families, and 97% good-to- excellent ratings from physicians. Initially, Vitas’ volunteer relations were worse than the excellent volunteer relations that prevailed at HCF. Many volunteers were disappointed that Vitas was a for-profit organization, protested the proposed Vitas acquisition, and quit after the acquisition. Most of those who quit were not involved in direct patient care, and some have returned after seeing how Vitas operates. Vitas had approximately 1183 hospice admissions in Service Area 7B in 1994, and 1392 in 1995. Total admissions in Service Areas 7B and 7C (Seminole County) for 1995 were 1788. Comforter Hospice of the Comforter began providing hospice care in 1990. Comforter is not-for-profit. Like Vitas, it admits patients regardless of payor status. Comforter admitted approximately 100 patients from Service Area 7B in 1994, and 164 in 1995. Total admissions in Service Areas 7B and 7C for 1995 were 241. For 1996, Comforter was expected to approach 300 total admissions (in 7B and 7C), and total admissions may reach 350 admissions in the next year or two. As Comforter has grown, it has developed the ability to provide a broader spectrum of services and has improved programs. Comforter provides outreach and community education as actively as possible for a smaller hospice. Comforter does not have the financial strength of Vitas. It maintains only about a two-month fiscal reserve. Fixed Need Pool On February 2, 1996, AHCA published a fixed need pool (FNP) for hospice programs in the July 1997 planning horizon. Using the need methodology for hospice programs in Florida found in F.A.C. Rule 59C-1.0355 (“the FNP rule”), the AHCA determined that there was a net need for one additional hospice program in Service Area 7B. As a result of the dismissal of Vitas’ FNP challenge, there is no dispute as to the validity of the FNP determination. Other Need Considerations Despite the AHCA fixed need determination, Vitas continues to maintain that there is no need for an additional hospice program in Service Area 7B and that the addition of a hospice program would adversely impact the existing providers. Essentially, the FNP rule compares the projected need for hospice services in a district using district use rates with the projected need using statewide utilization rates. Using this rule method, it is expected that there will be a service “gap” of 470 hospice admissions for the applicable planning horizon (July, 1997, through June, 1988). That is, 470 more hospice admissions would be expected in Service Area 7B for the planning horizon using statewide utilization rates. The rule fixes the need for an additional hospice program when the service “gap” is 350 or above. It is not clear why 350 was chosen as the “gap” at which the need for a new hospice program would be fixed. The number was negotiated among AHCA and existing providers. However, the evidence was that 350 is more than enough admissions to allow a hospice program to benefit from the efficiencies of economy of scale enough to finance the provision for enhanced hospice services. These benefits begin to accrue at approximately 200 admissions. Due to population growth and the aging of the population in Service Area 7B, this “gap” is increasing; it already had grown to 624 when the FNP was applied to the next succeeding batching cycle. Vitas’ argument ignores the conservative nature of several aspects of the FNP rule. It uses a static death rate, whereas death rates in Service Area 7B actually are increasing. It also uses a static age mix, whereas the population actually is aging in Florida, especially in the 75+ age category. It does not take into account expected increases in the use of hospice as a result of an environment of increasing managed health care. It uses statewide conversion rates (percentage of dying patients who access hospice care), whereas conversion rates are higher in nearby Service Area 7A. Finally, the statewide conversions rates used in the rule are static, whereas conversion rates actually are increasing statewide. Vitas’ argument also glosses over the applicants’ evidence that the addition of a hospice program, by its mere presence, will increase awareness of the hospice option in 7B (regardless whether the new entrant improves upon the marketing efforts of the existing providers), and that increased awareness will result in higher conversion rates. It is not clear why utilization in Service Area 7B is below statewide utilization. Vitas argued that it shows the opposite of what the rule says it shows—i.e., that there is no need for another hospice program since the existing providers are servicing all patients who are choosing hospice in 7B. Besides being a thinly-veiled (and, in this proceeding, illegal) challenge to the validity of the FNP rule, Vitas’ argument serves to demonstrate the reality that, due to the nature of hospice, existing providers usually will be able to expand their programs as patients increasingly seek hospice so that, if consideration of the ability of existing providers to fill growing need for hospice could be used to overcome the determination of a FNP under the FNP rule, there may never be “need” for an additional program. Opting against such an anti-competitive rule, the Legislature has required and AHCA has crafted a rule that allows for the controlled addition of new entrants into the competitive arena. Vitas’ argument was based in part on the provision of “hospice-like” services by VNA Respite Care, Inc. (VNA), through its home health agency. Vitas argued that Service Area 7B patients who are eligible for hospice are choosing VNA’s Hope and Recovery Program. VNA’s program does not offer a choice from, or alternative to, hospice. Home health agencies do not provide the same services as hospice programs. Hospice care can be offered as the patient’s needs surface. A home health agency must bill on a cost per visit basis. If they exceed a projected number of visits, they must explain that deviation to Medicare. A home health agency, such as VNA, offers no grief or bereavement services to the family of a patient. In addition to direct care of the patient, hospice benefits are meant to extend to the care of the family. Hospice is specifically reimbursed for offering this important care. Hospice also receives reimbursement to provide medications relevant to terminal illnesses and durable medical equipment needed. Home health agencies do not get paid for, and therefore do not offer, these services. It is possible that VNA’s Hope and Recovery Program may be operating as a hospice program without a license. The marketing materials used by VNA inaccurately compare and contrast the medical benefits available for home health agencies to those available under a hospice program. The marketing material of VNA also inappropriately identify which patients are appropriate for hospice care. VNA’s Hope and Recovery Program may help explain lower hospice utilization in Service Area 7B. Indeed, the provision of hospice-like services by a non-hospice licensed provider can indicate an unmet need in Service Area 7B. The rule does not calculate an inventory of non-hospice care offered by non-hospice care providers. Instead, the rule only examines actual hospice care delivered by hospice programs. The fact that patients who would benefit from hospice services are instead receiving home health agency services may demonstrate that existing hospice providers are inadequately educating the public of the advantages of hospice care. Rather than detract from the fixed need pool, VNA’s provision of “hospice-like” services without a hospice license may be an indication that a new hospice provider is needed in Service Area 7B. Although a home-health agency cannot function as a hospice provider, the two can work in conjunction. They may serve as a referral base for one another. This works most effectively when both programs are operated by the same owner who understands the very different services each offers and who has no disincentive to refer a patient once their prognosis is appropriate for hospice. The Hospice Integrated Application Integrated Health Services, Inc. (IHS), was founded in the mid-1980’s to establish an alternative to expensive hospital care. Since that time it has grown to offer more than 200 long term care facilities throughout the country including home health agencies, rehabilitative agencies, pharmacy companies, durable medical equipment companies, respiratory therapy companies and skilled nursing facilities. To complete its continuum of care, IHS began to add hospice to offer appropriate care to patients who no longer have the ability to recover. IHS is committed to offering hospice care in all markets where it already has an established long-term care network. IHS entered the hospice arena by acquiring Samaritan Care, an established program in Illinois, in late 1994. Within a few months, IHS acquired an additional hospice program in Michigan. Each of these hospice programs had a census in the thirties at the time of the final hearing. In May of 1996, IHS acquired Hospice of the Great Lakes. Located in Chicago, this hospice program has a census range from 150 to 180. In combination, IHS served approximately 350 hospice patients in 1995. In Service Area 7B, IHS has three long-term care facilities: Central Park Village; IHS of Winter Park; and IHS of Central Park at Orlando. Together, they have 443 skilled nursing beds. One of these—Central Park Village—has established an HIV spectrum program, one of the only comprehensive HIV care programs in Florida. When the state determined that there was a need for an additional hospice program in Service Area 7B, IHS decided to seek to add hospice care to the nursing home and home health companies it already had in the area. Since Florida Statutes require all new hospice programs in Florida to be established by not-for-profit corporations (with Vitas being the only exception), IHS formed Hospice Integrated Health Services of District VII-B (Hospice Integrated), a not- for-profit corporation, to apply for a hospice certificate of need. IHS would be the management company for the hospice program and charge a 4% management fee to Hospice Integrated, although the industry standard is 6%-7%. Although a for-profit corporation, IHS plans for the 4% fee to just cover the costs of the providing management services. IHS believes that the benefits to its health care delivery system in Service Area 7B will justify not making a profit on the hospice operation. However, the management agreement will be reevaluated and possibly adjusted if costs exceed the management fee. In return for this management fee, IHS would offer Hospice Integrated its policy and procedure manuals, its programs for bereavement, volunteer programs, marketing tools, community and educational tools and record keeping. IHS would also provide accounting, billing, and human resource services. Perhaps the most crucial part of the management fee is the offer of the services of Regional Administrator, Marsha Norman. She oversees IHS’ programs in Illinois and Missouri. Ms. Norman took the hospice program at Hospice of the Great Lakes from a census of 40 to 140. This growth occurred in competition with 70 other hospices in the same marketplace. While at Hospice of the North Shore, Ms. Norman improved census from 12 to 65 in only eight months. Ms. Norman helped the Lincolnwood hospice program grow from start up to a census of 150. Ms. Norman has indicated her willingness and availability to serve in Florida if Hospice Integrated’s proposal is approved. IHS and Ms. Norman are experienced in establishing interdisciplinary teams, quality assurance programs, and on-going education necessary to provide state of the art hospice care. Ms. Norman also has experience establishing specialized programs such as drumming therapy, music therapy for Alzheimer patients and children’s bereavement groups. Ms. Norman has worked in pediatric care and understands the special needs of these patients. Ms. Norman’s previous experience also includes Alzheimer’s care research conducted in conjunction with the University of Chicago regarding the proper time to place an Alzheimer patient in hospice care. Through its skilled nursing facilities in Service Area 7B, IHS has an existing working relationship with a core group of physicians who are expected to refer patients to the proposed Hospice Integrated hospice. Although its skilled nursing homes account for only six percent of the total beds in Service Area 7B, marketing and community outreach efforts are planned to expand the existing referral sources if the application is approved. IHS’ hospices are members of the NHO. They are not accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO). Hospice Integrated would serve pediatric patients. However, IHS’ experience in this area is limited to a pilot program to offer pediatric hospice care in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, and there is little reason to believe that Hospice Integrated would place a great deal of emphasis on this aspect of hospice care. The Hospice Integrated application proposes to provide required grief support but does not include any details for the provision of grief support groups, resocialization groups, grief support volunteers, or community grief support or education activities. In its application, Hospice Integrated has committed to five percent of its care for HIV patients, 40% for non-cancer patients, ten percent for Medicaid patients, and five percent indigent admissions. These commitments also are reflected in Hospice Integrated’s utilization projections. At the same time, it is only fair to note that IHS does not provide any charity care at any of its Service Area 7B nursing home facilities. The Hospice Integrated application includes provision for all four levels of hospice care—home care (the most common), continuous care, respite care and general inpatient. The latter would be provided in one of the IHS skilled nursing home facilities when possible. It would be necessary to contract with an inpatient facility for acute care inpatient services. The federal government requires that five percent of hospice care in a program be offered by volunteers. With a projected year one census of 30, Hospice Integrated would only require 3-4 volunteers to meet federal requirements, and its year one pro forma reflects this level of use of volunteers. However, Hospice Integrated hopes to exceed federally mandated minimum numbers of volunteers. The IHS hospice programs employ volunteers from all aspects of the community, including family of deceased former hospice patients. Contrary to possible implications in the wording of materials included in the Hospice Integrated application, IHS does not approach the latter potential volunteers until after their bereavement has ended. The Wuesthoff Application Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. (Wuesthoff) is a not- for profit corporation whose sole corporate member is Wuesthoff Health Systems, Inc. (Wuesthoff Systems). Wuesthoff Systems also is the sole corporate member of Wuesthoff’s two sister corporations, Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Inc. (Wuesthoff Hospital) and Wuesthoff Health Systems Foundation, Inc. (Wuesthoff Foundation). Wuesthoff Hospital operates a 303-bed acute care hospital in Brevard County. Brevard County comprises AHCA Service Area 7A, and it is adjacent and to the east of Service Area 7B. Wuesthoff Hospital provides a full range of health care services including open heart surgical services, a Level II neonatal intensive care unit and two Medicare-certified home health agencies, one located in Brevard and the other in Indian River County, the county immediate to the south of Brevard. Wuesthoff Foundation serves as the fundraising entity for Wuesthoff Systems and its components. Wuesthoff currently operates a 114-bed skilled nursing facility which includes both long-term and short-term sub-acute beds, as well as a home medical equipment service. Wuesthoff also operates a hospice program, Brevard Hospice, which has served Brevard County residents since 1984. Over the years, it has grown to serve over 500 patients during 1995. Essentially, Wuesthoff’s application reflects an intention to duplicate its Brevard Hospice operation in Service Area 7B. It would utilize the expertise of seven Brevard Hospice personnel currently involved in the day-to-day provision of hospice services, including its Executive Director, Cynthia Harris Panning, to help establish its proposed new hospice in 7B. Wuesthoff has been a member of the NHO since the inception of its hospice program. It also had its Brevard Hospice accredited by JCAHO in 1987, in 1990 and in March, 1996. As a not-for-profit hospice, Wuesthoff has a tradition of engaging in non-compensated hospice services that benefit the Brevard community. Wuesthoff’s In-Touch Program provides uncompensated emotional support through telephone and in-person contacts for patients with a life-threatening illness who, for whatever reason, are not ready for hospice. (Of course, Wuesthoff is prepared to receive compensation for these patients when and if they choose hospice.) Wuesthoff’s Supportive Care program provides uncompensated nursing and psychosocial services by hospice personnel for patients with life-threatening illnesses with life expectancies of between six months and two years. (These services are rendered in conjunction with home health care, which may be compensated, and Wuesthoff is prepared to receive compensation for the provision of hospice services for these patients when they become eligible for and choose hospice.) Wuesthoff’s Companion Aid benefits hospice patients who lack a primary caregiver and are indigent, Medicaid-eligible or unable to pay privately for additional help in the home. If approved in Service Area 7B, Wuesthoff would hope to duplicate these kinds of outreach programs. For the Supportive Care program, that would require its new hospice program to enter into agreements with home health agencies operating in Service Area 7B. While more difficult an undertaking than the current all-Wuesthoff Supportive Care program, Wuesthoff probably will be able to persuade at least some Service Area 7B home health agencies to cooperate, since there would be benefits to them, too. Wuesthoff proposes to use 38 volunteers during its first year in operation. As a not-for-profit organization, Wuesthoff has had good success recruiting, training, using and retaining volunteers in Brevard County. Its experience and status as a not-for-profit organization will help it meet its goals in Service Area 7B; however, it probably will be more difficult to establish a volunteer base in Service Area 7B than in its home county of Brevard. Wuesthoff’s proposed affiliation with Florida Hospital will improve its chances of success in this area. Key to the overall success of Wuesthoff’s proposed hospice is its vision of an affiliation with Florida Hospital. With no existing presence in Service Area 7B, Wuesthoff has no existing relationship with community physicians and no existing inpatient facilities. Wuesthoff plans to fill these voids through a proposed affiliation with Florida Hospital. In existence and growing for decades, Florida Hospital now is a fully integrated health care system with multiple inpatient sites, including more than 1,450 hospital beds, in Service Area 7B. It provides a full range of pre-acute care through post-acute care services, including primary through tertiary services. Approximately 1,200 physicians are affiliated with Florida Hospital, which has a significant physician-hospital organization. Wuesthoff is relying on these physicians to refer patients to its proposed hospice. Florida Hospital and Wuesthoff have signed a letter of intent. The letter of intent only agreed to a forum for discussions; there was no definite agreement concerning admissions, and Florida Hospital has not committed to sending any particular number of hospice patients to Wuesthoff. However, there is no reason to think that Wuesthoff could not achieve a viable affiliation with Florida Hospital. Wuesthoff has recent experience successfully cooperating with other health care providers. It has entered into cooperative arrangements with Jess Parrish Hospital in Brevard County, with Sebastian River Medical Center in Indian River County, and with St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hillsborough County. Wuesthoff’s existing hospice provides support to children who are patients of its hospice, whose parents are in hospice or whose relatives are in hospice, as well as to other children in the community who are in need of bereavement support services. Wuesthoff employs a full-time experienced children’s specialist. Wuesthoff also provides crisis response services for Brevard County Schools System when there is a death at a school or if a student dies or if there is a death that affects the school community. Camp Hope is a bereavement camp for children which is operated by Wuesthoff annually for approximately 50 Brevard children who have been affected by death. Wuesthoff operates extensive grief support programs as part of its Brevard Hospice. At a minimum, Wuesthoff provides 13 months of grief support services following the death of a patient, and more as needed. It employs an experienced, full- time grief support coordinator to oversee two grief support specialists (each having Masters degree level training), as well as 40 grief support volunteers, who function in Wuesthoff’s many grief support groups. These include: Safe Place, an open grief support group which meets four times a month and usually is the first group attended by a grieving person; Pathways, a closed six-week grief workshop offered twice a year primarily for grieving persons three to four months following a death; Bridges, a group for widows under age 50, which is like Pathways but also includes sessions on helping grieving children and on resocialization; Just Us Guys and Gals, which concentrates on resocialization and is attended by 40 to 80 people a month; Family Night Out, an informal social opportunity for families with children aged six to twelve; Growing Through Grief, a closed six-week children’s grief group offered to the Brevard County School System. Wuesthoff also publishes a newsletter for families of deceased hospice patients for a minimum of 13 months following the death. Wuesthoff also participates in extensive speaking engagements and provides seminars on grief issues featuring nationally renowned speakers. Wuesthoff intends to use the expertise developed in its Brevard Hospice grief support program to establish a similar program in Service Area 7B. The Brevard Hospice coordinator will assist in implementing the Service Area 7B programs. In its utilization projections, Wuesthoff committed to seven percent of hospice patient days provided to indigent/charity patients and seven percent to Medicaid patients. Wuesthoff also committed to provide hospice services to AIDS patients, pediatric patients, patients in long-term care facilities and patients without a primary caregiver; however, no specific percentage committments were made. In its pro formas, Wuesthoff projects four percent hospice services to HIV/AIDS patients and approximately 40% to non-cancer patients. The narrative portions of its application, together with the testimony of its chief executive officer, confirm Wuesthoff’s willingness to condition its CON on those percentages. In recent years, the provision of Medicaid at Brevard Hospice has declined. However, during the same years, charity care provided by Brevard Hospice has increased. In the hospice arena, Medicaid hospice is essentially fully reimbursed. Likewise, the provision of hospice services to AIDS/HIV patients by Brevard Hospice has declined in recent years—from 4.9% in 1993 to 1.4% in 1995. However, this decline was influenced by the migration of many AIDS patients to another county, where a significant number of infectious disease physicians are located, and by the opening of Kashy Ranch, another not-for-profit organization that provides housing and services especially for HIV clients. Financial Feasibility Both applications are financially feasible in the immediate and long term. Immediate Financial Feasibility Free-standing hospice proposals like those of Hospice Integrated and Wuesthoff, which intend to contract for needed inpatient care, require relatively small amounts of capital, and both applications are financially feasible in the immediate term. Hospice Integrated is backed by a $100,000 donation and a commitment from IHS to donate the additional $300,000 needed to open the new hospice. IHS has hundreds of millions of dollars in lines of credit available meet this commitment. Wuesthoff questioned the short-term financial feasibility of the Hospice Integrated proposal in light of recent acquisitions of troubled organizations by IHS. It recently acquired an organization known as Coram at a cost of $655 million. Coram recently incurred heavy losses and was involved in litigation in which $1.5 billion was sought. IHS also recently acquired a home health care organization known as First American, whose founder is currently in prison for the conduct of affairs at First American. But none of these factors seriously jeopardize the short-term financial feasibility of the Hospice Integrated proposal. Wuesthoff also noted that the IHS commitment letter is conditioned on several “approvals” and that there is no written commitment from IHS to enter into a management contract with Hospice Integrated at a four percent fee. But these omissions do not seriously undermine the short-term financial feasibility of the Hospice Integrated proposal. Hospice Integrated, for its part, and AHCA question the short-term financial feasibility of the Wuesthoff proposal, essentially because the application does not include a commitment letter from with Wuesthoff Systems or Wuesthoff Hospital to fund the project costs. The omission of a commitment letter is comparable to the similar omissions from the Hospice Integrated application. It does not undermine the short-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Notwithstanding the absence of a commitment letter, the evidence is clear that the financial strength of Wuesthoff Systems and Wuesthoff Hospital support Wuesthoff’s hospice proposal. This financial strength includes the $38 to $40 million in cash and marketable securities reflected in the September 30, 1995, financial statements of Wuesthoff Systems, in addition to the resources of Wuesthoff Hospital. Hospice Integrated also questions the ability of Wuesthoff Systems to fund the hospice proposal in addition to other planned capital projects. The Wuesthoff application indicates an intention to fund $1.6 million of the needed capital from operations and states that $1.4 million of needed capital in “assured but not in hand.” But some of the projects listed have not and will not go forward. In addition, it is clear from the evidence that Wuesthoff Systems and Wuesthoff Hospital have enough cash on hand to fund all of the capital projects that will go forward, including the $290,000 needed to start up its hospice proposal. Long-Term Financial Feasibility Wuesthoff’s utilization projections are more aggressive than Hospice Integrated’s. Wuesthoff projects 186 admissions in year one and 380 in year two; Hospice Integrated projects 124 admissions in year one and 250 in year two. But both projections are reasonably achievable. Projected patient days, revenue and expenses also are reasonable for both proposals. Both applicants project an excess of revenues over expenses in year two of operation. Vitas criticized Hospice Integrated’s nursing salary expenses, durable medical equipment, continuous and inpatient care expenses, and other patient care expenses as being too low. But Vitas’ criticism was based on misapprehension of the facts. The testimony of Vitas’ expert that nursing salaries were too low was based on the misapprehension that Hospice Integrated’s nursing staffing reflected in the expenses for year two of operation was intended to care for the patient census projected at year end. Instead, it actually reflected the expenses of average staffing for the average patient census for the second year of operation. Vitas’ expert contended that Hospice Integrated’s projected expenses for durable medical equipment for year two of operation were understated by $27,975. But there is approximately enough overallocated in the line items “medical supplies” and “pharmacy” to cover the needs for durable medical equipment. Vitas’ expert contended that Hospice Integrated’s projected expenses for continuous and inpatient care were understated by $23,298. This criticism made the erroneous assumption that Hospice Integrated derived these expenses by taking 75% of its projected gross revenues from continuous and inpatient care. In fact, Hospice Integrated appropriately used 75% of projected collections (after deducting contractual allowances). In addition, as far as inpatient care is concerned, Hospice Integrated has contracts with the IHS nursing homes in Service Area 7B to provide inpatient care for Hospice Integrated’s patients at a cost below that reflected in Hospice Integrated’s Schedule 8A. Vitas’ expert contended that Hospice Integrated’s projected expenses for “other patient care” were understated by $19,250. This criticism assumed that fully half of Hospice Integrated’s patients would reside in nursing homes that would have to be paid room and board by the hospice out of federal reimbursement “passed through” the hospice program. However, most hospices have far fewer than half of their patients residing in nursing homes (only 17% of Comforter’s are nursing home residents), and Hospice Integrated made no such assumption in preparing its Schedule 8A projections. In addition, Hospice Integrated’s projections assumed that five percent of applicants for Medicaid pass-through reimbursement would be rejected and that two percent of total revenue would be lost to bad debt write-offs. Notwithstanding Vitas’ attempts to criticize individual line items of Hospice Integrated’s Schedule 8A projections, Hospice Integrated’s total average costs per patient day were approximately the same as Wuesthoff’s--$19 per patient day. Vitas did not criticize Wuesthoff’s projections. On the revenue side, Hospice Integrated’s projections were conservative in several respects. Projected patients days (6,800 in year one, and 16,368 in year two) were well within service volumes already achieved in hospices IHS recently has started in other states (which themselves exceeded their projections). Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates used in Hospice Integrated’s projections were low. Hospice Integrated projects that 85% of its patients will be Medicare patients and that ten percent will be Medicaid. Using more realistic and reasonable reimbursement for these patients would add up to an additional $74,000 to projected excess of revenue over expenses in year two. Wuesthoff also raised its own additional questions regarding the long-term financial feasibility of the Hospice Integrated proposal. Mostly, Wuesthoff questioned the inexperience of the Hospice Integrated entity, as well as IHS’ short track record. It is true that the hospices started by IHS were in operation for only 12-14 months at the time of the final hearing and that, on a consolidated basis, IHS’ hospices lost money in 1995. But financial problems in one hospice inherited when IHS acquired it skewed the aggregate performance of the hospices in 1995. Two of them did have revenues in excess of expenses for the year. In addition, Hospice of the Great Lakes, which was not acquired until 1996, also is making money. On the whole, IHS’ experience in the hospice arena does not undermine the financial feasibility of the Hospice Integrated application. Wuesthoff also questioned Hospice Integrated’s assumption that the average length of stay (ALOS) of its hospice patients will increase from 55 to 65 days from year one to year two of operation. Wuesthoff contended that this assumption is counter to the recent trend of decreasing ALOS’s, and that assuming a flat ALOS would decrease projected revenues by $262,000. But increasing ALOS from year one to year two is consistent with IHS’ recent experience starting up new hospices. In part, it is reasonably explained by the way in which patient census “ramps up” in the start up phase of a new hospice. As a program starts up, often more than average numbers of patients are admitted near the end of the disease process and die before the ALOS; also, as patient census continues to ramp up, often more than average numbers of patients who still are in the program at the end of year one will have been admitted close to the end of the year and will have been in the program for less than the ALOS. Finally, while pointing to possible revenue shortfalls of $262,000, Wuesthoff overlooked the corresponding expense reductions that would result from lower average daily patient census. It is found that both proposals also are financially feasible in the long term. State and Local Plan Preferences Local Health Plan Preference Number One Preference shall be given to applicants which provide a comprehensive assessment of the impact of their proposed new service on existing hospice providers in the proposed service areas. Such assessment shall include but not be limited to: A projection of the number of Medicare/Medicaid patients to be drawn away from existing hospice providers versus the projected number of new patients in the service area. A projection of area hospice costs increases/decreases to occur due to the addition of another hospice provider. A projection of the ratio of administrative expenses to patient care expenses. Identification of sources, private donations, and fund-raising activities and their affect on current providers. Projection of the number of volunteers to be drawn away from the available pool for existing hospice providers. Both applicants provided an assessment of the impact of their proposed new service on existing hospice providers in the proposed service areas (although both applicants could have provided an assessment that better met the intent of the Local Health Plan Preference One.) There was no testimony that, and it is not clear from the evidence that, one assessment is markedly superior to the other. There also was no evidence as to how the assessments are supposed to be used to compare competing applicants. Both applicants essentially stated that they would not have an adverse impact on the existing providers. The basis for this assessment was that there is enough underserved need in Service Area 7B to support an additional hospice with no adverse impact on the existing providers. Vitas disputed the applicants’ assessment. Vitas presented evidence that it and Comforter have been unable, despite diligent marketing efforts, to achieve statewide average hospice use rates in Service Area 7B, especially for non-cancer and under 65 hospice eligible patients, that the existing hospices can meet the needs of the hospice-eligible patients who are choosing hospice, and that other health care alternatives are available to meet the needs of hospice-eligible patients who are not choosing hospice. Vitas also contended that the applicants will not be able to improve much on the marketing and community outreach efforts of the existing providers. In so doing, Vitas glossed over considerable evidence in the record that the addition of a hospice program, by its mere presence, will increase awareness of the hospice option in 7B regardless whether the new entrant improves upon the marketing efforts of the existing providers, and that increased awareness will result in higher conversion rates. Vitas’ counter-assessment also made several other invalid assumptions. First, it is clear from the application of the FNP rule that, regardless of the conversion rate in Service Area 7B, the size of the pool of potential hospice patients clearly is increasing. Second, it is clear that the FNP rule is inherently conservative, at least in some respects. See Finding 24, supra. The Vitas assessment also made the assumption that the existing providers are entitled to their current market share (87% for Vitas and 13% for Comforter) of anticipated increases in hospice use in Service Area 7B and that the impact of a new provider should be measured against this entitlement. But to the extent that anticipated increased hospice use in Service Area 7B accommodates the new entrant, there will be no impact on the current finances or operations of Vitas and Comforter. Finally, in attempting to quantify the alleged financial impact of an additional hospice program, Vitas failed to reduce variable expenses in proportion to the projected reduction in patient census. Since most hospice expenses are variable, this was an error that greatly increased the perceived financial impact on the existing providers. While approval of either hospice program probably will not cause an existing provider to suffer a significant adverse impact, it seems clear that the impact of Wuesthoff’s proposal would be greater than that of Hospice Integrated. Wuesthoff seeks essentially to duplicate its Brevard Hospice operation in Service Area 7B. Wuesthoff projects higher utilization (186 admissions in year one and 380 admissions in year two, as compared to the 124 and 250 projected by Hospice Integrated). In addition, Wuesthoff’s primary referral source for hospice patients—Florida Hospital—also is the primary referral source of Vitas, which gets 38% of its referrals from Florida Hospital. In contrast, while also marketing in competition with the existing providers, Hospice Integrated will rely primarily on the physicians in Orange and Osceola Counties with whom IHS already has working relationships through its home health agencies and skilled nursing facilities. Hospice Integrated’s conservative utilization projections (124 admissions in year one and 250 in year two) will not nearly approach the service gap identified by the rule (407 admissions). In total, Hospice Integrated only projected obtaining 6% of the total market share in year one and 12% in year two, leaving considerable room for continued growth of the existing providers in the district. The hospice industry has estimated that 10% of patients in long-term care facilities are appropriate for hospice care. IHS regularly uses an estimate of five percent. Common ownership of skilled nursing facilities and hospice programs allows better identification of persons with proper prognosis for hospice. These patients would not be drawn away from existing hospice providers. In addition to the difference in overall utilization projections between the applicants, there also is a difference in focus as to the kinds of patients targeted by the two applicants. The Hospice Integrated proposal focuses more on and made a greater commitment to non-cancer admissions. In addition, IHS has a good record of increasing hospice use by non-cancer patients. In contrast, Wuesthoff’s proposal focuses more on cancer admissions (projecting service to more cancer patients than represented by the underserved need for hospice for those patients, according to the FNP rule) and did not commit to a percentage of non-cancer use in its application. For these reasons, Wuesthoff’s proposal would be expected to have a greater impact and be more detrimental to existing providers than Hospice Integrated. Hospice Integrated also is uniquely positioned to increase hospice use by AIDS/HIV patients in Service Area 7B due to its HIV spectrum program at Central Park Village. It focused more on and made a greater commitment to this service in its application that Wuesthoff did it its application. To the extent that Hospice Integrated does a better job of increasing hospice use by AIDS/HIV patients, it is more likely to draw patients from currently underutilized segments of the pool of hospice-eligible patients in Service Area 7B and have less impact on existing providers than Wuesthoff. Vitas makes a better case that its pediatric hospice program will be impacted by the applicants, especially Wuesthoff. Vitas’ census of pediatric hospice patients ranges between seven and 14. A reduction in Vitas’ already small number of pediatric hospice patients could reduce the effectiveness of its pediatric team and impair its viability. Wuesthoff proposes to duplicate the Brevard Hospice pediatric program, creating a pediatric program with a specialized pediatric team and extensive pediatric programs, similar to Vitas’ program. On the other hand, Hospice Integrated proposes a pediatric program but not a specialized team, and it would not be expected to compete as vigorously as Wuesthoff for pediatric hospice patients. The evidence was not clear as to whether area hospice costs would increase or decrease as a result of the addition of either applicant in Service Area 7B. Vitas, in its case-in- chief, provided an analysis of projected impacts from the addition of either hospice provider. As already indicated, Vitas’ analysis incorporated certain invalid assumptions regarding the fixed/variable nature of hospice costs. However, Vitas’ analysis supported the view that Wuesthoff’s impact would be greater. Wuesthoff’s ratio of administrative expenses to patient care expenses (24% to 76% in year one, dropping to 22% to 78% in year two) is lower than Hospice Integrated’s (26% to 71%). Wuesthoff also appears more likely to compete more directly and more vigorously with the existing providers than Hospice Integrated for private donations, in fund-raising activities, and for volunteers. Local Health Plan Preference Number Two Preference shall be given to an applicant who will serve an area where hospice care is not available or where patients must wait more than 48 hours for admission, following physician approval, for a hospice program. Documentation shall include the number of patients who have been identified by providers of medical care and the reasons resulting in their delay of obtaining hospice care. There was no direct evidence of patients who were referred for hospice services but failed to receive them. Local Health Plan Preference Number Three Preference shall be given to an applicant who will serve in addition to the normal hospice population, an additional population not currently serviced by an existing hospice (i.e., pediatrics, AIDS patients, minorities, nursing home residents, and persons without primary caregivers.) State Health Plan Factor Four Preference shall be given to applicants which propose to serve specific populations with unmet needs, such as children. State Health Plan Preference Number Five Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes a residential component to serve patients with no at- home support. When Medicare first recognized hospice care in 1983, more than 90% of hospice cases were oncology patients. Although use of hospice by non-cancer patients has increased to 40% statewide, it lags behind in Service Area 7B, at only 27%. Both applicants will serve non-cancer patients. But Hospice Integrated has made a formal commitment to 40% non-cancer patient days and has placed greater emphasis on expanding the provision of hospice services for non-cancer patients. The clinical background of employees of IHS and Hospice Integrated can effectively employ NHO guidelines to identify the needs of AIDS patients and other populations. In its other hospice programs, IHS has succeeded in achieving percentages of non-cancer hospice use of 60% and higher. Wuesthoff projects over 40% non-cancer patient days, and is willing to accept a CON condition of 40% non-cancer patient days, but it did not commit to a percentage in its application. In Service Area 7B, there are 1,200 people living with AIDS and 10,000 who are HIV positive. Both applicants would serve AIDS/HIV patients, but Hospice Integrated has demonstrated a greater commitment to this service. Not only does IHS have its HIV spectrum program at Central Park Village, it also has committed to five percent of its care for HIV patients. Wuesthoff has agreed to serve AIDS/HIV patients, projects that about four percent of its patient days will be provided to AIDS/HIV patients, and would be willing to condition its CON on the provision of four percent of its care to AIDS/HIV patients. But Wuesthoff did not commit to a percentage in its application. Both applicants will serve children, but Wuesthoff has demonstrated greater commitment and ability to provide these services. Ironically, Wuesthoff’s advantage in the area of pediatric hospice carries with it the disadvantage of causing a greater impact on Vitas than Hospice Integrated’s proposal. See Findings 101-102, supra. While neither applicant specifically addressed the provision of services to minorities, both made commitments to provide services for Medicaid patients and the indigent. Hospice Integrated’s commitment to Medicaid patients is higher (ten percent as compared to seven percent for Wuesthoff). But the commitment to Medicaid patients is less significant in the hospice arena because Medicaid essentially fully reimburses hospice care. Meanwhile, Wuesthoff committed seven percent to indigent/charity patients, as compared a five percent commitment to the indigent for Hospice Integrated. But there was some question as to whether Wuesthoff was including bad debt in the seven percent. Both applicants will provide care for patients without primary caregivers. Earlier in its short history of providing hospice, IHS required patients to have a primary caregiver. However, that policy has been changed, and IHS now accepts such patients. Wuesthoff has long provided care for patients without primary caregivers. Local Health Plan Preference Number Four Preference shall be given to an applicant who will commit to contracting for existing inpatient acute care beds rather than build a free-standing facility. State Health Plan Preference Number Six Preference shall be given to applicants proposing additional hospice beds in existing facilities rather than the construction of freestanding facilities. Neither applicant plans to build a free-standing facility for the provision of inpatient care. Both plan to contract for needed inpatient acute care beds, to the extent necessary. IHS’ common ownership of existing skilled nursing facilities in Service Area 7B allows Hospice Integrated access to subacute care at any time. However, not all physicians will be willing to admit all hospice patients to skilled nursing facilities for inpatient care, and Hospice Integrated also will have to contract with acute care facilities to cover those instances. Wuesthoff relies on its proposed affiliation with Florida Hospital for needed inpatient care for its proposed Service Area 7B hospice. State Health Plan Preference Number Two Preference shall be given to an applicant who provides assurances in its application that it will adhere to the standards and become a member of the National Hospice Organization or will seek accreditation by the JCAHO. Both applicants meet this preference. Wuesthoff’s Brevard Hospice has JCAHO as well as membership in the National Hospice Organization (NHO). IHS’s hospices are NHO members, and Hospice Integrated’s application states that it will become a member of the NHO. Wuesthoff’s JCAHO accreditation does not give it an advantage under this preference. Other Points of Comparison In addition to the facts directly pertinent to the State and Local Health Plan Preference, other points of comparison are worthy of consideration. General Hospice Experience Wuesthoff went to great lengths to make the case that its experience in the hospice field is superior to that of Hospice Integrated and IHS. Wuesthoff criticized the experience of its opponent as being short in length and allegedly long on failures. It is true that IHS was new to the field of hospice when it acquired its first hospice in December, 1994, and that it has had to deal with difficulties in venturing into a new field and starting up new programs. Immediately after IHS acquired Samaritan Care of Illinois, Martha Nickel assumed the role of Vice-President of Hospice Services for IHS. After several weeks in charge of the new acquisition, and pending the closing of the purchase of Samaritan Care of Michigan from the same owner set for later in 1995, Nickel uncovered billing improprieties not discovered during IHS’ due diligence investigations. As a result, IHS was required to reimburse the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) approximately $3.5 million, and the purchase price for Samaritan Care of Michigan was adjusted. After this rocky start, IHS’ hospice operation settled down. Hospice Integrated’s teams have completed five to seven start up operations and understand what it takes to enter a new market, increase community awareness, and achieve hospice market penetration. Personnel who would implement Hospice Integrated’s approved hospice program have significant experience establishing new hospice programs, having them licensed and receiving accreditation. Without question, IHS’ Marsha Norman has the ability to start up a new hospice program. In contrast, Wuesthoff has operated its hospice in Brevard County since 1984. It is true that Wuesthoff’s Brevard Hospice appears to have been highly successful and, compared to the IHS experience, relatively stable in recent years. But, at the same time, Wuesthoff personnel have not had recent experience starting up a new hospice operation in a new market. Policies and Procedures A related point of comparison is the status of the policies and procedures to be followed by the proposed hospices. Wuesthoff essentially proposes to duplicate its Brevard Hospice in Service Area 7B and simply proposes to use the same policies and procedures. In contrast, IHS still is developing its policies and procedures and is adapting them to new regulatory and market settings as it enters new markets. As a result, the policies and procedures included in the Hospice Integrated application serve as guidelines for the new hospice and more of them are subject to modification than Wuesthoff’s. Regulatory Compliance A related point of comparison is compliance with regulations. Wuesthoff contends that it will be better able to comply with Florida’s hospice regulations since it already operates a hospice in Florida. In some respects, IHS’ staffing projections were slightly out of compliance with NHO staffing guidelines. However, Ms. Norman persuasively gave her assurance that Hospice Integrated would be operated so as to meet all NHO guidelines. One of IHS’ hospice programs was found to have deficiencies in a recent Medicare certification survey, but those deficiencies were “paper documentation” problems that were quickly remedied, and the program timely received Medicare certification. In several respects, the policies and procedures included in Hospice Integrated’s application are out of compliance with Florida regulations and will have to be changed. For example, the provision in Hospice Integrated’s policies and procedures for coordination of patient/family care by a social worker will have to be changed since Florida requires a registered nurse to fill this role. Similarly, allowance in the policies and procedures for hiring a lay person in the job of pastoral care professional (said to be there to accommodate the use of shamans or medicine men for Native American patients) is counter to Florida’s requirement that the pastoral care professional hold a bachelor’s degree in pastoral care, counseling or psychology. Likewise, the job description of social worker in the policies and procedures falls below Florida’s standards by requiring only a bachelor’s degree (whereas Florida requires a master’s degree). Although IHS does not yet operate a hospice in Florida, it has three long-term care facilities and two home health agencies in Service Area 7B, as well as 25 other skilled nursing facilities and several other new home health care acquisitions in Florida. Nationwide, IHS has nursing homes in 41 different states, home health care in 31 different states, and approximately 120 different rehabilitation service sites. Through its experiences facing the difficulties of entering the hospice field through acquisitions, IHS well knows federal regulatory requirements and is quite capable of complying with them. IHS also has had experience with the hospice regulations of several other states. There is no reason to think that Hospice Integrated will not comply with all federal and state requirements. Wuesthoff now knows how to operate a hospice in compliance with federal and state regulatory requirements. But, while Wuesthoff’s intent was to simply duplicate its Brevard Hospice in Service Area 7B, that intention leads to the problem that its board of directors does not have the requisite number of residents of Service Area 7B. Measures will have to be taken to insure appropriate composition of its board of directors. 140. On balance, these items of non-compliance are relatively minor and relatively easily cured. There is no reason to think that either applicant will refuse or be unable to comply with regulatory requirements. Not-for-Profit Experience Wuesthoff clearly has more experience as a not-for- profit entity. This includes extensive experience in fund- raising and in activities which benefit the community. It also gives Wuesthoff an edge in the ability to recruit volunteers. See Findings 56-58, supra. Ironically, Wuesthoff’s advantages over Hospice Integrated in these areas probably would increase its impact on the existing providers. See Finding 105, supra. Presence and Linkages in Service Area 7B Presently, Wuesthoff has no presence in Service Area 7B. As one relatively minor but telling indication of this, Wuesthoff’s lack of familiarity with local salary levels caused it to underestimate its Schedule 8A projected salaries for its administrator, patient coordinator, nursing aides and office manager. IHS has an established presence in Service Area 7B. This gives Hospice Integrated an advantage over Wuesthoff. For example, its projected salary levels were accurate. Besides learning from experience, Wuesthoff proposes to counter Hospice Integrated’s advantage through its proposed affiliation with Florida Hospital. While IHS’ presence and linkages in Service Area 7B is not insignificant, it pales in comparison to Florida Hospital’s. To the extent that Wuesthoff can developed the proposed affiliation, Wuesthoff would be able to overcome its disadvantage in this area. Wuesthoff also enjoys a linkage with the Service Area 7B market through its affiliate membership in the Central Florida Health Care Coalition (CFHCC). The CFHCC includes large and small businesses, as well as Central Florida health care providers. Its goal is to promote the provision of quality health care services. Quality Hospice Services Both applicants deliver quality hospice services through their existing hospices and can be expected to do so in their proposed hospices. As an established and larger hospice than most of IHS’ hospices, Brevard Hospice can provide more enhanced services than most of IHS’. On the other hand, IHS has been impressive in its abilty to expand services to non-cancer patients, and it also is in a better position to provide services to AIDS/HIV patients, whereas Wuesthoff is better able to provide quality pediatric services. Wuesthoff attempted to distinguish itself in quality of services through its JCAHO accreditation. Although Hospice Integrated’s application states that it will get JCAHO accreditation, it actually does not intend to seek JCAHO accreditation until problems with the program are overcome and cured. Not a great deal of significance can be attached to JCAHO hospice accreditation. The JCAHO hospice accreditation program was suspended from 1990 until 1996 due to problems with the program. Standards were vague, and it was not clear that they complied with NHO requirements. Most hospices consider NHO membership to be more significant. None of IHS’s new hospices are even eligible for JCAHO accreditation because they have not been in existence long enough. Bereavement Programs Wuesthoff’s bereavement programs appear to be superior to IHS’. Cf. Findings 44, and 63-64, supra. To some extent, Wuesthoff’s apparent superiority in this area (as in some others) may be a function of the size of Brevard Hospice and the 14-year length of its existence. The provisions in the policies and procedures included in the Hospice Integrated application relating to bereavement are cursory and sparse. IHS relies on individual programs to develop their own bereavement policies and procedures. The provisions in the policies and procedures included in the Hospice Integrated application relating to bereavement include a statement that a visit with the patient’s family would be conducted “if desired by the family and as indicated by the needs of the family.” In fact, as Hospice Integrated concedes, such a visit should occur unless the family expresses a desire not to have one. Continuum of Care One of IHS’ purposes in forming Hospice Integrated to apply for a hospice CON is to improve the continuum of care it provides in Service Area 7B. The goal of providing a continuum of care is to enable case managers to learn a patient’s needs and refer them to the appropriate care and services as the patient’s needs change. While IHS already has an integrated delivery system in Service Area 7B, it lacks hospice. Adding hospice will promote the IHS continuum of care. Since it lacks any existing presence in Service Area 7B, granting the Wuesthoff application will not improve on an existing delivery system in the service area. I. Continuous and Respite Care Though small components of the total hospice program, continuous or respite hospice care should be offered by every quality provider of hospice and will be available in IHS’ program. Wuesthoff’s application failed to provide for continuous or respite hospice care. However, Wuesthoff clearly is capable of remedying this omission. Result of Comparison Both applicants have made worthy proposals for hospice in Service Area 7B. Each has advantages over the other. Balancing all of the statutory and rule criteria, and considering the State and Local Health Plan preferences, as well as the other pertinent points of comparison, it is found that the Hospice Integrated application is superior in this case. Primary advantages of the Hospice Integrated proposal include: IHS’ presence in Service Area 7B, especially its HIV spectrum program at Central Park Village; its recent experience and success in starting up new hospice programs; its success in expanding hospice to non-cancer patients elsewhere; Hospice Integrated’s greater commitment to extend services to the underserved non- cancer and AIDS/HIV segments of the hospice-eligible population; and IHS’ ability to complete its continuum of care in Service Area 7B through the addition of hospice. These and other advantages are enough to overcome Wuesthoff’s strengths. Ironically, some of Wuesthoff’s strengths, including its strong pediatric program and its ability (in part by virtue of its not- for-profit status) and intention generally to compete more vigorously with the existing providers on all fronts, do not serve it so well in this case, as they lead to greater impacts on the existing providers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the AHCA enter a final order approving CON application number 8406 so that Hospice Integrated may establish a hospice program in the AHCA Service Service Area 7B but denying CON application number 8407 filed by Wuesthoff. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of May, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Robert Griffin, Esquire 2559 Shiloh Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Thomas F. Panza, Esquire Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel, P.A. NationsBank Building, Third Floor 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 830 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Patterson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact "[HRS] has adopted a Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., which makes provision for the review of CON applications in specific time sequences, known as "batching cycles." The purpose of this rule was to implement the statutory mandate of ss. 381.494(5), Florida Statutes, which required that: The Department by rule shall provide for the applications to be submitted on a timetable or cycle basis, provide for review on a timely basis; and provide for all completed applications pertaining to similar types of services, facilities, or equipment affecting the same service district to be considered in relation to each other no less often than four times a year. Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., states that the letter of intent and application schedules were established "[i]n order that applications pertaining to similar types of services, facilities, or equipment affecting the same service district may be considered in relation to each other for purposes of competitive review. "Under Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., June 15, 1984, was the beginning of a batching cycle for "hospital projects" that included certificate of need requests by hospitals for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs. To enter a batching cycle, an applicant must first have filed a letter of intent ("LOI") with [HRS] and the Local Health Council at least thirty (30) days prior to filing an application. The LOI deadline for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle was thus May 16, 1984. There was, however, one exception to this requirement of filing an LOI thirty (30) days in advance. This exception, known as the "grace provision," was found at Rule 10 5.08(e), F.A.C. In cases where a letter of intent was filed within five working days of the letter of intent deadline, a grace period of 10 days from the deadline date for receipt of letters of intent shall be established to provide an opportunity for a competing applicant to file a letter of intent. "On or about May 14, 1984, St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach submitted a letter of intent to file a CON application for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and an open heart surgery program. St. Marys' [sic] LOI was for entry in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. This date of Nay 14, 1984, was within five (5) working days of the LOI deadline for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Boca Raton Community Hospital [also] filed a letter of intent to apply for a CON for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Boca Raton's LOI was filed in April of 1954, a time period greater than five (5) working days prior to the LOI deadline. "On May 29, 1984, Good Samaritan filed with [HRS] and the Local Health Council a letter of intent to establish cardiac catheterization and an open heart surgery program in order to compete for CON approval with the similar services proposed by St. Marys [sic]. Good Samaritan's May 29, 1984, LOI sought entry into the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "May 29, 1984, was within ten (10) days from the deadline date for receipt of letters of intent for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Good Samaritan does not view itself as directly competing with Boca Raton Community Hospital for patients or services due to the distance between these facilities. Good Samaritan does view itself to be in direct competition with St. Marys [sic]. All three hospitals are, however, in the same HRS Service District and [HRS] reviews CON applications for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery on the basis of whether there is a need for such laboratories or programs in the service district. "On June 15, 1984, Good Samaritan submitted its [CON] application to [HRS], together with the required Four Thousand Dollar ($4,000.00) application fee. [HRS] refused to accept this application for review in its June 15, 1984, batching cycle and returned the application and the filing fee to Good Samaritan. [HRS] advised Good Samaritan that the next batching cycle it could enter for this application would be the October 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Good Samaritan timely filed a request for formal proceedings pursuant to ss. 120.57, Florida Statutes (1983), regarding [HRS's] refusal to accept its application in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of this proceeding. "Effective September 6, 1984, and subsequent to the Department's refusal to accept Good Samaritan's application for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle, [HRS] amended Rule 10-5.08(e). The new rule, as amended, reflects the requirements that the Department contends are applicable to Good Samaritan in this case prior to the amendment. "[HRS's] refusal to accept Good Samaritan's application in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle prevents Good Samaritan from having its proposed project reviewed comparatively and competitively with St. Marys' [sic] or Boca Raton's similar proposals, because [HRS] does not review CON applications comparatively and competitively unless they are filed in the same batching cycle. "[HRS] approved in part [sic] both St. Marys' [sic] and Boca Raton's CON applications. CON #3367 was issued to St. Marys [sic] for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and CON #3366 was issued to Boca Raton for a cardiac catheterization laboratory. These actions by [HRS], however, have not yet become final and are subject to formal administrative hearings requested by Good Samaritan. "[HRS] takes the position that the approvals of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at St. Marys [sic] and Boca Raton count against the need for an additional cardiac catheterization laboratory as proposed by Good Samaritan if Good Samaritan's application is considered in a later batching cycle."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That HRS enter a final order requiring that Good Samaritan's CON application be reviewed in the June 15, 1984 batching cycle. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, 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 13th day of February, 1985.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Petitioner's nursing home sufficient to support the change in its licensure status to a conditional rating.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Glen Oaks, is a licensed nursing facility located in Clearwater Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The Agency is the licensing agency in the State of Florida responsible for regulating nursing facilities under Part II of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On February 2 and 3, 1998, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at Glen Oaks in a matter unrelated to the issue that is the subject of this proceeding. As a result of that investigation, the Agency determined that the allegations in the underlying complaint were unfounded. While the Agency surveyor was at Glen Oaks investigating the complaint, she also performed a focused review at the facility. The focused review involved a matter unrelated to the complaint and came to the Agency surveyor's attention while she was touring the facility. During a tour of the facility, Claire R. Hoagland, R.N., the Agency surveyor, accompanied by Marlice Nix, R.N., an employee of Glen Oaks, entered the room of Resident No. 8. Once they were in the room, the resident complained to her primary care charge nurse, Marlice Nix, of soreness in the buttocks area. The charge nurse and the Agency surveyor, with the permission of the residence, looked at and noted redness on the resident's buttocks. This redness appeared to be excoriation associated with incontinence, rather than with any stages of pressure sores. In addition to the redness on the resident's buttocks, the surveyor and Ms. Nix identified an 0.5 centimeter linear shaped open area, equivalent in size to a pinpoint, measuring 0.1 centimeter in width with a zero depth located in the Resident No. 8's gluteal fold. Surveyor Hoagland believed that the red pinpoint size area on Resident No. 8 was a Stage II pressure sore. Upon review of the clinical record of Resident No. 8, Ms. Hoagland found no documentation that the facility had assessed the skin integrity of Resident No. 8 since December 20, 1997. Ms. Hoagland then spoke to the facility's administrator and its Director of Nursing. According to the administrator and Director of Nursing, the facility performed skin assessments on Resident No. 8, but had not documented all of the assessments. However, at the time of the Agency's visit to Glen Oaks, Resident No. 8's most recent annual "Minimum Data Set" (MDS), dated June 1997, documented the absence of any pressure sores. An MDS is a comprehensive assessment tool. During the April 1998, complaint investigation, the Agency surveyor learned that there were times when Resident No. 8 refused to be changed. For example, occasionally, when Resident No. 8 was watching her favorite television show, she asked not to be disturbed. The surveyor viewed this as "non-compliance" by Resident No. 8 and cited the facility because the resident's care plan did not specifically provide that staff would turn, re-position, or change the resident when her favorite television program was not on. Following the complaint investigation, the Agency cited Glen Oaks with an alleged failure to comply with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA) regulatory requirements set forth at 42 C.F.R., Section 483.25 (c)(1). This requirement is also referred to on the Form 2567 as Federal Tag F-314 (the deficiency). According to that OBRA provision, the facility must ensure: (1) that a resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless they were unavoidable; and (2) that a resident with pressure sores receives the necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new sores from developing. The Agency alleged that Glen Oaks failed to comply with the above-cited OBRA provision in that (1) the facility did not document and/or perform weekly skin assessments on Resident No. 8, and that (2) Resident No. 8's care plan did not address her non-compliant behavior. Based on the facility's alleged deficiencies, it was the Agency's position that Resident No. 8 had developed a pressure sore that was avoidable. During the exit interview, the Agency Surveyor informed Glen Oaks that the deficiency would be classified as a Class III deficiency and would not affect Glen Oaks' superior licensure status. However, the Agency notified Glen Oaks on February 13, 1998, through the telephone call of its employee, Pat Silar, that its deficiency classification would be changed from a Class III to a Class II, resulting in a conditional rating for its nursing home license. By letter dated February 16, 1998, the Agency issued a Form 2567 setting forth the alleged deficiency; the findings supporting the deficiency; assessing the scope and severity of the deficiency at G; and classifying the deficiency as a Class II deficiency. In making her determination, Surveyor Hoagland used the surveyors' guidelines contained in the State Operating Manual (SOM). Appendix P of the SOM, entitled "Guidance to Surveyors," is the federal interpretative guideline to state surveyors regarding the OBRA regulations. Moreover, Surveyor Hoagland relied on the interpretive guidelines of F-314, including the booklet, Pressure Ulcers in Adults: Prediction and Prevention. There are two components to determining whether the development of an open area constitutes non-compliance with the OBRA requirement. First, the open area must, in fact, be a pressure sore. Second, if a pressure sore exists, the Agency must next determine if the development of the pressure sore was unavoidable. The SOM guideline corresponding to the OBRA Requirement governing pressure sores defines a pressure sore as an "ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer." The SOM defines a Stage II pressure ulcer or sore as "a partial thickness loss of skin layers either dermis or epidermis that presents clinically as an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater." Based on the definition in the SOM, a pressure sore is located over a bony prominence where the area would be subject to pressure. The pinpoint-size open area on Resident No. 8 was not located over a bony prominence, but rather in the gluteal fold. Also, the area was not the deep, dark, dusty red, with a purple center, that is associated with a Stage I or II pressure sore. Moreover, a Stage II pressure sore does not typically resolve in ten days as was the case with the area in Resident No. 8's gluteal fold. Due to the factors noted in paragraph 16 above, it is found that the pinpoint-size open area in Resident No. 8's gluteal fold was not a pressure sore. Even if it is assumed that the mark was a pressure sore, the Agency must next determine whether the pressure sore was unavoidable. In assessing whether a pressure sore was unavoidable, surveyors are to apply the "probes" set forth in the SOM. These probes are: Did the facility identify the resident as being at risk for pressure sores? Did the facility provide aggressive/appropriate preventative measures and care specific to addressing the resident's unique factors (e.g., if serum albumin is below 3.4 mg per dl, provide additional protein in daily snacks)? Was the preventative care plan implemented consistently? In the instant case, the answer to the first "probe" is yes. Resident No. 8 was admitted to Glen Oaks on March 4, 1994. At the time of admission, the resident had a Stage IV pressure sore which had healed by January, 1995, without surgical intervention. However, due to her medical history, Resident No. 8 was identified on the Resident Assessment Protocol as being at risk for the development of pressure sores. Because Resident No. 8 was identified as being at risk for developing pressure sores, the second "probe" requires that the Agency determine whether the facility provided aggressive appropriate preventative measures and care to the resident. Routine preventative care is defined by the SOM as turning and proper positioning; application of pressure reduction or relief devices; providing good skin care (i.e., keeping the skin clean, instituting measures to reduce excessive moisture); providing clean and dry bed linens; and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration if possible. Resident No. 8's care plans dated June 1997, September 1997, and December 1997, were based on a comprehensive assessment of the resident; addressed the potential for alterations in skin integrity; and, provided for appropriate aggressive preventative measures and care. These preventative measures and care included turning and re-positioning at least every two hours; providing pressure relief mattress in both the Resident's bed and wheelchair; application of good skin care, including application of Vaseline care cream as a moisture barrier; and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration, including the addition of the protein supplement Promod, and daily supplemental protein snacks and vitamins. These preventative skin care measures were also consistently implemented and effected the expedient healing of Resident No. 8's Stage IV pressure sore, present upon her admission to Glen Oaks in 1994. Furthermore, the consistent implementation of the prescribed preventative skin care measures prevented the development of any pressure sores for the period between January 1995 and February 1998, inclusive. The third probe requires a determination of whether the preventative care plan was implemented consistently. Here, Glen Oaks consistently implemented the preventative care plan measures listed in Resident No. 8's care plan. Thus, the third probe is answered in the affirmative. In the instant case, each of the inquiries or probes listed in paragraph 18 above is answered in the affirmative. Glen Oaks identified Resident No. 8 as being at risk for pressure sores; provided aggressive/appropriate preventative measures and care specific to address the residents unique risk factors; and, implemented the preventative care plan consistently. Accordingly, the development of the pinpoint-size open area in Resident No. 8's gluteal fold was unavoidable. Neither the applicable OBRA regulations governing pressure sores nor the SOM interpretative guidelines require weekly skin assessments for residents at risk for developing pressure sores. Thus, the failure to document all skin assessments does not constitute non-compliance with the OBRA requirements. Notwithstanding the Agency's findings to the contrary, Glen Oaks consistently implemented the care plan developed for Resident No. 8. However, Resident No. 8's care plan did not require a weekly skin assessment. Rather, the care plan required only that the Resident's skin be assessed for changes and that any changes be reported to the charge nurse/physician. Skin assessments were performed on Resident No. 8 more frequently than weekly. They were performed on Resident No. 8 several times a day during brief changes and twice a week during whirlpool baths performed by Charge Nurse Nix. However, because Resident No. 8's care plan did not so require, the benign assessments were not routinely documented. Typically, only changes or abnormal findings in a Resident's skin condition were documented in the resident's clinical records. Although the benign findings relative to skin assessments were not routinely recorded, the January 1998 Monthly Nursing Assessment for Resident No. 8 documented that the skin was intact; however, that report also noted the red area on the buttocks referred to in paragraph 4 above. On the other hand, two health care providers, charged with caring for Resident No. 8, observed no abnormal findings with regard to the resident's skin on January 30 and February 1, 1998. In the latter instances, the nursing staff did not record their findings that Resident No. 8's skin was intact. The Agency acknowledged that if skin assessments were performed on Resident No. 8 every day, there was no problem with the care provided. A care plan should address compliance only when a resident's non-compliance is frequent and becomes a habitual problem. Resident No. 8's non-compliance was not a habitual problem, and did not occur on a daily basis. Rather, Resident No. 8 was only "occasionally" non-compliant with regard to brief changes, turning and repositioning. In most cases, Resident No. 8's non-compliance required only that the charge nurse or Director of Nursing speak with the patient before the resident would comply. Occasionally, when Resident No. 8 was watching television, she refused to comply with the turning and re-positioning schedule and requested that the nursing staff come back when the television program was over. In these situations, the nurse complied with the resident's request, but would return soon thereafter to turn and re-position the resident. Resident No. 8's conduct cannot be deemed to be non- compliant and, therefore, there was no need to have the issue of non-compliance addressed in Resident 8's care plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rescinding the conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 14th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Rebekah N. Plowman, Esquire Long, Aldridge and Norman, LLP 303 Peachtree Street, Suite 5300 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Good Samaritan Medical Center ("Good Samaritan") is a 341 bed not-for-profit community hospital in West Palm Beach, established over 73 years ago. West Palm Beach is located in Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") District 9. Its services include obstetrics and neonatal, medical and pediatric intensive care. Good Samaritan also opened an outpatient cardiac catheterization ("cath") laboratory of 1399 gross square feet, approximately two weeks prior to the start of the final hearing in this case. The establishment of an outpatient laboratory does not require a certificate of need. At the time the final hearing commenced, two procedures had been performed in the Good Samaritan outpatient cath lab. Written protocals exist for transfers to facilities with open heart surgery programs. Here, Good Samaritan is an applicant for a certificate of need ("CON") to provide adult inpatient cardiac cath services in the same cath lab. AHCA is the state agency which administers CON laws in Florida. AHCA published, on August 7, 1992, a fixed need pool showing a net need for two additional cardiac cath programs in AHCA District 9. On January 11, 1993, AHCA issued a State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") preliminarily approving Good Samaritan's CON. St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. ("St. Mary's") is a 430 bed hospital with acute care, psychiatric, and Levels II and III neonatal intensive care beds, located in West Palm Beach, Florida in AHCA District 9. St. Mary's is located 3 miles, or a 5 to 7 minute drive from Good Samaritan, and is an existing provider of adult inpatient cardiac cath services. Open heart surgery services are not available at St. Mary's. Palm Beach Gardens Community Hospital, Inc. ("Palm Beach Gardens") also in AHCA District 9, is located approximately a 25 minute drive from St. Mary's. Palm Beach Gardens' services include adult inpatient cardiac cath in a two room laboratory, and open heart surgery. There are eleven cath labs in District 9. Palm Beach Regional, Lawnwood in St. Lucie County, and a doctor in Martin County operate outpatient facilities. Five hospitals serve inpatients and outpatients - Boca Raton, St. Mary's, Martin Memorial, Bethesda, and Indian River. Three others, Palm Beach Gardens, JFK Medical Center and Delray Community Hospital, have cardiac cath labs at hospitals which also provide open heart surgery services. By prehearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the historical quality of care at Good Samaritan is not at issue. Palm Beach Gardens asserts that Good Samaritan's application was incomplete. Application Content Submitted with the Good Samaritan application was a certificate of the custodian of its records which relied on an April 20, 1989 resolution of Good Samaritan's Board of Directors as authorization for the filing of ". . . an application as described in the Letter of Intent." On August 25, 1989, Good Samaritan filed a letter of intent, with the Board's April 20, 1989 resolution, announcing its intent to apply on September 27, 1989, to establish inpatient cardiac cath and open heart surgery services, and to convert ten medical/surgical beds to intensive care beds for an estimated capital cost of $4,950,000. The 1989 resolution has not been withdrawn. The President of Good Samaritan, William J. Byron, testified that Good Samaritan never filed a joint application for cardiac cath, open heart surgery and intensive care beds, as described in the 1989 letter of intent. Good Samaritan also, he testified, never filed an application for cardiac cath services in 1989, but did file cardiac cath applications in 1990, and 1991 and the one at issue, in 1992. In February 1991, Good Samaritan's Board passed a resolution authorizing the filing of a CON application for inpatient cardiac cath services. Mr. Byron considered that resolution a reaffirmation of the 1989 resolution and decided to file the 1989 resolution with this application. The predecessor of AHCA initially notified Good Samaritan that the 1989 letter of intent for combined services was rejected. Subsequently, in November 1989, Good Samaritan was notified that the initial rejection applied to open heart surgery, because these were competing applicants, but that it would extend a grace period to apply for cardiac cath services to October 27, 1989, due to the absence of any competing applicants. What was intended in the letter which postdated the date it gave for the grace period was not established. Mr. Byron testified that Good Samaritan filed the February 1990 application, referencing the 1989 resolution, in accordance with the agency's grant of a grace period. Need For the Subject Project In August 1992, AHCA published its finding that a numeric need exists for two additional adult inpatient cardiac cath programs in District 9, by July 1995. The 1990-1991 local health plan for District 9 includes two factors for determining need and for allocating CONs for cardiac cath and open heart surgery services. The first District 9 factor favors facilities with an historical record of or commitment to serving Medicaid and indigent, handicapped or other underserved population groups. Good Samaritan's service to Medicaid patients increased from .2 percent in 1985 to 1.1 percent in 1989, then from 5.0 percent in 1990 to 11.2 percent of total admissions in 1992. Mr. Jay Cushman testified that the Medicaid commitment and record may be evaluated by comparing Good Samaritan to St. Mary's because they share a medical service area. Medicaid admissions to St. Mary's were 7.7 percent in 1985, 17.5 percent in 1989, 19.7 percent in 1990, and 32.0 percent in 1992. Therefore, as Mr. Cushman observed, the widening gap in the same service area is not indicative of Good Samaritan's historical record or present commitment to serve Medicaid patients. The District 9 plan also gives priority to applicants who propose to establish inpatient cardiac cath and open heart surgery services at the same facility when both are needed. The preference is inapplicable to the review of this application cycle, because no need was published for additional open heart surgery services in the district. There was testimony that Good Samaritan was, at the time of hearing, an applicant for an open heart surgery CON, having applied in March 1993, and had been preliminarily denied. The preference statement that an applicant "would not be expected to have to apply for both" describes the situation at the time of Good Samaritan's application. Therefore, the preference neither supports nor detracts from this application. The 1989 State Health Plan contains a similar preference for an applicant proposing both cardiac cath and open heart surgery services in response to a publication of the need for both. To have any practical effect in a comparative review process, avoiding speculation on the outcome of other pending administrative cases, the preference has to be understood to favor an applicant for cardiac cath and open heart surgery over an applicant for only cardiac cath in the same batching cycle. Therefore, the preference is inapplicable to this application for cardiac cath services, despite evidence of an open heart surgery application in a subsequent batching cycle. The state preference for the establishment of a new cardiac cath program in a county without such programs is not met. See, Findings of Fact 5. The state plan preference for disproportionate share charity care and Medicaid providers does not support approval of the Good Samaritan application. See, Finding of Facts 16, supra. The state preference for hospitals which accept patients regardless of ability to pay is met by Good Samaritan. On balance, there is no showing of the need for Good Samaritan's proposal to advance the special interests identified in the state and District 9 health plans. Good Samaritan argues that its inpatients should have access to its new, state-of-the-art cath lab to avoid costs and disruptions associated with unnecessary transfers. The argument is rejected as inconsistent with the regulatory scheme and need criteria established by statutes and rules. Testifying about AHCA's preliminary approval of Good Samaritan's application, Good Samaritan's expert, Ronald Luke, Ph.D., described the objective as improving access to care for the underserved, meaning uninsured, because ". . . there is no question - - no question - - that there is sufficient physical capacity in the market to perform the projected number of caths . . ." Transcript, Vol. 9, p. 1154. At hearing, David Musgrave, Good Samaritan's financial officer, and Dr. Luke asserted that Good Samaritan would perform caths on 100 more indigents than originally represented in the application. The application projected 3 percent indigent and 2 percent Medicaid payer categories. In the pro forma marked as exhibit 39, Good Samaritan projected 2.7 percent indigent care. There is no credible evidence to demonstrate that Good Samaritan can recruit an additional 100 indigent cardiac cath patients, through contacts with public health agencies. Utilization Projections Two major issues in dispute, which partially depend on the accuracy of utilization projections, are the requirements of Rule 59C-1.032(8)(b) that an applicant reasonably project 300 cath lab visits within two years of operation, and the long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. According to Dr. Luke, the 300 minimum annual procedures for a cath lab and 150 for invasive cardiologists who perform caths are standards set by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiac Catherization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories. The standards are set to insure that sufficient numbers of procedures are performed to maintain staff and cardiologists' proficiency. Good Samaritan's application includes projections of 270 caths in year one and 360 in year two. Initially, a minimum of 119 caths is reasonably expected, based on that number of inpatients transferred in 1992 from Good Samaritan for cath inpatient procedures at other hospitals. The experts for Good Samaritan compare its proposal to the operations of the cath lab at Boca Raton Community Hospital ("Boca Raton"), which has no open heart surgery services and a closed in-house cathing staff. A "closed staff" limits those who perform cath lab procedures to invasive cardiologists based at the facility. After opening in October 1987, Boca Raton has had the following number of cath procedures performed at its hospital: 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 621 658 644 530 487 Like Boca Raton, Good Samaritan also proposes to have a closed lab. It will be headed by a hospital-employed physician. An agreement with the medical school at Duke University will allow the staff cathing physician to maintain the necessary personal clinical skills by performing sufficient numbers of additional procedures at Duke. Good Samaritan shares its medical staff and medical service area with St. Mary's. St. Mary's experts project that Good Samaritan would be another low volume provider in the area, primarily due to the lack of back-up open heart surgery services. Volumes of cath procedures reported at St. Mary's, which opened in February 1988, are as follows: 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 229 292 323 381 359 St. Mary's has an open cathing staff. Its lab is used by a number of different invasive cardiologists, who also practice primarily at other hospitals which have open heart surgery services available. Palm Beach Gardens also has an open cardiac cath staff, although a number of the cathing physicians are based at the hospital. However, Palm Beach Gardens also has open heart surgery services. It's volumes from 1988-1992 were as follows: 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1598 1392 1587 1824 1750 Clearly, both the presence or absence of open heart surgery and the internal operations of a lab affect the volumes of procedures performed at any cardiac cath lab. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that the presence of open heart surgery is more determinative of cath lab utilization than the internal operations of the cath lab. Despite evidence of increasing use rates in District 9, Good Samaritan has failed to demonstrate that its projected utilization is reasonable. All of the growth in volume in Palm Beach County in 1992 is attributable to JFK Medical Center and Delray Community Hospital, both of which have open heart surgery and to Bethesda, with a new program in 1992 and 249 procedures. Declines in volume occurred at both mature inpatient programs without open heart surgery in Palm Beach County, St. Mary's and Boca Raton. The suggestion that 1992 is an aberration in this regard, is rejected. See, Findings of Facts 28 and 30. Impact On Existing Providers The highest reasonable expectation of volumes for St. Mary's cath lab in 1993 is 330 visits. From October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1992, Good Samaritan transferred 13 to 14 inpatients to St. Mary's for cardiac caths. Subsequently, in December 1992, a group of internists sold their practices to Good Samaritan. The patient volume of that group, one internist estimated, will result in the referral of 150 to 200 patients for cardiac caths over the next year or two. Based on their staff affiliations, it is reasonable to expect that a significant number of their referrals will be diverted from St. Mary's. One doctor in a group of invasive cardiologists, which has performed approximately 150 cardiac caths a year at St. Mary's, expects 75 to 90 of the cases would have been done at a Good Samaritan inpatient lab, if that alternative had existed. It is reasonable to expect that an inpatient cardiac cath program at Good Samaritan will result in a loss of up to 80 visits to the St. Mary's cath lab in 1995 and 1996. As a result, the St. Mary's program would be below 300 procedures (visits) a year minimum quality of care standard, with no assurance that Good Samaritan could exceed the standard. Good Samaritan describes the financial impact on St. Mary's of an inpatient cath lab as relatively insignificant, because the more detrimental impact will occur as a result of the already established outpatient lab. Good Samaritan estimates, however, that 70 percent of its cardiac cath patients will be inpatient and 30 percent will be outpatients. St. Mary's financial loss would be $188,000 if Good Samaritan reaches 480 procedures, according to Good Samaritan's expert. Good Samaritan concedes that St. Mary's is at risk of performing less than 300 procedures and, therefore, that the quality of care in the St. Mary's cath lab would decline. However, as Good Samaritan notes the decrease in volumes below 300 may occur whether or not Good Samaritan's proposal is approved. Cardiac cath volumes are declining at mature inpatient programs which do not have open heart surgery services. The establishment of a program at Good Samaritan would accelerate that trend at St. Mary's. See, Finding of Facts 33. When Good Samaritan's cardiac cath volumes reach 240 visits, Palm Beach Gardens expects to lose 44 cardiac cath visits and $134,000 pre-tax revenue in Good Samaritan's second and third year of operation. If, as projected by Good Samaritan, its volumes reached 480 visits, a loss of 88 cardiac caths or approximately $250,000 to $270,000 is projected. Good Samaritan contends that a loss of $250,000 to $270,000 pre-taxes for Palm Beach Gardens is relatively insubstantial. After taxes, the loss is $80,000 when Good Samaritan reaches 240 cases, or $160,000 if Good Samaritan reaches 480 cases. Revenues at Palm Beach Gardens, in 1992, were approximately $8 million pre-taxes, or $5 to $6 million after taxes. Good Samaritan's contention that the loss to Palm Beach Gardens is relatively insubstantial is supported by the evidence in this case. Financial Feasibility Good Samaritan has already constructed an outpatient cardiac cath lab, which is adequately staffed and capable of serving inpatients of the facility. The immediate financial feasibility of the proposal has been established. The long term financial feasibility of the program has been questioned. The pro forma attached to the application showed a loss of $126,008 in year one, a loss of $26,967 in year two and a gain of $113,224 in year three of operations. Good Samaritan was required to include a two year pro forma in its application. In fact, Palm Beach Gardens' expert believes that profitability must be demonstrated in the second year to establish financial feasibility. Good Samaritan's projections are based on the assumption that case volumes will be 240 cases in 1994, 360 in 1995 and 480 in 1996. The assumption that Good Samaritan can reach 360 procedures in year two, while St. Mary's remains over 300 procedures is rejected. In addition, Good Samaritan's pro forma is prepared as Good Samaritan acknowledges, on a fully allocated cost basis which cannot demonstrate financial feasibility. Good Samaritan's exhibit 39 was described as a sensitivity analysis, and is also based on only slight changes in utilization assumptions caused by rounding to whole numbers. Unlike the pro forma submitted with the application, exhibit 39 clearly is an incremental analysis. Good Samaritan failed to provide AHCA adequate evidence of financial feasibility based on the pro forma included in the application. Palm Beach Gardens asserts that consideration of exhibit 39 constitutes an impermissible, untimely amendment to the application which may not be relied upon to establish financial feasibility. Mr. Musgrave, an expert in hospital financial operations, acknowledged that the information in exhibit 39 was available at the time he prepared the application pro forma. Comparing the two, he testified that among the differences are the use of different data bases, a higher Medicare case weight, a lower managed care discount rate, higher gross charges per admission, and lower indigent care percentages. Good Samaritan also failed to account for certain capital costs. Good Samaritan claims that the project has no capital costs. The State Agency Action Report determined that the $5,000 filing fee is a capital cost. At hearing, there was expert testimony that expenses and equipment required to implement video-conferencing and other direct contacts with Duke University will result in additional costs which have not been adequately considered in Good Samaritan's financial analysis. Mr. Musgrave also testified that 70 percent of the cardiac cath volume is expected to be derived from inpatients, with capital cost reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid. When asked about Good Samaritan's claim that there are no or minimal capital costs associated with the proposal, Robert P. Maquire of AHCA testified as follows: With regard to outpatient services that are approved by non-reviewability criteria, if later a project is established as an inpatient program and does not require any new construction, those costs - - there's no allocation of costs to the inpatient factor. Transcript, Vol. VIII, p. 1041.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that an order be entered denying the application of Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. for Certificate of Need 7086 to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1994.
The Issue Whether the certificate of need (“CON”) applications filed by Cornerstone Hospice & Palliative Care, Inc. (“Cornerstone”); Suncoast Hospice of Hillsborough, LLC (“Suncoast”); and VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida (“VITAS”), for a new hospice program in Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA” or the “Agency”) Service Area 6A (Hillsborough County), satisfy the applicable statutory and rule review criteria sufficiently to warrant approval, and, if so, which of the three applications, on balance, best meets the applicable criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties AHCA AHCA is designated as the single state agency for the issuance, denial, and revocation of CONs, including exemptions and exceptions in accordance with present and future federal and state statutes. AHCA is also the state health planning agency. See §§ 408.034(1) and 408.036, Fla. Stat. In addition, AHCA is the agency designated as responsible for licensure and deficient practice surveys for health facilities, including hospices. See ch. 408, Part II and § 400.6005-.611, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(a), the Agency established a numeric formula for determining when an additional hospice program is needed in a service area. The Agency's need formula determined a need for one new hospice program in SA 6A in the application cycle at issue. That determination is unchallenged. None of the applicants argued that more than one new hospice program should be approved for Hillsborough in this cycle. Suncoast The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast (“Suncoast Pinellas”) was founded in 1977, and was one of the first hospices in Florida, and in the nation. Although it operates only in Pinellas County, Suncoast Pinellas has grown to become one of the largest nonprofit hospices in the country. Suncoast Pinellas is a subsidiary of Empath Health (“Empath”), which also provides a number of non-hospice services. As discussed further below, Empath is currently undergoing a merger with Stratum Health System (“Stratum”), which operates Tidewell Hospice in Sarasota and Manatee Counties. The Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Empath and Suncoast Pinellas is Rafael Sciullo. Mr. Sciullo was recruited to be CEO of Suncoast Pinellas in 2013, where he has served ever since. When Mr. Sciullo arrived at Suncoast Pinellas, the company operated a human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”) testing and treatment program, a PACE program, a home health program, and a palliative care program. Mr. Sciullo became concerned that patients in the HIV, PACE, and home health programs were not comfortable hearing the word “hospice,” as those patients did not view themselves as hospice patients. Mr. Sciullo reorganized Suncoast Pinellas by creating Empath in order to alleviate this concern with a more inclusive and mission directed organization. Empath is an administrative services provider that provides support to its affiliates, which include Suncoast Pinellas, Empath Partners in Care (“EPIC”),2 Suncoast PACE, Suncoast Hospice Foundation, and programs for palliative care, pharmacy, durable medical equipment (“DME”), and infusion services. Through its affiliates, Empath already provides several services within Hillsborough, including EPIC HIV services and support, and palliative care. The federal definition of hospice care requires a prognosis of a six- month or less life expectancy. However, Florida’s definition permits patients with a 12-month prognosis. Under its supportive care program, Suncoast Pinellas offers hospice services to patients with a prognosis of six to 12 months. As one of the largest not-for-profit hospices in the nation, Suncoast Pinellas offers specialized programs for veterans, the Jewish population, African Americans, the Hispanic population, and disease groups such as heart failure, Alzheimer’s, and COPD. The applicant entity for the CON is Suncoast Hospice of Hillsborough, LLC. If approved, Suncoast will appear beside Suncoast Pinellas in Empath’s organizational chart, operating as a subsidiary under the Empath Health, Inc., family of companies. Empath has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Stratum to merge the two organizations. The merger has not yet been accomplished; the companies are currently in the process of conducting due 2 Empath’s EPIC program provides programs and services to persons impacted by HIV and AIDS throughout the Tampa Bay area. diligence. However, the two companies have already agreed that if the merger is consummated, Mr. Sciullo will serve as the CEO of the merged entity, and will be in charge of both original entities after the merger. According to Mr. Sciullo, the merger will not distract or otherwise serve as an impediment to Suncoast’s plans to implement its new hospice program in Hillsborough. Cornerstone Cornerstone is a 501(c)(3) community-based, not-for-profit entity, founded in 1981 by compassionate nurses in Eustis, Florida, to care for patients during their last days of life. Licensed in 1984, Cornerstone (formerly, Hospice of Lake and Sumter, Inc.) has since grown to serve three hospice service areas (3E, 6B, and 7B) which encompass seven central Florida counties, including Polk County, which is contiguous to Hillsborough. Cornerstone has spent more than 35 years serving tens of thousands of patients and their loved ones in the Central Florida region. As a local, not-for-profit hospice, Cornerstone’s governing body is comprised of leaders from the communities it serves, and its board would be expanded to include new members from Hillsborough. This fosters local accountability to the populations Cornerstone serves. Due to its not-for-profit status, Cornerstone is also legally and ethically bound to benefit its communities, and its earnings are reinvested locally rather than inuring to the benefit of private owners. The Cornerstone Hospice Foundation is an independent, 501(c)(3), nonprofit foundation led by community volunteers. The purpose of the Foundation is to raise money for Cornerstone’s community programs, hospice houses, and for people with no method of paying for hospice. Cornerstone Health Services, LLC, is an affiliated entity which provides non-hospice palliative care services to patients. Cornerstone also includes Care Partners, LLC, which is a consulting and group purchasing organization that provides information and materials to other hospices and group purchasing options. Cornerstone leadership has extensive experience in hospice, including development and expansion of new programs in Florida and elsewhere. Cornerstone has achieved significant growth and expansion within its existing service areas in recent years, led largely by the team that would lead Cornerstone’s expansion into Hillsborough. Cornerstone serves all patients in need regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, military status, marital status, pregnancy, or other protected status. Hospice and palliative care are the only healthcare services Cornerstone provides. This focus assures that Cornerstone is committed to providing high quality care to meet the needs of hospice patients and their families. VITAS VITAS Healthcare Corporation (“VITAS Healthcare”), the corporate parent of VITAS, is the largest provider of end-of-life care in the nation. VITAS Healthcare was initially founded in 1978 in South Florida. At that time, its leaders helped organize bipartisan legislative efforts to establish the state and federal regulatory mechanisms that guide the provision of hospice services today. Upon its inception, VITAS programs in Dade and Broward Counties participated in a federal demonstration project that resulted in the development of model clinical protocols and procedures used by hospice programs across the country. In 2018, VITAS Healthcare served 85,095 patients and maintained an average daily census of 17,743 patients among its 47 hospice programs in 14 states and the District of Columbia. As of 2018, VITAS Healthcare employed 12,176 staff members, including over 4,700 nurses nationwide. VITAS currently serves 46 of Florida’s 67 counties, which covers about 72% of Florida’s population. VITAS serves 16 of AHCA’s 27 hospice service areas under three separate licenses. VITAS successfully operates 34 satellite offices in Florida and provides facility-based care through freestanding inpatient units as well as its contracts with hospitals and nursing homes. In Florida in 2018, VITAS served over 36,000 patients, providing 3.3 million days of care with an average daily census of 9,028 patients. This was no aberration—at the time of the filing of its 6A CON application, VITAS had admitted over 35,000 patients in Florida during 2019. In addition to providing the four required levels of hospice care (see ¶ 35), VITAS also provides a full continuum of palliative and supportive care, and additional unreimbursed services that are beneficial to the hospice population it serves. VITAS has over 40 years of experience as a hospice provider, and has developed comprehensive outreach, education, and staff training programs and resources designed specifically to address the unique needs of a wide range of patient types, communities, and clinical settings. Similarly, VITAS recognizes that the needs of Florida patients vary between service areas, and it has endeavored to provide programs and services tailored to meet the needs of each community. In its Florida programs, VITAS provides complete hospice care, including medications, equipment and supplies, expert nursing care, personal care, housekeeping assistance, emotional counseling, spiritual support, caregiver education and support, grief counseling, dietary, physical, occupational and speech therapy, and volunteer support. VITAS has a long history of providing significant levels of care to all patients without regard to the ability to pay, as well as a demonstrated commitment to underserved populations such as the homeless, veterans, AIDS population, and minorities. VITAS provided almost $7 million in charity care in Florida in 2018, and $7.25 million in 2019 at the time it submitted its CON application. VITAS ensures that anyone who is appropriate for hospice services has the right to access them. VITAS is committed to giving back to the communities it serves through meaningful donations. It accomplishes this goal through VITAS Community Connections, a nonprofit organization, which makes donations and grants to local organizations and families. In 2018, VITAS made over $161,000 in charitable contributions to organizations in Florida. In that same year, VITAS contributed over $700,000 to sponsoring Florida community events. At the time of filing its Hillsborough application, VITAS employed nearly 5,500 persons in Florida, 2,235 of which are nurses. VITAS encourages and assists its nurses in obtaining board certification in hospice and palliative care through training, compensation incentives, and support. Due to VITAS Healthcare’s multi-state operations, VITAS can readily recruit staff to Florida from other markets. VITAS also relies on volunteers in a variety of roles to enhance patient care. In 2018, VITAS used 1,165 active volunteers in Florida, who provided over 145,054 volunteer hours. VITAS is led by an extremely experienced and highly qualified leadership team, many of which have long and successful tenures with the company. Hospice Care Generally Hospice refers both to care provided to terminally ill patients and the entities that provide the care. Hospice care is palliative care. Palliative care relieves or eliminates a patient's pain and suffering and helps patients remain at home. It differs from curative care, which seeks to cure a patient's illness or injury. 42 C.F.R. § 418.24(d); §§ 400.6005 and 400.601(6), Fla. Stat. Hospices provide physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual comfort and support to patients facing death and to their families. The Medicare and Medicaid programs pay for the vast majority of hospice care. The services those programs require hospices to offer and the services the programs will pay for have become, de facto, the default definition of hospice care, the arbiter of hospice services, and the decider of when a patient is terminally ill. Florida requires a CON to establish a hospice program and regulates hospices through licensure. §§ 400.602 and 408.036(1)(d), Fla. Stat. Florida considers a patient with a life expectancy of one year or less to be terminally ill and eligible for Medicaid payment for hospice care. § 400.601(10), Fla. Stat. To be eligible for Medicare payment for hospice services, a patient must have a life expectancy of six months or less. 42 C.F.R. § 418.20; 42 C.F.R. § 418.22(b)(1). A hospice must provide a continuum of services tailored to the needs and preferences of the patient and the patient’s family delivered by an interdisciplinary team of professionals and volunteers. §§ 400.601(4) and 400.609, Fla. Stat. Hospice programs must provide physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual support to their patients. A hospice must provide physician care, nursing care, social work services, bereavement counseling, dietary counseling, and spiritual counseling. 42 C.F.R. § 418.64; § 400.609(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In Florida, hospices must also provide, or arrange for, additional services including, but not limited to, “physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, massage therapy, home health aide services, infusion therapy, provision of medical supplies and durable medical equipment [DME], day care, homemaker and chore services, and funeral services.” § 400.609(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Federal requirements are similar. 42 C.F.R. § 418.70. Hospices are required to provide four levels of care. The levels are routine home care, general inpatient care, crisis care (also called continuous care), and respite care. Since hospice’s goal is to support a patient remaining at home, hospices provide the majority of their services in a patient’s home. Routine home care is the predominant form of hospice care. Routine care is for patients who do not need constant bedside support. A hospice may provide routine care wherever the patient lives. The location could be a residence, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), an assisted living facility (ALF), some other residential facility, or a homeless camp. Continuous care, sometimes called crisis care, may also be provided wherever the patient resides. It is more intense services for a short period of time. Continuous care supports a patient whose pain and symptoms are peaking and need quick management. With continuous care, unlike routine care, a nurse may be at a patient’s bedside 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Continuous care is an option allowing a patient to avoid admission to an inpatient facility. Hospices provide general inpatient care in a hospital, a dedicated nursing unit, or a freestanding hospice inpatient facility. To qualify for inpatient care, a patient must be acutely ill and need immediate assistance and daily monitoring to the extent that they cannot be cared for at home. Hospices must offer around-the-clock skilled nursing coverage for patients receiving general inpatient care. Respite care is caregiver relief. It allows patients to stay in an inpatient setting for up to five days in order to provide caregivers respite. Florida law requires hospices to accept all medically eligible patients. Each hospice must make its services available to all terminally ill persons and their families without regard to age, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, diagnosis, cost of therapy, ability to pay, or life circumstances. A hospice may not impose any value or belief system on its patients or their families, and must respect the values and belief systems of its patients and their families. § 400.6095(1), Fla. Stat. Hospices frequently offer additional, uncompensated services that are not required by Florida licensure laws or federal Medicare requirements. Pre- hospice care and community counseling are two examples. Hospices often establish programs to meet the needs of particular populations, such as the Hispanic, African American, Jewish, veteran, and HIV/AIDS communities. Cornerstone, Suncoast Pinellas, and VITAS provide the hospice services required by state laws and funded by the Medicare benefit. All three providers also offer services beyond those required by, or paid for by, government programs. The Fixed Need Pool and Preliminary Agency Decision Pursuant to its rule-based numeric need methodology, AHCA determined and published a fixed need for one new hospice program in SA 6A, Hillsborough, in the second batching cycle of 2019. Under the Agency's need methodology, numeric need for an additional hospice program exists when the difference between projected hospice admissions and the current admissions in a service area is equal to or greater than 350. In this instance, the difference between projected hospice admissions and current admissions in SA 6A was 863, and therefore a numeric need for an additional hospice program exists in Hillsborough.3 In addition to the three litigant applicants, three other entities filed applications seeking approval for the new program. Those three applications have been deemed abandoned and are not at issue herein. On February 21, 2020, the Agency published its preliminary decision to award the hospice CON to Suncoast, and to deny the remaining applications. Thereafter, Cornerstone and VITAS both filed timely petitions for formal administrative hearing contesting the Agency’s preliminary decision. On April 1, 2020, Suncoast filed a “Cross Petition, Notice of Related Cases and Notice of Appearance” in support of the Agency decision on the competitively reviewed applications. None of the applicants petitioning for 3 According to AHCA’s need methodology, absent a showing of “not normal” circumstances, only one new hospice program may be approved for a SA at a time, regardless of the multiples of 350 “need” that may be shown. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.0355(4)(c). hearing alleged “special circumstances” or “not normal” circumstances in their application. Service Area 6A: Hillsborough County As can be seen by the map below, Hillsborough is located on the west coast of Florida along Tampa Bay. It includes 1,048 square miles of land area and 24 square miles of inland water area. Hillsborough is home to three incorporated cities: Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City, with Tampa being the largest and serving as the county seat. The county is bordered by Pasco County to the north, Polk County to the east, Manatee County to the south, and Pinellas County to the west. (Source: Google Maps) According to AHCA’s Florida Population Estimates 2010-2030, published February 2015, Hillsborough’s total population as of January 2020 was estimated to be 1,439,041. Hillsborough’s total population is expected to grow to 1,557,830 by January 2025, or 8.25% over that five-year period. In 2020, 14% of Hillsborough’s population was aged 65 and older. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 35.4% of the county population age 65 and older has a disability, and 17.2% of the county population is below the poverty level, compared to 12.2% statewide. The Hillsborough County Department of Health (“HCDOH”) reports that the county has a diverse mix of residents, with 52% White, 16% African American, 26% Hispanic, and 5% other races. Of the Hillsborough households living below the poverty level, 23.73% are Hispanic/Latino and 31.07% are African American. Nearly 10% of Hillsborough residents report not speaking English “very well.” The most recent U.S. Census indicates that the median income for households in Hillsborough is $54,742, considerably below the national average, with 17.2% reported below poverty level. A larger percentage of the county’s residents (3.3%) received cash assistance than did the state’s residents (2.2%), and a larger percentage (15.7%) received food stamp benefits than is the case for the state overall (14.3%), as reported by HCDOH. Hillsborough is currently served by two hospice providers: Lifepath Hospice (“Lifepath”); and Seasons Hospice and Palliative Care of Tampa, LLC (“Seasons”), a for-profit company. Following approval after an administrative hearing, Seasons was newly licensed to begin operations in Hillsborough in December 2016. Florida’s hospice CON rule prevents need for a new program from being shown for a period of two years following the addition of a new program to a service area. The purpose of the two-year forbearance is to allow new programs to gain a foothold in the market, and to potentially avoid a repeated need determination in future batching cycles. Hospice admissions at Lifepath for the period of July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, were 6,195, and for Seasons were 601. The addition of Seasons to the service area was not successful in deterring the need for yet another new program in Hillsborough. The Application Proposals and CON Conditions Suncoast Suncoast recently applied for approval for a hospice program in neighboring Pasco County, but, after a DOAH hearing, that application was denied in favor of another applicant. From that experience, Suncoast determined to better identify local needs before applying for approval in Hillsborough. Upon learning that a fixed need pool would be announced for Hillsborough, Mr. Sciullo directed his team of executives and staff over a series of strategy meetings to conduct an independent community needs assessment of Hillsborough. Mr. Sciullo tasked Kathy Rabon to oversee the development of a community needs assessment of Hillsborough to identify potential needs of Hillsborough residents, based on key informant surveys and other assessment tools. Ms. Rabon has significant experience in conducting feasibility studies for capital projects funded by the Suncoast Hospice Foundation, which she leads. Ms. Rabon began by reviewing existing community needs assessments of the county. Those assessments identified the health needs of Hillsborough’s underserved patients, and identified community leaders that informed the assessments. Ms. Rabon then contacted many of those key informants. At hearing, Ms. Rabon described the process she used to develop a community needs assessment for Hillsborough as follows: Q. When tasked with doing an assessment for Hillsborough's hospice, where did you start? What documents did you first review? A. A community needs assessment can take quite a while when you engage focus groups and need to meet with stakeholders. We didn't have the luxury of a lot of time. We also had the luxury of knowledge that other hospitals in Hillsborough County that are not-for-profit have to periodically do a community needs assessment. So rather than start from a blank piece of paper, I turned to those community needs assessments and I began compiling and gathering as many as I could that I felt were relevant to, A, the geographic boundaries of the entire county, which some did not, but B, also were timely. And I found that the Department of Health had done a very comprehensive community needs assessment in 2015-16 that had been updated in March of 2019 that I felt would provide a lot of good information. * * * I was responsible for identifying need and, if possible, identifying perhaps solutions that could be developed as a result of a partnership or a relationship or an engagement or a future plan that we could put together that would help solve a need in Hillsborough County relative to chronic and advanced illness. In addition to the HCDOH needs assessment and update, Ms. Rabon also obtained quantitative information for her assessment from the following sources: Community Health Improvement Plan 2016- 2020, Florida Department of Health in Hillsborough County, Revised January, 2018; Moffitt Cancer Center Community Health Needs Assessment Report 2016; Florida Hospital Tampa Community Needs Assessment Report 2016; Florida Hospital Carrollwood Community Needs Assessment Report 2016; South Florida Baptist Hospital 2016 Community Needs Assessment Report; Tampa General Hospital; Community Health Needs Assessment 2016; and Community Needs Assessment St. Joseph’s Hospitals Service Area 2016. Ms. Rabon also developed a key informant survey tool to elicit qualitative information regarding the healthcare needs of Hillsborough residents. The survey specifically asked about the strengths and weaknesses of the community for treatment of persons with chronic or advanced illness, and other pressing issues relating to end of life care. Those survey questions included, among others: What is your role, and responsibilities within your organization? What do you consider to be the strengths and assets of the Hillsborough community that can help improve chronic and advanced illness? What do you believe are the three most pressing issues facing those with chronic or advanced illness in Hillsborough County? From your experience, what are the greatest barriers to care for those with chronic or advanced illness? What are the strategies that could be implemented to address these barriers? Once meetings with key informants were complete, and 25 key informant surveys were returned, Ms. Rabon summarized her findings in a final Community Needs Assessment Summary. Ms. Rabon’s findings were consistent with assessments conducted by other organizations, including HCDOH, and local hospitals. The results of the Community Health Needs Assessments, Suncoast Key Informant Surveys, and detailed letters of support, identified the following gaps in end-of-life care for residents of Hillsborough: Need for Disease-Specific Programming: High cardiovascular disease mortality rates (higher than the state average and the highest of the six most populous counties in Florida) and low percentage of patients served by existing hospice providers. Other areas where there appears to be a gap in specific end-of-life programming and a large need in terms of Hillsborough resident deaths include: Alzheimer's Disease and Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease, both of which are in the top 5 leading causes of death in the county. Need for Ethnic Community-Specific Programming Nearly 30 percent of the Hillsborough population is Hispanic, with 19 percent of the county's 65+ population falling into the Hispanic ethnic category. The concentration of 65+ Hispanic residents in Hillsborough is higher than the state average. Surveys and assessments indicate a lack of knowledge in the Hispanic/Latinx[4] community in Hillsborough regarding end-of-life care. Many of these residents speak Spanish at home and/or have limited English proficiency. Hillsborough Hispanic population has low utilization of hospice due to factors including lack of regular physician and medical care, lack of information and cultural barriers. Lack of Available Resources for Homeless and Low-lncome Populations With the 5th largest homeless population in the state, Hillsborough has 1,650 homeless residents as of a Point in Time Count conducted in February 2019. Nearly 60 percent of the area’s homeless population is considered ‘sheltered’, yet there are no resources for end-of-life care for these patients where they live, whether it be an emergency shelter, safe haven or transitional housing. Additionally, 17.2 percent of the Hillsborough population lives below the poverty level and has limited access to coordinated care, including end-of- life services. Largest Veteran Population in Florida Requires Special Programming and Large Number of Resources More than 93,000 veterans currently reside in Hillsborough, with more than one-third over the age of 65. 4 Latinx is a gender-neutral neologism, sometimes used to refer to people of Latin American cultural or ethnic identity in the United States. The ?-x? suffix replaces the ?-o/-a? ending of Latino and Latina that are typical of grammatical gender in Spanish. See “Latinx,” Wikipedia (last visited March 19, 2021). While most hospice programs provide special services for veterans, Suncoast Pinellas has obtained Partner Level 4 certification by We Honor Veterans, a program of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (“NHPCO”) in collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Lack of Specialized Pediatric Hospice Program in the Area Pediatric hospice programming in Hillsborough is limited, as there are no specialized pediatric hospice providers in the county. Hillsborough is home to approximately 338,000 residents ages 0-17 in 2020, and is projected to increase to more than 368,000 by 2025. The pediatric utilization rate of hospice services in Hillsborough is low compared to the general population. For the year ended March 31, 2019, there were only five pediatric patients discharged from the hospital setting to home hospice or an inpatient hospice facility, while 106 pediatric patients died in the hospital. Absence of Continuum of Care Navigation Navigation of the healthcare system was highlighted as a key driver that will bring positive improvements to overall continuum of care in Hillsborough. Hillsborough residents are not accessing hospice services at a rate consistent with the rest of the state, and either access hospice programs very late in the disease process, or not at all. Transportation Challenges for Rural Areas of the County Transportation challenges as a deterrent to seeking medical care, particularly in rural areas of Hillsborough. Approximately one-third of the Hillsborough population is considered “transportation disadvantaged” meaning they are unable to transport themselves due to disability, older age, low income or being a high-risk minor/child. Suncoast retained David Levitt and his firm as its healthcare consultant and primary drafter of its CON application. To develop Suncoast’s application, Mr. Levitt utilized numerous reliable data sources and worked with Suncoast Pinellas’s staff. Mr. Levitt credibly confirmed the need for an additional hospice program in Hillsborough based on reliable healthcare planning data. AHCA’s CON application form, adopted by rule, requires applicants to submit letters of support with their CON applications. Suncoast complied with this requirement and included numerous letters of support from the Hillsborough community. One of the key informants identified by Ms. Rabon was Dr. Douglas Holt of the HCDOH. Dr. Holt agreed to meet with Mr. Sciullo and ultimately agreed to provide a letter of support, which was included with the Suncoast application. Mr. Sciullo also personally met with Dr. Larry Fineman, the regional medical director of HCA West Florida, who provided a letter of support. HCA West Florida hospitals are key referral sources of Suncoast Pinellas’s current hospice admissions. In addition to HCA West Florida, Suncoast Pinellas has an existing relationship with other Hillsborough hospitals: St. Joseph’s, Moffitt Cancer Center and Tampa General Hospital. Suncoast received letters of support from St. Joseph’s and Tampa General. The Agency’s witness, James McLemore, testified that letters from such referral sources were highly persuasive to the Agency, as they indicate the likelihood of successful operations. Suncoast’s witness, Dr. Larry Kay, credibly testified that he obtained letters of support from Dr. Howard Tuch, Director of Palliative Medicine at Tampa General Hospital; Dr. Larry Feinman, Chief Medical Officer at HCA West Florida; and Dr. Harmatz, the Chief Medical Officer at Brandon Regional Hospital, an HCA hospital within HCA West Florida. Those letters were included with the Suncoast application. Suncoast Pinellas currently has working relationships with BayCare, HCA, AdventHealth West Florida, Tampa General, and Moffitt hospital systems. Suncoast submitted letters from BayCare and HCA, which were included with its application. Suncoast received letters specifically related to partnering with Suncoast for inpatient services from St. Joseph’s (BayCare) and Brandon Regional (HCA). Suncoast also received a letter of support related to partnering with Suncoast for inpatient services from the Inn at University Village, a long- term care facility in Hillsborough; and support from a pediatric hospitalist who provides care to terminally ill and medically fragile children at St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital and Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. Suncoast also received letters of support from numerous community organizations, including Balance Tampa Bay and The AIDS Institute. Also included with the Suncoast application were several letters of support from [Remainder of page intentionally blank] the veterans’ community, including one from the Military Order of the World Wars.5 After considering Ms. Rabon’s Community Needs Assessment, and input from key informants, Suncoast developed programs and plans to meet each of the needs identified above. Suncoast conditioned the approval of its CON on the provision of those services. In all, Suncoast offered 19 conditions in its CON application intended to meet the unique needs of Hillsborough. Condition 1: Development of Disease Specific Programing: Suncoast is committed to providing disease-specific programming in Hillsborough: Empath Cardiac CareConnections, Empath Alzheimer’s CareConnections, and Empath Pulmonary CareConnections. Dr. Larry Kay and Dr. Janet Roman credibly testified that Suncoast will fulfill Condition 1 for disease specific programming. To fulfill Condition 1, Suncoast will provide Empath Cardiac CareConnections in Hillsborough. Dr. Roman designed and currently runs the CardiacCare Connections program in Pinellas County. Dr. Roman is a national expert in developing programs across the continuum of care to assist heart failure patients. Although Suncoast Pinellas has always treated patients with heart failure, since Dr. Roman’s arrival, cardiologists have been referring patients to Suncoast Pinellas earlier than before. Dr. Roman has trained Suncoast Pinellas’s nurses in all advanced heart failure therapies, including IV inotropes, and mechanical circulatory 5 As correctly noted by Cornerstone in its Proposed Recommended Order, letters of support included in the three applications, unless adopted by the sponsoring author at hearing or in sworn deposition received in evidence, are uncorroborated hearsay, and the contents therein may not form the basis of a finding of fact. However, the letters are not being received for the truth of the matters set forth therein, but rather the number and types of support letters included in the applications are relevant generally as a gauge of the level of community support for the proposals. The Hospice of the Fla. Suncoast, Inc. v. AHCA and Seasons Hospice and Palliative Care of Pasco Cty., DOAH Case No. 18-4986 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 5, 2019; Fla. AHCA Oct. 15, 2019) (“In a broad sense, comparison of each applicant's letters of support illuminates the differences between each applicant's engagement with the community.” FOF No. 127.). supports such as left ventricular assist devices (“LVAD”) and artificial hearts. Dr. Roman’s program has been successful at reducing hospital readmissions. Suncoast’s application provided significantly more detail about the operations of its heart program than either Cornerstone or VITAS. Cornerstone and VITAS’s descriptions of their heart programs do not reach the level of specificity of operation as Suncoast’s and are not backed up with a measure of success such as a reduction in readmissions. In furtherance of Condition 1, Suncoast will also offer Empath Alzheimer’s CareConnections. Suncoast Pinellas has already created the foundation for Empath Alzheimer’s CareConnections in Pinellas County, but has not yet been marketing the program under the brand of CareConnections. As part of Empath Alzheimer’s CareConnections, Suncoast will deploy a Music in Caregiving program for Hillsborough hospice patients, including those suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. Suncoast will also offer Empath Pulmonary CareConnections in Hillsborough. Suncoast Pinellas has already created the foundation for Empath Pulmonary CareConnections in Pinellas County, but has not yet been marketing the program under the brand of CareConnections. Suncoast Pinellas already has several respiratory therapists full time caring for COPD and asthma patients. In Hillsborough, Suncoast plans to engage a pulmonologist as a consultant and to hire dedicated respiratory therapists as volume increases in Hillsborough. Condition 2: Development of Ethnic Community-Specific Programming Suncoast conditioned its CON application on the purchase of a mobile van staffed by a full-time bilingual LPN and a full-time bilingual social worker to discuss advanced care planning and education, and increase access to care to diverse populations. The van will operate eight hours a day, five days a week, and drive to areas in Hillsborough that have a need for the services offered by Suncoast and Empath. This outreach is intended to enhance access to care to diverse communities. The van will spend time at the HCDOH and its satellite clinics, and use Metropolitan Ministries as a resource for identifying additional locations that could benefit. The van will also visit key Latinx community locations within Hillsborough and offer Spanish language assistance. The van will be equipped with telehealth technology capabilities to link the LPN and social worker to the care navigation office to further enhance the care navigation function of the mobile van. The purpose of the mobile outreach van is to build relationships with, and trust in, the community, enhance visibility, and bring care navigation to areas of Hillsborough that may not typically access it. Suncoast Pinellas’s EPIC program has significant experience operating a mobile outreach unit. EPIC currently operates a mobile outreach and testing unit that provides HIV testing and sexually transmitted infection testing in the community. Condition 3: Development of Resources for Homeless and Low-Income Populations Suncoast conditioned its application on the development of resources for homeless and low-income populations. Under this condition, Suncoast will provide up to $25,000 annually for five years to Metropolitan Ministries. Metropolitan Ministries is a leading community-based organization in Hillsborough that serves homeless and low-income individuals. Christine Long, Chief Programs Officer for Metropolitan Ministries, provided a letter of support which was included in Suncoast’s CON application. Condition 4: Development of Specialized Veterans Program Suncoast conditioned its CON application on the development of a specialized veterans program, which includes a dedicated Veterans Professional Relations Liaison to collaborate with the local VA hospital, outpatient clinics, and veterans organizations. Suncoast Pinellas provides a wide range of specialized care for veterans, through its Empath Honors program, including Honor Flight and pinning ceremonies. Additionally, Suncoast Pinellas holds a Level 4 Certification from We Honor Veterans, a national program through the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (“NHPCO”) whose mission is to honor military veterans in hospice care. The NHPCO recently added a new Level 5 Partnership, for which Suncoast Pinellas has already applied for its Pinellas hospice program. Suncoast will also pursue a Level 5 Certification in Hillsborough, if awarded the CON. Condition 5: Development of Specialized Pediatric Hospice Program in Hillsborough County Suncoast will also develop a specialized pediatric hospice program in Hillsborough. Dr. Stacy Orloff started the Children’s Hospice Program at Suncoast Pinellas in 1990 and has been with Suncoast Pinellas for 30 years. Dr. Orloff helped draft the first waiver that the State of Florida submitted to CMS for approval to operate a PIC/TFK program. Once the PIC/TFK waiver was approved, Ms. Orloff led Florida’s PIC/TFK steering committee for 12 years. PIC/TFK is a Medicaid waiver program that provides palliative care services for children with a risk of a death event by age 21, and also provides counseling support for family members who lived at the child’s home, such as parents, siblings, and grandparents. A PIC/TFK provider must be a licensed hospice provider in the service area. Suncoast Pinellas has operated a PIC/TFK program in Pinellas since 2004, utilizing a pediatric interdisciplinary team to provide its PIC/TFK services. Suncoast Pinellas’s PIC/TFK program averages a census of approximately 40 children. Combining the PIC/TFK patients with pediatric patients, Suncoast Pinellas’s census averages approximately 50 children. Suncoast Pinellas has already received acknowledgment from Children’s Medical Services to permit it to operate a PIC/TFK program in Hillsborough if awarded the hospice CON. Initially, pediatric patients will be serviced by the Suncoast Pinellas pediatric staff. Suncoast Pinellas currently has sufficient staff availability to service Hillsborough at the commencement of the program. Suncoast anticipates that by the second year, the Hillsborough pediatric program will have a sufficient census to have a staff that serves only Hillsborough. VITAS’s regional Medical Director, Dr. Leyva, acknowledged that a pediatric patient will receive better care from a care team with pediatric expertise than with an adults-only team. Of the three applicants, Suncoast has demonstrated the most experience providing care to pediatric patients.6 In addition, Suncoast Pinellas has longstanding relationships with the local children’s hospitals, St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital, and Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. Concurrent care is a benefit created as part of the Affordable Care Act that allows children admitted to hospice care to continue to receive their curative care. Although all applicants have proposed providing concurrent care, only Suncoast has proposed a PIC/TFK program. Suncoast is the only applicant currently operating a perinatal loss program and miscarriage at home program. Dr. Orloff credibly confirmed that Suncoast will implement the perinatal loss program if approved in Hillsborough. Condition 6: Development of Continuum of Care Navigation Program Suncoast’s Community Needs Assessment identified that Hillsborough lacks effective access to the full continuum of healthcare services. Suncoast 6 AHCA’s witness, James McLemore, credibly testified that this is an area where Suncoast enjoys an advantage over the other applicants because “Suncoast went with an entire pediatric program.” Pinellas operates an entire care navigation department that can address any inquiry or referral regarding hospice and Empath’s other services, in order to direct that patient to the right care at the right time. All services offered by Empath, including hospice, palliative care, home health, EPIC, and PACE are available to individuals who call the Care Navigation Center. Care Navigation staff can also assist existing patients with questions involving, for example, DME. Suncoast Pinellas’s care navigation center is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. If its application is approved, Suncoast will also offer its Care Navigation Department in Hillsborough. Condition 7: Development of a Program to Address Transportation Challenges for Rural Areas Suncoast has conditioned its application on developing a program to address transportation challenges for rural areas in Hillsborough. As part of this condition, Suncoast will provide up to $25,000 annually in bus vouchers for the first five years to current hospice patients and their families, as well as non-hospice patients. Critics of Suncoast’s plans to offer bus vouchers claimed that Hillsborough’s bus system does not reach all areas within the county. However, Suncoast has also conditioned its application on the provision of funds that may be used to purchase transportation, including ridesharing providers such as Uber. Condition 8: Interdisciplinary Palliative Care Consult Partnerships Suncoast will implement interdisciplinary palliative care partnerships with hospitals, ALFs, and nursing homes located in Hillsborough. Suncoast has already identified potential partnerships, including with Dr. Harmatz at Brandon Regional Medical Center, to launch the program. Condition 9: Dedicated Quality-of-Life Funds for Patients and Families Suncoast is committed to providing quality of life funds as described in Condition 9 in Suncoast’s CON application. Suncoast Pinellas has extensive experience with providing each interdisciplinary team with $1,200 of quality of life funds to be used to facilitate a safe environment for its patients, such as paying rent, getting rid of bedbugs, paying utilities such as electricity for air conditioning, and to power specialized medical equipment. On occasion these funds are also used to provide meaningful patient experiences, similar to the Make-a-Wish programs. Conditions 10 – 13: Development of Advisory Committees and Councils Suncoast has committed to establishing care councils and advisory committees to learn firsthand the needs and concerns of the community. A care council is made up of members from a particular community who provide input regarding the needs of the community. Suncoast Pinellas offers similar councils and committees in Pinellas County. These groups are critical to the success of Suncoast Pinellas’s mission. Condition 14: Development of Open Access Model of Care Suncoast has committed to implementing an open access model of care in Hillsborough. This condition recognizes that while some patients may be receiving complex medical treatments that may lead some to question whether the patient is terminal, those treatments are actually required for palliation and the patient’s comfort. Under this condition, Suncoast promises to admit these patients and provide coverage for their treatments. Condition 15: SAGECare Platinum Level Certification Joy Winheim testified at the final hearing regarding the HIV positive community and the LGBTQ community. Over her many years working with the HIV/AIDS community, Ms. Winheim has built lasting relationships with community partners in the Tampa Bay area, including HCDOH and the Pinellas County Health Department. Empath’s EPIC program has a permanent staff member housed within the HCDOH, and the HCDOH has physicians housed in EPIC’s Tampa office to provide medical care to EPIC’s clients. Ms. Winheim has built lasting relationships with community partners in the Tampa Bay LGBTQ community, including Metropolitan Community Church, an LGBTQ friendly church; the Tampa Bay Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce; and Balance Tampa Bay. SAGE is a national organization dedicated to improving the rights of LGBTQ seniors by providing education and training to businesses and non- profits. The platinum level of SAGECare certification is the highest level and indicates that 80% of an organization’s employees and 100% of its leadership have been trained by SAGE. Leadership training is in the form of a four-hour in-person training. Employee training is in the form of a one-hour training conducted either in person or web-based. All of Empath’s entities are SAGECare certified at the platinum level. Although the platinum level certification requires only 80% of its employees to receive training, Empath Health required that 100% of its employees attend the training. SAGECare certification makes a difference to members of the LGBTQ community choosing a healthcare provider. Suncoast is committed to fulfilling this condition. Condition 16: Jewish Hospice Certification Suncoast Pinellas has a specialized Jewish Hospice Program and holds a Jewish Hospice Certification from the National Institute of Jewish Hospices. Suncoast has conditioned its CON application on achieving this same certification in Hillsborough by the end of year one. Condition 17: Joint Commission Accreditation The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (“Joint Commission”) accreditation is the “gold standard” for hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, and other healthcare providers. Suncoast is currently accredited by the Joint Commission, and if approved, is committed to achieving Joint Commission accreditation for its Hillsborough program. Condition 18: Provision of Value-Added Services Beyond Medicare Hospice Benefit Suncoast has committed to provide its integrative medicine program in Hillsborough. Suncoast Pinellas’s existing integrative medicine program is staffed by an APRN who is also certified in acupuncture. Suncoast Pinellas’s integrative medicine program is a holistic approach for helping patients manage their symptoms with such therapies as acupuncture, Reiki,7 and aromatherapy. Suncoast Pinellas recently established a Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurse Program in Pinellas County to provide expertise in end-of- life wounds and incontinence issues in long-term care settings, particularly smaller ALFs that may not have the necessary staffing. Suncoast will also offer this program in Hillsborough. [Remainder of page intentionally blank] 7 Reiki (??, /'re?ki/) is a Japanese form of alternative medicine called energy healing. Reiki practitioners use a technique called palm healing or hands-on healing through which a “universal energy” is said to be transferred through the palms of the practitioner to the patient in order to encourage emotional or physical healing. Condition 19 – Limited Fundraising in Hillsborough County Suncoast has committed to limiting fundraising activities in Hillsborough. Ms. Rabon credibly testified that Suncoast can, and will, fulfill this condition.8 Suncoast’s PACE Program In addition to its conditions, Suncoast’s proposal also includes several other non-hospice services that will be made available in Hillsborough. For example, Suncoast Pinellas operates a PACE program. The PACE program provides everything from medical care to transportation for medical needs and adult daycare services, as well as respite services for caregivers. The overall goal of the PACE program is to reduce unnecessary hospital visits and nursing home placement and keep elderly participants at home. Suncoast Pinellas’s PACE program currently operates at capacity, with 325 participants enrolled. Over the last four years, Suncoast Pinellas PACE has referred 175 people to Suncoast Pinellas. And although there are approximately 14,000 eligible PACE participants in Hillsborough, there is not a PACE provider in the county. In recognition of this unmet need, Suncoast Pinellas is currently in the process of expanding PACE services to residents of Hillsborough. Suncoast’s PACE program distinguishes Suncoast from Cornerstone and VITAS, neither of which currently operates a PACE program in any of their service areas. Suncoast’s Volunteer Program Under the Medicare Conditions of Participation, hospice programs must use volunteers “in an amount that, at a minimum, equals 5 percent of 8 Both Suncoast and Vitas condition their applications on eschewing fundraising activities in SA 6A, apparently in an effort to minimize adverse impact on the two existing providers in the service area. However, neither Lifepath nor Seasons participated as a party to this litigation, or presented evidence at hearing as to revenues received through their fundraising activities. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether the conditions proposed by Suncoast and VITAS would have a material impact on either of the existing providers. the total patient care hours of all paid hospice employees and contract staff.” 42 C.F.R. § 418.78(e). Suncoast Pinellas regularly exceeds that 5% requirement and, in fact, reached 12% in the last fiscal year. Suncoast Pinellas currently has over 1,000 volunteers who support the hospice program by assisting with palliative arts, including Reiki and aromatherapy, Lifetime Legacies, pediatric patients, and transportation. Suncoast Pinellas’s volunteers also assist with Suncoast’s Pet Peace of Mind Program, for which Suncoast Pinellas won the inaugural award for program of the year in 2019. Suncoast is the only applicant that operates a teen volunteer program. Suncoast Pinellas’s teen volunteer program was established in 1994 and was the first of its kind in the entire country. In 1998, it was awarded the Presidential Point of Light award. Suncoast Pinellas’s Volunteer Services Director, Melissa More, regularly consults with hospices across the country on the development of teen volunteer programs. Ninety of Suncoast Pinellas’s 1,000 volunteers currently live in Hillsborough, but travel to Pinellas to volunteer at Suncoast Pinellas. Nine of those volunteers submitted letters of support for Suncoast’s CON application to serve Hillsborough. Doctor Direct Program Suncoast Pinellas’s existing Doctor Direct Program enables physicians in the community and their ancillary referral partners to contact a Suncoast Pinellas physician 24/7, who can answer any questions about a patient they think might be eligible for hospice, and questions related to other Suncoast Pinellas programs. Suncoast will provide its Doctor Direct Program in Hillsborough. Plan for Inpatient Services Suncoast received letters of support from hospitals and a nursing home indicating a willingness to enter into a contract for inpatient services with Suncoast. Suncoast intends to offer both inpatient units and “scatter- bed” arrangements with these providers. Suncoast received letters specifically related to potential partnerships with St. Joseph’s (BayCare) and Brandon Regional (HCA) for the provision of inpatient hospice services. Suncoast also received a letter related to a potential partnership with the Inn at University Village, a long-term care facility in Hillsborough, for the provision of inpatient services. Telehealth Suncoast Pinellas offers telehealth services using CMS and HIPAA- approved software so that patients can keep meaningful connections with their family and friends, regardless of ability to travel. In Hillsborough, Suncoast will provide nurses, social workers, and chaplains with traveling technology for use in the patient’s home to connect with family and friends. Utilizing telehealth in this way will help to minimize emergency room visits and hospitalizations. Suncoast will be prepared to implement its telehealth program in Hillsborough on day one of operation if awarded the CON. Outreach Efforts to Diverse Communities Suncoast is committed to, and has a proven track record of, community outreach efforts to diverse communities. As part of its outreach efforts in Hillsborough, Empath’s Vice President of Access and Inclusion, Karen Davis-Pritchett, met with the Executive Director of the Hispanic Service Council, Maria Pinzon, to discuss the organization’s outreach efforts and gain insight into the Hispanic community in Hillsborough. Ms. Davis- Pritchett learned that the Hispanic community in Hillsborough differs from the Hispanic community in Pinellas, in that Hillsborough has a large and spread out migrant population. Ms. Davis-Pritchett and Ms. Pinzon also discussed the transportation issues facing residents of Hillsborough. To address these transportation issues, Suncoast conditioned its CON application on the purchase and use of a mobile outreach van with bilingual staff to conduct outreach to the Hispanic and other diverse communities. Suncoast also conditioned its application on the provision of vouchers that may be used for buses or ride-sharing services. Ultimately, Suncoast obtained a letter of support from Ms. Pinzon, which was submitted with its CON application. Additionally, Suncoast conditioned its application on recruiting four community partnership specialists, who will conduct outreach to the African American community, the Hispanic community, the Veterans community, and the Jewish community, and six professional liaisons who will conduct outreach to clinical partners in Hillsborough. All of these positions will be dedicated to Hillsborough and be filled by individuals who are connected to these communities, and understand the importance of access to hospice care. Suncoast’s proposal includes a bilingual medical director, Dr. Jerez- Marte, for its Hillsborough program. Dr. Jerez-Marte regularly speaks Spanish with patients and staff, which would be a benefit to Hispanic patients in Hillsborough. Mr. Sciullo credibly testified that Suncoast will offer high quality hospice services in SA 6A, and will fulfill the 19 conditions proposed in its application. Cornerstone Based on its review of data and analytics that Cornerstone relies upon and conducts as part of its ongoing operations in Florida, Cornerstone recognized in the second quarter of 2019, long before AHCA published its need projections, that there was need for an additional hospice program to enhance access to hospice services in Hillsborough. Regardless of the service area, Cornerstone offers quality hospice care through consistent policies, protocols, and programs to ensure that patients are getting the highest quality care possible. Cornerstone will bring all aspects of its existing hospice programs and services to Hillsborough, including all of the programs and services described throughout its application. However, Cornerstone recognizes each service area is different in terms of the needs and access issues patients face, whether based on demographics, geography, infrastructure, a lack of information about hospice, or other factors. When looking to enter a market, Cornerstone conducts a detailed community-oriented needs assessment to determine the specific needs of the community with regard to hospice to best understand how to enhance access to quality hospice services. Cornerstone explores each potential new area to identify the cultural, ethnic, and religious makeup of the community, the current providers of end- of-life care in the community, and the unmet needs and gaps in care, which is critical to understanding where issues may lie. This allows Cornerstone to build and develop an appropriate operational plan to meet the needs identified in a particular market. Cornerstone conducted this type of analysis for its recent successful expansion in Marietta, Georgia, and has had success expanding access to hospice in its existing markets through ongoing similar analyses. Cornerstone conducted an analysis of Hillsborough similar to those it conducts in its existing markets and in expansion efforts outside its existing markets. In its assessment of Hillsborough, Cornerstone relied, in part, on the extensive knowledge of its senior leaders and outreach personnel, many of whom live and previously worked in Hillsborough, with regard to the population characteristics and needs of the Hillsborough area. This experience in the target service area affords Cornerstone’s team a detailed knowledge of the hospice-related needs of the county. Mr. D’Auria, who conducted much of the analytics internally for Cornerstone, also oversaw a team of Cornerstone staff who spent several weeks canvassing Hillsborough at a grassroots level. The Cornerstone team spoke to residents, medical professionals, community leaders, SNFs, ALFs, and hospitals, among others, on the local experience of hospice care, to identify any areas of concern regarding unmet needs or perceived improvements necessary relative to the provision of hospice care by the current providers. Cornerstone’s retained health planning experts, Mr. Roy Brady and Mr. Gene Nelson, further undertook an extensive data-driven analysis of Hillsborough’s health-related needs to explore the access issues and service gaps identified in Cornerstone’s analytics, knowledge of and discussions in the local community, as well as the issues raised in community health needs assessments,9 letters of support, and other resources. Together, the team concluded that quality hospice services are available in Hillsborough County through existing providers LifePath and Seasons Hospice. That care is available to patients of all ages and demographic groups with virtually any end-stage disease process. Yet some patients simply are not accessing hospice services at the expected rate in Hillsborough. For example, Cornerstone’s analyses identified specific unmet community need among particular geographic areas, as well as among persons with a diagnosis other than cancer, particularly those under age 65, persons with end-stage respiratory disease, the Hispanic and African American communities, migrant communities, residents of smaller ALFs, and veterans. Based upon its analysis of the healthcare needs of Hillsborough, Cornerstone included multiple conditions intended to address those needs. In 9 Cornerstone considered the health needs assessments released by Tampa General Hospital and the Moffitt Cancer Center, both published in 2019. Cornerstone also considered the health needs assessment prepared by HCDOH issued on April 1, 2016, as updated, including the March 2019 update. all, Cornerstone proposed 10 conditions in its CON application targeted to meet the hospice needs of Hillsborough: Licensure of the Hospice Program: Cornerstone commits to apply for licensure within 5 days of receipt of the CON to ensure that its service delivery begins as soon as practicable to enhance and expand hospice and community education and bereavement services in SA 6A; Hispanic Outreach: Cornerstone commits to provide two full-time salaried positions for bilingual staff as part of its Community Education Team. These Community Education Team members will be responsible for the development, implementation, coordination and evaluation of programs to increase community knowledge and access to hospice services, particularly designed to reach the Hispanic community in Spanish. Bilingual Volunteers: Cornerstone commits to recruit bilingual volunteers. Patients’ demographic information, including other languages spoken, is already routinely collected so that the most compatible volunteer can be assigned to fill each patient’s visiting request. Offices: Cornerstone commits to establish its first program office in the Brandon area (zip code 33511 or 33584) during the first year of operation. Cornerstone commits to establish a satellite office in the Town & Country area (zip code 33615 or 33634) during the second year of operations. Complimentary Therapies: Cornerstone conditions its application on offering alternative therapies to patients that may include massage therapy, music therapy, play therapy, and holistic (non-drug) pain therapy. These complimentary therapies are not generally considered to be part of the hospice's core services, but are enhancements to the patient’s care which often have a marked impact on the quality of life during their last days. Veterans: Cornerstone commits to providing services tailored to the military veterans in the community. Cornerstone will immediately upon licensure expand its existing We Honor Veterans Level 4 program to serve Hillsborough and will provide the same broad range of programs and services to veterans in Hillsborough as it currently provides in its existing service areas. Bereavement Counseling for Parents: Cornerstone will implement a program in its second year of operation which will provide outreach for bereavement and anticipatory grief counseling for parents of infants who have died. The Tampa area has several hospitals which provide high-level newborn and infant services such as Level III NICU and other programs, consequently there is a higher than average infant mortality rate due to this concentration of high-level services. Cornerstone will work with the local hospitals which provide high-level neonatal intensive care to develop and carry out this program. Cooperation with Local Community Organizations: Cornerstone commits to donate at least $25,000.00 for four years to non-profit community organizations focused upon providing greater healthcare access, disease advocacy groups and professional associations located in SA 6A. These donations will be to assist with their core missions, which foster access to care, and in collaboration with Cornerstone to provide educational content on end-of-life care. Separate Foundation Account: Cornerstone will donate $25,000.00 to a segregated account for SA 6A maintained and controlled by the Cornerstone Hospice Foundation. Additionally, all donations made to Cornerstone or the Foundation from SA 6A, or identified as a gift in honor of a patient served in the 6A program, shall be maintained in this segregated account and only used for the benefit of patients and services in Hillsborough. This account will be used to meet the special needs of patients in Hillsborough which are not covered under the Medicare hospice benefit and cannot be met through insurance, private resources, or community organization services or programs. Continuing Education Programming (CEUs): Cornerstone will commit to extending free CEU in- services to the healthcare community in Hillsborough. Topics will cover a wide range of both required and pertinent subjects and will include information on appropriate conditions and diagnoses for hospice admission, particularly for non-cancer patients. A minimum of 10 in-services will be offered in a variety of healthcare settings during each of the first five years. Additional CEU will be provided on an ongoing basis. In addition to formulating CON conditions, Cornerstone used information gleaned from its community exploration to develop an operational plan detailing the number and type of staff to hire, which programs to offer, and how to tailor its outreach and education to best enhance access to hospice services in Hillsborough to meet the unmet need. Given Cornerstone’s existing outreach to area providers in Hillsborough, such as Moffitt, Tampa General Hospital, and the VA, which already discharge patients to Cornerstone in neighboring service areas, Cornerstone fully expects that it will receive referrals to its hospice from providers throughout Hillsborough upon the initiation of operations in the county. Cornerstone will provide hospice services to those and any other patients throughout Hillsborough from day one. However, when seeking to expand access in new or existing markets, Cornerstone focuses not on taking patients from existing providers but on enhancing access to groups and populations that have been overlooked, or whose needs are not otherwise being met by existing hospices. Cornerstone therefore developed a phased operational plan to focus its outreach and education efforts on areas where there are barriers to access, rather than simply scattering their efforts haphazardly or concentrating on areas that already have a heavy hospice presence. Phase One of Cornerstone’s operational plan will begin immediately upon licensure and continue through the first six months of operation. During this time, Cornerstone will focus outreach and education efforts heavily on the underserved southeast portion of Hillsborough, including Plant City, Valrico, Brandon, Riverview, Mango, and Sun City Center. Phase One includes 68 ALFs, six SNFs, and four hospitals. Almost one-third of the population of Hillsborough resides in this area, and an estimated 28 percent of the residents are Hispanic, and 14 percent are African American. There is also a large, underserved migrant population in this area. Cornerstone conditioned its application on opening an office in Brandon during this initial phase in the first year of operation. Phase Two will expand Cornerstone’s targeted outreach efforts into the southwest quadrant of Hillsborough, including the Apollo Beach, Ruskin, Gibsonton, Progress Village, and Palm River areas. While the population of this phase is smaller than Phase One, the two areas combined make up almost a third of the county’s Hispanic population, and a fourth of the county’s African American population. Phase Three will reach into the broader Tampa area, including towns such as Temple Terrace, Pebble Creek, University, Ybor City, and Carrollwood. This is the largest and most populated of the four phases; however, it is also currently the most hospice-penetrated area of the county as the two existing providers, LifePath and Seasons, each have offices in Phase Three. There is also a hospice house and two hospice inpatient units in the area as well. Because this area already has better hospice visibility and access, and to avoid siphoning patients from existing providers, Cornerstone will focus on this area after Phases One and Two. Cornerstone will ramp up its outreach staffing consistent with the increased area, facilities, and population added during Phase Three. Combined, the first three phases of the operational plan will offer enhanced outreach and education to 90% of the Hillsborough population starting at the beginning of year two operations. Phase Four will encompass the remainder of the county to the west of Tampa in the Town ‘n’ Country area. While this area represents only about 10% of the county’s population, Phase Four has no hospice visibility currently in the form of hospice offices, hospice houses, or hospice inpatient units. Cornerstone has conditioned its application on establishing an office in the Town ‘n’ Country area within project year two to enhance hospice visibility and access in this area of the county. Upon implementation of Phase Four, Cornerstone’s targeted outreach and education will be fully integrated throughout the county. Cornerstone’s application included more than 174 letters of support for its proposal. The letters of support are from a broad range of individuals and facilities located within and outside Hillsborough, including families, SNFs, ALFs, hospitals, vendors, and local charitable organizations, among others. Cornerstone presented testimony from three authors of letters of support, Andrea Kowalski, Eric Luetkemeyer, and Colonel (Ret.) Gary Clark. Ms. Kowalski is an employee benefits coordinator for USI Insurance Representatives in Tampa who works with Cornerstone to build benefits programs for its employees. In addition to authoring her own letter of support, Ms. Kowalski also assisted in gathering approximately 40 additional letters of support for Cornerstone from her colleagues in Hillsborough. Ms. Kowalski strongly supports Cornerstone’s approval and indicated the community would benefit not only from enhanced access to Cornerstone’s excellence and expertise in caring for those with advanced illness, but also from the addition of a highly-regarded employer, which will provide additional options for healthcare workers and financial benefits as Cornerstone reinvests in the community. Mr. Leutkemeyer is the COO for Spectrum Medical Partners (“Spectrum”), the largest privately-held hospitalist group in Florida. Spectrum manages roughly 400 providers across the state, the majority of which (85%) are medical doctors or doctors of osteopathic medicine, either in hospital or post-acute settings, and sees roughly 2,000 patients per day. Spectrum’s footprint includes coverage in Hillsborough for entities such as Simply or Humana with which Spectrum contracts statewide. Spectrum is looking to expand its footprint and services in Hillsborough in the near future. As detailed in his letter, Mr. Luetkemeyer supports Cornerstone’s efforts to establish a hospice program in Hillsborough, indicated a desire to work with Cornerstone in the county if awarded, and believes the community would benefit from the additional resources and quality care that Cornerstone would provide. Colonel Clark, who retired from the United States Air Force in 1993, is co-founder and current Chairman of the Polk County Veterans Council, a volunteer organization of individuals interested in assisting veterans. Colonel Clark is also affiliated with, and participates in, a number of veterans organizations in Hillsborough, including as an adviser to the Mission United Suncoast Chapter in Hillsborough, which primarily assists veterans in transitioning from service to the civilian world. He also serves on the management advisory committee of James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, which provides a broad spectrum of hospital-based care to area veterans. Colonel Clark has significant experience with Cornerstone through its participation in the Polk County Veterans Council, including on the Council’s committee for the Flight to Honor program, which provides veterans a flight to Washington D.C. to visit war memorials. If a veteran is unable to make the flight, a virtual flight and tour, as well as ceremonies or presentations, are provided by Cornerstone to veterans enrolled in hospice. Cornerstone is heavily involved in the Council’s Flight to Honor program— participating on the committee, recruiting volunteers, working with local schools to gather letters for the veterans on the flights, arranging for orientation prior to the flights, and putting on the virtual flights for those Veterans unable to make the flight due to various disabilities. Colonel Clark is also familiar with Cornerstone’s efforts to support veterans at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa. Colonel Clark described Cornerstone’s support not only for veterans but for the community overall as “magnificent,” and detailed his support for Cornerstone’s application in a letter of support that is included in Cornerstone’s application. Cornerstone is well-positioned to quickly establish a successful hospice program to enhance access in Hillsborough, and its proposal is a carefully considered, long range plan that would bring its established and proven processes, procedures, and programs to the residents of the county. Cornerstone also posits that its existing presence nearby in Lakeland will enhance its ability to topple barriers to care and serve patients in adjacent SA 6A immediately. For example, Cornerstone has existing relationships with veterans groups that serve both Polk and Hillsborough, and will utilize those relationships to enhance access to the large veteran population in Hillsborough, as highlighted through Cornerstone’s condition to provide services tailored to the veteran community. VITAS VITAS, which operates a hospice program in adjacent SA 6B, proposes to expand into SA 6A under its existing license. This will allow VITAS to begin serving patients quickly without creating an entirely new administrative infrastructure for the opening. Although VITAS provides many of the same core programs in each of its service areas, it also recognizes that each community is different. VITAS performed a qualitative and quantitative assessment that examined the specific needs of Hillsborough regarding hospice care and services. Through its consultants and internal team, VITAS identified several communities, patient types, and clinical settings that are underserved in SA 6A. These include: the African American, Hispanic, and migrant communities, particularly those age 65 and older; impoverished, food insecure and homeless communities; patients with non-cancer diagnoses such as pulmonary disease, cardiac disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, and patients with sepsis; cancer patients in need of palliative care; high acuity patients in need of complex services and those needing admissions during evenings and weekends; patients requiring admission after hours and on weekends; and patients who reside in nursing homes and small ALFs. To understand the hospice needs within Hillsborough, VITAS conducted a two-step review—(1) analyzing data from a wide variety of sources including Medicare, AHCA, Florida Department of Elder Affairs, Florida CHARTS, and demographic and socioeconomic data; and (2) meeting with some healthcare and social service providers in Hillsborough. Key members of VITAS’s leadership team, including Patty Husted, Mark Hayes, and Dr. Shega, conducted an assessment in Hillsborough to identify the unmet need within the community and underserved populations. VITAS’s needs assessment team physically went into Hillsborough to visit nursing homes, ALFs, hospitals, and physicians to determine the unmet need and how to achieve greater access to hospice services for the residents of Hillsborough. VITAS’s team spent a significant amount of time conducting hospice outreach and education in Hillsborough in furtherance of the needs assessment. Specifically, VITAS’s team met with hospitals including H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Baptist Health, BayCare, St. Joseph’s, and Brandon Regional; nursing homes, such as Hudson Manor, Ybor Health and Rehabilitation Center; and physician and nurse practitioner groups. VITAS’s needs assessment team also participated in physician advisory council meetings as part of its needs assessment for Hillsborough. During these meetings, VITAS gained perspective from these local physicians regarding the challenges faced by patients in need of hospice services in SA 6A, as well as insight as to what VITAS could bring from its existing programs to fill the unmet needs. VITAS also drew on the knowledge of the 18 VITAS employees currently living in Hillsborough. To address the needs it identified in SA 6A, VITAS proposes a broad array of programs and services to be offered in Hillsborough which are specifically targeted to increase the availability and accessibility of hospice services for underserved groups and Hillsborough residents more broadly. To demonstrate its commitment, VITAS conditioned its CON application on providing the following 20 programs and services in SA 6A: VITAS Pulmonary Care Program. VITAS Cardiac Care Program. Clinical research and support for caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s and dementia. VITAS Sepsis Care Program. Veterans programs, including achieving Level 4 commitment to the We Honor Veterans program within the first two years of operation in SA 6A. Bridging-the-Gap Program and Medical/Spiritual Toolkit, which is an outreach and end-of-life education tool for African American and other minority communities. ALF Outreach and CORE Training Program. Palliative care resources and access to complex and high acuity services, including engaging area residents with serious illness in advance care planning and goals of care conversations, as well as offering palliative chemotherapy, inotrope drips and radiation to optimize pain and symptom management as appropriate. Provider clinical education programs for physicians, nurses, chaplains, HHA’s and social workers. Quality and Patient Satisfaction Program, including hiring a full-time Performance Improvement Specialist within the first six months of operation dedicated to supporting quality and performance improvement programs for the 6A hospice program. VITAS staff training and qualification, ensuring the medical director covering SA 6A will be board-certified in hospice and palliative care medicine. Hospice office locations. Deployment of a mobile van to increase access and outreach to rural counties. VITAS will not solicit donations. Outreach and end-of-life education for 6A residents experiencing homelessness, food insecurity, and limited access to healthcare, including advanced care planning for area homeless shelter residents and a partnership to provide a grant for housing and food assistance with a community organization. $5,000 will be distributed during the first two years to the Hispanic Services Coalition or similar qualified organization for promoting academics, healthy communities and engagement of Latinos. Outreach program for underserved residents of SA 6A. Educational grant, to the University of South Florida Foundation including $250,000 for fellowships, scholarships, education and workforce development as well as $20,000 for diversity initiatives. Inpatient hospice house and shelter for natural disasters and hurricanes. Medicaid Managed Care education Services beyond the hospice benefit, including, among others: 24/7 Telecare Program and access to admission on evenings and weekends, including outreach and end-of-life education for residents experiencing poverty, food insecurity, homelessness and/or food insecurity, including nutrition services, advanced care planning for shelter residents, and housing assistance. Hospice Education and Low Literacy (HELLO) Program. Multilingual education materials in several languages including Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Vietnamese and Creole. CAHPS Ambassador Program to generate interest, awareness and encourage ownership by team members of their team’s performance on CAHPS survey results. Community outreach and education programs. Partnership with a local college for fellowships, scholarships, education and workforce development and diversity initiatives. VITAS’s application contains approximately 50 letters supporting its proposed program, the vast majority of which are from hospitals, nursing homes, ALFs, physicians, and community organizations in Hillsborough County with direct hospice experience. VITAS obtained these letters of support as part of its community-oriented needs assessment, and they attest to the community’s confidence in VITAS’s ability to meet hospice care needs in Hillsborough. Included are letters of support from Cynthia Chavez, Executive Director at Hudson Manor Assisted Living; Brian Pollett, Administrator at Ybor Health and Rehabilitation Center; and Dr. Jorge Alfonso, Regional Chief Medical Officer at Dedicated Senior Medical Center. All three providers expressed a local need to address high acuity patients, including greater access to continuous home care. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The review criteria are found in sections 408.035, 408.037, and 408.039, and rules 59C-1.008 and 59C-1.0355. (Prehearing Stipulation). Section 408.035(1) - Need for the health care facilities being proposed There are currently two licensed hospice programs in hospice SA 6A, and a need for one additional hospice program, as calculated using the need methodology found in rule 59C-1.0355(4), and published by AHCA, without challenge. AHCA’s need calculation compares reported hospice admissions during the base year with projected admissions in the horizon year and finds need if the difference between base and horizon year admissions exceeds 350, assuming there are no recently-licensed or CON-approved hospice programs in the service area. In this case, AHCA’s calculation revealed a net need of 863 hospice admissions for the January 2021 planning horizon. Each Applicant has put forth a proposal to meet the calculated need for one additional hospice program in Hillsborough. None of the applicants are advocating the approval of more than one new program. Section 408.035(2) – Availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district. It is undisputed that quality hospice services are available in Hillsborough today through existing providers LifePath and Seasons, including for patients of all ages and with essentially all end-stage disease processes, as well as for patients of all demographic groups. Relevant data demonstrates discharges to hospice in Hillsborough for a wide range of diagnoses and demographic groups, including African American and Hispanic patients, non-cancer and cancer patients, both over and under age 65; patients with end-stage cardiac disease; end-stage pulmonary disease and dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, among others. However, despite the availability of quality hospice services, some patients simply are not accessing hospice services at the rate expected in SA 6A, as reflected by low penetration rates and low discharge-to-hospice rates, particularly within certain major disease categories and demographic groups, including Hispanic and African American residents. All three applicants agreed that the underutilization is concentrated among certain patient populations, including demographic groups and disease groups. Generally, all three applicants agreed that the Hispanic, African- American, veteran, and homeless populations are currently underserved in Hillsborough. In addition, Suncoast points to the need for a specialized pediatric hospice program in SA 6A; Cornerstone argues that non-cancer patients younger than age 65 are in need of enhanced access, as are residents of smaller ALF’s; and VITAS asserts that patients with respiratory, sepsis, cardiac, and Alzheimer’s diseases are underserved, as are patients requiring continuous care and high acuity services, such as high-flow oxygen. VITAS’s argument is based largely on a claim that the existing providers are not providing “any measurable continuous care,” as well as hearsay reports from area hospitals indicating a lack of high-acuity services available through existing hospice providers. However, VITAS’s health planning expert conceded that, in fact, existing providers are offering continuous care, and she was unable to quantify any purported dearth of continuous care in Hillsborough as compared to other providers or the statewide average. The record establishes that continuous care is part-and- parcel of the hospice benefit, and there was no evidence presented at final hearing to support the claimed lack of availability of that service from existing providers. Based on the foregoing, the evidence tended to show quality hospice care is available in SA 6A, that it is underutilized, and that the underutilization is driven by accessibility challenges among particular patient groups, and supports AHCA’s determination that another hospice program is needed in Hillsborough. Section 408.035(3) - Ability of the applicant to provide quality ofcare and the applicant’s record of providing quality of care Cornerstone is the only applicant accredited by the Joint Commission, which is a national symbol of quality that reflects its commitment to meeting high quality performance standards. Cornerstone’s Joint Commission accreditation, which was just recertified in 2020, and the accompanying high standards of quality care, will carry over to its new SA 6A program. As a new entity, Suncoast is not Joint Commission accredited, but conditions its application on achieving such accreditation by the end of year two. Suncoast Pinellas is Joint Commission accredited, and indeed, is one of only a handful of hospices nationwide, along with Cornerstone, to hold Joint Commission accreditation and/or certification. While VITAS represents that some affiliated VITAS hospice programs are Joint Commission accredited, VITAS, the applicant here, is not accredited by the Joint Commission, and makes no representation that it will seek or attain such accreditation for its new hospice program in SA 6A. There are two universal metrics codified in federal law that are used as a proxy for assessing the quality of care offered by hospice programs— Hospice Item Set (“HIS”) scores and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (“CAHPS”) survey scores. See 42 C.F.R. § 418.312; see also § 400.60501, Fla. Stat. (2020). CAHPS surveys are a subjective metric sent to family members and other caregivers months after a patient's death. The survey asks respondents to provide ratings like: “would definitely recommend,” “would probably recommend,” “would probably not recommend,” and “would definitely not recommend.” It also seeks yes or no responses to statements like: the hospice team “always communicated well,” “always provided timely help,” “always treated the patient with respect,” and “provided the right amount of emotional and spiritual support.” It also asks if the patient always got the help they needed for pain and symptoms, and if “they” received the training they needed. The CAHPS survey was created by CMS in conjunction with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to measure and assess the care experience provided by a hospice. The purpose of the Hospice Compare Website is to allow the public to compare quality scores for CAHPS among different hospice providers. CAHPS scores are one measure of quality that is intended to allow for comparison across hospice programs. Significant time at final hearing was dedicated, through multiple witnesses, to discussing the strengths and weaknesses of CAHPS scores as a measure of quality. Ultimately, the greater weight of the evidence supports that CAHPS scores are an indicator of quality, but are not the only consideration, and suffer from limitations that prohibit drawing distinctions from minor differences in scores. The three applicants’ CAHPS scores are summarized in this chart: (Suncoast Ex. 42, BS p. 12203) While it is true that Suncoast Pinellas’s scores on all CAHPS measures are higher than those of Cornerstone, the slight difference between Suncoast Pinellas and Cornerstone is not significant given the subjective nature of the survey instrument. However, both Suncoast Pinellas and Cornerstone do score significantly higher than VITAS on most measures. Cornerstone’s CAHPS scores meet or exceed state averages on six of the eight measures, are within one to three points of the state average on the remaining two measures, and its average CAHPS score exceeds the state average. As a new entity, Suncoast does not have CAHPS scores. Suncoast Pinellas’s CAHPS scores meet or exceed state averages on six of the eight measures, are within one to two points of the state average on the remaining two measures, and its average CAHPS score exceeds the state average. In contrast, VITAS’s CAHPS scores fall below the state average on all eight metrics, fall five to seven points below the state average on seven of the eight metrics, and its average CAHPS score for all measures combined falls five points below the state average. Cornerstone and Suncoast Pinellas are within one to three points of each other on every CAHPS metric. The difference in scores between Cornerstone and Suncoast Pinellas is not statistically significant or meaningful, particularly given the shortcomings of CAHPS scoring. VITAS’s CAHPS scores are below both Cornerstone and Suncoast Pinellas, falling six and eight points below Cornerstone and Suncoast Pinellas, respectively, on the average of all CAHPS metrics. This difference is meaningful, particularly when viewed in the context of VITAS’s history of substantiated complaints discussed below. HIS scores, which assess documentation of various items, are more a process or compliance measure than a quality measure. Suncoast Pinellas’s HIS scores exceed the state and national average on all metrics, albeit most scores are within two points of the state average. Cornerstone’s HIS scores are on par with state averages on most metrics and meet or exceed the national average on every metric, except Pain Assessment. Cornerstone has worked to substantially improve its Pain Assessment score through better documentation protocols, raising its score from 52.1 to 89.1 in the last few years, and is implementing a new Electronic Records Management system to further improve its scores. VITAS’s HIS scores are on par with state averages on most metrics, and meet or exceed the national average on all metrics except Visits When Death Imminent. VITAS scores 68.4 on Visits When Death Imminent compared to the state and national averages of 83.2 and 82.4, respectively. As measured by the HIS scores, there was no credible, persuasive testimony establishing a meaningful difference among the three applicants. In contrast to CAHPS and HIS scores, the number and substance of complaints substantiated against each applicant by AHCA is a more direct indicator of quality of care. Suncoast has no prior hospice operations history, and therefore no prior substantiated complaints. Suncoast Pinellas has had only three substantiated complaints since 2008, and none since 2013. Cornerstone has only two substantiated complaints since 2008, and only one since Mr. Lee took over as CEO of Cornerstone in late 2012. VITAS has 73 substantiated complaints since 2008, including 10 substantiated complaints in the three years ending November 20, 2019, just prior to submission of the CON application at issue here. Between November 20, 2019, and June 17, 2020, VITAS had five additional substantiated complaints. VITAS’s health planning expert, Ms. Platt, also considered all AHCA survey deficiencies, whether based upon a complaint, life safety survey, or otherwise. Ms. Platt’s analysis demonstrates that VITAS had 80 such surveys with deficiencies since 2012, including 26 between January 2018 and June 2020. VITAS argues that its greater number of substantiated complaints are the consequence of higher patient volumes than Suncoast and Cornerstone. However, even taking into consideration the greater number of patient days provided by VITAS, VITAS had infinitely more surveys with deficiencies in 2019 than Cornerstone, which had zero. And VITAS had five times as many surveys with deficiencies for 2018 and 2019 as Cornerstone. A comparison of VITAS to Suncoast Pinellas yields similar results, with VITAS having significantly more surveys with deficiencies than Suncoast Pinellas, even when taking into consideration the greater number of patient days provided by VITAS. Complaints substantiated against VITAS demonstrate failures in many areas of patient care, including some of the specific aspects of hospice care at which VITAS claims to excel beyond other providers, such as after- hours care, the provision of continuous care, and care to patients wherever they live, including smaller ALFs. For example, a substantiated complaint against VITAS in November 2019 included a finding of “immediate jeopardy”—the most severe level of deficiency possible—for a patient who failed to receive proper care after-hours at end-of-life, resulting in a particularly painful death for the patient, and an excruciating experience for the patient’s daughter who witnessed her mother’s painful death, unaccompanied by hospice personnel. Two additional substantiated complaints from January and February 2020 found deficiencies in VITAS’s care to patients on continuous care, including one where the VITAS nurse had headphones in and was not paying attention when the patient fell. Indeed, VITAS’s own internal review of the substantiated complaint involving the patient who fell confirmed an upward trend in falls among VITAS patients. And, as recently as June 2020, a separate substantiated complaint found that VITAS abandoned a patient on continuous care, requiring the patient to be transferred to the hospital rather than continue to receive care in the “small ALF” where the patient resided. VITAS acknowledged the patients at issue in the substantiated complaints discussed at final hearing did not receive quality hospice care. Those five examples are only a sampling of the complaints substantiated against VITAS, and the others demonstrate similar quality deficiencies. The number of substantiated complaints weighs in favor of Cornerstone and Suncoast, and heavily against VITAS with regard to record of providing quality of care. There is no meaningful difference between Cornerstone and Suncoast in regard to substantiated complaints, and neither is entitled to preference in this regard. On balance, among the three applicants, the quality of care provided by Suncoast and Cornerstone is on equal footing, with both having a distinct advantage over VITAS. Section 408.035(4) - Availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation; and Section 408.035(6): The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the project The parties stipulated that each of the applicants have available funds for capital and operating expenditures in the short term for purposes of project accomplishment and operation. Suncoast demonstrated that it has the resources to accomplish its proposed project. Suncoast provided detailed descriptions of the personnel that would be required to successfully implement its proposed program. Suncoast has reasonably projected the types of staff necessary to operate Suncoast in year 1 and 2 of operation. At hearing, Suncoast witnesses credibly described the roles of the staff contained in Suncoast’s Schedule 6, including the roles of administrator, care team manager, administrative assistant, regional hospice scheduler, business development liaisons, physicians, program director, nurses, hospice aides, respiratory therapists, staff for the mobile van in Condition 2 of its application, community partnership specialists, social workers, patient social team lead, chaplain, volunteer coordinator, and senior staff nurse. Suncoast’s financial expert, Armand Balsano, testified that part of his role in preparing Suncoast’s CON application was working with Suncoast Pinellas’s Chief Financial Officer, Mitch Morel, to develop Suncoast’s financial projections that were included on Schedules 1 through 8 of the application. Mr. Balsano, in collaboration with Mr. Morel, utilized Suncoast Pinellas’s internal financial modeling system to develop the financial schedules and financial narrative for the application. Mr. Balsano credibly testified that financial Schedules 1 through 8 are accurate and reasonable. Suncoast projects admissions of 460 patients for project year one and 701 patients for project year two. Suncoast’s health planner, David Levitt, developed Suncoast’s projected admissions based on experience of other providers entering a market with two existing providers. Suncoast’s projected number of admissions for years one and two are reasonable projections of admissions for a new hospice program in Hillsborough. Suncoast was criticized as having a lackluster record for admissions in its existing Pinellas hospice. While it is true that Suncoast Pinellas’s admissions declined slightly from 2013 to 2014, the overall trend has been one of increasing admissions. For example, based on Medicare claims data, from 2005 to 2019, Suncoast Pinellas’s admissions grew from 4,679 to 6,534.10 Financial feasibility may be proven by demonstrating the expected revenues and expenses upon service initiation, and determining whether a shortfall or excess revenue results. The projection of revenue is not complicated for hospice services. The vast majority of hospice care, more than 90%, is funded by the Medicare Program which pays uniform rates to all hospice providers. Mr. Balsano testified that Suncoast’s projected revenues in Schedule 7 are based on the revenues that are currently realized for the various payer categories, including Medicare, Medicaid, Commercial, and self-pay. Mr. Balsano credibly testified that the assumptions reflected on Schedule 7 of Suncoast’s CON application are reasonable and appropriate. 10 Suggestions by VITAS and Cornerstone that Suncoast’s internal data indicate a history of low utilization or inaccurate reports to AHCA are without merit. Mr. Sciullo credibly testified that the data reported to AHCA is the most accurate admissions data. Mr. Sciullo further credibly testified that the Utilization Trend Reports contained in Cornerstone’s exhibits 82 through 88, relied on by VITAS and Cornerstone, contain duplicate hospice admissions and admissions from non-hospice programs such as Suncoast’s home health program. Mr. Sciullo also credibly testified that the most accurate admissions numbers reported to AHCA are not generated from the Utilization Trend Reports. Rather, the admissions numbers reported to AHCA are produced by Suncoast’s reimbursement department. Mr. Sciullo’s testimony under cross examination demonstrated a confident and credible understanding of the nuances of the Utilization Trend Reports. Additionally, the suggestion that Suncoast would intentionally under-report admissions to AHCA lacks credibility because hospice providers in Florida are incentivized to report higher numbers of admissions. In Year 2, Suncoast projects net operating revenue of $7,138,000, which breaks down to approximately $172 per day of overall net revenue per patient day. Mr. Balsano’s credibly testified that this is a reasonable forecast of net operating revenue. Projected expenses were also reasonably projected by Suncoast. Mr. Balsano testified that Suncoast’s projected income and expenses in Schedule 8A includes salaries and wages, fringe benefits, medical supplies and ancillary services, and approximately 1.5% of inpatient days. Suncoast also included a separate allowance for administrative and overhead cost. Suncoast also allocated $752,000 in management fees to account for “back office services” and other support services that would be provided to the Hillsborough program through the Empath home office. Mr. Balsano arrived at this number by determining that a reasonable assessment would be the cost per patient day of $18, as reflected on Schedule 8 for year two. Mr. Balsano credibly testified that, for a startup program, it is appropriate to include the costs associated with services provided by the corporate office because one must be cognizant of what services are provided locally, and what services will be provided through the corporate office. Mr. Balsano further testified that it would not be reasonable to assume that 100% of the costs associated with corporate services to a new hospice program would be fixed. As Mr. Balsano explained, the variable costs must be accounted for as well. Mr. Balsano credibly testified that Suncoast’s net profit in year two as reflected in Schedule 8A is $615,416. It is found that Suncoast has reasonably projected the revenues and expenses associated with its proposed hospice, and that Suncoast’s proposal is financially feasible in the long term. Cornerstone projected admissions of 448 patients in year one, and 819 patients in year two, for the highest year two admissions of the three applicants. In comparison, Suncoast projected admissions of 460 patients in year one and 701 in year two, while VITAS projected 491 patients in year one and just 593 in year two. Cornerstone’s projected admissions were developed by health planning experts Roy Brady and Gene Nelson based on the experience of recent new hospice programs in the state of Florida, were discussed and confirmed by Cornerstone personnel prior to being finalized, and are a reasonable projection of admissions for years one and two of operations in Hillsborough. Despite the highest anticipated year two admissions, Cornerstone’s projection still fell below the SA 6A service gap of 863 patients and therefore did not, standing alone, establish any greater adverse impact on area providers than Suncoast or VITAS. Cornerstone emphasized its mission as an organization, and intent for this proposal, to expand penetration by resolving unmet need as opposed to capturing patients already served by existing providers. The adverse impact analysis in Cornerstone’s application therefore represents a worst-case scenario by assuming all of its patients otherwise would be served by existing providers, a premise undercut by the substantial published need. Using this approach, Cornerstone anticipated that LifePath would bear the overwhelming burden of its entry into Hillsborough, with a projected adverse impact on LifePath of 408 patients in year one, and 747 in year two. Cornerstone anticipated adverse impact to Seasons of 39 patients for year one, and 72 patients for year two. Even in this worst-case scenario, existing [Remainder of page intentionally blank] providers’ volumes in Cornerstone project years one and two exceed their historical volumes.11 Cornerstone has available health personnel and management personnel for project accomplishment and operation. Cornerstone’s existing staff, as well as its projected incremental staff for the new program, is reflected in schedule 6A of its application. The projected incremental staff shown in schedule 6A is based on established ratios and methodologies Cornerstone uses in its existing hospice programs. The projected incremental staff is all the incremental staff Cornerstone will need to establish the new program in Hillsborough, and combined with its existing personnel, are sufficient to achieve program implementation as proposed in the application. Both Suncoast and VITAS criticized Cornerstone’s financial projections as flawed because they did not present the fully allocated costs of the project. According to Mr. Balsano, Cornerstone’s projected profit margin is unreasonable and, in fact, is “an extreme outlier.” As he explained, Cornerstone’s financial schedules make no allocation of shared service costs for critical services to be provided by the home office. According to Suncoast and VITAS, this omission is unreasonable when viewed in context with Cornerstone’s Schedule 6, which does not allocate any FTEs to back office support services. Not shown are the expenses Cornerstone will incur for finance, billing, revenue cycle, accounts receivable, payroll, human resources, 11 Relative adverse impact on existing hospice programs of competing applicants has been used as a dispositive factor for favoring one applicant over another. See, Hospice of Naples, Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., DOAH Case No. 07-1264, ¶ 274 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 3, 2008; Fla. AHCA Jan. 22, 2009) (“One factor outweighs all others, however, in favor of VITAS. VITAS's application will have much less impact on HON and its fundraising efforts and in turn on the high-quality services that HON presently provides in Service Area 8B.”). However, as noted here, neither of the existing providers presented evidence as to the relative impact that any of the applicants would potentially have on its existing operations, or whether such impacts would be material. Accordingly, there is no evidentiary basis for providing an advantage to one or another of the applicants based upon consideration of adverse impact. and contract negotiations, among others. Notably, hospice providers include home office costs as part of their Medicare cost reports filed with CMS.12 Because Cornerstone did not allocate home office costs in its application, its profit margins are substantially higher than all other applicants for the October 2019 Batching Cycle. While most applicants fall within the $100,000 – $500,000 range, Cornerstone projected a staggering $4.9 million profit margin. There is nothing in the CON application form or instructions that require that financial projections be presented on a “fully allocated” basis. Notably, in its review of the financial projections, AHCA determined that each applicant’s proposed program appeared to be financially feasible in the long-term. Cornerstone’s financial feasibility analysis included consideration of payer mix, level of service mix, admissions, average lengths of stay, patient days and incremental staffing needs, among others, and focused on the resulting incremental revenues and expenses generated by addition of the new program in Hillsborough. Cornerstone’s projected admissions are reasonable and appropriate for the proposed new program in Hillsborough. Cornerstone’s proposed incremental staff, combined with its existing staff, is sufficient for project accomplishment and operation. Cornerstone’s projected payer mix is based upon consideration of Cornerstone’s own historic experience, the demographics and recent hospice payer characteristics of Hillsborough, and consideration of Cornerstone’s goal to serve the non-cancer under-65 population, which may reduce Medicare 12 In terms of its budgeting process, Cornerstone has one “bucket” for its administrative overhead/home office expenses and then separate buckets for each of its hospice programs. Home office expenses include human resources, IT, compliance, and facility maintenance. Cornerstone does not allocate its home office expenses to each of its hospice programs within its internal books. However, when an audit is performed, the performances of each hospice program and the home office expenses are all included, and the home office expenses are allocated to each of its hospice programs. levels slightly from what they otherwise may be, and is reasonable and appropriate for its proposed hospice program in Hillsborough. Cornerstone’s projected level of service mix and average length of stay are based upon Cornerstone’s historical experience, and are reasonable and appropriate for the proposed hospice program in Hillsborough. Likewise, Cornerstone’s projected revenues as set forth in schedule 7A are based upon the projected volumes, service level mix, payer mix projections, and Medicare service level specific rates, and are a reasonable projection of revenues for the proposed project in Hillsborough. Cornerstone has established the long-term financial feasibility of its proposed SA 6A program. VITAS’s financial projections were prepared through the work of an internal team led by Lou Tamburro, Vice President of Development for VITAS. VITAS reasonably based these projections on the successful opening and ramp up of new hospice programs in Service Areas 1, 3E, 4A, 6B, 7A, 8B, and 9B, and other Florida communities. VITAS has a clear understanding of what startup costs will be, and it was appropriate for VITAS to rely on its past history of success in developing these projections. VITAS projects admissions of 492 patients for project year one and 593 patients for project year two. Mr. Tamburro developed the projected admissions using an internal model based upon VITAS’s prior experience. While Mr. Tamburro is an expert in health finance, not health planning, Ms. Platt reviewed VITAS’s projections and credibly concluded they are reasonable. VITAS proposes to dedicate more resources to SA 6A than the other two applicants in the second year of operations; 74% of that expense is focused on direct patient care, with only 23% associated with administrative and overhead, and 2% property costs. In contrast, Suncoast and Cornerstone only dedicate 54% and 56%, respectively, of their expenses on direct patient care and 41% and 42%, respectively, on administrative and overhead. However, VITAS’s higher direct patient care costs are at least partially explained by the larger number of clinical and ancillary FTE’s associated with the higher levels of continuous care projected by VITAS than either Suncoast or Cornerstone. As would be expected, VITAS also projects to admit a larger number of high acuity patients than Suncoast or Cornerstone. Given VITAS’s vast experience in the start-up and operation of hospice programs, including 16 within Florida, there is no reason to doubt that the VITAS Hillsborough program would be financially feasible in the long term. The following table summarizes the three applications’ financial metrics: Cornerstone Suncoast Vitas Total Project Costs $286,080 $703,005 $1,134,149 Operating Costs Yr.2 $6 million $5.7 million $8.6 million Net Profit Yr.2 $4,972,346[13] $615,416 $154,913 Proj. Admits Yr. 2 819 701 593 Routine Home Care 95.4% 97.5% 94% General Inpatient 3.5% 1.5% 2.5% Continuous Care 0.3% 0.5% 3.5% Respite 0.8% 0.5% 0% Section 408.035(5) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district; and Section 408.035(7) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. Rule 59C-1.0355 and the criteria for determination of need for a new hospice program found within that rule, is predicated upon the notion that, 13 As noted, Cornerstone’s relatively large profit margin is a function of its incremental cost, versus fully allocated cost, financial projections. when need exists, approval of an additional program will foster competition beneficial to potential and prospective hospice patients in the service area. As between the three applicants, Suncoast did the most thorough and extensive analysis of the current needs of the Hillsborough population. This effort was driven by the fact that Suncoast had recently applied for a new hospice program in neighboring Pasco County, and was denied in favor of a competing applicant. In that case, Administrative Law Judge Newton specifically faulted Suncoast for failing to carefully evaluate the hospice needs of Pasco County residents: Suncoast, in effect, proposes a branch operation for Pasco County. Suncoast did not conduct the focused, individualized inquiry into the needs of Pasco County that Seasons did. Nor did it begin developing targeted ways to serve the needs or begin establishing relationships to further that service. The Hospice of the Fla. Suncoast v. Ag. For Health Care Admin., Case No. 18- 4986, ¶ 126 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 5, 2019; Fla. AHCA Oct. 16, 2019). As explained by Mr. Sciullo at hearing, Suncoast took the above criticism to heart, and determined to conduct an exhaustive evaluation of the hospice needs in SA 6A, and to formulate a strategy for addressing those needs. Specifically, Suncoast’s intent was to identify issues and gaps in services facing residents of Hillsborough, and to enable a dialogue with existing community partners and providers in order to create shared solutions. As part of this comprehensive effort, Suncoast met with more than 50 key individuals and organizations, representing a broad range of general and special populations within the county. This effort resulted in the development of collaborative strategies and action plans to fill the gaps and meet the unmet need for additional hospice services in Hillsborough, as reflected in the Suncoast application conditions. In contrast to Suncoast, Cornerstone did not conduct its own needs assessment, but rather relied on the community needs assessments prepared by the HCDOH and two area hospitals. Moreover, rather than reaching out to the Department of Health and to the area hospitals that prepared those assessments to conduct further research or seek their support of its CON application, Cornerstone simply “verified that their documentation was thorough enough.” Cornerstone’s limited outreach effort in Hillsborough is further demonstrated by the letters of support submitted with its CON application. While Suncoast obtained letters of support from the HCDOH and numerous hospitals and community organizations in Hillsborough, Cornerstone failed to obtain a single letter of support from any hospital in Hillsborough. Despite submitting approximately 150 letters of support (many of which were form letters, and letters from Cornerstone employees), Cornerstone failed to obtain any letters from the Hispanic community, the African American community, the HIV community, the migrant community, or organizations that assist the homeless, unlike Suncoast. As Mr. McLemore testified, “a large part” of the review criteria is “hav[ing] the commitment from the organizations in the service area. I think that’s where – a little bit where Cornerstone was a little off base. They did have a bunch of letters of support, but again, they were not specific to the service area.” Mr. McLemore further testified that, rather than a large pile of letters, he was looking for letters “that are definitely from hospitals, nursing homes and civic organizations, healthcare organizations in the area.” Cornerstone’s failure to conduct meaningful and thorough outreach efforts in Hillsborough is also demonstrated by its generic list of CON application conditions. As multiple Cornerstone witnesses acknowledged, the services Cornerstone is proposing to offer in Hillsborough are identical to the services Cornerstone already offers in its existing service areas. Specifically, Cornerstone conditions its application on Hispanic outreach, bilingual volunteers, multiple office locations within a service area, complementary therapies, veterans-specific programming, bereavement counseling for parents, cooperation with local community organizations, a separate foundation account for the specific service area, and continuing education programming, all of which are services that Cornerstone already offers in its existing service areas. Thus, unlike Suncoast, which used the existing community health needs assessments as a starting point for its own comprehensive needs assessment, and proposed conditions that are reflective of the unique needs of Hillsborough, the conditions proposed by Cornerstone are almost identical to the services Cornerstone currently provides elsewhere. Cornerstone’s plan to serve Hillsborough in phases does not immediately address the unmet need for hospice services countywide. Cornerstone will not send its marketing team to facilities and other referral sources in those phased areas until Cornerstone has completed each phase of its plan. Although Cornerstone’s witnesses testified that Cornerstone will not turn away referrals from parts of the county before Cornerstone begins operations in those areas, they also confirmed that Cornerstone will not actively seek referrals from other phased areas until it is ready to move into those areas. Unlike Suncoast, and to a lesser extent VITAS, there is no evidence that Cornerstone conducted a thorough needs assessment of SA 6A before developing its phased implementation plan. Cornerstone simply looked at a map of where existing providers have offices and decided to start elsewhere. Likewise, Cornerstone did not conduct any independent assessment of the needs of the four different geographic areas of its plan to determine whether Cornerstone will be capable of serving all of the county’s residents immediately upon CON approval. Further, Cornerstone did not conduct any review or analysis of comparable start-ups in Florida when preparing its SA 6A CON application. VITAS undertook an analysis of information from a variety of sources, including meetings with various individuals within Hillsborough regarding the perceived gaps in care. Based on this review, VITAS identified a number of patient groups with purported unmet needs: African American and Hispanic populations; migrant workers; patients residing in the eastern and southern parts of the county who are not accessing hospice at the same rate as other parts of the subdistrict; patients with respiratory, sepsis, cardiac, and Alzheimer’s diagnoses; patients requiring continuous care and high acuity services such as Hi-Flow oxygen; patients requiring admission in the evening or on weekends; and patients residing in small, less than 10-bed, ALFs. VITAS proposed a number of solutions to address the purported needs identified in Hillsborough, and largely included those proposed solutions as conditions of its application. However, VITAS failed to identify a specific operational plan for Hillsborough. The purported gaps in care and solutions identified in VITAS’s application for Hillsborough largely mirror those identified in its application for Service Area 2A that was submitted during the same cycle, despite significant differences between the makeups of those two service areas. VITAS’s application included 47 letters of support. Many of the letters are from persons and organizations outside Hillsborough, and even include a letter from one of VITAS’s employees, Kellie Newman, and two letters in support of its 2A application. At hearing, VITAS offered testimony from letter of support authors Mary Donovan and Margaret Duggar. Ms. Donovan lives in Miami and is VP for Caregiver Services, Inc., a nurse staffing agency that contracts with VITAS in other areas of the state and hopes to do so in Hillsborough. Ms. Duggar is the President of MLD & Associates, Inc., located in Tallahassee, which is a management firm that serves as executive staff for a number of entities. Neither of these letters is probative of VITAS’s ability to meet the hospice needs of Hillsborough residents. Ultimately, the applicants all agreed that the unmet need in SA 6A is not purely numeric: it is concentrated among certain patient populations, including Hispanic and migrant communities; non-cancer patients under age 65, including those with dementia, Alzheimer’s, respiratory, and cardiac disease; and lower income groups. Each applicant tailored their proposal to address the perceived, underlying access barriers accordingly. Two primary theories concerning the source of access barriers in Hillsborough developed at final hearing: (a) that access barriers, and hence, unmet need in the service area stem from a lack of access to relevant hospice services through existing providers once a patient has entered hospice care; and (b) that access barriers, and hence, unmet need in Hillsborough, stem from a lack of outreach and education necessary to bring awareness of hospice services to Hillsborough residents so that they access hospice services in the first place. All three applicants proposed to tailor their hospice services and programming to the particular residents of Hillsborough. But Suncoast’s proposal and conditions focused more heavily on outreach and education to bring geographically and culturally-driven awareness of the hospice benefit to patients appropriate for hospice. As noted, Suncoast also did a more comprehensive needs analysis, which allowed Suncoast to focus its CON conditions on those segments of the Hillsborough population most in need of improved access to hospice services. Among the applicants, Suncoast alone proposes to implement a dedicated pediatric hospice program, which is not currently offered in Hillsborough. Dr. Stacy Orloff, accepted as an expert in pediatric hospice care, confirmed in her testimony the following: Suncoast's pediatric hospice program includes a dedicated integrated care team comprised of a fulltime pediatric nurse with more than 25 years’ hospice experience, a pediatric medical director, a full-time licensed social worker, a team assistant, a volunteer coordinator and a pediatric team leader. Additionally, there are part-time staff members including LPNs and CNAs with dedicated pediatric hospice experience. This is an important distinction, as many hospice programs claim to provide pediatric hospice services, but oftentimes they utilize the same care teams that provide care for adult patients. Suncoast's longstanding expertise and network of community partners for its pediatric program will ensure that the proposed pediatric hospice program fits the specific needs of the pediatric patient and family. Suncoast will use a combination of existing staff and PRN assistance until the pediatric caseload is large enough to warrant addition of new team members in Hillsborough County. Suncoast's existing pediatric hospice team has a strong relationship with St. Joseph's Children's Hospital, which it will utilize to expand its network of pediatric providers to increase hospice awareness and utilization in Hillsborough. Suncoast conditions its application on purchasing a $350,000 mobile van, the “Empath Mobile Access to Care,” to conduct mobile outreach activities in Hillsborough for ethnic-specific programming and outreach to homeless. VITAS also conditioned its application on a “Mobile Hospice Education Unit” van, and included photos of similar vans that it operates in other service areas. The Suncoast van will be staffed by a full-time bilingual LPN and a full-time social worker prepared to discuss advanced care planning and education, and will be equipped with telehealth technology capable of linking with the Empath Care Navigation Office. In contrast, VITAS did not explain how its van will be staffed, or whether any of the staff will be clinicians. Indeed, from the photos included in the application, the van appears to be more of a mobile advertisement for VITAS, than it does a tool for hospice education and outreach. VITAS attempted to differentiate its proposal by pointing to disease- specific programming for patients with pulmonary and cardiac conditions, Alzheimer’s, and sepsis. But, Cornerstone and Suncoast are also capable of caring for patients with those conditions. And, specific to sepsis programming—a feature of VITAS’s presentation at final hearing— septicemia is not usually the primary reason a patient enrolls in hospice. Instead, sepsis is a complication of another terminal condition for which a patient is admitted to hospice, and therefore does not represent a need unto itself. VITAS further attempted to differentiate its program by pointing to its comparatively longer average length of stay, arguing that longer average lengths of stay are indicative of greater access and quality. However, this notion was countered by credible testimony that longer lengths of stay, along with a higher percentage of live discharges and higher 30-day readmission rate, may, alternatively, represent targeting of patients unlikely to experience the types of access barriers at which CON is aimed, and may be indicative of lower quality and higher costs. And VITAS’s healthcare planning expert did not conduct an analysis, and offered no opinion, as to the specific cause of VITAS’s comparatively longer length of stay. Taken together, the evidence was inconclusive as to whether longer lengths of stay reflect access enhancements generally, or as applied to VITAS’s proposal. Section 408.035(9) - The applicants’ past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Rule 59C-1.0355(2)(f) provides that hospice services must be available “to all terminally ill persons and their families without regard to age, gender, . . . cost of therapy, ability to pay, or life circumstances.” Consistent with rule, hospice providers must provide care to Medicaid patients. Medicaid pays essentially the same for hospice care as does Medicare. As such, there is no financial disincentive to accept Medicaid hospice patients. VITAS and Cornerstone both have a history of providing Medicare, Medicaid, and medically-indigent care; Suncoast’s affiliated entity, Suncoast Pinellas, has a similar history, and all three applicants propose to provide care to Medicare, Medicaid, and the medically indigent. While the three applicants project that they will experience different payor mixes for Medicaid and indigent patients, there is no evidence in this record that any of the applicants have discriminated against such patients in the past, or would do so in their Hillsborough program. Cornerstone argues that it is entitled to preference over Suncoast because Cornerstone’s projected percentage of Medicaid and medically indigent admissions (6%) is almost double that of Suncoast (3.3%). However, Cornerstone’s projection is exactly that: a projection of the payor mix it may experience in its new program. Significantly, Cornerstone did not commit to a 6% Medicaid/indigent payor mix within its CON conditions, and therefore that level of Medicaid/indigent admissions is unenforceable. Rather than the applicants’ projected payor mixes, what is significant are plans to reach out to the Medicaid and charity care population to improve their knowledge about, and use of, hospice services. Suncoast’s application presents a specific plan for doing exactly that. All of the applicants have proposed programs for outreach to financially disadvantaged communities within Hillsborough, and none of the applicants are entitled to preference under this criterion. Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(e) – Preferences for a New Hospice Program.Preference shall be given to an applicant who has a commitment to serve populations with unmet needs. Each applicant expressed a commitment to provide hospice services to populations with unmet needs. And to a greater or lesser extent, each applicant conducted an analysis of the specific populations with unmet needs in Hillsborough. No evidence was presented to establish that care for hospice patients with the varying identified conditions or within the various demographic groups is not available in Hillsborough. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that patients are not accessing hospice services, despite their availability to residents of Hillsborough. Among the three applicants, Suncoast best demonstrated a plan for enhancing access to quality hospice care for these populations, as well as a track record of past experience with enhancing access to quality hospice services for these populations. Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes to provide the inpatient care component of the Hospice program through contractual arrangements. Each of the applicants propose to provide the inpatient care component of the hospice program through contractual arrangements, and presented testimony regarding their ability to do so. Likewise, all three applicants presented letters from entities in Hillsborough regarding their purported willingness to contract for the inpatient care component of the hospice program. However, no applicant presented non-hearsay evidence from any entity within Hillsborough regarding a willingness to contract for the inpatient care component of the hospice program. The applicants are on equal footing in terms of the ability to contract for inpatient care. Notwithstanding its intention to provide the inpatient component of the hospice program through contractual arrangements, VITAS conditioned its application on applying for a CON to construct an inpatient hospice house within the first two years of operation. However, VITAS presented no evidence to establish the need for an additional inpatient hospice house in SA 6A, and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that an inpatient hospice house is a more cost-effective alternative to contracted beds. The proposals by Cornerstone and Suncoast to contract for the inpatient component of the hospice program represent a better use of existing resources than that of VITAS, which will incur the expense of a freestanding hospice house for its proposed program. On balance, this preference weighs equally in favor of Cornerstone and Suncoast, and against VITAS. Preference shall be given to an applicant who has a commitment to serve patients who do not have primary caregivers at home; the homeless; and patients with AIDS. Each applicant presented evidence of a commitment to serve patients who do not have primary caregivers at home; the homeless; and patients with AIDS. However, the programs proposed by Suncoast to address the needs of these populations are more precisely targeted than those of the other applicants, and Suncoast is therefore entitled to preference. Proposals for a Hospice service area comprised of three or more counties. SA 6A is comprised of a single county, Hillsborough. This preference is therefore not applicable in this case. Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes to provide services that are not specifically covered by private insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. All three applicants propose to provide services in Hillsborough that are not specifically required or paid for by private insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. The added services beyond those covered by private insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare as proposed by the applicants differ slightly, but on balance, weigh equally in favor of approval of each applicant. Rule 59C-1.0355(5) – Consistency with Plans. Each of the applicants conducted an analysis of the needs of Hillsborough residents and included evidence within their applications and through testimony at final hearing regarding the consistency of their respective plans with the needs of the community. However, Suncoast’s evaluation of the needs specific to Hillsborough was more thorough, and its application is best targeted at meeting the identified needs. Rule 59C-1.0355(6) – Required Program Description. Each applicant provided a detailed program description in its CON application. The elements of the program descriptions are discussed above in the context of the various statutory and rule criteria. Ultimate Findings Regarding Comparative Review Suncoast conducted the most comprehensive evaluation of the end of life care needs of Hillsborough residents, and developed targeted programs and services to address those needs. Those programs and services are identified as CON conditions, and are enforceable by AHCA. The depth and breadth of Suncoast’s commitments to the residents of Hillsborough exceed those of Cornerstone and VITAS. Unlike the other applicants, Suncoast offers needed programs which are not currently available in Hillsborough, including a dedicated pediatric hospice program, and enhanced transportation options for persons living in rural areas of the county. Suncoast and Cornerstone are comparable in terms of history of providing quality care. VITAS is inferior in this regard, as evidenced by the numerous confirmed deficiencies in recent years. Undoubtedly, VITAS has redoubled its efforts to improve quality in response to the numerous confirmed deficiencies and complaints, but based upon the record in this case, Suncoast and Cornerstone have a better history of providing quality care. Suncoast would be able to commence operations in SA 6A more quickly than Cornerstone or VITAS. It has connections with other healthcare providers in Hillsborough and could easily transition to that adjacent geographic area. All three proposals would enhance access to hospice services in the county, but Suncoast’s program would be the most effective at enhancing access. A careful weighing and balancing of the statutory review criteria and rule preferences favors approval of the Suncoast application, and denial of the Cornerstone and VITAS applications. Upon consideration of all the facts in this case, Suncoast’s application, on balance, is the most appropriate for approval.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving Suncoast Hospice of Hillsborough, LLC’s, CON No. 10605 and denying Cornerstone Hospice and Palliative Care, Inc.’s, CON No. 10602 and VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida’s, CON No. 10606. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: D. Ty Jackson, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kristen Bond Dobson, Esquire Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marc Ito, Esquire Parker Hudson Rainer & Dobbs, LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 2021. Julia Elizabeth Smith, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell, P.A. Suite 202 119 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gabriel F.V. Warren, Esquire Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elina Gonikberg Valentine, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 7 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Amanda Marci Hessein, Esquire Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. Suite 202 119 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allison Goodson, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Maurice Thomas Boetger, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James D. Varnado, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer and Dobbs, LLC Suite 3600 303 Peachtree Street Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30308 D. Carlton Enfinger, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 7 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Simone Marstiller, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact CON APPLICATIONS HCR-CON No.7530 HCR is a publicly owned, for-profit corporation which operates approximately 25 nursing homes in Florida. HCR filed an application, CON No. 7530, to construct a 98-bed freestanding nursing home. HCR proposes to locate the nursing home in the northwest part of Orange County, Florida. HCR proposes that the entire 98-bed facility will be dedicated to the care of patients with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias. The total cost of the HCR project is $7,132,000 for 47,750 square feet, or $472,776 per bed. The HCR proposal is modeled after an HCR 120-bed nursing home facility in Boynton Beach, Florida. The Boynton Beach facility is entirely dedicated to the treatment of patients with Alzheimer's Disease or related dementias. The proposed HCR facility in Orange County would be identical to the Boynton Beach facility less one patient wing. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, as well as HCR's existing Orange County nursing home facility, have superior licensure ratings. HCR's Boynton Beach facility received accreditation with commendation from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHCO), a national accreditation body which has established standards to measure the quality of care in dementia care units. Dementia is a complex of symptoms that can be caused by many different underlying diseases. Alzheimer's disease is one cause of dementia. Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia. Significant research is being conducted into the cause and treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Dementia is defined as a decline in intellectual function; global cognitive impairment, that is memory impairment and at least one of the following: impairment of abstract thinking; impairment of judgment; impairment of other complex capabilities such as language use, ability to perform complex physical tasks, ability to recognize objects or people, or to construct objects; and, personality change. The Reisberg Cognitive Rating Scale (RCS) classifies the stages of Alzheimer's disease from 1 to 7, with a rating of 7 being most severe. The rating scale is based on 10 axes: concentration, recent memory, past memory, orientation, functioning and self-care, speech, motor functioning, mood and behavior, practice of an art or skill, and calculation ability. The Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) for Age-Associated Cognitive decline and Alzheimer's Disease also defines seven stages of deterioration ranging from no cognitive decline to very severe cognitive decline. Persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease generally cannot survive without assistance upon reaching early dementia or level five on both the RCS and GDS. Approximately 50-58 percent of persons currently residing in community nursing homes suffer from some form of dementia. There is a need for community nursing home beds for persons suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease in Orange County. It is particularly difficult to place in nursing homes in Orange County, persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease (levels 5-7) who also have displayed a history of disruptive behavior patterns. Persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease have specific needs for care and treatment in nursing homes. Alzheimer's victims tend to wander and should have areas set aside for secured walking. The movement of Alzheimer's victims should also be carefully monitored. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, which is the prototype for HCR's proposed Orange County facility, has specific design features to accommodate the needs of patients suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease. HCR proposes a pod design of five residential pod units each with a central living area, also called the atrium area. The resident rooms open to the central living area. Each pod has an enclosed courtyard. Access to the courtyards is controlled. The two nursing stations are centrally located in each wing of the facility. Each central living area, or atrium, is visible from one or the other of the nursing stations. HCR provides specific staff training in the care and treatment of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. A unit or a facility dedicated to the treatment of dementia patients may reduce the need for psychotropic medication of the patients. On a long-term basis, there may be some staff burnout in a facility or unit dedicated solely to the care and treatment of victims of Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. HCR proposes that its CON be conditioned upon locating in northwest Orange County, providing at least 30 percent of its patient days to Medicaid eligible persons, providing respite care, and dedicating all 98 beds to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. HCR currently meets its Medicaid commitment in the Boynton Beach facility. LIFE CARE CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P LIFE CARE is a for-profit corporation which owns and operates two nursing homes in Florida. LIFE CARE also operates three other nursing homes in Florida. As of September 1993, LIFE CARE had a net worth of approximately $50 million. LIFE CARE proposes to construct a freestanding 98-bed nursing home (CON No. 7534) in southwest Orange County, at a total cost of $5,988,000. The LIFE CARE 98-bed facility proposal includes a 20-bed unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a 20-bed subacute unit, an adult day care center, mental health services, and services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. LIFE CARE also made a partial request (CON No. 7534P) for a 60-bed facility which would be constructed at the same site and would include the same features. For economic reasons, patients are being released from acute care hospital settings at earlier stages of recovery and there is a need for subacute nursing home services in Orange County. The incidence of AIDS/HIV is increasing and there is a need for nursing home services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The 20-bed unit proposed by LIFE CARE for the care and treatment of Alzheimer's patients will be a distinct part of the facility, separate from other residents. The Alzheimer's unit has its own dining area and activity area, a centrally located bathing facility, and a secured courtyard for wandering space. The 20-bed LIFE CARE subacute unit will also be separate. The subacute unit will have two ventilator areas and be contiguous to a therapy area. The LIFE CARE design includes outdoor courtyards, a library, gift shop, and ice cream parlor. Pursuant to Sections 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, one of the required elements of a CON application is the listing of capital projects, which is presented in Schedule 2 of the CON application. The Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in these proceedings is identical to the Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in the December 1993 batching cycle for LIFE CARE'S proposed Clay County Project, CON No. 7501. It has been held that Schedule 2 of the LIFE CARE Clay County Project CON application No. 7501 met minimum CON application content requirements. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, 20 F.L.W. 1435 (Fla. 1st DCA June 12, 1995). During November of 1993, a LIFE CARE nursing home located in Altamonte Springs was downgraded from a superior to a conditional licensure rating due to a deficiency related to outdated medication. The conditional rating given to the facility was in effect for approximately fifty days. The facility was then given a standard rating, and upon the annual survey in the fall of 1994, the facility has been recommended for a superior rating. All other LIFE CARE facilities have superior ratings. LIFE CARE proposes to condition its CON application upon providing Medicaid participation of 65 percent in the 98-bed facility, and 43 percent in the 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST CON No. 7528 ADVENTIST is a not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care related enterprises. ADVENTIST is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Health Care Corporation, which owns and operates hospitals and health care facilities throughout the United States. ADVENTIST has operated health care facilities in Orange County since the early 1900s when Florida Hospital was founded. ADVENTIST is the largest hospital system in Orange County, with more than 1,400 beds located on five campuses. ADVENTIST proposes to add 38 beds to an existing freestanding 80-bed community nursing home, Sunbelt Living Center-East Orlando (SLC), which is directly adjacent to Florida Hospital's East Orlando campus. The ADVENTIST proposal would include a 20-bed subacute unit and also an 18-bed skilled nursing unit. This addition to SLC would be accomplished by constructing two new wings to the existing facility. The projected cost of the ADVENTIST addition is $1,386,500, or approximately $36,000 per bed. SLC is an 80-bed skilled nursing facility which opened in January of 1993. SLC has a superior licensure rating. SLC provides nursing home service to a variety of residents, including persons with AIDS/HIV, as well as persons with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. SLC does not have a distinct Alzheimer's unit, but is equipped with security features to accommodate Alzheimer's patients. SLC staff is trained in the care and treatment of all its residents, including those with dementia. SLC reached an occupancy rate of 96 percent-97 percent capacity in its first ten months of operation. The SLC design is based on a residential model. The intent of the design is to create a residential community, and to encourage the interaction among the residents, and also between the residents and staff. The residential wings contain twelve rooms with private and semiprivate accommodations. Each room has its own toilet facilities. The support facilities, food service, therapy areas, administrative offices, visitor and welcoming areas, are located in the center of the facility. The residential wings are clustered on each side of the facility. The facility also features outdoor courtyards and walkways adjacent to the residential wings. ADVENTIST proposes to condition its CON application on providing a Medicaid commitment of 65 percent of total patient days in the non-subacute wing of the 38-bed expansion. The ADVENTIST proposal also features an AIDS program and respite care. ADVENTIST currently meets it Medicaid commitment at SLC. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. There is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. In the 20-bed subacute unit ADVENTIST proposes that each room will include wall-mounted suction and gases to accommodate ventilator dependent patients, which will enable ADVENTIST to provide more intensive subacute care. RHA/PRINCETON CON No.7538 RHA is the owner and operator of Princeton Hospital, located on the west side of Orlando. Princeton Hospital is situated on 32 acres bordering Lake Lawne. Princeton Hospital has 150 beds, including 24 psychiatric beds, a multipurpose intensive care unit, a 13-bed progressive care unit, a nursery, pediatric services, women's services, an obstetrical unit and an inpatient cardiac catheterization lab. The psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital treats a wide range of mental disorders, including those afflicting the elderly population. The hospital also operates a senior psychiatric partial hospitalization program which serves geriatric patients, including persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Princeton Hospital currently provides care and treatment to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. Princeton Hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. On August 1, 1994, subsequent to the filing of CON application No. 7538, Princeton Hospital entered into a wide-ranging affiliation agreement with the University of Florida, College of Medicine and Shands Hospital. The agreement provides for extensive reciprocal training and educational programs between Princeton Hospital and the College of Medicine, as well as Shands Hospital. The agreement also provides for priority transfer of patients between Princeton and Shands hospitals. RHA proposes to include its nursing home facility within the scope of the affiliation agreement. The nursing home staff would benefit from the training and educational opportunities, and the nursing home patients would have access to priority reciprocity with the College of Medicine and Shands Hospital as provided for in the agreement. During fiscal years 1993 and 1994 Princeton Hospital had a Medicaid patient ratio of approximately 40 percent. Princeton Hospital also provides indigent care. RHA proposes to construct a freestanding 60-bed Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility on the campus of Princeton Hospital at a cost of $4,991,961 for 43,741 square feet, or $83,199 per bed. The services that are proposed include subacute care, a 15-bed unit for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, long term care, and two pediatric beds. Respite care will also be provided. RHA proposes that its subacute care unit would provide step-down care for patients referred from acute care hospital settings. RHA also proposes to provide rehabilitative therapies to serve patients suffering from fractured hips and joint replacements as well as other patients needing more intensive physical therapy. Cardiac and respiratory patients will also be served in the subacute unit. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. RHA's proposed 15-bed Alzheimer's unit will be a distinct and secured part of the facility. The unit will have its own enclosed courtyard and activities area. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in Orange County. RHA also proposes a program dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This program will provide long-term care, and will include psychiatric, as well as subacute services. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The RHA proposal includes two pediatric nursing home beds. It is not uncommon to provide pediatric nursing home beds in a small unit within a nursing home facility. These beds will provide subacute care to pediatric patients referred from acute care hospital settings. It is anticipated that the pediatric unit will serve patients with respiratory problems and other multiple system failures. RHA has experienced difficulty in placing pediatric patients discharged from Princeton Hospital. The RHA facility is designed in a series of modules. There are four patient wings located around a single nursing station. The Alzheimer's wing is distinct and secured. The pediatric beds are located in a single semiprivate room close to the nursing station. The subacute unit includes six beds with wall-mounted medical gases and vacuums. Each residential room has approximately 272 net square feet, and features its own handicapped toilet and bathing facilities. The facility includes a chapel, convenience store, laundry, ice cream shop, and beauty shop, designed in a mall concept. The corridors are ten feet in width instead of the standard eight feet. The intent of the design concept is to encourage social interaction. As designed, the location of the soiled utility room in the facility does not comply with applicable Florida code regulations; however, a proposed minor change in the design will move the soiled utility room approximately twenty feet to bring the facility into compliance with Florida code regulations. ALLOCATION FACTORS Relationship to District and State Health Plans Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes District Health Plan Allocation Factor 1 of the District Health Plan provides a priority for an applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center. This preference will continue to be given applicants until a total of 120 beds is obtained. HCR is the only applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center; however, in January of 1993, Sunbelt Living Center, a 120-bed community nursing home opened in Apopka, Florida, which is located in the northwest Orange County population center. Accordingly, the total bed number for this preference has been obtained, and this district allocation factor is inapplicable to these proceedings. Allocation Factor 2 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for applicants developing specific services for newborn and/or pediatric patients. RHA is the only applicant proposing specific services which include a unit for the care and treatment of pediatric patients. Accordingly, RHA is the only applicant which meets this allocation factor. Allocation Factor 3 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for an applicant proposing to develop a specific specialty service (or services), such as a unit for medically complex patients, a unit dealing with psychiatric disorders as a primary diagnosis, or services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This preference is also provided to an applicant which commits to working with, or in conjunction with, an existing provider of a specialty service, such as hospices, or mental health providers. RHA is the applicant which best meets this allocation factor. The RHA proposal provides for specialty services for medically complex patients, provides for services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV, and RHA specifically commits to working with mental health providers, including working with the psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE also propose to provide specialty services to medically complex patients in subacute units; however, the ADVENTIST facility is better equipped in this regard and is designed with piped in medical gases, vacuum, and expanded electrical capacity will have the capability to provide more extensive services. LIFE CARE also proposes to treat persons suffering from AIDS/HIV and persons with mental disorders. The LIFE CARE proposal, however, is not as specific in this regard as that of RHA. HCR proposes to provide specialty services to persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, and is in general compliance with this allocation factor. State Health Plan Allocation Factors Each applicant meets the first State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to locate in areas within the subdistrict with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate in Orange County exceeds 90 percent. RHA and LIFE CARE meet the second State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to serve Medicaid patients in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of nursing homes. In Orange County the average is 65 percent for Medicaid service. ADVENTIST meets this preference with regard to its non-subacute unit. HCR which proposes a 30 percent Medicaid service does not meet this preference. The third State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Each applicant generally complies with this allocation factor and offers specialty services; however, RHA with its broader spectrum of specialty services, including services to AIDS/HIV residents, Alzheimer's residents, and its specific commitment to working with residents suffering from psychiatric disorders best meets this preference. The fourth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents including, but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this preference. RHA and ADVENTIST have a history of providing quality health care service to the community. RHA and ADVENTIST have extensive ongoing relationships with acute care hospitals. HCR and LIFE CARE have also established relationships which will address providing a continuum of care, but not to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. The fifth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. Each applicant proposes facilities designed to provide resident comfort and quality care. Each design has comfortable resident rooms, spacious activities areas, recreation areas, courtyards, landscaping, therapy rooms, and staff lounge areas. Each applicant meets this preference. The sixth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing innovative therapeutic programs which have proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functioning level and which emphasize restorative care. Each of the applicants' proposals feature specific elements of innovative therapeutic programs. HCR has received an award for its innovative design of the Boynton Beach Alzheimer's unit. RHA offers a multi-discipline approach with a psychiatric program. ADVENTIST offers an intensive subacute care unit, and LIFE CARE offer a well-balanced approach with intensive staff training. The seventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. In this respect, HCR projects Medicaid charges of $96.20 per patient day in Year 1, and $93.32 in Year 2. LIFE CARE projects Medicaid charges of $104.74 per patient day in Year 1, and $106.20 in Year 2. ADVENTIST projects Medicaid charges of $106.00 per patient day in Year 1, and $111.30 in Year 2. RHA projects Medicaid charges of $107.02 per patient day in Year 1, and $109.24 in Year 2. While HCR projects the lowest Medicaid per diem charges and appears to best meet this allocation factor, all applicants have agreed to a specified Medicaid utilization rate, and will accept the appropriate Medicaid reimbursement levels. The eighth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant with a history of providing superior resident care in Florida or other states. HCR has maintained superior licensure ratings, and its prototype Boynton Beach facility currently is rated superior. LIFE CARE in 1993 experienced a conditional rating for its Altamonte Springs facility; however, the facility, upon evaluation in the fall of 1994, is now recommended for a superior licensure rating. RHA does not currently operate nursing homes; however, RHA has a history of providing quality care in its Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST is the only applicant proposing to add nursing home beds to an existing facility that currently has a superior licensure rating, and in this respect, ADVENTIST best meets this allocation factor. The ninth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing staff levels which exceed minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents shall be given preference. All applicants meet this factor; however a comparison of the nursing staffing patterns of the applicants reflects that HCR (45.40 nursing FTE) and LIFE CARE (45.30 nursing FTE) have a higher than the minimum required ratio of nursing staff to residents for their proposed 98-bed facilities. RHA has proposed 35.30 nursing FTE for its 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST proposes a total 62.40 nursing FTE for its facility after the proposed 38-bed addition. The tenth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreational activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals shall include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All the applicants offer a wide range of social, spiritual, nutritional, and recreational services. RHA, however, also proposes specific utilization of mental health care professionals, and a specific affiliation with the psychiatric care professionals from Princeton Hospital, and best meets this factor. The eleventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who ensures the residents' rights and privacy, and who implements a well-designed quality assurance and discharge planning program. Each applicant has documented specific plans for quality assurance and ensuring the residents' rights and privacy are protected. Accordingly, each applicant meets this factor. The final State Health Plan allocation factor provides for a preference to an applicant proposing lower administrative costs, and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. HCR has the lowest projected administrative and overhead costs ($18.28 per patient day as of Year 2), and best meets this allocation factor. Statutory Review Criteria, Section 408.035(1), F.S. Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, inadequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. HCR, LIFE CARE, and RHA each proposes a unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (HCR 98-bed facility, LIFE CARE 20-bed unit, and RHA 15-bed unit). ADVENTIST, while currently providing care for Alzheimer's patients at SLC, does not propose a distinct Alzheimer's unit in its 38-bed addition. There are currently at least five nursing homes in the service district, and two others in close proximity, which feature dedicated Alzheimer's units, with a total of at least 345 nursing home beds serving Alzheimer's patients. There is a high utilization rate of Alzheimer's nursing home beds in the district. While there is an established need for more beds to serve Alzheimer's patients, particularly Alzheimer's patients with a history of disruptive behavior, there are additional needs in the service district to provide care and treatment for subacute patients, and for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. It is difficult to quantify the need for subacute nursing home beds due to the differing professional definitions of what constitutes subacute care; however, acute care hospitals in Orange County are, for cost-effective reasons, now releasing patients on an earlier basis, and there is an established need for nursing home beds to accommodate persons released from acute care hospitals. There is a high utilization rate of subacute beds in the district. There has also been an increase in the incidence of AIDS/HIV patients, and in the need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in the service district. Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Each applicant has the ability to provide quality of care, and each applicant has a history of providing quality of care. The distinguishing factors in this regard are that LIFE CARE is the only applicant that has experienced a downgrading of a nursing home facility from a superior to a conditional licensure rating, and ADVENTIST is the only applicant that proposes to add nursing home beds to a facility that currently has a superior licensure rating. In comparison, ADVENTIST best meets this factor, and LIFE CARE least meets this factor. Section 408.035(1)(e): Probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. ADVENTIST and RHA both have specific proposals to work with, and share services with acute care hospitals. Both are in close proximity to acute care hospitals which will expedite sharing of medical resources. RHA will also share dietary services with Princeton Hospital. The freestanding facilities proposed by HCR and LIFE CARE do not have this advantage. Section 408.035(1)(f): The need in the service district for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. This factor is inapplicable to the proposals. No specific need was established as to special services and equipment not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. There are dedicated Alzheimer's units and dementia services for persons in adjoining areas. Section 408.035(1)(g): The need for research and educational facilities, including but not limited to, institutional training programs and community training programs for health care practitioners. RHA has an extensive proposal for the participation and training of health care practitioners in conjunction with Princeton Hospital and best meets this criterion. RHA's affiliation with the University of Florida College of Medicine, Shands Hospital, and the Brain Institute at the University of Florida enhances this proposal. ADVENTIST shares a similar educational and training relationship with Florida Hospital, and with Florida Hospital's registered nurse baccalaureate degree program through Southern College. LIFE CARE proposes to establish relationships with local community colleges and education centers to sponsor nursing programs. Section 408.035(1)(h): The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures for project accomplishment As stipulated, each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant also has substantial personnel and management resources available for project accomplishment. Section 408.035(1)(i): The immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. LIFE CARE, ADVENTIST and RHA meet this criterion, and reasonably project positive cash flows by the second year of operation. RHA a not-for- profit corporation, projects a net loss of $114,000 in Year 1 of operation, and an excess of revenues over expenses of $53,000 in Year 2 of operation. LIFE CARE projects a net loss of $440,496 in Year 1 and a net gain of $145,085 in Year 2 for the 98-bed facility, and a net loss of $259,971 in Year 1 and a net gain of $54,920 in Year 2 for the 60-bed facility. HCR projects an after-tax profit of $25,000 in Year 2; however, in order to attain a level of profitability HCR must meet its projected 65 percent private pay utilization. This is a very high private payor mix, and there is a significant question as to whether this payor mix is attainable in the subdistrict; however, as proposed, HCR meets this factor. Sections 408.035(1)(k)(l) and (m): Impact of the project on cost of health services; cost effective- ness; construction costs. ADVENTIST proposes the most cost-effective project by adding beds to an existing facility (SLC). The addition of 38 beds to SLC will promote and maximize the overall efficiency of the facility which was originally designed with core support features to accommodate 120 residents. The proposed 38-bed addition to SLC will also lower the costs per patient day of the entire facility. The ADVENTIST proposal adds nursing home beds at the lowest per bed cost ($36,000 per bed) of all applicants. Similarly, RHA is located on the campus of an existing acute care hospital owned by the applicant and, unlike HCR and LIFE CARE, projects no actual cash expenditure for land acquisition. Each applicant has proposed a reasonable design of its proposed facility and reasonable construction costs, and taken into consideration applicable costs and methods of energy provision and conservation. Each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant has also proposed a very high quality of care facility that will foster competition and promote quality assurance and cost- effectiveness. Each applicant meets this criterion. Section 408.035(1)(n): The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. RHA, ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE have proposed providing health care services to Medicaid patients at rates at, or in excess of, the district average. HCR proposes the lowest Medicaid service rate at 30 percent. RHA also has a strong record of providing Medicaid services and service to the medically indigent at Princeton Hospital. All applicants except HCR meet this factor. Section 408.035(1)(o): The applicant's past and proposed provision of services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals best meet this criterion. Both the RHA and the ADVENTIST proposals are closely associated with existing hospitals, and emphasize a continuum of care from the acute hospital setting to a nursing home facility. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals promote the interaction of health care professionals in a multilevel health care system. The HCR and LIFE CARE proposals do not reflect such an extensive interconnection with other aspects of the health care system, and do not promote a continuum of care to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. Section 408.035(2)(b): Whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those being proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. The evidence reflects that the existing inpatient facilities in, or adjacent to, the district which offer subacute and AIDS services, as well as services dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are operating at, or near, capacity, and are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: RHA's application for CON No. 7538 be APPROVED. ADVENTIST'S application for CON No. 7528 be APPROVED. HCR's application for CON No. 7530 be DENIED. LIFE CARE'S applications for CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 27th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX HCR's Proposed Findings 1-5. Accepted in substance. 6. Rejected, insofar as quantification of need for subacute services, while not readily ascertainable, was demonstrated by other applicants.demonstrated need existed in district 7-8. Accepted in substance. 9. See Number 6. 10-14. Accepted in substance, but disposed of by ruling in Clay County case. 15-27. Accepted in substance. 28-36. Rejected insofar as quantification of need for subacute services is not readily accessible; however, need for such services was established. Accepted, except that need for 120 beds has been met. Accepted, except that RHA proposes specific pediatric services and is entitled to preference. Accepted in substance, except last sentence is rejected. Accepted. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST meets preference as to the non- subacute unit. 42-43. Accepted in substance. 44-45. Rejected. Accepted in substance. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST and RHA also meet this factor, and ADVENTIST is adding beds to an existing superior-rated facility. 48-50. Accepted in part, other applicants meet these factors. 51-65. Accepted in substance; however other services are also needed in the district. 66-67. Rejected. 68-73. Accepted in substance. 74-76. Accepted; however other services are also needed in the district. 77. Rejected. 78-86. Accepted in substance. 87-94. Accepted only to the extent that the HCR proposal meets the minimum requirements to demonstrate financial feasibility. 95-103. Accepted in substance; however each applicant's proposal also meets this factor. 104-112. Accepted in substance. 113. Rejected. 114. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. 115-116. Accepted only as to RHA design features. 117-122. Rejected. 123-127. Accepted in substance. 128-131. Rejected. LIFE CARE's Proposed Findings 1-3. Accepted in substance. 4. Accepted, except that district plan includes consideration of pediatric population. 5-7. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. See Finding No. 4. Rejected to the extent that it is not uncommon for pediatric care to be provided in a nursing home setting. 10-38. Accepted in substance. 39-40. Rejected to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST have competitive staff salaries and have experienced no difficulty in hiring qualified staff. 41-57. Accepted in substance. 58-59. Rejected. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. Rejected. 62-65. Accepted in substance. 66-69. Disposed of by Clay County case. Accepted; however ADVENTIST meets this factor in the non-subacute unit. Accepted in substance. ADVENTIST's Proposed Findings 1-4. Accepted in substance. 5. Accepted only to the extent that HCR does not propose a specific subacute care unit. 6-13. Accepted in substance. Rejected to the extent that HCR's proposal meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. Accepted. 16-17. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. 20-21. Accepted in substance. 22-26. Disposed of by Clay County case. 27-29. Accepted in substance 30-31. Rejected. 32-35. Accepted in substance. 36. Rejected; see No. 19. 37-106. Accepted in substance. 107. Accepted; see No. 19. RHA's Proposed Findings 1-21. Accepted in substance. 22. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. 23-54. Accepted in substance. 55. Accepted to the extent that there are at least seven nursing homes with dedicated Alzheimer's units in or near the service area. 56-92. Accepted in substance. 93-96. Accepted; however HCR meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 97-102. Accepted; however LIFE CARE meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 103. Rejected. 104-122. Accepted in substance. 123. Rejected. 124-135. Accepted in substance. 136. Rejected to the extent that all applicants have met the design criterion. 137-140. Accepted in substance. 141. Rejected. 142-145. Accepted in substance. 146. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen K. Boone, Esquire BOONE, BOONE & BOONE, P.A. Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida. 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire PENNINGTON & HABEN, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire MACFARLANE, AUSLEY, FERGUSON & MCMULLEN, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Dean Bunton, Esquire Senior Attorney, AHCA Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire MATEER, HARBERT & BATES, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 James M. Barclay, Esquire COBB, C0LE & BELL 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
