The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the application of Venice Hospital for a CON should be approved. The factual issue is whether Venice Hospital meets the criteria set forth in the statute and rules.
Findings Of Fact The Department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer would recommend that this CON be granted with appropriate conditions relating to the maintenance of staff and the level of training of the staff which must be met and maintained in order for Petitioner to continue the operation of the laboratory. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 26th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire David Watkins, Esquire 646 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas Mannheimer, Esquire 137 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 and Lamar Matthews, Esquire 1550 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33578 Courtesy Copy to: William B. Wiley, Esquire 666 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue At issue here is whether Memorial should be authorized to operate the cardiac catheterization service it has already initiated. The parties have stipulated that criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c)(5), (7), (9), (10) and (13), Florida Statutes (1983), are not in contention and that Section 381.494(6)(d)(5), Florida Statutes (1983), does not apply. Still in dispute is whether Memorial's application conforms to the criteria set out in Section 384.494(6)(c)(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (8), (11), (12) and (6)(d)(1), (2), (3) and (4), Florida Statutes (1983), and Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code. Among the parties' posthearing submissions are proposed findings of fact. By order entered February 3, 1984, Fort Myers Community Hospital's motion to strike DHRS' proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and final order was denied. Proposed fact findings have been considered in preparation of the following findings of fact, and have been adopted, in substance, except where not supported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Findings Of Fact Community and Memorial are in Fort Myers, Florida, about three miles apart. Since 1974, Community has offered cardiac catheterization services. Memorial instituted these proceedings in hopes of obtaining authority to establish a second cardiac catheterization service in Fort Myers. Memorial already had an arteriographic radiology room and had only to spend approximately $232,835 in order to acquire a polydiagnostic-parallelogram, a cine pulse M-400 single plane system, a 35 millimeter camera, a "CMB-A Combilabor 2 Cine" film processor and a film projector. With this new equipment, Memorial has gained cardiac catheterization capability, but it is still unequipped for open heart surgery. Memorial instituted cardiac catheterization service in July of 1983. Under an agreement between the hospitals, Memorial's Exhibit No. 5, cardiac patients at Memorial needing open heart surgery can be transferred to Community, once the need is apparent. DISTRICTS In 1981, and as late as the time of the hearing, Lee, Collier, Hendry, Glades, Charlotte, Sarasota, DeSoto, Highlands, Hardee and Polk Counties comprised District 8. As of October 1, 1983, however, the district shrank to seven counties, with the shift of Highlands, Hardee and Polk Counties to District No. 6. In 1981, there were three cardiac catheterization laboratories in what was then District 8: one each at Community, Lakeland Regional Medical Center and Sarasota's Memorial Hospital. Lakeland Regional in Polk County is now in District 6. Population projections for the ten counties originally in District 8 are as follows, for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985: 1981 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 62088.0 66.146 41086.6 33.854 21019.4 12.258 COLLIER 91456.8 80.428 73557.1 19.572 17899.7 18.464 DESOTO 19531.2 83.715 16350.5 16.285 3180.7 21.719 GLADES 6153.6 84.737 5214.4 15.263 939.2 22.697 HARDEE 19663.2 88.488 17399.6 11.512 2263.6 27.396 HENDRY 19339.2 91.255 17647.9 8.745 1691.3 28.362 HIGHLANDS 49460.8 73.075 36143.6 26.925 13317.2 17.605 LEE 215752.8 77.297 166770.2 22.703 48982.6 17.485 POLK 329801.6 85.519 282043.7 14.481 47757.9 21.750 SARASOTA 209440.8 69.897 146392.8 30.103 63048.0 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1022688.0 78.470 802588.5 802508.3 21.530 220099.5 220179.7 18.389 PROJECTION 1982 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 65716.0 66.255 43540.2 33.745 22175.8 12.258 COLLIER 96942.6 79.921 77477.6 20.079 19465.0 18.464 DESOTO 20023.4 83.655 16750.5 16.345 3272.9 21.719 GLADES 6315.2 84.177 5316.0 15.823 999.2 22.697 HARDEE 19947.4 88.350 17623.5 11.650 2323.9 27.396 HENDRY 20079.4 91.112 18294.8 8.888 1784.6 28.362 HIGHLANDS 51395.6 72.509 37266.4 27.491 14129.2 17.605 LEE 226239.6 76.941 174070.8 23.059 52168.8 17.485 POLK 337951.2 85.350 288440.7 14.650 49510.5 21.750 SARASOTA 216630.6 69.761 151124.0 30.239 65506.6 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1061241.0 78.184 829904.3 829719.6 21.816 231336.7 231521.4 18.389 PROJECTION 1983 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 69344.0 66.364 46019.7 33.636 23324.3 12.258 COLLIER 102428.4 79.414 81342.5 20.586 21085.9 18.464 DESOTO 20515.6 83.594 17149.8 16.406 3365.8 21.719 GLADES 6476.8 83.617 5415.7 16.383 1061.1 22.697 HARDEE 20231.6 88.211 17846.5 11.789 2385.1 27.396 HENDRY 20819.6 90.969 18939.5 9.031 1880.1 28.362 HIGHLANDS 53330.4 71.942 38367.1 28.058 14963.3 17.605 LEE 236726.4 76.585 181296.7 23.415 55429.7 17.485 POLK 346100.8 85.180 294810.1 14.820 52190.7 21.750 SARASOTA 223820.4 69.625 155835.7 30.375 67984.7 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1099794.0 77.897 857023.3 856710.0 22.103 242770.7 243084.0 18.389 1984 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 72972.0 66.474 48507.1 33.526 24464.9 12.258 COLLIER 107914.2 78.907 85151.7 21.093 22762.5 18.464 DESOTO 21007.8 83.534 17548.6 16.466 3459.2 21.719 GLADES 6638.4 83.057 5513.7 16.945 1124.7 22.697 HARDEE 20515.8 88.073 18068.8 11.927 2447.0 27.396 HENDRY 21559.8 90.827 19582.1 9.173 1977.7 28.362 HIGHLANDS 55265.2 71.376 39446.0 28.624 15819.2 17.605 LEE 247213.2 76.229 188447.9 23.721 58765.3 17.485 POLK 354250.4 85.011 301152.3 14.989 53098.4 21.750 SARASOTA 231010.2 69.490 160527.9 30.510 70482.3 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1138347.0 77.611 883945.6 883479.4 22.389 254401.4 254867.6 18.389 PROJECTION 1985 Total Population Percent 0-64 Total Percent 0-64 65+ Total 65+ Percent 0-14 CHARLOTTE 76600.0 66.583 51002.4 33.147 25597.6 12.258 COLLIER 113400.0 78.400 88905.3 21.600 24494.7 18.464 DESOTO 21500.0 83.473 17946.7 16.527 3353.3 21.719 GLADES 6800.0 82.497 5609.8 17.503 1190.2 22.697 HARDEE 20800.0 87.934 18290.3 12.066 2509.7 27.396 HENDRY 22300.0 90.684 20222.5 9.316 2077.5 28.362 HIGHLANDS 57200.0 70.809 40503.0 29.191 16997.0 17.605 LEE 157700.0 75.873 195524.4 24.127 62175.6 17.485 POLK 362400.0 84.842 307466.2 15.158 54933.8 21.750 SARASOTA 238200.0 69.354 165200.5 30.646 72999.5 13.664 SUM OF COUNTIES DISTRICT8 1176900.0 77.324 910671.1 910027.8 22.676 266228.9 266872.2 18.389 PROJECTION These figures come from Community's Exhibit No. 1, as to which all parties stipulated. USE RATES The parties also agreed that, during the calendar year 1981, cardiac catheterization procedures in the district amounted to 743 at Community, 739 at Memorial Hospital in Sarasota, and 409 at Lakeland Regional, for a total of 1891 procedures, of which 1482 occurred at cardiac catheterization laboratories still in District 8. Since no cardiac catheterization laboratory in District 8 takes pediatric patients, this segment of the population must be excluded in calculating District 8 cardiac catheterization use rates. Of the total 1981 population of what was then District 8, 18.389 percent was under the age of fifteen. It follows that 834,626 persons 15 or older lived in District 8 in 1981. 1/ Dividing 1891 cardiac catheterization procedures by the adult population yields a 1981 use rate of 226.56854 per 100,000 persons for "old" District 8. Excluding cardiac catheterization procedures performed at Lakeland Regional and excluding the population of Highlands, Hardee and Polk Counties, the 1981 use rate for what has become District 8 can be calculated by dividing 1482 by 521526.76. This yields a use rate of 284.15666 per thousand persons resident in 1981 in the area of which District 8 is now comprised. In the state as a whole, 28,497 adult cardiac catheterizations occurred in 1981. Community's Exhibit No. 2. Dividing by Florida's projected 1981 population of 10,028.317, Community's Exhibit No. 1, the statewide cardiac catheterization use rate in 1981 was 284.16532. HRS no longer uses the cardiac catheterization projections in the State Health Systems Plan. CALCULATIONS REQUIRED BY RULE The parties have stipulated to the applicability of Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, which is in evidence as Joint Exhibit No. 4, and of which official recognition has been taken. This rule prescribes multiple numerical standards. First is a minimum service volume of "300 cardiac catheterizations performed annually . . . within three years . . . [of] initiation of service." Rule 10-5.11(15)(i)(4), Florida Administrative Code. Without a need for catheterization services, no applicant could meet this requirement but the minimum service volume requirement is designed to ensure that the technicians do their work often enough to remain proficient and is not, strictly speaking, a need criterion. It is clear from the evidence that Memorial can meet this minimum service volume requirement. Fifty or sixty procedures had already occurred at the Memorial laboratory by the time of the hearing. The other arithmetic calculations called for by the cardiac catheterization rule relate specifically to need. Because 1983 is the year in which Memorial initiated cardiac catheterization services, Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the number of cardiac catheterization procedures in the service area "Nx" be calculated for 1983. The rule specifies that this is to be accomplished by multiplying the 1981 use rate by the 1983 population. For purposes of the rule, the pertinent 1983 population is the adult population of present District 8, which, based on Community's Exhibit No. 1, amounts to 568,097 persons. Whether the statewide use rate or the use rate prevailing in what has become District 8 is used, the result is virtually identical. Multiplying by the 1981 use rate calculated with reference to the territory that is now District 8 yields 1614.3365 procedures in 1983. Multiplying by the 1981 use rate for Florida statewide yields 1614.3346. Multiplying by the 1981 use rate for what was then District 8 yields 1287.126, but this number cannot be said to relate to the population to be served in District 8 as it is presently constituted. For purposes of Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), Florida Administrative Code, therefore, "Nx" equals 1614. Rule 10-5.11(15)(o), Florida Administrative Code, requires that "Nx" be divided by the number of "existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area." Memorial's program has never received final approval, even though it is in fact operating and therefore "existing" within the meaning of the rule. Since Community and Sarasota's Memorial also have existing programs, the rule requires that 1614 be divided by three, yielding 538 as the average number of procedures per laboratory per year. Rule 10- 5.11(15)(o)(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that there shall be no additional adult cardiac catheterization laboratories established in a service area unless: The average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area is greater than 600. . . . No party contends that Memorial's application meets this rule criterion. All agree that three is the appropriate divisor. Nor is there any justification for adding the minimum service volume (300) to the need for cardiac catheterizations (1614) which the rule establishes for District 8. The rule treats the 300 as a subset of the 1614 total. COMMUNITY'S LABORATORY UNDERUTILIZED During the period January 3 to June 30, 1983, the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Community performed 517 catheterizations 2/ for an average of 4.34 procedures per day the laboratory was open. The cardiologists schedule their own procedures, by asking their office staff to arrange times with the Community employee who keeps the appointment book for the laboratory. Tuesday is most popular. During the period from January 3 to June 30, 1983, an average of 4.75 cardiac catheterizations occurred on Tuesdays in Community's laboratory. Wednesdays and Thursdays saw comparable, although lower utilization, but the average number of procedures dropped to 4.08 for Mondays and to 3.74 for Fridays. As a rule, cardiologists in Fort Myers do not perform these procedures on weekends. The cardiac catheterization laboratory at Community can handle five procedures a day comfortably. A single crew of technicians occasionally did seven cases a day, but this involved working overtime. The laboratory normally in operation no earlier than eight in the morning and no later than two or three in the afternoon. The average case takes an hour and fifteen minutes or so. When manipulation of the catheter beyond a heart valve proves exceptionally difficult, a case may take as long as two and a half hours. Without adding staff or lengthening its hours or changing its methods, the Community laboratory easily has the capacity to perform 25 cardiac catheterization procedures a week or 108 a month. In no month has this number been exceeded. In only one was it approached. On the basis of a 50 week year, 1250 procedures can be done without changing anything other than physicians' schedules on Mondays and Fridays. In 1982, Community performed only 806 procedures. The laboratory at Community has substantial unused capacity. Changes short of increasing hours of operation could increase the laboratory's capacity drastically. Of the time expended in a normal cardiac catheterization at Community, only 15 to 20 minutes actually entails use of specialized laboratory equipment. Preparing the patient for catheterization and administering post-catheterization care need not take place inside the laboratory proper. Experience in Florida has taught that moving pre- and post- care outside the laboratory itself makes seven or eight cases a day possible without going beyond two in the afternoon. Changes that would not require a certificate of need could increase Community laboratory's capacity substantially. There are eight cardiologists in the Fort Myers area, all of whom are on staff both at Community and at Memorial, and one possibility would be adding a second shift, or a sixth or seventh day. Either of these steps might entail adding not only catheterization technicians but also additional personnel for ancillary services, however. There is talk of introducing coronary transluminal angioplasty at Community, which would increase the demands on the laboratory, by some ten percent. (Approximately five percent of cardiac catheterization patients are candidates for coronary transluminal angioplasty and this procedure takes twice as long as the ordinary catheterization, on average.) Changes at Community's laboratory not requiring a certificate of need could readily offset any such an increase in utilization. EMERGENCY CATHETERIZATIONS A cardiac catheterization constitutes emergency therapy when, in order to restore normal blood flow, the catheter is used to introduce streptokinase, an enzyme that dissolves blood clots. Streptokinase may be injected intravenously so that it reaches a blockage at the desired strength, but there is a risk of untoward side effects. Use of the catheter permits local application of the enzyme to a blood clot blocking an artery. Neither of the cardiac catheterization laboratories in Fort Myers has ever administered streptokinase through a catheter, however. When a patient is admitted to hospital complaining of chest pains, and other tests do not indicate otherwise, cardiac catheterization may be appropriate, before the patient leaves the hospital. Once or twice, when there was an equipment failure at the Community laboratory, patients in this category had to be discharged and readmitted in order to be catheterized. On about ten occasions in the course of a year patients admitted with severe chest pains had to wait more than 12 hours for the laboratory to be free and in some of these cases the wait exceeded 24 hours. By comparison, the laboratory is idle for much longer periods weekends. Between two o'clock Friday afternoon and eight o'clock Monday morning, there are of course 66 hours; and there was no evidence of any use of the Community cardiac catheterization laboratory on weekends in recent times. CONTINUITY OF CARE About forty percent of the patients who are catheterized are deemed appropriate candidates for open heart surgery. Since Memorial does not have open heart surgery capability, patients must be transferred by ambulance to Community, in emergency situations. Otherwise they are discharged from Memorial and later enter Community or another hospital where open heart surgery is performed. EQUIPMENT COMPARABLE Nobody questions the adequacy of Community's laboratory. Memorial and Community offer identical cardiac catheterization services and each has all the equipment necessary to perform the services offered. Both Memorial and Community have digital vascular imaging equipment, but Community's vascular imaging equipment is not available for cardiac catheterization procedures. It is used in connection with other radiological techniques and is located elsewhere in the hospital. Since Memorial does cardiac catheterization in its radiology room, its digital vascular imaging equipment is available for cardiac catheterizations. Memorial cannot get more precise images with its equipment, but computer enhancement does allow precise images to be obtained with the use of less dye. According to uncontroverted testimony, however, the difference in the amount of dye is not large enough to affect the risk "as regards [anaphylactic] type reactions" (T. 403) to the dye. Memorial also has a U-arm apparatus that Community does not have. This facilitates taking pictures from different angles, but increased facility in this regard is only important in the performance of angioplasty procedures, which Memorial does not offer. Pursuant to Rule 10-11.5(15)(i)(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code, Memorial cannot offer coronary angioplasty because, unlike Community, it does not have facilities for open heart surgery. FINANCES Memorial's charges for a routine left heart catheterization exceed Community's charges for the same procedure by half, and are about 25 percent higher than average in the country. Memorial's charges exceed Community's for all catheterization procedures. There was no showing that anybody has ever been denied a cardiac catheterization at Community for inability to pay. The evidence suggested that this is more to the credit of the medical staff than to Community's administration, however. Memorial obviously had money available to finance initiation of its cardiac catheterization service, and might even make money on the service after a couple of years, if allowed to continue. It is losing money now, at least if its catheterization service is viewed apart from the "spinoff." One effect of permitting Memorial to operate a duplicative cardiac catheterization service in Fort Myers would be to divert revenues Community would otherwise have received to Memorial. Not only revenues for the catheterization procedures themselves, but also revenues attributable to the use of hospital rooms and other hospital services would be diverted, making the resulting marginal profit available to subsidize medical care at Memorial for which full charges go unpaid. Memorial has a high charity load and about double the proportion of medicaid patients that Community has. This undoubtedly contributes to making Memorial's charges in many categories among the very highest in the state. Community realizes profits of about $3,500,000 annually and could, at least theoretically, absorb the drop in profit that would attend its loss of revenue, without raising charges. But the fact remains that the cost of medical care to the community has increased because of Memorial's higher charges for identical services. In this case, competition increases rather than decreases total charges, as well as costs. The community could expect to pay more for catheterization services in the future if there are two laboratories in Fort Myers. MANPOWER Memorial hired its chief cardiac technician away from Community, which was still seeking a replacement at the time of the hearing. There is every reason to believe that enough staff can be obtained to man both laboratories, but it is the duplication of these salaries, more than the relatively insignificant duplication of capital costs, that makes two cardiac laboratories in Fort Myers a wasteful proposition at present.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services deny Memorial's application for a certificate of need for a new catheterization service. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August 1984.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioners and intervenors each own and operate hospitals in Broward or Dade Counties. Each facility has applied to the respondent for a Certificate of Need for approval to construct and operate a cardiac catheterization service at their respective bSopitals. Each application was denied on the ground that the challenged Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, did not reveal a need for further cardiac catheterization laboratories in the respective service districts. A cardiac catbeterization laboratory is a specialized x-ray room designed for taking pictures of the heart or doing procedures referrable to the heart. Cardiac catheterization encompasses both diagnostic and, more recently, therapeutic procedures or maneuvers. As a diagnostic procedure, cardiac catheterization is the most reliable test for determining the presence of coronary disease. Within the last 3 to 5 years, cardiac catheterization labs have been used to perform therapeutic procedures, such as the installation of an enzyme to dissolve a clot, the use of PTCA (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) to open up blockages and the placement of permanent and temporary pacemakers. With wider acceptance of bypass surgery and new advances in anpioplasty, the use of cardiac catheterization has increased in recent years. At this point in time, the effect of other emerging technologies, such as NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance), upon the use of the cardiac catheterization technique cannot be determined. Prior to the adoption of the current challenged rule, HRS's predecessor rule reguired denial of an application for a Certificate of Need for a proposed new cardiac catheterization laboratory unless all existing labs in the service area were performing more than 500 catheterizations per year. The prior rule also reguired the existence of or approval for an open heart surgery service at the applicant's facility. In August or September of 1982, HRS started a review of this rule which ultimately led to the adoption of the oresent challenged rule. As pertinent to the issues raised in this proceeding, the challenged Rule 10-5.11(15) contains a formula methodology for determining the need for new cardiac catheterization laboratories in a service area. The formula requires the utilization of a base year use rate (the number of procedures per hundred thousand population in the service area) to be multiplied by the projected population in the service area in the year in which the proposed lab would initiate service, said year not to be more than two vears into the future. Such multiplication results in the number of catheterization procedures projected to be delivered at the time of initiation of the proposed new service. The rule further provides that no additional cardiac catheterization laboratories may be established in a service area unless the average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved labs performing adult procedures in the service area is greater than 600. The challenged rule specifically states that HRS will consider applications in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria, and will not normally approve new labs unless additional need is indicated by the above formula and unless the 600 average procedures per lab reguirement is met. Rule 10-5.11(15)(f). The current rule deletes the requirement for open heart surgical potential at the applicant's facility. During the rule-making process which spanned from July or August of 1982 through January, 1983, the HRS Office of Health Planning and Development held informal meetings with representatives of the medical community and health planners, and considered the criteria and standards included in the national guidelines, in other states and in various health systems plans. Medical journals were consulted and numerous written comments were received from interested perSons. Several variations of the rule evolved, and a public hearing was held on December 10, 1982. Based on the manv public comments received, changes in the rule were made. These changes were published, the final rule was filed with the Secretary of State on January 24, 1983 and Rule 10-5.11(15) became effective on February 14, 1983. Throughout the rule-making process, HRS weighed and considered different methodologies for predicting the future need for cardiac catheterization services. The use of an historical base year as opposed to the most current or recent year use rate was considered and was the subject of considerable public comment. It was finally determined that a 1981 base year use rate figure would be adopted, and a one time data collection effort was under taken by HRS for this purpose. This effort was not completed until after the challenged rule was adopted. Although recognizing that the use of a current or most recent year use rate would be preferable to and more accurate than the use of a static use rate, HRS was hampered by the fact that it no longer had the data gathering mechanism or manpower to obtain ongoing current information regarding cardiac catheterization utilization. Therefore, 1991 is the latest and most current year for which a complete data base of utilization is available. There is some support for the proposition that the continued increase in the utilization of cardiac catheterization procedures may tend to level off or even decrease as a result of emerging technologies and a decline in the rate of coronary disease. Balanced against this are the factors of increasing population, increased aging of the population and a wider acceptance of catheterization procedures, both diagnostic and therapeutic, on the part of physicians and patients. It is therefore difficult to predict with any degree of certainty whether utilization in the future will increase or decrease. It was the intent of HRS to design a need determination methodology which would pace the approval of new cardiac catheterization labs while observing what is occurring in that area of medicine. The actual experience in Broward and Dade Counties has been a steady increase in the use rate of catheterization procedures performed from 1977 through 1983. The rate of increase for the United States as a whole, while present in each year between 1977 and 1981, with the exception of 1978, has not been as great as that experienced in Broward County. The application of the rule's need determination formula to Broward County, while permitting one additional lab, appears to under-estimate the need for cardiac catheterization services in that area. By employing the 1981 use rate, the formula projects fewer procedures for Broward County in 1984 than actually occurred in the year 1982. The estimated number of procedures for 1983, based upon the actual procedures performed during the first eight or nine months of 1983, exceeds the 1982 number by almost 1,000. Broward County's rate of increase in the utilization of cardiac catheterization procedures is much greater than the rate of increase either for the United States or for the State of Florida. This may be at least partially explained by the fact that the neighboring Palm Beach area has only one cardiac catheterization lab and there is a need in that area, even under the rule's methodology, for as many as five labs. There was no evidence presented that the existing labs in Broward County are overcrowded or unavailable to area residents. A cardiac catheterization procedure takes, on the average, one to one- and-a-half hours. Therefore, the actual capacity of any particular laboratory is well in excess of 1,000 procedures per year. In 1981, the statewide average for annual number of procedures performed per lab was 581. For quality of care reasons, a minimum of 300 procedures per year per lab is necessary. Studies regarding the cost effectiveness of labs at different levels of usage indicate that the main economies of scale accrue up to the number 400 and additional, less pronounced economies of scale continue to accrue to as high as about 700. Any consideration of costs must also include the costs of trans-porting a patient from a facility without a lab to an existing lab and the costs of increased lengths of hospital stay if delays occur because a lab is not available. As long as the cost of instituting a new lab does not exceed the capital expenditure threshold of Section 381.494(1)(c) Florida Statutes, (presently $600,000.00), an existing facility which presently offers cardiac catheterization capabilities could open a second laboratory without going through the Certificate of Need process and thus be exempt from the challenged rule and its method for determining need. This, of course, would allow an existing facility to have an advantage over new competitors who seek to enter the market to fill a demonstrated need. As a practical matter, such a situation would only occur when an existing facility already has a special procedures room and is willing to forfeit that room for the purpose of performing cardiac catheterization. Such a "loophole" is not a result of the challenged rule. The Certificate of Need thresholds are set by statute and the rule comes into effect only when a Certificate of Need is required. The Economic Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the challenged rule, (as well as for Rule 10-5.11(16) pertaining to open heart surgery programs) does not attempt or purport to analyze the overall financial impact upon providers, prospective providers or consumers of regulating the number of cardiac catheterization labs in a service area. Instead, it attempts to give an estimate of the economic impact which the amended rule will have in comparison to the prior rule on the subject. Given the fact that the prior rule reguired a facility to have existing or approved open heart surgical capabilities and required every existing lab in the service area to perform at least 500 procedures per year before a new lab could be approved, it can be concluded that the new rule actually liberalizes the need demonstration requirements for a Certificate of Need. The EIS concludes that, other than the printing and distribution costs of the rule to the agency, no economic impact is anticipated as a result of this amendment. The EIS states that "Though the full extent of the economic impact is indeterminable, the rule is expected to contain health care costs by assuring optimal utilization of existing cardiac catheterization . . ., and by avoiding large capital outlay expendi- tures for unnecessary, duplicative services." The effect on competition and the open market is estimated as follows: "Consistent with the purpose of the Certificate of Need law, the proposed rules will restrain the development of costly excess cardiac catbeterization and open heart surgery capacity. The proposed rules permit the development of competitive new services among area cardiac catbeterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs when need for additional capacity is indicated by the need formula and the level of utilization of existing capacity." Absent from the EIS is a detailed statement of the data and method used in making the estimates of costs and benefits to persons directly affected and the estimate of impact on competition and the open market. However, the record of the rule-making proceeding clearly reveals that cost and benefit considerations were reviewed by those responsible for promulgating the challenged rule. It is clear from the testimony adduced in this hearing, as well as the documents received into evidence pertaining to the public comments and letters received by HRS in the rule-promulgation process, that factors involving cost efficiency, increased patient costs, optimal and actual utilization, lab capacity and guality of care were considered by HRS. Such considerations led to numerous changes in the language utilized in the rule. While the EIS perhaps could have been more explicit in specifying the possible economic impacts of these considerations, the fact that actual dollar amounts are not assigned to these considerations does not render the EIS inadeguate. The challengers to the rule offered no more specifics than that contained in the EIS as to the economic impact resulting from the rule. The impacts enumerated by the economic expert presented by the challengers in this proceeding result more from the fact of regulation itself than from the operation of the challenged rule.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether certain rules proposed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) related to adult interventional cardiovascular services are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation of the parties, all Petitioners and Intervenors in these cases are acute care hospitals licensed in Florida pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes; are substantially affected by the proposed rules at issue in these cases; and have standing to participate in this proceeding. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensure of hospitals pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and responsible for promulgation of the proposed rules at issue in these cases. This dispute specifically involves proposed rules related to the licensure of adult cardiovascular services in Florida hospitals. Such services include percutaneous cardiac intervention (PCI), also referred to as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PCTA). PCI involves the insertion of a device placed into an artery and directed to the site of a coronary artery blockage. The device is used to compress or remove the blockage material and restore arterial blood flow to heart tissue. A mechanism called a "stent" may be left in place at the site of the former blockage to reduce the potential for re-blockage ("restenosis") of the artery. The procedure is performed in a cardiac catheterization laboratory ("cath lab"). PCI that is performed on an emergency basis to open an arterial blockage causing myocardial infarction (heart attack) is referred to as "primary" or "emergent" PCI. PCI performed to resolve symptoms of coronary artery disease manifesting in presentations other than through myocardial infarction is referred to as "elective" PCI. Previous law restricted PCI services to those hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery (commonly referred to as "open heart" surgery). Hospitals are required to obtain a Certificate of Need (CON) from AHCA to operate a cardiac surgery program. Accordingly, in order to offer PCI services, a hospital was required to obtain a cardiac surgery program CON from AHCA. As cardiac catheterization procedures have become more widely available and physician training and experience have increased, the relative safety of the procedures has improved. The volume of open heart cardiac surgery has declined as the patient outcomes for non-surgical coronary artery disease treatments have improved, yet Florida hospitals seeking to provide PCI were still operating under the CON-based restrictions. There is an ongoing debate within the medical community related to the issue of whether non-emergent patients should receive PCI services at hospitals which lack cardiac surgery programs. The historic rationale for restricting the availability of elective PCI procedures to hospitals where onsite cardiac surgery was also available was related to the possibility that an unsuccessful PCI would require immediate resolution through surgery. The evidence establishes that PCI-related events requiring immediate access to onsite cardiac surgery have become less frequent, at least in part due to increased training and experience of practitioners, as well as an increased technical ability to resolve some events, such as arterial ruptures or perforations, within the cath lab. Nonetheless, there is also evidence that the outcomes of cardiac catheterization procedures performed in hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery may be superior to those performed in hospitals where onsite cardiac surgery is not available. In 2004, the Florida Legislature adopted two bills that, insofar as are relevant to this proceeding, had an impact on the regulatory process related to adult interventional cardiovascular services. The effect of the legislation was to shift the regulation of PCI programs away from CON-based restrictions and towards a licensing process. Both bills established a two-level classification of hospitals providing adult interventional cardiology services. House Bill 329 limited the provision of PCI at hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery to emergent patients and provided, in relevant part, as follows: In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult primary percutaneous cardiac intervention for emergent patients without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. (Emphasis supplied) Senate Bill 182 did not limit PCI services on the basis of onsite cardiac surgery availability and provided, in relevant part, as follows: Section 2. Notwithstanding conflicting provisions in House Bill 329, Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: * * * In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. (Emphasis added) Both the House Bill and the Senate Bill were signed into law. The legislation was codified as Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2004), which provided, in relevant part, as follows: 408.0361 Cardiology services and burn unit licensure.-- * * * In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. Extensive evidence was offered at the hearing to support both sides of the debate regarding the appropriateness of performing elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery, and it is clear that the debate continues. However, the evidence establishes that the Florida Legislature specifically chose not to restrict non-emergent PCI to Florida hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery units and has determined that properly-licensed Florida hospitals may provide PCI services without regard to the availability of on-site cardiac surgery. It is reasonable to assume that had the Legislature intended to restrict provision of adult PCI in hospitals without cardiac surgery programs to emergent patients, the "notwithstanding" language contained in Senate Bill 182 would not have been adopted. There is no credible evidence that the Legislature was unaware of the continuing debate within the cardiology community at the time the legislation was adopted in 2004. The Legislature has acknowledged the distinction between emergent and elective PCI as indicated by Subsection 408.036(3)(o), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides under certain circumstances that a hospital without an approved "open heart surgery program" can obtain an exemption from CON requirements and provide emergent PCI services to "patients presenting with emergency myocardial infarctions." It is reasonable to assume that had the codification of the 2004 legislation been incorrect, the Florida Legislature would have subsequently amended the statute to reinstate the restriction. In fact, the Legislature has revised the referenced statute without substantively altering the relevant language establishing the two-level licensure designation. Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2008), the current statute directing AHCA to adopt the rules at issue in this proceeding, provides, in relevant part, as follows: 408.0361 Cardiovascular services and burn unit licensure.-- Each provider of diagnostic cardiac catheterization services shall comply with rules adopted by the agency that establish licensure standards governing the operation of adult inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization programs. The rules shall ensure that such programs: Comply with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiac Catheterization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories. Perform only adult inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization services and will not provide therapeutic cardiac catheterization or any other cardiology services. Maintain sufficient appropriate equipment and health care personnel to ensure quality and safety. Maintain appropriate times of operation and protocols to ensure availability and appropriate referrals in the event of emergencies. Demonstrate a plan to provide services to Medicaid and charity care patients. Each provider of adult cardiovascular services or operator of a burn unit shall comply with rules adopted by the agency that establish licensure standards that govern the provision of adult cardiovascular services or the operation of a burn unit. Such rules shall consider, at a minimum, staffing, equipment, physical plant, operating protocols, the provision of services to Medicaid and charity care patients, accreditation, licensure period and fees, and enforcement of minimum standards. The certificate-of-need rules for adult cardiovascular services and burn units in effect on June 30, 2004, are authorized pursuant to this subsection and shall remain in effect and shall be enforceable by the agency until the licensure rules are adopted. Existing providers and any provider with a notice of intent to grant a certificate of need or a final order of the agency granting a certificate of need for adult cardiovascular services or burn units shall be considered grandfathered and receive a license for their programs effective on the effective date of this act. The grandfathered licensure shall be for at least 3 years or until July 1, 2008, whichever is longer, but shall be required to meet licensure standards applicable to existing programs for every subsequent licensure period. In establishing rules for adult cardiovascular services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. For a hospital seeking a Level I program, demonstration that, for the most recent 12-month period as reported to the agency, it has provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged or transferred at least 300 inpatients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease and that it has a formalized, written transfer agreement with a hospital that has a Level II program, including written transport protocols to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. For a hospital seeking a Level II program, demonstration that, for the most recent 12-month period as reported to the agency, it has performed a minimum of 1,100 adult inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations, of which at least 400 must be therapeutic catheterizations, or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged at least 800 patients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Establishment of appropriate hours of operation and protocols to ensure availability and timely referral in the event of emergencies. Demonstration of a plan to provide services to Medicaid and charity care patients. In order to ensure continuity of available services, the holder of a certificate of need for a newly licensed hospital that meets the requirements of this subsection may apply for and shall be granted Level I program status regardless of whether rules relating to Level I programs have been adopted. To qualify for a Level I program under this subsection, a hospital seeking a Level I program must be a newly licensed hospital established pursuant to a certificate of need in a physical location previously licensed and operated as a hospital, the former hospital must have provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations for the most recent 12- month period as reported to the agency, and the newly licensed hospital must have a formalized, written transfer agreement with a hospital that has a Level II program, including written transport protocols to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. A hospital meeting the requirements of this subsection may apply for certification of Level I program status before taking possession of the physical location of the former hospital, and the effective date of Level I program status shall be concurrent with the effective date of the newly issued hospital license. (5)(a) The agency shall establish a technical advisory panel to develop procedures and standards for measuring outcomes of adult cardiovascular services. Members of the panel shall include representatives of the Florida Hospital Association, the Florida Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons, the Florida Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, and the Florida Chapter of the American Heart Association and others with experience in statistics and outcome measurement. Based on recommendations from the panel, the agency shall develop and adopt rules for the adult cardiovascular services that include at least the following: A risk adjustment procedure that accounts for the variations in severity and case mix found in hospitals in this state. Outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance in Level I and Level II adult cardiovascular services. Such standards may include, but shall not be limited to, in-hospital mortality, infection rates, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, length of stay, postoperative bleeds, and returns to surgery. Specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans. Hospitals licensed for Level I or Level II adult cardiovascular services shall participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons. As required by Subsection 408.0361(5), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA created the TAP, which convened and met over the course of two years at a series of public hearings. The TAP also received written materials and comments from interested parties. Thereafter, AHCA convened rule development workshops to formulate the proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. The proposed rules were initially noticed in the September 28, 2007, Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 33, No. 39). Subsequent Notices of Changes to the proposed rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weeklies of November 16, 2007 (Vol. 33, No. 46); March 28, 2008 (Vol. 34, No. 13); and May 9, 2008 (Vol. 34, No. 19). There is no evidence that AHCA failed to comply with statutory requirements related to the rule adoption process. As required by Subsection 408.0361(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), the proposed rules set forth the procedures by which a hospital may apply for licensure as a Level I or Level II provider of adult cardiovascular services without differentiation based on the availability of on-site cardiac surgery. The proposed rules applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level I provider of adult cardiovascular services are set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16). The proposed rules applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level II provider of adult cardiovascular services are set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17). Subsection 408.0361(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), establishes minimum volume reporting requirements for licensure as a Level I program. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(16)(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows: 1. A hospital seeking a license for a Level I adult cardiovascular services program shall submit an application on a form provided by the Agency (See Form 1: Level I Adult Cardiovascular Services License Application Attestation; AHCA Form, Section 18(a) of this rule ), signed by the chief executive officer of the hospital, attesting that, for the most recent 12-month period, the hospital has provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged or transferred at least 300 inpatients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (defined by ICD-9-CM codes 410.0 through 414.9). Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures are defined as single sessions with a patient in the hospital’s cardiac catheterization procedure room(s), irrespective of the number of specific procedures performed during the session. Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures shall be limited to those provided and billed for by the Level I licensure applicant and shall not include procedures performed at the hospital by physicians who have entered into block leases or joint venture agreements with the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) Subsection 408.0361(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2008), establishes minimum volume reporting requirements for licensure as a Level II program. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(a) provides in relevant part as follows: 1. A hospital seeking a license for a Level II adult cardiovascular services program shall submit an application on a form provided by the Agency (See Form 2: Level II Adult Cardiovascular Services License Application Attestation; AHCA Form , Section 18(b) of this rule ) to the Agency, signed by the chief executive officer of the hospital, attesting that, for the most recent 12-month period, the hospital has provided a minimum of a minimum of 1,100 adult inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations, of which at least 400 must be therapeutic cardiac catheterizations, or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged at least 800 patients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (defined by ICD-9-CM codes 410.0 through 414.9). a. Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures shall be limited to those provided and billed for by the Level II licensure applicant and shall not include procedures performed at the hospital by physicians who have entered into block leases or joint venture agreements with the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) St. Anthony's asserts that the proposed rule is invalid on the grounds that it fails to provide a clear and reasonable methodology for assessing and verifying the number of diagnostic catheterization procedures performed. St. Anthony's asserts that the exclusion of cardiac catheterization procedures performed within the hospital's cardiac cath lab but not billed by the hospital is arbitrary and capricious, modifies, enlarges, or contravenes the specific provisions of the statute implemented, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decision making, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The evidence fails to support these assertions. Although the phrase "block lease" is undefined by statute or rule, the evidence establishes that insofar as relevant to this proceeding, the term refers to a practice by which a group of cardiologists lease blocks of time from a hospital for exclusive use of a hospital's cardiac cath lab. St. Anthony's has a leasing arrangement with a group of cardiologists identified as the "Heart and Vascular Institute South" ("HAVI South") whereby St. Anthony's leases blocks of time in a cardiac cath lab to HAVI South cardiologists. The facility is located in a privately-owned medical office building physically attached to St. Anthony's hospital building. St. Anthony's leases the medical office building from a developer. HAVI South cardiologists perform cardiac catheterization procedures at the St. Anthony's facility during both leased and non-leased time. St. Anthony's provides personnel to staff the cardiac cath lab regardless of whether the procedure is performed during leased or non-leased time. The HAVI South cardiology group develops the schedule of cardiac catheterization procedures to be performed during the leased time and notifies St. Anthony's of the schedule. The HAVI South cardiology group bills for both their professional fees and the facility charges (referred to as the "technical component") for the cardiac catheterization procedures performed during leased time. St. Anthony's does not bill for cardiac catheterization procedures performed during the leased time. For the cardiac catheterization procedures performed during non-leased time, the HAVI South cardiology group bills for professional fees, and St. Anthony's bills for the technical component. Patricia Sizemore, vice-president for patient services at St. Anthony's, acknowledged that other hospitals could have block-leasing arrangements different from those existing between St. Anthony's and the HAVI South group. The proposed rules would preclude St. Anthony's from including the outpatient cardiac catheterization procedures done by HAVI South during the block-leased time within those procedures available to meet the numeric threshold requirements identified in the statute. The evidence fails to establish that the proposed rule fails to provide a clear and reasonable methodology for assessing and verifying the number of diagnostic catheterization procedures performed. The relevant language of Subsection 408.0361(3), Florida Statutes (2008), identifies the hospital as the applicant and requires that the applicant "provide" the procedures or discharges being reported to meet the specified volume thresholds. The applicable definition of hospital is set forth at Subsection 408.032(11), Florida Statutes (2008), which defines a hospital as a health care facility licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Subsection 395.002(12), Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the following definition: (12) "Hospital" means any establishment that: Offers services more intensive than those required for room, board, personal services, and general nursing care, and offers facilities and beds for use beyond 24 hours by individuals requiring diagnosis, treatment, or care for illness, injury, deformity, infirmity, abnormality, disease, or pregnancy; and Regularly makes available at least clinical laboratory services, diagnostic X- ray services, and treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care, or other definitive medical treatment of similar extent, except that a critical access hospital, as defined in s. 408.07, shall not be required to make available treatment facilities for surgery, obstetrical care, or similar services as long as it maintains its critical access hospital designation and shall be required to make such facilities available only if it ceases to be designated as a critical access hospital. Physicians are not "hospitals" and are not licensed or regulated by Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Physicians are not authorized to apply for licensure under the provisions of the statute and proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. Nothing in the statute suggests that entities other than hospitals may apply for licensure of a Level I or Level II adult cardiovascular services program. The rationale underlying the restriction of reportable procedures to those for which the applicant hospital issues bills for payment is based upon AHCA's reasonable intention to validate the procedure volume data submitted by applicant hospitals. Jeffrey Gregg, chief of AHCA's Bureau of Health Facility Regulation and CON Unit, testified that "the only practical, realistic way" for AHCA to routinely verify the accuracy of the procedure volume identified by a hospital's licensure application is through AHCA's ambulatory patient database. The reporting requirements for the ambulatory patient database are set forth at Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59B-9 and include elements such as demographic information, diagnosis codes, and charges. The database provides AHCA with access to patient record documentation and directly allows AHCA to verify the procedure volume identified in the licensure application. Because St. Anthony's has no charges related to the procedures performed by HAVI South cardiologists during the leased time, St. Anthony's has not reported procedures performed during leased time to the ambulatory patient database. St. Anthony's reports far more cardiac catheterization procedures to the local Suncoast Health Council than it does to AHCA's ambulatory patient database and asserts that AHCA could rely on health council data. AHCA has no organizational relationship with the local health council, and the evidence fails to establish that such data is as reliable as that collected by the ambulatory patient database. AHCA asserts that an additional basis to exclude procedures performed by entities other than the applicant hospital is that AHCA has no direct regulatory authority over the non-hospital entity. St. Anthony's asserts that AHCA would have its customary authority over the hospital and, by extension, over the third-party leasing the cardiac cath lab from the hospital. At best, AHCA's authority to obtain records from the non-hospital operator of the hospital's cardiac cath lab is unclear. St. Anthony's position effectively would permit a third-party operator to lease all of the time in a hospital's cardiac cath lab, yet allow the hospital to apply for and receive an adult cardiovascular service license. Nothing in Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2008), suggests that the Legislature intended to provide such an option. The proposed rule designating the reportable cardiac catheterization procedures is logical and rational, is not arbitrary or capricious, and does not modify, enlarge or contravene the specific provisions of the statute implemented. The evidence fails to establish that the designation of appropriately reportable cardiac catheterization procedures constitutes a failure to establish adequate standards for agency decision making or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. Subsection 408.0361(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the proposed rules include provisions "that allow for" compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines for "staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety." Subsection 408.0361(5), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the TAP "develop procedures and standards for measuring outcomes" and that, based thereon, AHCA adopt rules that include a risk adjustment procedure that accounts for variations in severity and case mix, outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance, and "specific steps to be taken by the agency and the licensed hospitals" that fail to meet outcome standards. The statute also requires that licensed hospitals participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The TAP determined that the appropriate method of measuring outcome was to utilize the data available through the clinical outcome reporting systems referenced in the statute. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a) identifies the guidelines applicable to Level I adult cardiovascular services; identifies the specific provisions of the guidelines with which a Level I hospital must comply; requires that the Level I hospital participate in the statutorily-identified data reporting system; and requires that Level I hospitals document a quality improvement plan to meet performance measures set forth by the data reporting system. The proposed rule provides, in relevant part, as follows: All providers of Level I adult cardiovascular services programs shall operate in compliance with subsection 59A- 3.2085(13), F.A.C., the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) guidelines regarding the operation of adult diagnostic cardiac catheterization laboratories and the provision of percutaneous coronary intervention. The applicable guidelines, herein incorporated by reference, are the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Aspects of the guideline related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. Aspects of the guideline related to the provision of elective percutaneous coronary intervention only in hospitals authorized to provide open heart surgery are not applicable to this rule. Hospitals are considered to be in compliance with the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) guidelines when they adhere to standards regarding staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Hospitals must also document an ongoing quality improvement plan to ensure that the cardiac catheterization program and the percutaneous coronary intervention program meet or exceed national quality and outcome benchmarks reported by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Level I adult cardiovascular service providers shall report to the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry in accordance with the timetables and procedures established by the Registry. All data shall be reported using the specific data elements, definitions and transmission format as set forth by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a) identifies the guidelines applicable to Level II adult cardiovascular services; identifies the specific provisions of the guidelines with which a Level II hospital must comply; requires that the Level II hospital participate in the statutorily-identified data reporting system; and requires that Level II hospitals document a quality improvement plan to meet performance measures set forth by the data reporting system. The proposed rule provides in relevant part as follows: All providers of Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall operate in compliance with subsections 59A-3.2085(13) and 59A-3.2085(16), F.A.C. and the applicable guidelines of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association regarding the operation of diagnostic cardiac catheterization laboratories, the provision of percutaneous coronary intervention and the provision of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The applicable guidelines, herein incorporated by reference, are the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; and ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Aspects of the guidelines related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. Hospitals are considered to be in compliance with the guidelines in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; and in the ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons when they adhere to standards regarding staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Hospitals must also document an ongoing quality improvement plan to ensure that the cardiac catheterization program, the percutaneous coronary intervention program and the cardiac surgical program meet or exceed national quality and outcome benchmarks reported by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. In addition to the requirements set forth in subparagraph (16)(a)7. of this rule, each hospital licensed to provide Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. The Petitioners generally assert that the proposed rules insufficiently identify or establish the minimum standards identified as "guidelines" and "benchmarks" in the rule. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The guidelines are specifically identified and incorporated by reference within the rule. There is no evidence that the documents identified do not constitute the "most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association" as required by the statute. Hospitals are not obligated to meet all of the requirements set forth in the guidelines. A licensed hospital is deemed to be in compliance when, as specified in the statute, the hospital adheres to the standards related to staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. The Petitioners generally assert that such distinctions between the various compliance elements are unclear. The evidence fails to support the assertion. There is no credible evidence that the guidelines, albeit technical and complex, are not commonly understood by appropriate medical practitioners and hospital administrators. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)5. is vague on grounds that it requires Level I hospitals to operate in compliance with the referenced guidelines while Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. authorizes provision of elective PCI at Level I hospitals. Martin Memorial further asserts that because the proposed rules provide for elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgical programs, the proposed rules enlarge, modify or contravene the enacting statute. Subsection 408.0361(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that AHCA include "provisions that allow for" the following: Compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. (Emphasis supplied) Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. provides as follows: Notwithstanding guidelines to the contrary in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), all providers of Level I adult cardiovascular services programs may provide emergency and elective percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Aspects of the guidelines related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. (Emphasis supplied) Martin Memorial's disagreement with the proposed rule is premised on the following statement in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update: Elective PCI should not be performed at institutions that do not provide onsite cardiac surgery. (Level of Evidence: C) The statement is contained within subsection 4.3 ("Role of Onsite Cardiac Surgical Backup") within Section 4 ("Institutional and Operator Competency"). The statement is defined as a "Class III" standard, meaning within the "conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful." According to the "Level of Evidence: C" identification, the statement reflects "consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard of care." A footnote to the statement provides as follows: Several centers have reported satisfactory results based on careful case selection with well-defined arrangements for immediate transfer to a surgical program (citation omitted). A small but real fraction of patients undergoing elective PCI will experience a life-threatening complication that could be managed with the immediate onsite availability of cardiac surgical support but cannot be managed effectively by urgent transfer. Wennberg, et al., found higher mortality in the Medicare database for patients undergoing elective PCI in institutions without onsite cardiac surgery (citation omitted). This recommendation may be subject to revision as clinical data and experience increase. The guidelines are statements of "best practices" in health care delivery. They are intended to assist practitioners and facility administrators in making appropriate decisions. The cited statement neither prohibits nor requires performance of elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgical programs. Whether a practitioner performs elective PCI in a licensed Level I hospital remains a medical decision under the provisions of the enacting statute and proposed rules. The footnote recognizes that elective PCI is available at some hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery through "careful case selection with well-defined arrangements for immediate transfer to a surgical program." The proposed rule specifically establishes staff and transfer requirements designed to facilitate rapid transfer of a patient from a Level I to a Level II facility. There is no evidence that such staff and transfer requirements are insufficient or otherwise inappropriate. Patient selection criteria are those which expressly identify clinical presentations of patients who are appropriate for revascularization through PCI. Section 5 of the referenced ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update, titled "Clinical Presentations" explicitly addresses such criteria and constitutes the patient selection criteria contained within the document. The patient selection criteria do not regulate the location where PCI procedures are performed. As stated previously, the Florida Legislature, presented with the option of limiting the availability of cardiac catheterization services available at Level I hospitals to emergent patients, rejected the limitation. The evidence fails to establish that Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)5. is vague or that Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. enlarges, modifies or contravenes the enacting statute. Martin Memorial and St. Anthony's assert that the proposed rule contravenes Subsection 408.0361(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides that AHCA adopt rules that include "at least the following" elements: A risk adjustment procedure that accounts for the variations in severity and case mix found in hospitals in this state. Outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance in Level I and Level II adult cardiovascular services. Such standards may include, but shall not be limited to, in-hospital mortality, infection rates, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, length of stay, postoperative bleeds, and returns to surgery. Specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans. The TAP recommended to AHCA that existing outcome data reporting systems created by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons be utilized for data collection related to licensed hospital adult cardiovascular services programs. Subsection 408.0361(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that hospitals licensed under the proposed rules participate in clinical reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The requirement was adopted by the 2007 Legislature based on the TAP recommendation. Proposed Rule 51A-3.2085(16)(a)8. requires licensed Level I hospitals to participate in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) and sets forth additional directives related to such participation. The ACC-NCDR system is a risk adjusted outcome reporting system that accounts for variation in severity and case mix. It collects approximately 200 data elements and is in use in approximately 2,000 hospitals. Proposed Rule 51A-3.2085(17)(a)6. directs licensed Level II hospitals to participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database (STS database) and sets forth additional requirements related to such participation. The STS database provides information generally similar to the ACC-NCDR database. Although Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)5. states that the Level II hospital must meet or exceed the performance standards identified within the ACC-NCDR, there appears to be no specific requirement in the proposed rules that a Level II hospital participate in the ACC-NCDR system. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)6. contains a citation to Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085 (16)(a)7. The cited paragraph consists of text that is similar to the paragraph preceding the citation. The intent of the reference is unclear. If the reference were intended to incorporate the ACC- NCDR reporting requirements with those applicable to Level II hospitals, the citation in Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)6. should have been to Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)8., where the ACC-NCDR requirements are identified. In any event, the statute requires participation by licensed hospitals in the reporting systems, and, as stated previously, Level II hospitals must document plans to ensure that the cited standards are met; so, it is logical to presume that Level II hospitals will participate in the ACC-NCDR system, in addition to the STS database. Martin Memorial and St. Anthony's assert that the proposed rule does not include the "outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance" required by Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), and that the proposed rules fail to identify the "national quality and outcome benchmarks" referenced therein. The evidence fails to support the assertions. 93. Proposed Rules 59A-3.2085(16)(a)7. and 59A- 3.2085(17)(a)5. require that each licensed hospital must document a "quality improvement plan to ensure" that the specified cardiac services meet or exceed "national quality and outcome benchmarks" reported by the ACC-NCDR and the STS databases. The word "benchmark" is not defined by statute or rule. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines "benchmark" as "a point of reference from which measurements may be made" or "something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged." The evidence establishes that the "national quality and outcome benchmarks" referenced in the proposed rules are the "expected levels of performance" identified through the ACC-NCDR system. Each hospital participating in the ACC-NCDR system receives a detailed quarterly outcome report indicating the particular hospital's performance relative to all other reporting hospitals on a variety of elements associated with cardiac catheterization and PCI provided at the hospital. Accompanying each periodic report is an "Executive Summary" that identifies the relative performance of the hospital receiving the report on ten specific "PCI and Diagnostic Catheterization Performance Measures," including six "PCI Quality Measures," two "PCI Utilization Measures," and two "Diagnostic Quality Measures." The Executive Summary information visually displays the data through a set of "box and whisker plots" that present the range of data reported by all participating hospitals on each specific measure. The summary received by each hospital identifies its specific performance through an "arrow" and numeric data printed on the plot. The plot visually displays "lagging" and "leading" performance levels. The plot identifies hospitals performing below the tenth percentile of all participating hospitals as "lagging" hospitals. The plot identifies hospitals performing above the 90th percentile as "leading" hospitals. The evidence, including review of the ACC-NCDR data reporting system, establishes that the "expected levels of performance" are rationally those levels within the broad range of hospitals which are neither "leading" nor "lagging" according to the data. It is reasonable to assume that a "leading" hospital is performing at a level higher than expected and that a "lagging" hospital is performing at a level lower than expected. By reviewing the plot for each measure, a hospital can determine its performance relative to other participating hospitals on the ten measures included in the Executive Summary. The additional numeric data contained within the quarterly report permit additional comparison between an individual hospital and all other participating hospitals. Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), does not require that AHCA establish numeric minimal standards, but only requires that the rule identify "outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance." The ACC-NCDR reporting system required by the statute and adopted by the proposed rules sufficiently identifies expected levels of performance. By their very nature, the outcome standards are not fixed. It is reasonable to presume that as hospital practices change, measurements of relative performance will also change. The rule requires only that each licensed hospital include within a quality improvement plan, documentation to ensure that such outcome standards will be met or exceeded, essentially encouraging a pattern of continual improvement by licensed programs. Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the rule include the "specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans." The proposed rule complies with the requirements of the statute. Enforcement of outcome standards requirements applicable to Level I programs is addressed at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(f) which provides as follows: Enforcement of these rules shall follow procedures established in Rule 59A-3.253, F.A.C. Unless in the view of the Agency there is a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients, Level I adult cardiovascular services programs that fail to meet provisions of this rule shall be given 15 days to develop a plan of correction that must be accepted by the Agency. Failure of the hospital with a Level I adult cardiovascular services program to make improvements specified in the plan of correction shall result in the revocation of the program license. The hospital may offer evidence of mitigation and such evidence could result in a lesser sanction. Enforcement of outcome standards requirements applicable to Level II programs is addressed at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(e), which provides as follows: Enforcement of these rules shall follow procedures established in Rule 59A-3.253, F.A.C. Unless in the view of the Agency there is a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients, Level II adult cardiovascular services programs that fail to meet provisions of this rule shall be given 15 days to develop a plan of correction that must be accepted by the Agency. Failure of the hospital with a Level II adult cardiovascular services program to make improvements specified in the plan of correction shall result in the revocation of the program license. The hospital may offer evidence of mitigation and such evidence could result in a lesser sanction. AHCA does not routinely conduct surveys of accredited hospitals. Such surveys are conducted by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). AHCA generally conducts hospital surveys only during the investigation, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.253(8), of a complaint filed against a hospital. AHCA would likely review ACC-NCDR and Society of Thoracic Surgeons data reports associated with the investigation of a specific complaint related to adult cardiovascular services. Assuming that AHCA's review of the data identified a deficiency, the proposed rules provide the licensee a 15-day period to develop a plan of correction acceptable to AHCA, unless the issue poses "a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients" in which case it is reasonable to expect that a more prompt resolution of a deficiency would be required. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 3.253, a hospital could be sanctioned for failing to submit a plan of correction related to an identified deficiency, or for failing to implement actions to correct deficiencies specified in an approved plan of correction. There is no evidence that AHCA's enforcement authority under the proposed rules differs in any significant manner from the general enforcement authority already available to the agency. There is no evidence that the proposed rules would result in any alteration of AHCA's investigative practices. Martin Memorial notes that, while the proposed rule provides a 15-day period for development of a plan of correction, AHCA's general enforcement rules already provide a ten-day period and asserts that the proposed rule is therefore inconsistent, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The specific time period set forth in the proposed rule is clearly applicable, and there is no credible evidence of legitimate confusion in this regard. AHCA has suggested that "lagging" hospitals could be specifically regarded as failing to meet the outcome benchmarks identified in the ACC-NCDR data, but the proposed rule makes no specific reference to any systematic classification of hospital performance, and the statute does not require that a minimal performance level be established. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(a)6. is capricious because it requires that "each hospital licensed to provide Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database," but only physicians can participate in the database. The enacting statute requires such participation. Subsection 408.0361(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), directs AHCA to adopt rules that require Level I or Level II licensed hospitals to "participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons." The proposed rule clearly implements the directive established by the statute. There is no credible evidence that the proposed rule is irrational or that a licensed Level II hospital would be unable to meet the obligations of the rule by requiring that its thoracic surgeons participate in the STS database. Martin Memorial asserts that the requirement that an applicant hospital's chief executive officer attest to compliance with certain guidelines is vague because "it is unclear what guidelines apply and what guidelines will not." The evidence fails to support the assertion. The referenced requirement applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level I facility is set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)2., which provides as follows: The request [for licensure] shall attest to the hospital’s intent and ability to comply with the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention); including guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. The referenced requirement applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level II facility is set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)2., which provides as follows: The request [for licensure] shall attest to the hospital’s intent and ability to comply with applicable guidelines in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-2; in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention); and in the ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, including guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)6. designates the guidelines applicable to the operation of Level I hospital services. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a) designates the guidelines applicable to the operation of Level II hospital services. The specific elements of the referenced guidelines are identified in both the statute and the proposed rules. Martin Memorial asserts that the proposed rule is vague as to training requirements applicable for physicians performing elective PCI in Level I hospitals. In making the assertion, Martin Memorial references training requirements established at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b)2. and applicable to Level I physicians performing emergent PCI with less than 12 months experience. There is no credible evidence that the proposed rule is vague. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b), in relevant part, provides as follows: Each cardiologist shall be an experienced physician who has performed a minimum of 75 interventional cardiology procedures, exclusive of fellowship training and within the previous 12 months from the date of the Level I adult cardiovascular licensure application or renewal application. Physicians with less than 12 months experience shall fulfill applicable training requirements in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) prior to being allowed to perform emergency percutaneous coronary interventions in a hospital that is not licensed for a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. The rule provides that a physician with less than 12 months experience working in a Level I facility can perform emergent PCI only if applicable training requirements have been met. The proposed rule does not authorize performance of elective PCI in a Level I hospital by a physician not meeting the minimum annual procedure volume requirements. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(b) clearly identifies the requirements applicable to Level II physicians and in relevant part provides as follows: Each cardiac surgeon shall be Board certified. New surgeons shall be Board certified within 4 years after completion of their fellowship. Experienced surgeons with greater than 10 years experience shall document that their training and experience preceded the availability of Board certification. Each cardiologist shall be an experienced physician who has performed a minimum of 75 interventional cardiology procedures, exclusive of fellowship training and within the previous 12 months from the date of the Level II adult cardiovascular licensure application or renewal application. Martin Memorial asserts that the experience requirements set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b)3. (related to Level I hospitals) and Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(b)3. (related to Level II hospitals) are arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The text of both proposed rules provides as follows: The nursing and technical catheterization laboratory staff shall be experienced in handling acutely ill patients requiring intervention or balloon pump. Each member of the nursing and technical catheterization laboratory staff shall have at least 500 hours of previous experience in dedicated cardiac interventional laboratories at a hospital with a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. They shall be skilled in all aspects of interventional cardiology equipment, and must participate in a 24-hour-per-day, 365 day-per-year call schedule. Martin Memorial argues that there is no evidence to suggest that 500 hours of experience indicates that appropriate competency levels has been achieved. The evidence establishes that the required experience level was developed by AHCA's hospital licensure unit staff and is the training level currently applicable for hospitals providing emergency PCI services under existing exemptions from CON requirements. The training requirements are not arbitrary or capricious. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(c)1. is arbitrary or capricious. The cited rule requires that a Level I hospital make provisions for the transfer of an emergent patient to a Level II hospital, as follows: A hospital provider of Level I adult cardiovascular services program must ensure it has systems in place for the emergent transfer of patients with intra-aortic balloon pump support to one or more hospitals licensed to operate a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. Formalized written transfer agreements developed specifically for emergency PCI patients must be developed with a hospital that operates a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. Written transport protocols must be in place to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. Transfer time is defined as the number of minutes between the recognition of an emergency as noted in the hospital’s internal log and the patient’s arrival at the receiving hospital. Transfer and transport agreements must be reviewed and tested at least every 3 months, with appropriate documentation maintained. Martin Memorial asserts that the rule is arbitrary or capricious because it does not include a requirement that a Level I hospital make provisions for the transfer of an elective patient to a Level II hospital. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. There is no evidence that a patient undergoing elective PCI at a Level I would not be regarded as an emergent patient were circumstances such that an emergent transfer to a Level II hospital warranted. There is no credible evidence to suggest a rationale for transferring a non-emergent patient from a Level I to a Level II hospital. Martin Memorial asserts that the proposed rule enlarges, modifies or contravenes the enacting statute on grounds that, although AHCA is directed to adopt rules to ensure compliance "with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiac Catheterization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories," the proposed rule provides that "in case of conflicts between the provisions of this rule and the designated guidelines" the rule provisions "shall prevail." Such provisions appear in Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(13)(j), Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(g), and Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(f). The enacting statute requires that hospitals licensed under the provisions of the proposed rules comply with guidelines "for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety." To the extent that guidelines that relate to elements other than "staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety," the enacting statute does not require compliance by properly- licensed Florida hospitals. Other than as addressed elsewhere herein, the evidence fails to identify any specific conflicts between the guidelines and the proposed rules and, accordingly, fails to establish that the cited proposed rules enlarge, modify or contravene the enacting statute.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be awarded a certificate of need authorizing the establishment of cardiac catheterization laboratory services at its facility in Port Charlotte, Florida. As a result of stipulations of the parties presented at hearing, matters for consideration were limited to whether Petitioner meets the criteria of availability of funds for capital expenditures for the project in accordance with Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes; and whether Petitioner has shown the existence of need for additional services by any existing medically underserved groups in the service area.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that Petitioner does not meet the criteria of Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, because there is no numeric need for the program established by any agency rule formula and that no emergency or other not normal circumstances exist, including problems of geographic, financial or programmatic access, justifying the program in the absence of such enumerated need. Petitioner's agreement to this stipulation was conditioned upon an assumption that previous Certificates of Need, formerly granted by final orders of Respondent to other entities in previous batching cycles and now the subject of legal appeals by Petitioner in the appellate court, will eventually be confirmed by that court to have been properly issued. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner, as the result of nonexistence of numeric or nonnumeric need, has not met criteria regarding its ability to provide quality care, a requirement of subparagraph (c) of Section 381.705(1), Florida Statutes; has not met criteria regarding availability and adequacy of other health care facilities in the applicant's service district, a review component set forth in Section 381.705(1)(d), Florida Statutes; has not met criteria regarding immediate and long term financial feasibility of Petitioner's proposal, a requirement of Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes; has not met criteria regarding the impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing such health services, a requirement of Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes; and has not met criteria, as required by Section 381.705(2)(a)-(d), Florida Statutes, regarding alternative services, efficiency of existing services, alternatives to new construction or the likelihood of patients obtaining the proposed service in the absence of Petitioner's proposal. The parties have stipulated that review requirements of subparagraphs (e), (f), (g), (j), and (k) of Section 381.705(1), Florida Statutes, are found not to be applicable to this proceeding. Those subparagraphs relate, respectively, to economics of shared services, need for special services, need for research and educational facilities, special needs of health maintenance organizations and needs of entities serving residents outside the service area. The parties have stipulated that the criteria ofSection 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, has not been met because they were not addressed or challenged by Petitioner. However, Petitioner does contest the accessibility by medically underserved groups of existing and approved providers in the service district. With the exception of the availability of funds for capital and operating expenditures related to the project in Petitioner's application and the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district, further stipulation between the parties also establishes that the review criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes, does not apply to this proceeding. Portions of Rule 10-5.011(b), Florida Administrative Code, relating to accessibility of services to residents of the service district are also excepted from consideration in this proceeding by the parties' stipulation. By stipulation of the parties, it is established that the review requirement of Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes, relating to the probable impact of the proposed project on the cost of providing services proposed by Petitioner, is met. The parties' stipulation further establishes that requirements of Section 381.705(1)(m) and Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes, have been met. These statutory subparagraphs relate, respectively, to methods and costs of proposed construction, and Petitioner's past and proposed provision of health care services to medicaid and medically indigent patients. Petitioner is a separate, albeit subsidiary,corporation from its parent, Bon Secours Health Systems, Inc., (Bon Secours) a "not for profit" corporation based in Marriottsville, Maryland. Approximately 80 percent of the total project cost of $1,450,000 cost is expected to come from the parent organization and not Petitioner's corporation. The project has been approved by Petitioner's corporation and management approval has been granted by Bon Secours, subject only to final board approval and reevaluation by the parent corporation on an annual basis until the actual capital expenditure is incurred. Petitioner's parent corporation uses either a line of credit or goes to the tax exempt bond market to meet capital expenditure needs. The bond market is utilized when capital needs exceed $15 million for the year. Whether the funding source for Petitioner's project would come from a line of credit or bond financing would not be known until the actual year in which the expenditure is incurred. Bon Secours includes Petitioner in its obligated group which consists of a system-wide master trust indenture established in 1985. The group consists of eight hospitals and three long term care facilities. Weaker entities in the group have the benefit of the credit strength of the group's entire system. In this regard, Bon Secours enjoys a Standard & Poors and Moodys' bond rating of A+ and A-1, respectively. The corporation is a good credit risk with a strong financial position and good earnings record. Over the next five years, Bon Secours has the ability to raise in excess of $100,000,000 in the bond market for funding purposes, inclusive of the project which is the subject of theseproceedings. Although final approval of Petitioner's project by Bon Secours' board of directors is expected shortly, that approval had not occurred at the time of final hearing. As a result, the proof fails to establish that Bon Secours is committed to provide financing for Petitioner's project. Petitioner presented expert testimony regarding accessibility by medically underserved groups to Petitioner's and other cardiac catheterization programs. Petitioner's expert placed the size of the medically indigent population, a subcategory of the medically underserved group, at six to seven percent of the total population of the service area. Due to the lack of specificity of the methodology used in arriving at the cited percentage figure, no credibility can be ascribed to that population percentage. However, both Respondent and Petitioner concede the existence of this group in the district service area sought to be served by Petitioner's project. Petitioner has not established whether the medically indigent population is denied access to cardiac catheterization programs within the district service area. While Petitioner's hospital is a medicaid provider with a proactive policy of aiding the medically indigent, the availability of cardiac catheterization services exist for this group at Intervenor's medical center facilities, located only five miles from Petitioner's hospital. Intervenor is also a medicaid provider. The proof fails to establish that medicaid patients or medically indigentpatients are presently denied or turned away from Intervenor's facility. Further, the duplication of such services at Petitioner's hospital could effectively reduce the number of cardiac catheterization procedures required for the medical staff of Intervenor's laboratory to maintain proficiency. In point of fact, there is unused cardiac catheterization capacity at Intervenor's facility. As established by Intervenor's exhibit number one, there were 562 cardiac catheterization procedures performed at Intervenor's facility in 1988. The State Health Plan recites a minimum goal of 600 such procedures a year as a proficiency measurement; the Local Health Plan maintains that a minimum of 300 procedures should be performed to insure proficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for approval of a cardiac catheterization Certificate of Need. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Adopted in substance, except that part (l) of proposed finding 3 was met by Petitioner. 4.-5. Addressed in part. To the extent that the last sentence of proposed finding 5 suggests the establishment of final approval by the parent corporation, it is rejected. 6. Accepted with the exception of approval by the parent corporation. The record supports a finding of approval by management of that corporation, but not the board of directors. 7.-8. Adopted in substance. Adopted in part, remainder rejected due to witness's inability to support her calculations as to percentages of the population within the service district classified as medically indigent. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. Addressed in part, remainder rejected on basis of relevancy. Addressed. Rejected on basis of relevancy. Addressed in part, remainder rejected as argumentative and speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Rejected. Treated in preliminary discussion. 3.-21. Adopted in substance. 22.-23. Adopted by reference. 24.-25. Addressed in substance. 26.-30. Adopted by reference. 31.-33. Adopted by reference. Intervenor's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Adopted in substance. 4. Rejected as unnecessary. 5.-9. Adopted in substance. 10. Adopted by reference. 11.-12. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Buchanan, Esq. Suite 900, Sun Bank Building 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esq. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 Tallahassee, FL 32301 E. G. Boone, Esq. 1001 Avenida del Circo Venice, FL 34284 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Parkway Regional Medical Center, Inc. (formerly Parkway General Hospital, Inc.) is a Florida corporation, wholly-owned by American Medical international, Inc., of Beverly Hills, California. Parkway is located at 160 Northwest 170th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. Biscayne Medical Center is wholly-owned by Humana, Inc. of Louisville, Kentucky. Biscayne is located at 2801 Northeast 209th Street, Miami, Florida. Both Parkway and Biscayne are located in DHRS District XI, and both propose to establish adult cardiac catheterization capabilities in DHRS District XI. The Local Health Council for District XI has not formally adopted its district plan. Both the Parkway and Biscayne applications are consistent with the State Health Plan. (Stipulated). In March, 1983, DHRS sent a letter to hospitals throughout Florida requesting information concerning the number of cardiac catheterization procedures performed in their laboratories during the calendar year 1981 and the number of cardiac catheterization laboratories now in use. Based upon information received in response to this letter, DHRS prepared an inventory which contains the following for District XI: FACILITY NUMBER OF ADULT CATHS. NUMBER OF ADULT LABS. American Hospital of Miami 531 1 Baptist Hospital of Miami 416 1 Cedars of Lebanon Hospital 367 1 Jackson Memorial Hospital 905 1 Mercy Hospital 494 1 Miami Heart Institute 1,268 1 Mount Sinai Medical Center 872 2 South Miami Hospital 485 1 St. Francis Hospital 535 1 University of Miami Hospital & Clinics 71 0 5,942 10 Although the DHRS survey letter requested information regarding number of catheterization "procedures," some of the hospitals responded on the number of patients catheterized rather than the number of procedures. This resulted in an understatement of procedures, since some patients receive multiple procedures. Rule 10-5.11(15)(d), F.A.C., defines "procedure" as follows: Procedure means an angiographic study, a physiologic study or a therapeutic activity within a cardiac catheterization laboratory which utilizes the equipment customarily used in cardiac catheterization. DHRS plans for cardiac catheterization on a two-year planning horizon. Therefore, the need for Parkway's and Biscayne's proposals should be determined based on projected procedures and population in the year 1986, since the decision is to be made in 1984. The DHRS 1986 population projection for District XI (persons 15 years and older) is 1,529,144. The DHRS inventory reflects 5,942 adult catheterization procedures performed in District XI hospitals in 1981. Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), F.A.C., contains a formula for determining need for additional cardiac catheterization laboratories. One step in the need determination methodology is calculation of the 1981 use rate. Utilizing the 5,942 procedures contained in the DHRS inventory, the 1981 use rate for District XI is 424.73 procedures per 100,000 population. Applying the need determination methodology in Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), F.A.C., to the 1981 use rate and projected population for District XI, the number of adult cardiac catheterization procedures projected for District XI from 1981 through 1986 is as follows: YEAR POPULATION 15 AND OVER 1981 USE RATE NUMBER PROJ. PROCEDURES 1981 1,399,299 424.73 5,942* 1982 1,427,404 424.73 6,061 1983 1,455,477 424.73 6,180 1984 1,483,615 424.73 6,302 1985 1,511,721 424.73 6,422 1986 1,529,144 424.73 6,494 * Actual number of procedures reported in DHRS inventory. Current information from each of the District XI hospitals with adult cardiac catheterization laboratories shows that application of the need methodology formula in Rule 10-5.11(15)(1) understates the number of adult cardiac catheterizations actually performed in District XI in 1982 and 1983, as follows: ACTUAL PROCEDURES ACTUAL YTD PROJECTED 1982 1983 1983 Mercy 441 317 543 Cedars 401 333 571 Miami Heart 833 486 833 St. Francis 917 495 990 JMH 986 580 994 American 576 321 550 Baptist 618 517 886 S. Miami 512 417 715 Mt. Sinai 983 647 1,109 6,267 4,113 7,191 Actual Use Rate 1982 - 439.17 Projected Use Rate 1983 - 494.23 For District XI, from 1980 through 1982, the use rate increased by 9 percent in 1980, 7 percent in 1981 and 3 percent in 1982. If the number of adult cardiac catheterization procedures actually performed in 1983 is projected for a full year, the District XI use rate would have increased by 12-1/2 percent in 1983. Rule 10-5.11(15)(o) provides that additional cardiac catheterization laboratories will not be approved where they would reduce the average volume of procedures performed by existing and approved laboratories in the service area below 600 adult procedures. Assuming an average of 600 procedures per lab, utilizing the projected number of procedures for 1986 and the use rates calculated for 1981, the number of adult cardiac catheterization laboratories required in District XI for 1986 would be 0.8. In accord with DHRS' policy, the 0.8 laboratory should be "rounded up" to 1.0. Therefore, under DHRS' interpretation of Rule 10-5.11(15), correct application of the need formula demonstrates a need for 1 additional adult cardiac catheterization laboratory in District XI. Initially, DHRS took the position that the 0.8 (0.7 for 1984) should be rounded down. However, this view was corrected by later testimony which established that the DHRS procedure is to "round up" such fractions. Parkway's emergency room is the third most active in Dade County and is the major emergency room between downtown Miami and the Broward County line. Parkway's proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory will be located on the same floor as and adjacent to the coronary care unit and the emergency room. Parkway's proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory will be dedicated solely to cardiac catheterization with the capability of mobilizing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Parkway's proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory will contain appropriate staffing and equipment. Based upon the number of patients referred by Parkway cardiologists to other institutions in the Miami area having cardiac catheterization facilities, Parkway projects utilization of its proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory in the first year of operation to be 250 to 300, increasing to 400 in the second year. Parkway does not intend to perform coronary angioplasty in its proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory but does intend to perform streptokinase procedures on an emergency basis on patients exhibiting acute chest pain and EKG abnormalities. Parkway has a written agreement with Cedars Medical Center pursuant under which Cedars will accept open-heart surgery patients from Parkway. Travel time from Parkway to Cedars under normal conditions is fifteen minutes. Biscayne's proposed adult catheterization equipment will be installed, and the procedures will be performed, in its "Special Procedures" Room, rather than a separate cardiac catheterization laboratory. If approved, Biscayne's cardiac catheterization laboratory would be available 24 hours a day and seven days a week on an "on call" basis. However, the anticipated regular hours for the laboratory will be 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., five days a week. Biscayne will staff its laboratory with a cardiopulmonary nurse, an x- ray technician, and a registered nurse. Biscayne proposes to perform only "diagnostic" cardiac catheterization procedures for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Biscayne takes the position that therapeutic procedures such as streptokinase and angioplasty are not medically safe without an in-house open heart surgery program. Biscayne has a written transfer agreement with Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami whereby all Biscayne patients requiring open heart surgery will be transferred to, and accepted by, Jackson for such treatment. The driving time between Jackson and Biscayne is twenty minutes. Biscayne projects 300 cardiac catheterization procedures in its first year of operation and 400 procedures in the second year of operation. These projections are based on the number of patients Biscayne cardiologists currently transfer to other hospitals for cardiac catheterization and an assumed capture rate of 60 percent of all potential procedures generated in Biscayne's service area. Biscayne's "special procedures" room is a multipurpose facility which will be shared with the radiology department. The latter operates three radiographic/fluoroscopic rooms (R&F) and one "special procedures" room. All four rooms are equipped for doing routine radiographic studies and special procedures. "Special procedures" as used by Biscayne refers to investigational studies for the diagnosis of medical conditions through the use of special imaging equipment, such as x-ray and fluoroscopy. About 1400 special procedures were performed at Biscayne in 1982. These procedures were performed in various areas of the hospital, including the R&F rooms, the special procedures room, surgical suites and the critical care unit. Special procedures normally take about one hour to complete. However, the procedure known as angiography is only performed in Biscayne's special procedures room. An angiogram involves an investigation of blood vessels by means of x-rays of injected substances or dyes. Last year, about 400 of the 1400 special procedures performed at Biscayne were angiograms. Angiographic studies of all blood vessels except the coronary arteries are currently performed in the special procedures room. Angiographic studies of the coronary arteries require cardiac catheterization equipment. Over a year ago, DHRS issued Biscayne a certificate of need to renovate and replace equipment in two R&F rooms and the special procedures room. Also, digital angiographic equipment was added to for the special procedures room. Per this certificate of need, Biscayne has purchased the new equipment and renovated these rooms. Construction was scheduled to be complete in October, 1983, but has been delayed. Biscayne will not have to purchase all new equipment (as will Parkway) to add cardiac catheterization capabilities to its special procedures room. Instead, special General Electric equipment will be added to the existing angiographic equipment which will enhance its capabilities to include cardiac catheterization. As a result, Biscayne can provide cardiac catheterization at a projected additional cost of $298,566 compared to Parkway's projected cost of $822,701. However, Biscayne's projection does not recognize that some of the special procedure facility costs should be allocated to cardiac catheterization. Biscayne's pro forma income statement for the cardiac catheterization project allocates 43 percent usage of the special procedures room to this function. As noted by Parkway, a 43 percent special procedures room equipment cost allocation would raise Biscayne's cardiac catheterization capability costs to $683,314. Biscayne does not intend that the inclusion of cardiac catheterization capability will lower the number of special procedures that will be done in a normal eight-hour day. The capacity of the special procedures room as stated by Biscayne's Director of Radiology and supervisor of Biscayne's proposed special procedures room/catheterization laboratory, is 6 per day, 5 days week, for an annual total of 1,560. Biscayne's CON application for the special procedures room projects 1,484 special procedures in the first year and 1,524 in the second year, allowing for 76 additional procedures in the first year and 36 in the second year. Biscayne projects 300 cardiac catheterizations in the first year and 400 in the second year, thereby exceeding the capacity of the combined special procedures room/cardia catheterization laboratory by 224 procedures in the first year and 364 in the second year. Biscayne's proposed sharing of special procedure facilities is a cost savings measure, and in this respect is superior to Parkway's proposal. Although Biscayne could mobilize its cardiac catheterization laboratory on an emergency 24 hour, 7 day basis as required by DHRS Rule (discussed below), it would likely encounter scheduling and use conflicts under true emergency conditions, or even full utilization as noted above. Parkway argues that Biscayne's shared facility plan violates American Heart Association guidelines recommending cardiac catheterization labs be dedicated solely to this use. However, the evidence did not indicate that departure from this guideline would have any adverse impact on the quality of care provided. Parkway is located in Northeast Dade County directly on the Golden Glades Interchange, where Interstate 95, the Florida Turnpike and the Palmetto Expressway intersect. The majority of Parkway's service area is in Dade county, and 86.17 percent of Parkway's patients come from Dade County. Biscayne is located in Northeast Dade County near the Broward County line. The majority of Biscayne's primary service area is within Broward county, and more than 60 percent of Biscayne's patients originate from Broward County. Broward County is within DHRS District X. Comparative statistical information demonstrates that Parkway is more fully utilized, delivers more acute care and has greater patient activity than Biscayne: BASIC STATISTICAL INFORMATION PARKWAY BISCAYNE Licensed Capacity 412 458 Beds in Service 412 330 Discharges 12,917 9,202 Average Length of Stay 9.1 days 8.1 days Patient Days 110,385 79,634 Occupancy 73.4 percent 47.6 percent Bed Mix Med-Surg. 394/72.9 percent occ. 284/65.2 percent occ. Intensive Care 18/89.9 percent occ. 26/77.5 percent occ. E.R. Utilization Visits 27,520 13,110 The Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) was formed in 1979 to monitor hospital costs/charges and to encourage cost containment for Florida hospitals through public awareness and the dissemination of information to the public. The HCCB is a division of the Florida Department of Insurance. Each year, the HCCB collects the prospective budget of each hospital sixty days prior to the first day of the fiscal year for each hospital. The HCCB reviews the data and budget submitted by a hospital, and then determines to accept the budget, reject the budget, or call a public hearing to make the hospital justify its budget. All HCCB action is based on the figures and budgets submitted by the hospitals themselves. The HCCB reviews the financial data submitted to it by various criteria which it labels "screens." The "total net revenue" screen is one of the screens utilized to compare a hospital's average patient charge to others in its peer group. "Total net revenue" refers to the amount of money a hospital actually receives for services provided to patients after all deductions are subtracted. In addition, the HCCB "adjusts" its various financial screens to eliminate the effect of outpatient care and revenues from inpatient activity. Thus, the screens are labeled, for example, as "adjusted revenues" or "adjusted costs." Comparisons between Biscayne and Parkway by using HCCB calculations of data and projections submitted by the two hospitals indicate the following (1983 budgets): Cost to the hospital per adjusted admission Cost to the hospital per adjusted day Total net revenue per adjusted admission Total net revenue per adjusted day PARKWAY BISCAYNE PARKWAY OVER BISCAYNE DOLLARS PERCENT $3954 $3438 $516 15.0 percent $ 458 $ 393 $ 65 16.5 percent $4263 $3595 $668 18.6 percent $ 494 $ 411 $ 83 20.2 percent Comparisons using the same screens for 1984 budgets are as follows: PARKWAY BISCAYNE PARKWAY OVER BISCAYNE DOLLARS PERCENT $4033 $3563 $470 13.2 percent $ 498 $ 422 $ 76 18.0 percent $4346 $3726 $620 16.6 percent $ 537 $ 442 $ 95 21.5 percent Cost to the hospital per adjusted admission Cost to the hospital per adjusted day Total net revenue per adjusted admission Total net revenue per adjusted day As indicated, Parkway's costs to provide hospital services and patient charges for these services have been, and are projected to be, substantially higher than those for Biscayne. PARKWAY BISCAYNE Rate of Increase from 1980 Base Year to 1983 Budget: Per Adjusted Admission 65.1 percent 48.4 percent Per Adjusted Day 65.8 percent 42.8 percent Rate of Increase from 1980 Base Year to 1981 Budget: Per Adjusted Admission 42.4 percent 33.8 percent Per Adjusted Day 50.7 percent 36.0 percent In addition to being more expensive than Biscayne, Parkway exceeds the 80th percentile of its hospital "peer group" in most financial screens. The HCCB places each hospital in a certain peer group based on a number of factors including beds in service, physician mix, Medicare utilization, hospital services index, and median family income. The objective of peer groups is to batch hospitals with similar characteristics for comparison purposes. Biscayne and Parkway are in the same peer group for budget year 1984. Each hospital is then compared to the 80th percentile in its peer group to determine whether that hospital "breaks the screen" or exceeds the standards set by law. "Breaking the screen" means that hospital is in the upper 20th percentile in its peer group. For budget year 1983, Parkway broke the screen for cost per adjusted day and adjusted admission, total net revenue per adjusted day and adjusted admission, and rate of change increases (1980-1983) per adjusted admission and adjusted day. It should be noted that Parkway's screen breaking during this period is at least partly attributable to its 25 million dollar renovation- expansion project. For budget year 1984, however, Parkway again broke the screens for cost per adjusted day, total net revenue per adjusted admission and adjusted day, and rate of change increases per adjusted admission and adjusted day for budget years 1981-1984. Biscayne did not break any of the screens during these same time periods. As noted by the HCCB, Parkway's current profit margin is 13.5 percent compared to the 9.3 percent average for proprietary hospitals in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting the application of Biscayne Medical Center to establish cardiac catheterization capabilities in District XI, and denying the application of Parkway Regional Medical Center, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire John H. French, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Keith E. Rounsaville, Esquire Harold W. Mullis, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 33601 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Procedural issues. In June 1983, Petitioner filed an application for a certificate of need to operate a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Hollywood Medical Center. Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service (HRS) denied the application, and Petitioner filed this petition for administrative review. Notice of hearing was given by order dated August 6, 1984. Two days before the hearing, SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT moved to intervene. The petition was denied because it was filed less than five days before the hearing, and was therefore untimely. Rule 28-5.207, F.A.C. Also shortly before the hearing, HRS filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude evidence of cardiac catheterization utilization other than a base year of 1981. The motion was denied because the relevant rule, rule 10-5.11(15) allows proof of "not normal" circumstances. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed a joint prehearing stipulation, agreeing to certain issues of law and fact. Pursuant to that stipulation, the following criteria are either not applicable in this case or have been satisfied by the Petitioner: section 381.494(6)(c)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11), and (13), Fla. Stat., section 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat., and rule 10-5.11(15)(a) through (f), (g), (h)(1) and (2), (i)(1) through (3) and (5), (j), (m), (n), and (o)(2). It was further stipulated that the Petitioner will not be performing coronary angioplasty in its proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory. HRS further stipulated that if the Petitioner satisfies all other applicable criteria, the project will be financially feasible. Remaining at issue in this case are subparagraphs (6)(c)(1), (2), and (12) of section 381.494, Fla. Stat., and subparagraphs (h)(3), (i)(4), (k)(1), and (o)(1) and (3) of rule 10-5.11(15). F.A.C. The central issue in this case is whether pursuant to the relevant statutory and rule criteria there is a need for a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Hollywood Medical Center. The Hollywood Medical Center is located in the southern portion of Broward County. It is a 334 licensed bed medical/surgical hospital, and its medical staff covers all major medical specialties. The hospital has 24 hour emergency service, 14 intensive care beds, a full service operating room, and does cardiovascular surgery, but does not do open heart or bypass surgery. Hollywood Medical Center, based on zip codes from its own patient records, serves patients primarily from the Dade County line a few miles south to the New River Canal on the north and from the ocean on the east to the Collier County line on the west. In this service area, physicians tend to be located in the eastern section, and do not typically have staff privileges at hospitals in northern Broward County, nor do they tend to refer patients to hospitals in the northern section of Broward County. Patients at Hollywood Medical Center who need cardiac catheterization procedures are now referred to Memorial Hospital, which is approximately 2 miles away. In the south Broward County area, there is no other alternative. There was no evidence of any cardiac catheterization facility in northern Dade County accessible to patients from southern Broward County with the exception of a newly granted certificate of need to Humana Biscayne. There was no evidence as to when Humana Biscayne will be open and providing services. In northern Broward County, there are five operating cardiac catheterization laboratories. The one closest to Hollywood Medical Center, Broward General Medical Center, is approximately 6 miles to the north. Rule 10-5.11(15)(1), F.A.C., establishes a method of projecting the number of cardiac catheterization procedures expected for the year in which the proposed new service would begin. This number is the product of the projected population for the service area and the number of procedures performed in 1981 in the service area for one hundred thousand population. HRS interprets this rule to require analysis based upon HRS district data. The HRS district in this case is district ten, which is Broward County. Once the projected number of procedures is determined, that number is divided by 600 to determine the number of catheterization laboratories needed. This number is derived from rule 10- 5.11(15)(o)3., which forbids approval of a new laboratory if the average volume for all laboratories in the service area drops below 600. HRS now argues that the number 600 is only a floor to protect existing providers, and is not to be used to compute need. In the normal computation of need under the rule, this is not true. Thomas Porter, supervisor of the certificate of need section at HRS calculated his Projections of need using 600 procedures per unit in the district as the means to determine the need for a new laboratory. Mr. Porter testified: "Well, in terms of what I would agree with is in terms of numerically determining the need for the number of labs, we divide by 600 procedures. . . . HRS based its denial of the certificate of need in this case by using a use rate for Broward County in 1981 of 329.5 procedures per one hundred thousand population. This use rate in turn was based upon a 1981 population of 1,046,646 and 3,449 procedures in the county for that year. Since the projected population for Broward County in 1986, two years from the date of the hearing, is 1,179,205, HRS concluded that by 1986 the county will need 6.475 laboratories, which rounds to 6. There are 5 licensed and operating laboratories now in Broward County, and 2 additional laboratories have been approved by HRS in the final order in PLANTATION GENERAL HOSPITAL v. HRS, et al., DOAH case number 84-1838, 6 FALR 6796 (1984). Using the method proposed by HRS to calculate need, there is no need for an additional laboratory as sought by Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 5, computes the same formula set forth above, but uses a 1981 rate of 340 catheterization procedures per one hundred thousand. This rate is incorrect. On table 2 of this exhibit the actual procedures for each Broward County facility is recorded for 1981, and the total number of procedures has been incorrectly added. The correct total is 3,449, not 3,546, and the resultant rate (which is based upon a slightly lower estimate of 1981 population, 1,042,941) is 330.7 procedures per one hundred thousand. Correcting table 5 using the 330.7 rate, the need for cardiac catheterization laboratories is: YEAR DISTRICT 1985 6.3 1986 6.5 Thus, if the rule for determining need in a normal situation is followed, the record in this case shows no need for the catheterization facility proposed by the petitioner. Subpart 15(f) of the rule, however, allows approval of an application if the circumstances are other than normal, in which case approval can occur even though need is not shown by subpart 15(l) and 15(o), above, pertaining to calculation of need using the 1981 use rate, future population projections, and division by 600. Mr. Porter testified for HRS that the 1981 use rate has been a fairly accurate predictor of actual use rates in subsequent years, but that it has not yet been accurate in Broward County. In 1981 the use rate, as corrected above, was 329.5, accepting as true the HRS population estimate for Broward County in 1981. In 1982 the use rate was 393.6. This figure differs from Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 3, because the columns are incorrectly added on table 2. The correct total of procedures for 1982 is 4211. The correct total for 1983 is 5008. In 1983 the use rate was 457.9 using the 5008 figure. Thus, in two years, Broward County has increased its use of cardiac catheterization by 39 percent over the 1981 base rate. HRS argued that the 1981 planning rate should continue to be used because current data may be anomalous, and not reflective of the long range trend. This might be true if the base rate were reflective of a stable prior trend, but it is not. It is only the data from one year, and as such, is less persuasive as a predictor of the future. The trend for at least Broward County in the six years from 1977 is reflected in Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 3. In 1977, the use rate in Broward County was 174 procedures per one hundred thousand. The actual rate has increased steadily each year for six years to the rate indicated above for 1983, 457.9 per one hundred thousand. This is an increase from the 1977 rate of about 263 percent. At least in Broward County, this data indicates that the 1981 rate is probably not static, but is only a point on a trend that shows significant increases annually. There was partial evidence that the trend indicated above may be slowing down. Dr. Silvio Sperber, who is a cardiologist in charge of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Memorial Hospital, testified that Memorial Hospital had had 673 cardiac catheterization procedures from January 1984 through September 1984. He testified that his laboratory was running about 15 percent fewer procedures than the year before. This was not accurate. From Petitioner's exhibit 4, table 2, Memorial Hospital experienced 942 procedures in 1983. By the end of September 1984, it should have experienced about 75 percent of that number at a zero rate of increase, or 706 procedures. Its actual experience in nine months, 673, is only 4.7 percent less than the 1983 expected number of 706.3. The Memorial Hospital experience in 1984 is some evidence that the rate of increase in Broward County may be less or even stabilize in the future at the 1983 utilization rate, but this is evidence from only one hospital. The other four operating laboratories may have experienced a similar decline, or an increase, but there is no evidence on the point. And in any event, Use small decline at Memorial does not persuasively indicate a return to the significantly lower 1981 Broward County rate. There was additional evidence to support the conclusion that the 1983 rate of use would not decline again to the 1981 rate. Atherosclerotic heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States today. Cardiac catheterization is the best tool currently available for evaluation of the condition of the heart. From 1978 to 1982, Broward County has experienced a higher death rate for major cardiovascular disease than Florida as a whole. The death rate was 16.6 percent higher in Broward County in 1982 than in Florida generally. Additionally, cardiac catheterization seems to he coming more and more useful in the treatment of heart disease. Three years ago, when HRS established the 1981 base rate, catheterization was not considered a state-of- the-art procedure for treatment of an acute heart attack. Today, catheterization during the first few hours of a heart attack for the point injection of a clot dissolving substance, streptokinase, is proving to be a remarkably effective means of reducing the long-range damage of clot caused heart attacks. Further, use of catheterization during the attack itself has enabled physicians to see for the first time that most heart attacks are caused by clots. As good uses for catheterization increase, it is only reasonable to expect that the utilization rate will increase. While the foregoing is some evidence that application of subpart 15(l) and (o) of the rule in this case in Broward County produces a "not normal" result, justifying consideration of additional evidence of need, it still does not necessarily follow that the application herein should be granted. First, using the 1983 use rate of 457.9 procedures per one hundred thousand population, and the 1986 predicted population of 1,179,205 in Broward County, the number of expected procedures by 1986 is 5400. There will be 7 approved laboratories by 1986, and thus each would be able to perform approximately 771 procedures, if there is an even distribution within the county. This would be considerably less than approximate maximum capacity of a catheterization laboratory, which is somewhat less than 1300. Dr. Sperber testified that his laboratory could perform 5 procedures per day, 5 days a week, or 1300 per year. This, however, fails to account for emergency work and angioplasty, both of which take more than two hours. Angioplasty at Memorial now runs about 15 percent of all procedures. It is urged by petitioner that once the number of procedures is predicted for 1986, then the need for laboratories should be derived by dividing that number by 600, which is in subpart 15(o) of the rule. While this is the procedure for determining need in the normal case, as found above, it does not follow that the standard of 600 continues to apply to determine need in the abnormal case. The "not normal" exception of subpart 15(f) of the rule operates to except analysis of need not only from the 1981 use rate (subpart 15(l)), but also the 600 procedures standard (subpart 15(o)). Since the 600 standard is only about 50 percent of maximum capacity, it constitutes a rather low threshold number for commencement of a new laboratory. In effect, although the 1981 use rate apparently predicts only 72 percent of the need as compared to the 1983 rate, the 600 standard overpredicts need by at least the same amount. As indicated above, even if the 1983 use rate is used, the seven approved laboratories would be easily able to handle this need since the average spread among these laboratories would be about 771 procedures per laboratory. Though petitioner sought to show that there would be unmet need in the area actually served by Hollywood Medical Center, the evidence falls short of demonstrating a "not normal" situation of actual unmet need in that area justifying approval of its application. This evidence will be considered in the following findings. HRS does not consider district lines to be absolute if the facts justify consideration of services available in an adjacent district. In Broward County the local health council has debated the issue of dividing the district service area into subdistricts, but has not chosen to do so. Mr. Porter testified that he could think of as many reasons to divide the county as reasons not to divide the county. Broward County is divided north and south by the legislature into two hospital districts, however. As found above, physicians in the southern portion of Broward County tend to refer patients to hospitals in the same area, and do not use hospitals in northern Broward County. These physicians tend to use hospitals closer to their offices, and consequently do not usually have staff privileges at hospitals in the northern portion of the county. These patterns of use, however, have not been shown to be an immutable condition, but simply reflect current practices. Patients at Hollywood Medical Center who currently need cardiac catheterization are transferred to Memorial Hospital, a few miles away. Memorial Hospital is about a ten minute drive from Hollywood Medical Center. The cost of transfer is about 5300 to 5400. Although Hollywood Medical Center cardiac patients needing diagnostic catheterization at times must wait a day or two before Memorial can provide that service, such delays were not typically of major significance or life-threatening. A more significant problem experienced on occasion by Hollywood Medical Center has been inability to transfer unstable patients to Memorial for diagnostic catheterization. Acutely ill patients at times may need catheterization for diagnostic purposes, but are too ill to be transferred by ambulance to Memorial for the procedure. However, the record does not contain evidence of how frequently this occurs. In any event, these inconveniences are normal and expected where not every hospital has cardiac catheterization facilities. Stated another way, the above would be evidence of a "not normal" condition only if the normal condition was for all acute care hospitals to have catheterization laboratories, which is not the case. As discussed above, cardiac catheterization is also used for emergency treatment of heart attack by the injection of streptokinase directly to the clot causing the attack. Cardiac catheterization facilities must be available at the hospital initially receiving the heart attack patient because these patients are usually too unstable to be transferred from the emergency room of the receiving hospital to Memorial. Treatment by streptokinase injection is therapeutically most beneficial only in the first few hours of the heart attack, or at least within six hours of the emergency, because it is during this period that the permanent damage caused by the clot will occur. Dr. Stephen Roth, a cardiologist on the staff of Hollywood Medical Center, had from 5 to 10 heart attack patients in 1984 who needed streptokinase injection by catheterization, and who suffered a deterioration of their condition due to the unavailability of facilities for catheterization at Hollywood Medical Center. He implied that his two other partners had a similar experience, but the record does not contain competent evidence to support a finding as to the magnitude of the problem for them. Dr. Jeffrey Erlich, also a cardiologist, has had a similar problem of having heart attack patients arrive at Hollywood Medical Center in need of emergency streptokinase injection by catheterization, but did not testify as to the magnitude of the problem. In Dr. Erlich's opinion, every acute care hospital that treats heart attack victims should have a cardiac catheterization laboratory to provide emergency injection of streptokinase. Dr. Silvio Sperber, who is one of the only three physicians who run the cardiac catheterization facility at Memorial Hospital, testified that he had performed about 7 streptokinase injection procedures since the beginning of 1984. The foregoing is insufficient evidence of a "not normal" need for a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. The number of emergencies are not that great, the problem is not atypical of other hospitals not having cardiac catheterization facilities, and there is no evidence of any failed efforts to have emergency vehicle operators take all heart attack patients directly to the available laboratories in the area. See paragraph 24, ahead. Administratively, the process of transferring a patient from Hollywood Medical Center to Memorial for cardiac catheterization causes the sort of problems normally associated with transfer of ill patients. Though the drive is only ten minutes, the time preparing the patient and actually transferring the patient is much longer, and is a hardship on the patient. However, almost all of the cardiologists at Hollywood Medical Center are on the staff of Memorial, and can follow their patients at that facility without much difficulty, since it is only ten minutes away. In 1983, Memorial Hospital had 942 catheterization procedures. If the 1984 experience continues at 4.7 percent less than 1983, Memorial Hospital will perform about 898 procedures. If thereafter it experiences only a 10 percent growth rate, Memorial Hospital will perform 1086 procedures in 1986, and 1195 procedures in 1987. It is reasonable to conclude that it will reach its maximum capacity in a few years, probably by 1988. However, although not currently used by Hollywood Medical Center, there are or will be two catheterization facilities within less than eight miles. Broward General Hospital is the next closest, apparently about six miles away. In 1983, Broward General performed only 551 procedures, indicating significant future capacity. Additionally, a new laboratory has been approved for Plantation General Hospital, about eight miles away. Since this laboratory will be new, it will have a long way to go before it reaches a 1200 capacity. The driving distance to these two other facilities may be a few miles more than this, but the distance is not significantly greater than Memorial. Although Petitioner's physicians testified that they did not consider the hospitals further north to be acceptable as alternatives to Memorial, the distance alone does not pose a significant problem. The major problem is not in the driving distance, as long as the trip is 10 or 20 minutes driving time, but the administrative preparation time at either end, which would be the same inconvenience for transportation regardless which alternative was used. Typically patients who suffer a heart attack are transported to the emergency rooms of any number of hospitals in Broward County. Dr. Erlich testified that his prior patients do not usually call him before arriving at a hospital, and that he has no ability to direct his patients to a hospital having cardiac catheterization capability. Thus, he felt that all such hospitals should have the capability. There is no evidence that Memorial Hospital could not handle more heart attack patients, or that emergency vehicle operators could not transport more heart attack patients to Memorial. An ambulance carrying a heart attack patient could just as easily arrive at the emergency room of Memorial than it could at Hollywood Medical Center, only ten minutes away. The problem of having heart attack patients arrive in an unstable condition at Hollywood, where there is no catheterization facility, ought to be solved at least in part by greater coordination with emergency vehicle operators in the vicinity of the two hospitals. Dr. Sperber and his two partners apparently have a monopoly over the performance of cardiac catheterization procedures at Memorial Hospital. This factor is somewhat relevant to the issue of need for the proposed new catheterization laboratory, but absent additional evidence that patients will in fact be denied the service, or will receive service of poor quality or at unreasonable expense due to this apparent monopoly, this one factor alone does not show sufficient need to warrant approval of the application. Some patients prefer to go to Hollywood Medical Center, which is a smaller, for-profit hospital, but patient preference of this sort does not show a "not normal" need for the proposed catheterization laboratory. Based upon all of the foregoing, there is not sufficient evidence on this record demonstrating a "not normal" condition of need by 1986 to justify granting this application. However, if there were a need shown by the evidence, the following additional findings are made. Thomas Porter testified for HRS that the requirement that there be adequate care for indigents is satisfied if such care is provided by the District as a whole, and that there was no question that indigents were adequately served in District X. Petitioner will provide cardiac catheterization for indigents only on an emergency basis, and will rely upon Memorial to provide other indigent care. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Porter, the criteria with respect to indigent care, rule 10- 5.11(15)(h)3, F.A.C., has been satisfied. Since nearly all of the cardiologists on the staff of Hollywood Medical Center are also on the staff of Memorial Hospital, it is probable that Hollywood Medical Center would do a substantial number of catheterization procedures in the first year of operation, which is projected to be 1986. By the third year of operation, 1989, the Hollywood Medical Center facility would satisfy the requirement of rule 10-5.11(15)(i)4, F.A.C., that it annually perform at least 300 procedures within three years of initiation of service. For these limited purposes it is appropriate to consider the proximate population served, since this population is the most reliable source of patients and revenue. Most of the patients for the Hollywood Medical Center catheterization laboratory will come from its current actual service area, which was defined by the evidence to be a region in southern Broward County. Given the shared cardiologist staffing at both hospitals, it is not at all unreasonable to project that Hollywood Medical Center will service 30 percent of the need in the southern region of Broward County. Based on the 1983 Broward use rate, Hollywood Medical Center would do 518 catheterizations in 1989 if it handled only 30 percent of the need. Memorial would handle the remaining 70 percent, doing 1207 procedures annually. Even using the lower 1981 use rate provided by HRS, 329.5 per 100,000, Hollywood Medical Center would do 372 procedures in 1989, using the assumed market share of 30 percent. (As noted above, however, these figures do not demonstrate need, however, since existing facilities will be able to serve this same population adequately.) As already found above in calculation of need, rule 10- 5.11(15)(o)1 and 3, F.A.C., is satisfied if the 1983 use rate is used. Beginning with 1986, and in every year thereafter, there will be enough catheterization procedures needed so that the average volume for all facilities in the district will be at least 600 annually. HRS stipulated that if all other criteria were satisfied, the project proposed by Petitioner would be financially feasible. From the foregoing findings, all other criteria in dispute have been satisfied, and the project would be financially feasible. All other findings of fact proposed by the parties which have not been discussed above have been considered and have been deemed to be irrelevant.
