The Issue Whether there is need for a new Pediatric Heart Transplant and/or Pediatric Heart and Lung Transplant program in Organ Transplant Service Area (OTSA) 3; and, if so, whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10471 (heart) and/or 10472 (heart and lung), filed by The Nemours Foundation, d/b/a Nemours Children’s Hospital (Nemours or NCH), to establish a Pediatric Heart Transplant and/or Pediatric Heart and Lung Transplant program, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for award of a CON.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Applicant, Nemours Nemours Children’s Hospital is a licensed Class II specialty children’s hospital located in Orange County, Health Planning District 7, Subdistrict 7-2, OTSA 3, which is owned and operated by The Nemours Foundation. Nemours is licensed for 100 beds, including 73 acute care, nine comprehensive medical rehabilitation, two Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and 16 Level III NICU beds, and is a licensed provider of pediatric inpatient cardiac catheterization and pediatric open-heart surgery. As the primary beneficiary of the Alfred I. duPont Testamentary Trust established in the will of Alfred duPont, the Foundation was incorporated in Florida in 1936. The Foundation set out to provide children and families medical care and services, its mission being “[t]o provide leadership, institutions, and services to restore and improve the health of children through care and programs not readily available, with one high standard of quality and distinction regardless of the recipient’s financial status.” Foundation assets reached $5.5 billion, by the end of 2015. The Foundation has funded $1.5 billion of care to Florida’s pediatric population through subspecialty pediatric services, research, education, and advocacy. Nemours has established a pediatric care presence throughout the State of Florida. Nemours operates over 40 outpatient clinics throughout Florida that offer primary care, specialty care, urgent care, and cardiac care services to pediatric patients in central Florida, Jacksonville, and the panhandle region. Nemours also provides hospital care to pediatric inpatients at Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, as well as through affiliations with Wolfson’s Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville, West Florida Hospital in Pensacola, and numerous hospital partners in central Florida. The resources Nemours offers in the greater Orlando area are especially significant with 17 Primary Care Clinics, five Urgent Care Clinics, 10 Specialty Care Clinics, nine Nemours Hospital partners, and, of course, NCH itself. These clinics are located throughout OTSA 3 where Nemours determined access to pediatric care was lacking, including Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona Beach, Titusville, Kissimmee, Lake Mary, and Sanford, as well as neighboring Lakeland. The clinics are fully staffed with hundreds of Nemours-employed physicians who live in the clinic communities. Through these satellite locations, as well as the Nemours CareConnect telemedicine platform, Nemours is able to bring access to its world-class subspecialists located at NCH to children throughout the State of Florida who otherwise would not have access to such care. Nemours was established to provide state of the art medical care to children through its integrated model. Nemours’ development has been and continues to be driven by its mission and objective to be a top-tier, world-class pediatric healthcare system. NCH is the first completely new “green field” children’s hospital in the United States in over 40 years, allowing Nemours to integrate cutting-edge technology and a patient-centered approach throughout. Nemours has created a unique integrated model of care that addresses the needs of the child across the whole continuum, connecting policy and prevention, to the highest levels of specialized care for the most complex pediatric patients. From its inception, Nemours envisioned the development of a comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program as proposed by the CON applications at issue in this proceeding. NCH is located in the Lake Nona area, just east of downtown Orlando in a development known as Medical City. Medical City is comprised of a new VA Hospital, the University of Central Florida (UCF) College of Medicine and School of Biomedical Sciences, the University of Florida (UF) Research and Academic Center, the Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute, and a CON-approved hospital, which is a joint venture between UCF and AHCA, which will serve as UCF’s teaching hospital. Medical City is intended to bring together life scientists and research that uses extraordinarily advanced technology. Co- location in an integrated environment allows providers and innovators of healthcare, “the brightest minds,” so to speak, to interact and to share ideas to advance healthcare and wellness efforts. Agency for Health Care Administration AHCA is the state health-planning agency that is charged with administration of the CON program as set forth in sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes. Context of the Nemours Applications Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044, AHCA requires applicants to obtain separate CONs for the establishment of each adult or pediatric organ transplantation program, including: heart, kidney, liver, bone marrow, lung, lung and heart, pancreas and islet cells, and intestine transplantations. “Transplantation” is “the surgical grafting or implanting in its entirety or in part one or more tissues or organs taken from another person.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065. Heart transplantation, lung transplantation, and heart/lung transplantation are all defined by rule 59C-1.002(41) as “tertiary health services,” meaning “a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of such service.” AHCA rules define a “pediatric patient” as “a patient under the age of 15 years.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(c). AHCA rules divide Florida into four OTSAs, corresponding generally with the northern, western central, eastern central, and southern regions of the state. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(f). The programs at issue in this proceeding will be located in OTSA 3, which is comprised of Brevard, Indian River, Lake, Martin, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Counties. Currently, there are no providers of PHT in OTSA 3, and there are no approved PHLT programs statewide. The incidence of PHT in Florida, as compared to other types of solid organ transplants, is relatively small. The chart below sets forth the number of pediatric (ages 0-14) heart transplant discharges by year for the four existing Florida PHT programs during Calendar Years (CY) 2013 through 2016, and the 12-month period ending June 2017: HOSPITAL HEART TRANSPLANT CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 2017 All Children’s Hospital 7 14 9 8 7 UF Health Shands Hospital 6 8 15 15 9 Memorial Regional Hospital 5 5 5 7 4 Jackson Health System 2 2 1 4 1 Total 20 29 30 34 21 The above historic data demonstrates that the incidence of PHT statewide is relatively rare, and does fluctuate from program to program and from year to year. As can be seen, the most recent available 12-month data reflects that only 21 PHTs were performed during that time, for an average program volume of only 5.25 cases. Florida has more existing and approved PHT programs than every other state in the country except California, which has more than double the pediatric population of Florida. And like Florida, two of the California programs are extremely low- volume programs. Additionally, evidence regarding the number of PHLT patients demonstrated just how rare this procedure is. From 2013 to 2016, there was an annual average of only four PHLTs nationally, with only one actual transplant on a Floridian. Nemours’ health planner stated that although Nemours projected in its application that it would perform one heart/lung procedure each year, it is a “very low-volume service,” and Nemours in actuality expects that there will be years with zero volume of PHLT. The CON Applications Nemours filed its applications for heart transplantation, heart/lung transplantation, and lung transplantation in the second Other Beds and Programs Batching Cycle of 2016. Nemours is proposing the development of a comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program, which will be the only such program in Florida. This will be achieved by combining three types of transplant services (heart, lung, and heart/lung) in one comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program. Each application was conditioned on the development of all three transplantation programs. Nemours is located in OTSA 3, where there is currently no PHT provider, PLT provider, or PHLT provider. There are, however, three providers of pediatric open-heart surgery and pediatric cardiac catheterization, and a large, growing pediatric population. Unlike any other facility in Florida, the Nemours Cardiac Center (Cardiac Center) is uniquely organized to treat all forms of congenital heart disease. The Cardiac Center employs a “programmatic approach” to offer the most beneficial environment and the finest care available for pediatric patients. The Cardiac Center, physically located at NCH, throughout Florida, is organized as a single Department of Cardiovascular Services to house Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Anesthesia, Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and Cardiology. Cardiac Center physicians throughout Florida are organized as a single entity with the goal of providing the highest quality, patient-centered care to all patients without the usual barriers created by the departmental “silos.” The entire Cardiac Center clinical team, including nurses and physicians, is dedicated solely to the special challenges of congenital heart abnormalities and makes the care of children with heart disease the life’s work of team members. The fully integrated organizational structure permits the team to take shared responsibility for all aspects of the delivery of quality care to these pediatric patients from admission to discharge. The Cardiac Center holds weekly patient consensus conferences, where all providers, including physicians, nurses, and the patients’ caregivers, participate in case reviews of all inpatients and those patients scheduled for surgery or catheterization. The Cardiac Center is “state of the art” with a designated cardiovascular operating room, a designated cardiovascular lab that includes an electrophysiology lab, and a dedicated comprehensive care unit. In addition, The Foundation has furthered the commitment to the Cardiac Center by funding an additional $35 million expansion to the sixth floor of NCH, adding an additional 31 inpatient beds, an additional operating room, and a comprehensive cardiovascular intensive care unit. Dr. Peter D. Wearden joined Nemours in 2015 as the chief of cardiac surgery, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular Services, and director of the Cardiac Center at Nemours. Dr. Wearden will serve as director of the Comprehensive Cardiothoracic Transplant Program at Nemours and will be instrumental in the development and implementation of the program. Dr. Wearden was recruited from the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP), where he served as the surgical director of Heart, Lung, and Heart/Lung Transplantation. He was also the director of the Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Support and Artificial Heart Program. CHP rose to a US News and World Report top 10 program during Dr. Wearden’s tenure. CHP is at the forefront of organ transplantation and is where the first pediatric heart/lung transplantation was performed. Dr. Wearden is a trained cardiothoracic surgeon who completed fellowships in both cardiothoracic surgery (University of Pittsburgh) and Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery (Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada). He is certified by the American Board of Thoracic Surgery and holds additional qualifications in Congenital Heart Surgery from that organization. In his tenure as a board-certified pediatric transplant specialist, he has participated in over 200 pediatric cardiothoracic transplantations, of which he was the lead surgeon in over 70. In addition, he has procured over $20 million in National Institutes of Health research funding since 2004 specific to the development of artificial hearts and lungs for children and their implementation as a live-saving bridge to transplantation. Dr. Wearden was a member of the clinical team that presented to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel for approval of the Berlin Heart, the only FDA-approved pediatric heart ventricular assist device (VAD)1/ currently available, and he proctored the first pediatric artificial heart implantation in Japan in 2012. A VAD is referred to as “bridge to transplant” in pediatric patients because the device enables a patient on a waiting list for a donated heart to survive but is a device on which a child could not live out his or her life. Both utilization of VADs and heart transplantation procedures are in the “portfolio of surgical interventions” that can save the life of a child with heart failure. Dr. Wearden is an international leader in the research and development of VADs. Victor Morell, an eminent cardiac surgeon and chief of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery at CHP, testified that Dr. Wearden’s presence in Orlando alone and the work that he will be able to do with VADs and a PHT program will likely save lives. Many of the physicians that comprise the Nemours Cardiac Center transplant team not only have significant transplant experience, but also have experience performing transplants together. These physicians came with Dr. Wearden from CHP, were trained by Dr. Wearden, or otherwise worked with Dr. Wearden at some point in their careers. The physicians recruited to the Nemours transplantation team were trained at or hail from among the most prestigious programs in the country. For example, Dr. Kimberly Baker, a cardiac intensivist, was trained by Dr. Wearden in the CHP ICU. Dr. Constantinos Chrysostomou, Nemours’ director of cardiac intensive care, worked with Dr. Wearden at CHP, and has experience starting the pediatric ICU in Los Angeles at Cedar Sinai Hospital. Dr. Steven Lichtenstein, chief of cardiac anesthesia, held the same position at CHP for 12 years before he was recruited to Nemours. Dr. Karen Bender, a cardiac anesthesiologist, was recruited by Dr. Wearden from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia – one of the leading programs in the country. Dr. Michael Bingler, a cardiac interventionalist, was at Mercy Children’s Hospital in Kansas City for eight years. Dr. Adam Lowry of the Nemours cardiac intensive care center previously trained at both Texas Children’s Hospital (the number one program in the country) and Stanford. The 11 physicians that comprise the Cardiac Center’s Cardiothoracic Physician Team have collectively participated in 1,146 cardiothoracic transplantations. These physicians came to Nemours to care for the most acute, critically ill patients, including those requiring PHT. In addition to the physician team, the expertise and skill of the non-physician staff in the catheterization lab, the operating room, and the cardiac ICU are crucial to a successful program. Dr. Dawn Tucker is the administrative director of NCH’s Cardiac Center and heads the nursing staff for NCH’s Cardiac Center, which includes 23 registered nurses with transplant experience. Dr. Tucker holds a doctorate of Nursing Practice and was formerly the director of the Heart Center at Mercy Children’s Hospital in Kansas City, where she oversaw the initiation of a PHT program. The average years of experience for total nursing care in cardiac units across the nation is two years. The average years of experience in the Nemours Cardiac Center is eight years. Medical literature shows the greater the years of nursing staff experience, the lower the mortality and morbidity rates. The nursing staff at Nemours, moreover, has extensive experience in dealing not only with pediatric cardiac patients, but with pediatric heart transplants as well. The Cardiac Center’s cardiothoracic nursing staff has over 220 years of collective cardiothoracic transplant experience. Nemours operates a “simulation center” that allows the Cardiac Center to simulate any type of cardiac procedure on a model patient before performing that procedure on an actual patient. The model patient’s “heart” is produced using a three- dimensional printer that creates a replica of the heart based on MRI’s or other medical digital imaging equipment. These replica hearts are printed on-site, using the only FDA-approved software for such use, and are ready for use in the simulation center within a day after medical imaging. Nemours Cardiac Center currently performs what the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has coined “STAT 5” cardiac procedures. STAT 5 cardiac procedures are the most complex; STAT 1 procedures are the least complex. A PHT is a STAT 4 procedure. Since Dr. Wearden’s arrival at the Nemours Cardiac Center, there have been no patient mortalities. The uncontroverted evidence established that Nemours has assembled a high-quality, experienced, and unquestionably capable team of physicians and advanced practitioners for its cardiothoracic transplantation programs and is capable of performing the services proposed in its applications at a high level. UF Health Shands While not a party to this proceeding,2/ UF Health Shands’ (Shands) presence at the final hearing was pervasive. AHCA called numerous witnesses affiliated with Shands in its case-in-chief. The scope of the testimony presented by Shands- affiliated witnesses was circumscribed by Order dated December 13, 2017 (ruling on NCH’s motion in limine) that: At hearing, the Agency may present evidence that the needs of patients within OTSA 3 are being adequately served by providers located outside of OTSA 3, but may not present evidence regarding adverse impact on providers located outside of OTSA 3. Baycare of Se. Pasco, Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., Case No. 07-3482CON (Fla. DOAH Oct. 28, 2008; Fla. AHCA Jan. 7, 2009). UF Health Shands Hospital is located in Gainesville, Florida. UF Health Shands Children’s Hospital is an embedded hospital within a larger hospital complex. Shands Children’s Hospital has 200 beds and is held out to the public as a children’s hospital. The children’s hospital has 72 Level II and III NICU beds. Unlike Nemours, Shands offers obstetrical services such that babies are delivered at Shands. It also has a dedicated pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) as well as a dedicated pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. The Shands Children’s Hospital has its own separate emergency room and occupies four floors of the building in which it is located. It is separated from the adult services. Shands Children’s Hospital is nationally recognized by U.S. News & World Report as one of the nation’s best children’s hospitals. The children’s hospital has its own leadership, including Dr. Shelley Collins, an associate professor of pediatrics and the associate chief medical officer. As a comprehensive teaching and research institution, Shands Children’s Hospital has virtually every pediatric subspecialty that exists and is also a pediatric trauma center. The children’s hospital typically has 45 to 50 physician residents and 25 to 30 fellows along with medical students. Over $139 million has been awarded to Shands for research activities. As a teaching hospital, Shands is accustomed to caring for the needs of patients and families that come from other parts of the state or beyond. Jean Osbrach, a social work manager at Shands, testified for AHCA. Ms. Osbrach oversees the transplant social workers that provide services to the families with patients at Shands Children’s Hospital. Ms. Osbrach described how the transplant social workers interact with the families facing transplant from the outset of their connection with Shands. They help the families adjust to the child’s illness and deal with the crisis; they provide concrete services; and these social workers help the families by serving as navigators through the system. These social workers are part of the multidisciplinary team of care, and they stay involved with these families for years. Shands is adept at helping families with the issues associated with getting care away from their home cities. Shands has apartments specifically available in close proximity to the children’s hospital and relationships with organizations that can help families that need some financial support for items such as lodging, transportation, and gas. Ms. Osbrach’s ability to empathize with these families is further enhanced because her own daughter was seriously ill when she was younger. Ms. Osbrach testified that, while she was living in Gainesville, she searched out the best options for her child and decided that it was actually in Orlando. Despite the travel distance, she did not hesitate to make those trips in order to get the care her child needed at that time. The Shands Children’s Hospital is affiliated with the Children’s Hospital Association, the Children’s Miracle Network, the March of Dimes, and the Ronald McDonald House Charities. Shands operates ShandsCair, a comprehensive emergency transport system. ShandsCair operates nine ground ambulances of different sizes, five helicopters, and one fixed-wing jet aircraft. ShandsCair does over 7,000 transports a year, including a range of NICU and other pediatric transports. ShandsCair is one of the few services in the country that owns an EC-155 helicopter, which is the largest helicopter used as an air ambulance. This makes it easier to transport patients that require a lot of equipment, including those on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Patients on ECMO can be safely transported by ground and by air by ShandsCair. Shandscair serves as a first responder and also provides facility-to- facility transport. It has been a leader in innovation. The congenital heart program at Shands includes two pediatric heart surgeons, as well as pediatric cardiologists Dr. Jay Fricker and Dr. Bill Pietra, both of whom testified for AHCA. Dr. Fricker did much of his early work and training at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and came to the University of Florida in 1995. He is a professor and chief of the Division of Cardiology in the Department of Pediatrics at Shands. He is also the Gerold L. Schiebler Eminent Scholar Chair in Pediatric Cardiology at UF. He has been involved in the care of pediatric heart transplant patients his entire career. Dr. Bill Pietra received his medical training in Cincinnati and did his early work at several children’s hospitals in Colorado. He came to the University of Florida and Shands in July 2014 and is now the medical director, UF Health Congenital Heart Center. Shands performed its first pediatric heart transplant in 1986. Shands treats the full range of patients with heart disease and performs heart transplants on patients, from infants through adults, with complex congenital heart disease. Shands provides transplants to pediatric patients with both congenital heart defects and acquired heart disease (cardiomyopathy). Shands will accept the most difficult cases, including those that other institutions will not take. Data presented by AHCA dating back to the beginning of 2014 demonstrate that Shands has successfully transplanted numerous patients that were less than six months old at the time of transplantation. This data also demonstrates that Shands serves all of central and north Florida, as well as patients that choose to come to Shands from other states. PHT patients now survive much longer than in the past, and in many cases, well into adulthood. Because Shands cares for both adult and pediatric patients, it has the ability to continue to care for PHT patients as they transition from childhood to adulthood. Managed care companies are now a significant driver of where patients go for transplantation services. Many managed- care companies identify “centers of excellence” as their preferred providers for services such as PHT. Shands is recognized by the three major managed-care companies that identify transplant programs as a center of excellence for PHT services. AHCA’s Preliminary Decision Following AHCA’s review of Nemours’s applications, as well as consideration of comments made at the public hearing held on January 10, 2017, and written statements in support of and in opposition to the proposals, AHCA determined to preliminarily deny the PHT and PHLT applications, and to approve the PLT application. AHCA’s decision was memorialized in three separate SAARs, all dated February 17, 2017. Marisol Fitch, supervisor of AHCA’s CON and commercial-managed care unit, testified for AHCA. Ms. Fitch testified that AHCA does not publish a numeric need for transplant programs, as it does for other categories of services and facilities. Rather, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate need for the program based on whatever methodology they choose to present to AHCA. In addition to the applicant’s need methodology, AHCA also looks at availability and accessibility of service in the area to determine whether there is an access problem. Finally, an applicant may attempt to demonstrate that “not normal” circumstances exist in its proposed service area sufficient to justify approval. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1) establishes the statutory review criteria applicable to CON Applications 10471 and 10472. The parties have stipulated that each CON application satisfies the criteria found in section 408.035(1), (d), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes. The only criteria at issue essentially relate to need and access. However, the Agency maintains that section 408.035(1)(c) is in dispute to the extent that center transplant volume as a result of Nemours’ approval would lead to or correlate with negative patient outcomes. AHCA believes that there is no need for the PHT or PHLT programs that Nemours seeks to develop because the needs of the children in the Nemours service area are being met by other providers in the state, principally Shands and Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. Section 408.035(1)(a) and (b): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed; and the availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the district of the applicant. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044(6)(b).3/ The criteria for the evaluation of CON applications, including applications for organ transplantation programs, are set forth at section 408.035 and rule 59C-1.044. However, neither the applicable statutes nor rules have a numeric need methodology that predicts future need for PHT or PHLT programs. Thus, it is up to the applicant to demonstrate need in accordance with rule 59C-1.044. There are four OTSAs in Florida, numbered OTSA 1 through OTSA 4. NCH is located in OSTA 3, which includes the following counties: Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Brevard, Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, Lake, and Volusia. (See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat; Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 01.044(2)(f)3.) OTSA 3 also generally corresponds with the pediatric cardiac catheterization and open-heart surgery service areas defined by AHCA rule. (See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 1.032(2)(g) and 59C-1.033(2)(h)). Currently, there is no provider of PHT in OTSA 3, but there are three providers of pediatric cardiac catheterization and pediatric open-heart surgery: Orlando Health Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children; Florida Hospital for Children; and Nemours. There are no licensed providers of PHLT anywhere in the State of Florida. There are four existing providers and one approved provider of PHT services in Florida: UF Shands in OTSA 1; Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in OTSA 2; Jackson Memorial Hospital in OSTA 4; and Memorial Regional Hospital, d/b/a Joe DiMaggio’s Hospital in OTSA 4; and a third approved program in OTSA 4, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, which received final approval from AHCA in August 2017. As noted above, there is no fixed-need pool published for PHT, PHLT, or PLT programs. Alternatively, AHCA follows rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., which requires consideration of population demographics and dynamics; availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; medical treatment trends; and market conditions. To quantify the need for a new PHT program in District 7, OTSA 3, Nemours created and presented a methodology that started with the statewide use rate in its projected first year. Then for the second year, Nemours aggressively increased the use rate to the highest rate in any of the other transplant service areas in the state. Then, in an even more aggressive (and unreasonable) assumption, Nemours projected that it would essentially capture all of the cases in OTSA 3 by the second year of the program. In its application, the assumptions resulted in a projection that Nemours would do four transplants in the first year of operation and eight in the second. These projections fall short of the rule requirement that the applicant project a minimum of 12 transplants per year by the second year of operation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(6)(b)2. At hearing, Nemours updated (increased) those first and second year projections to 7 and 13 cases, respectively. However, these updated projections included one child, aged 15 to 17, in year one, and two in year two. There are several reasons these projections lack credibility. First, as noted, Nemours assumed a near- 100 percent market share based on the highest use rate in the state by just year two. Second, when Nemours prepared its update, it used the most recent calendar year data. However, this was not the most current data. Calendar Year 2016 reflected 34 cases statewide, but that number had dropped to 21 for the most recent 12-month period available at the time of the hearing. Use of this most recent 12-month data would have significantly decreased the Nemours PHT volume projections. In addition, the projection of 13 cases by year two would place Nemours at a higher PHT case volume than three of the four established programs in the state, and would be at a level that is nearly equivalent to the much more established Shands program. This is not credible, especially considering that Nemours also admitted at hearing that only two OTSA 3 residents received pediatric heart transplants in 2016. The existence of unmet need cannot be based solely on the absence of an existing service in the proposed service area. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)3. While Nemours’ own health planner agreed that the absence of a PHT program in OTSA 3 is not itself a basis for finding need, Nemours nevertheless argues that this rule is inapplicable in this proceeding because the title to this subsection of the rule is “Comparative Review” and a portion of this subsection addresses competing applications in the same cycle. As detailed further in the Conclusions of Law section herein, this interpretation is unconvincing and rejected. AHCA interprets this rule provision to apply to those batched applications submitted without the submission of a competing application in the same batching cycle, as with Nemours in this proceeding. Nemours initiated its cardiac catheterization and cardiac surgery program in June/July 2016. In its PHT application, Nemours projected that it would meet or exceed the rule minimum required volumes of 200 cardiac catheterizations and 125 open-heart surgery cases by the end of 2017. Actual volumes achieved by Nemours in CY 2017 were 97 open-heart cases and 196 cardiac catheterizations. The incidence of PHLT is extremely low. During the four calendar years, 2013 through 2016, there were only 16 PHLT transplants performed nationwide. Only one Florida resident received a PHLT during that four-year period, and that was performed in Massachusetts. Also during that four-year period, only three Florida residents were registered for PHLT. There is no evidence in this record as to why two of the three registered Florida residents did not obtain a PHLT. Based on the national use rate for PHLTs from CY 2013 through CY 2016, Nemours projects that it will perform an average of one PHLT per year. Nemours acknowledges that due to the extremely low incidence of PHLTs, there may be some years that no PHLTs are performed at Nemours. Geographic Access There is no evidence of record that families living in central Florida are currently being forced to travel unreasonable distances to obtain PHT services. Indeed, there are five existing or approved programs within the state, with at least two located very reasonably proximate to OTSA 3. According to the analysis of travel distances for PHT patients living in OTSA 3 contained in the Nemours application (Exhibit 15), only some residents located in Brevard and Indian River Counties are not within 120 miles of an existing PHT program. There was agreement that patients that need a PHT are approaching the end-stage of cardiac function, and in the absence of a PHT will very likely die. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that the parents of a child living in central Florida and needing a PHT will travel to St. Petersburg or Gainesville for transplant services rather than let their child die because the travel distance is too far. To the contrary, the evidence in this record from witnesses on both sides, as well as common sense, is that families will go as far as necessary to save their child. The notion that there is some pent-up demand for PHT services among central Florida residents (especially when there is no evidence of a single OTSA 3 patient being turned down or unable to access a PHT) is without support in this record. The parents of four pediatric patients testified at the final hearing. Two testified for Nemours. The other two testified for AHCA and were parents of children that received PHTs at Shands. One of the Nemours witnesses was the parent of a child that has not received a transplant. The other received transplant services at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg. The parents of the two Shands patients were representative of the two broad categories of PHT patients. One was a patient with a congenital heart defect that lives in Cocoa Beach (Brevard County). The patient likely had the heart defect since birth, but it was not diagnosed until she was six years old. That patient was asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis but deteriorated over a period of years. While she was first seen at Shands, the family had the time and researched other prominent institutions, including Texas Children’s Hospital, Boston Children’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. They did this because, like all of the parents that testified, they “would have gone to the ends of the earth” to save their child. This family researched the volumes and experience of the programs they considered and looked for what they felt was the best program for their child, and ultimately chose Shands. It was clear that they felt Shands was the right choice. Their daughter received her heart transplant at Shands, is doing well, and is now considering what college to attend. Additionally, this family did not find the two hours and 35 minute travel time from their home in Brevard County to Shands to be an impediment, and actually consider Shands as being relatively close to their home. This testimony supports the obvious truism that obtaining the best possible outcome for a sick child is the paramount goal of any parent. The other parent witness called by AHCA has a daughter that, on Christmas Eve in 2008, went from perfectly healthy to near death and being placed on life support within a 24-hour period. As opposed to a congenital heart defect, this patient had cardiomyopathy. This family lives in Windermere, a suburb of Orlando. She acquired a virus that attacked her heart. She was initially treated at Arnold Palmer Children’s Hospital where she had to be placed on ECMO. From there, she was safely airlifted to Shands while still on ECMO where, upon arrival, the receiving team of physicians informed the family that she was one of the most critically ill children they had ever seen. After an 11-hour open-heart surgery, a Berlin Heart was successfully implanted and kept her alive for four months until an appropriate donor heart became available. This patient also had an excellent outcome and is now a student at the University of Florida. The following exchange summarizes how the child’s mother felt about the inconvenience of having to travel from the Orlando area to Gainesville: Q If a family in Orlando told you, or in your city of residence told you that their child was critically ill and they were worried about having to travel and potentially spend time in Gainesville to get care, what would you tell them? A Well, I would tell them to just take it a day at a time and – when your child is critically ill, convenience never really comes into your mind. What comes into your mind is how do I help my child live. And so you will go anywhere. And it’s just an hour and a half, it just doesn’t matter. When you are talking about saving your child, it means nothing. It literally means nothing. It is clear from the testimony of these two parents that nothing about having a gravely ill child is “convenient.” It creates great stress, but it was also clear that having an experienced provider was more important than just geographic proximity. The mothers of the two Shands patients persuasively spoke of their concerns about further diluting the volumes of the existing programs that could result from approval of a sixth pediatric heart transplant program in Florida, particularly when there are two other programs that are not that far from the Orlando area.4/ While transplantation is not an elective service, it is not done on an emergent basis. As noted, the number of families affected is, quite fortunately, very small. While having a child with these issues is never “convenient,” the travel issues that might exist do not outweigh the weight of the evidence that fails to demonstrate a need for approval of either application. The Orlando area, being centrally located in Florida, is reasonably accessible to all of the existing providers. Most appear to go to Shands, which is simply not a substantial distance away. The credible evidence is that families facing these issues are able to deal with the travel inconvenience. In addition, Nemours presented evidence regarding the various locations at which they provide services, ranging from Pensacola to Port St. Lucie. Clearly, Nemours sees itself as providing some cardiac services to patients in these locations, but it would also suggest that patients seen at these locations may be referred to NCH for transplant services, which would mean that some patients would be bypassing closer facilities. As observed by AHCA, for Nemours to posit that it is appropriate for patients to travel from Pensacola or Jacksonville to Orlando while asserting that it is not acceptable for patients in Orlando to go to Gainesville or St. Petersburg is an illogical inconsistency. Financial Access Nemours asserts that approval of its proposed programs will enhance financial access to care. Nemours currently serves patients without regard to ability to pay and will extend these same policies to transplant recipients. Approximately half of Nemours’ projected PHTs are to be provided to Medicaid recipients, the other half to commercially insured patients.5/ However, there was no competent evidence of record that access to PHT or PHLT services was being denied by any of the existing transplant providers because of a patient’s inability to pay. Transplant Rates at Shands In its need methodology, Nemours utilized the use rate from OTSA 1 where Shands is located because it is the highest use rate in the state. Despite this, Nemours then asserted that Shands is not performing as many PHTs as it could or should. The Nemours CON applications are not predicated on any argument that their proposed programs are needed because of poor quality care at any of the existing pediatric transplant programs in Florida. Indeed, Dr. Wearden stated his belief that Shands provides good quality care in its transplant programs, and he respects the Shands lead surgeon, Dr. Mark Bleiweis. As evidence of his respect for the Shands PHT program, Dr. Wearden has referred several transplant patients to Dr. Bleiweis at Shands. Despite that position, Nemours argued that the Shands program is unduly conservative and cautious in its organ selection and may have some “capacity” issues due to a few cited instances of apparent surgeon unavailability. These assertions, made by Nemours witnesses with no first-hand knowledge of the operations of the Shands program, are not persuasive. With regard to whether the Shands program is unduly “cautious,” “conservative,” or “picky,” Nemours relied on a document produced by Shands in discovery. Nemours also relied on data reported by Shands to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The data included a list of all of the organs offered to Shands since the beginning of 2015, the sequencing of the offer of that organ to Shands, whether the organ was transplanted at Shands or elsewhere, the primary and secondary reasons the organ was refused (if refused) and other information. The SRTR exhibit demonstrates that a high number of the organs that are offered are not acceptable for transplant on patients waitlisted at Shands. It also shows that organs that are accepted may have to be examined by many different centers before being deemed potentially acceptable. This demonstrates the extensive level of complexity, nuance, and clinical judgment involved in the decision to accept an organ for transplant in a pediatric patient. Indeed, Dr. Wearden agreed that the decision by a program to accept or turn down an organ involves both clinical expertise and judgment, and that there are many reasons an organ might be turned down, which helps explain why the transplanted percentage of total organs offered nationally is on average, so small. Dr. Wearden chose a few examples of organs that were not taken by Shands to express an opinion that Shands may be unduly conservative in its organ selection. However, this assertion was credibly refuted by Dr. Pietra, a transplant cardiologist and the medical director of the UF Health Congenital Heart Center. Dr. Pietra discussed the complexity of these cases and how simply looking at the SRTR data does not provide enough information to reach Dr. Wearden’s conclusion. An organ that might be acceptable for one patient would not be acceptable for another for a host of reasons. Many more organs are rejected by transplant centers than are accepted. Dr. Pietra credibly opined that being conservative and cautious are important traits for a transplant surgeon, particularly for one that wants the accepted organ to work well for the patient long-term. That does not mean that Shands is rejecting organs when it should have taken them, nor does the SRTR data support the proposition that the Nemours program should be approved because its program may have accepted an organ for a particular patient that Shands might have rejected. Nemours also argues that Shands performs PHTs at a rate lower than the region and the country, and that this should mitigate for the approval of another program. This assertion is predicated on waitlist information reported in the SRTR data. Patients that are placed on the waitlist have different status designations, depending on the severity of their condition. That status may change, up or down, over time. Due to the shortage of organs, until a patient reaches status 1A, he or she is unlikely to be offered an organ. The evidence reflected that Shands puts patients on the PHT organ waitlist at a time earlier than the moment they require the transplant surgery under what is called the “pediatric prerogative.” This helps those patients maintain their status on the list but does not result in organs being provided to less severely ill patients to the detriment of those in greater need. Further, the record evidence supports the finding that Shands waitlists patients because the clinical determination has been made that the child will ultimately require a transplant. This was corroborated by the parent of a Shands PHT patient who testified that when her daughter was placed on the waitlist, Dr. Fricker concluded at that time that her daughter would ultimately need a PHT, even though she was placed on a lower status initially, and it was a few years before the transplant occurred. Transplant surgeon Dr. Victor Morell, of the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, testified that he waitlists his PHT patients not only when they need the procedure performed immediately, but rather when, in his clinical judgment, he determines the patient will ultimately need a PHT. This testimony supports the finding that there is nothing clinically unusual or inappropriate about how the Shands program waitlists patients. Shands realizes that its philosophy, which is contemplated within and permitted under the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) rules, makes its statistics, both in terms of percent of patients transplanted and waitlist mortality, look worse. While Shands’ waitlist mortality may be higher than expected as reflected in the SRTR data, it is still significantly lower than in the UNOS region or the United States. Shands advocates for its patients by their waitlist practices because it believes it helps secure the best outcomes for its patients. It does not indicate need for a new PHT program. Nemours also suggests that there may be a “capacity” problem at Shands because the organ rejection information provided by Shands shows that, during the 3-year period of CY 2015 through CY 2017, there were seven entries showing as either a primary or secondary reason for organ rejection that the surgeon was unavailable. However, this included both adult and pediatric hearts, and further investigation revealed that in only four instances were there potential PHT recipients at Shands. Of those four hearts that were rejected, two were not accepted by any PHT provider, and the two that were accepted were placed with adult transplant patients, not PHT patients. Shands has two PHT transplant surgeons. In very few instances at Shands, an organ was offered but not accepted because the surgeon was not available for one of several reasons. In one instance, there was another transplant scheduled. A surgeon could be ill, could be gone, or may have just completed another long surgery and be too fatigued to safely perform another. Like Shands, Nemours also has two experienced PHT surgeons. Although Dr. Wearden believes that Nemours would endeavor to not reject an organ for this reason, this ambition ignores reality. He cannot guarantee that the same could not or would not happen at Nemours for the same reasons it occasionally occurs at Shands. As explained by Dr. Pietra, when there are only small to medium volume programs, there is not likely to be a sufficient number of surgeons such that this scenario can be avoided entirely. Not Normal Circumstances In both its heart and heart/lung applications, Nemours articulated the following “not normal circumstances” in seeking approval: Florida does not have any approved pediatric heart/lung transplant programs. Florida's only two approved pediatric lung transplant programs have not performed any lung transplant programs in the last two reporting years according to AHCA reporting data. Significantly, there are no pediatric heart transplant or lung transplant programs in AHCA's Organ Transplant Service Area OTSA 3 in which NCH is located-an area of the State with one the fastest growing and youngest populations. Florida has no other pediatric comprehensive, multi-organ thoracic transplant program. Florida has no other pediatric comprehensive, multi-organ thoracic transplant program that is part of a pediatric specific integrated delivery system such as Nemours offers. NCH offers a unique, dedicated model of cardiothoracic care developed at its Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children (AIDHC) in Wilmington, Delaware and implemented upon the opening of the program at NCH. The key and differentiating element of this Model of Care is a unified team of cardiac clinical and administrative professionals who serve children with cardiac problems in dedicated facilities (the "Cardiac Team"). The Cardiac Team only cares for children with cardiac diagnoses. As such, the Cardiac Team of anesthesiologists, surgeons, cardiologists, nurses, and other support personnel do not "float" to other hospital floors or departments as in a typical hospital setting. This dedicated model of cardiac care allows the Cardiac Team to develop highly specialized knowledge and relationships to provide the best treatment protocols for patients with cardiac conditions. NCH has developed state-of-the art facilities and innovative clinical pathways for the care of the most complex pediatric thoracic patients. NCH has and will bring new opportunities for research in pediatric cardiology, cardiac surgery, and pulmonary medicine, particularly clinical translational and basic research into the linkages between childhood obesity and cardiac conditions. Nemours operates a regional network of clinics in Florida, with primary locations in Pensacola, Jacksonville, and Orlando, that will operate in partnership with NCH for the appropriate regional referral of patients in Florida for pediatric thoracic care. NCH can reduce the out-migration of pediatric, thoracic transplant patients from OTSA 3 to other parts of the State as well as the out-migration of these patients to other out-of-state transplant programs. Similarly, NCH will reduce the outmigration of organs donated in Florida to other states ensuring that Florida recipient patients are first priority for organs donated in Florida. NCH has in place the infrastructure, facilities, and resources to seamlessly add thoracic transplant services to its existing comprehensive cardiac surgery program. Additional needed staff are already being recruited to this program. As a result, the project has minimal incremental cost that will need to be incurred. Total project costs are, therefore, estimated to be $715,425.00. In addition, according to Nemours, an additional “not normal” circumstance has emerged since the filing of the applications: the approval of Nemours’ PLT application in the absence of a PHT program at the facility, which it contends is “a very unusual situation.” Noteworthy about these purported reasons for approval are that: (1) none of them are specifically directed at a unique circumstance relating to a need for another PHT program; and (2) most of them are either a recitation of the fact that there is no existing program in the service area or are about Nemours’ capability to provide these services. They are not directed at whether there is a need for its proposed programs. In fact, the main thrust of Nemours’ case was directed at proof regarding its capabilities. But the flaw in this theme is best demonstrated in the testimony of Dawn Tucker, the last witness called by Nemours. Ms. Tucker is the cardiac program administrative director for Nemours. When asked why she supported the proposed program, she talked about the experience of the team, a desire to care for sick patients, an organization (Nemours) that financially supports the program, and the network of centers that Nemours has in Florida. These factors address why Nemours “wants” these CONs. None of them addresses the threshold issue of whether there is a “need” for these programs in OTSA 3. More specifically, the first, third, and fourth bullet points are all based on the absence of a program in OTSA 3. By rule, that is not a basis for establishing need. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.009(2)(e)3. AHCA appropriately rejected the absence of a program in OTSA 3 as the sole basis upon which need for the proposed projects could be established. The second bullet point relates to the pediatric lung transplant application that is not at issue in this matter. The fifth and sixth bullet points relate to the Nemours integrated model of care. But again, this does not address whether there is a need for the proposed programs. The fact that Nemours has an employed-physician model is not unique or “not normal.” AHCA considered the information regarding the model of care and correctly noted that the model of care does not itself enhance access or improve outcomes. It should be noted that Shands’ doctors are employed by the University of Florida. In addition, the reliance on this model does not guarantee a robust program. This bullet point references the much older and more established Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware, that is touted as the model for Nemours. Nemours presented evidence relating to its more established hospital in Delaware that also provides PHT services. However, the PHT program at duPont is a low-volume program, performing only one PHT in 2016. None of the managed- care companies that recognize Shands as a center of excellence also recognizes the duPont Hospital as such. One of the companies--Lifetrac--acknowledges duPont as a “supplemental” program, whereas Shands is one of its “select” programs. This demonstrates that simply having the financial resources of the duPont Foundation or the model of care used by that organization does not guarantee high volumes or success. The “not normal circumstance” bullet points regarding Nemours’ facilities, research, and other infrastructure similarly do not demonstrate need. Otherwise, a hospital could obtain a CON for a new program by spending the money in advance and then demanding approval based upon those expenditures. AHCA recognized that Nemours had recruited some very qualified clinicians, but correctly noted that that does not create or evidence need for the proposed programs. The remaining bullet point asserts that approval of the PHT and PHLT programs could reduce outmigration of both patients and organs. By definition, because neither of these transplant programs exists in OTSA 3, all patients leave OTSA 3 for these services. Again, that alone does not establish need, nor is it automatically a “not normal” circumstance. As discussed herein, Nemours has not demonstrated a sufficient need or an access problem that justifies approval of either application. With regard to the outmigration of organs from Florida, Nemours has argued that Florida is a net exporter of organs and that this is a “not normal” circumstance justifying approval of its application. However, organs harvested in one state are commonly used in another. There is nothing unusual or negative about that fact. Indeed, Dr. Wearden agreed that in his experience, this is a common occurrence. There is a national allocation system through UNOS and this sharing, as explained by Dr. Pietra, facilitates the best match for organs and patients. UNOS divides the country into regions for the purpose of allocation of donor organs, with Florida being one of six states in Region 3. The evidence of record did not establish that approval of the Nemours applications would result in the reduction of organs leaving Florida, or even that such would be a desirable result. Nemours also argued at hearing that approving their applications would increase the number of donor organs that are procured and transplanted in Florida. Nemours suggested that its programs would increase public awareness and implied that it would accept organs for future patients that surgeons at other programs turn down. However, these arguments are purely conjectural and are rejected. No record evidence exists which demonstrates that a Nemours program would increase the supply of organs in Florida. Indeed, Nemours presented no such relevant data or statistical evidence in its applications to demonstrate that this will occur. Finally, Nemours argues that its PHT and PHLT applications should be approved because it does not make sense for AHCA to have approved the PLT program but denied the other two applications. Nemours goes on to note that while there are hospitals in the country that do PHTs but not PLTs, there are no hospitals that do lungs but not hearts. Regardless of whether that is true, Florida law separates these three services into separate CON applications, which are reviewed independently. The wisdom of the rule is not at issue in this proceeding. Regardless of any overlap in the skill sets required to perform these procedures, approval of the pediatric lung transplant application does not determine need for pediatric heart or pediatric heart/lung programs. Nemours failed to establish that “not normal” circumstances currently exist that would warrant approval of either the PHT or PHLT programs. Nor did Nemours credibly demonstrate any other indicators of need for its proposed programs. Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant’s record of providing quality of care. The parties stipulated that Nemours is a quality provider. However, AHCA maintains that this criterion is in dispute to the extent that center transplant volume as a result of Nemours’ approval would lead to or correlate with negative patient outcomes. Nemours failed to demonstrate that it would achieve the volumes it projected unless it takes significant volumes from other Florida providers.6/ Approval of Nemours will not create transplant patients that do not exist or are not currently able to reasonably access services. While Nemours has assembled a team of professionals with varying levels of transplant experience, it has not been demonstrated that it will achieve volume sufficient to reasonably assure quality care.7/ Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. Approval of the Nemours PHT and PHLT programs would unquestionably improve geographic access to those services for the very few residents of OTSA 3 that need them. However, given the extreme rarity of pediatric heart and heart/lung transplants, approval of the Nemours programs would not result in enhanced access for a significant number of patients. Moreover, there was no credible non-hearsay evidence presented at hearing that any resident of OTSA 3 that needed PHT or PHLT services was unable to access those services at one of the existing PHT programs in Florida or, for PHLT, at a facility elsewhere. Based upon persuasive evidence at hearing, there is also clearly a positive relationship between volume and outcomes. As with any complex endeavor, practice makes perfect. In this instance, maintaining a minimum PHT case volume provides experience to the clinicians involved and helps maintain proficiency. According to the credible testimony of Dr. Pietra, programs should perform no fewer than 10 PHTs per year. “If you can stay above 10, then your program is going to be exercised at a minimum amount to keep everybody sort of at a peak performance.” The clear intent of the minimum volume requirement of 12 heart transplants per year contained in rule 59C- 1.044(6)(b)2. is to ensure a sufficient case volume to maintain the proficiency of the transplant surgeons and other clinicians involved in the surgical and post-surgical care of PHT patients. In addition, pediatric transplant programs are measured statistically based on outcomes, such as mortality and morbidity. Because of this, the loss of even one patient in a small program can be devastating to that hospital’s mortality statistics. As such, small programs may become less willing to take more complicated patients. In a perverse sort of way, adding more programs that dilute volumes may decrease, rather than increase, access because of the fear a small program might have for taking more complex patients. Adequate case volume is also important for teaching facilities, such as Shands, to benefit residents of all the OTSAs by being able to train the next generation of transplant physicians. The mothers of the two Shands patients that testified made note of the complexity of their daughters’ conditions and how their cases were used for training purposes. There was no persuasive evidence of record that approval of the Nemours applications would meaningfully and significantly enhance geographic access to transplant services in OTSA 3. The modest improvement in geographic access for the few patients that are to be served by the two programs is not significant enough to justify approval in the absence of demonstrated need. There is no evidence that approval of the Nemours applications will enhance financial access nor that patients are not currently able to access PHT or PHLT services because of payor status. Section 408.035(1)(g): The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness. It is clear that establishing and maintaining a transplant program is expensive. Given the limited pool of patients, the added expense of yet a sixth Florida program is not a cost-effective use of resources. This criterion also relates to the Nemours position that AHCA should approve the PHT and PHLT applications simply because the PLT application was approved, and it would not be cost-effective for Nemours unless the PHT and PHLT applications were also approved. However, each of these applications must rise or fall on its own merit. As of the hearing, Nemours had not yet implemented its PLT program. Given the absence of need for either the PHT or PHLT programs, the cost-effective solution might be for Nemours to reconsider implementation of the PLT program. 408.035(1)(i): The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. AHCA agreed at hearing that Nemours satisfies section 408.035(1)(i). Nonetheless, Nemours provides a very high level of Medicaid services, and projects a high-level volume related to Medicaid patients and charity care patients. As noted, approximately half of the PHTs projected by Nemours will be performed on Medicaid patients. Conformance with this criterion would mitigate toward approval had there been persuasive evidence that Medicaid and medically indigent patients are currently being denied access to PHT and PHLT services. However, no such evidence was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying CON Application Nos. 10471 and 10472 filed by The Nemours Foundation, d/b/a Nemours Children’s Hospital. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws in Florida. On February 5, 1993, AHCA published a need for one additional adult open heart surgery program in District 9. AHCA defines open heart surgery as a "tertiary health service" which, due to complexity, cost, and the relationship between volume and quality of care should be concentrated in a limited number of hospitals. Rule 59C-1.002(66), Florida Administrative Code. District 9 is located generally along the southeast coast of Florida and includes Palm Beach, Indian River, Martin, St. Lucie, and Okeechobee Counties. Palm Beach is the county at the southern end of District 9. The parties have referred to the counties other than Palm Beach, as the four northern counties. Martin County is north of Palm Beach, and St. Lucie, Okeechobee, and Indian River are further north. The applicants in this proceeding, seeking to establish an additional District 9 adult open heart surgery program, are Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Lawnwood Regional Medical Center, Inc. ("Lawnwood"), St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. ("St. Mary's"), and Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. ("Martin Memorial"). Lawnwood Regional Medical Center Lawnwood is a 335-bed for-profit hospital located in Ft. Pierce, in St. Lucie County. Lawnwood has CON approval for the construction of an additional 18 skilled nursing beds and 10 level II NICU beds. In addition to the 335 licensed beds, Lawnwood has 16 unlicensed bassinets for a total of 351. Lawnwood's 335 licensed beds include 60 psychiatric beds, located one and a half blocks away from the main Lawnwood building, at a facility called Harbor Shores. Lawnwood has 260 general acute care beds. When Lawnwood filed its application, its parent corporation was HCA, Inc., a subsidiary of the Hospital Corporation of America. HCA was also the parent corporation of the Medical Center of Port St. Lucie, the only other hospital in St. Lucie County, and of Raulerson Hospital in Okeechobee County. After the application was filed and prior to hearing, a subsidiary of Columbia Health Care Corporation merged with HCA. As a result of the merger, the administrator of Lawnwood also serves as the market manager assigned to coordinate the services offered at the three hospitals. Lawnwood is classified by the State as a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid-reimbursed services for financially needy patients. In 1993, 21 percent of its total patient days were attributable to Medicaid and 4 percent to charity. Lawnwood operates an outpatient cardiac catheterization ("cath") laboratory and, in 1992, received CON approval to perform inpatient cardiac caths in a lab which was scheduled to open in October 1994. The outpatient lab opened in 1988 at Lawnwood. In 1989, 561 cardiac cath lab procedures were performed at Lawnwood, 494 in 1990, 362 in 1991, and 468 procedures in 1993. Although 602 procedures were reported to the local health council in 1993, these were performed on 468 patients, which is the number consistent with reporting methods of other cath labs. As a result of the diagnostic caths, 45 patients were referred for open heart surgery, and 98 for angioplasties. Of the 45 patients referred for open heart surgery, 26 were actually scheduled for the procedure. Lawnwood proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program for a total project cost of $4.99 million. The project includes construction of two dedicated operating rooms, renovations to provide a 4-bed dedicated recovery room, and conversion of 12 acute care beds to construct a 12-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU"). St. Mary's Hospital St. Mary's is a 430-bed not-for-profit hospital, which has been operated 55 years by the Franciscan Sisters, currently through a parent organization called the Allegheny Health System. St. Mary's is the largest hospital in District 9, and the largest provider of womens' and childrens' medical services in the district. St. Mary's is a designated regional perinatal intensive care center with level II and III neonatal intensive care units, and is the designated level II trauma center for the northern area of Palm Beach County. Like Lawnwood, St. Mary's is recognized by the State as a disproportionate share provider of services to Medicaid reimbursed and indigent patients. It is approximately sixth in the state in the provision of services to financially needy patients. St. Mary's cardiac cath lab began operation in February 1988. There were 267 inpatient and 116 outpatient cardiac caths at St. Mary's lab in 1991, 240 and 118 respectively in 1992, and 171 and 115 respectively from January to November 1993. St. Mary's operates a 10-bed coronary care unit. St. Mary's proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program for a total of $2,166,351, funded by private donors. The project will include renovations to two existing operating rooms and to a recovery room area. Martin Memorial Medical Center Martin Memorial is a 336-bed not-for-profit acute care hospital, with an additional 17 nursery/bassinets which are not required to be in the total licensed beds. The ultimate parent corporation for the Martin Memorial facilities and its foundation is Martin Memorial Health Systems, a not-for- profit corporation with a volunteer community board of directors. Martin Memorial's beds are divided between two campuses, with 236 beds in Stuart, and 100 in Port Salerno. The Port Salerno hospital opened in September, 1992 and is approximately 8 miles south of Stuart. Included in the 236 beds at Martin Memorial in Stuart are 5 level II neonatal intensive care beds, 23 intensive care unit beds, 45 ventilator, telemetry or other monitored beds, and 134 medical/surgical beds. Martin Memorial's existing cardiac services include a cardiac cath lab which opened in 1989 and, that year, reported 250 procedures. Caths at Martin reached the highest volume, 905 in 1991, followed by 799 in 1992, and 867 in 1993. Martin Memorial proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Stuart for a total project cost of $3,594,720. Martin's project includes a newly constructed open heart surgery suite adjacent to the cardiac cath lab and, as a back-up, renovation of an existing operating room. As a part of an approved, separate CON application, Martin proposes to renovate and expand to accommodate a 13-bed surgical intensive care unit ("SICU") with four private rooms dedicated as a cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU"). The expenses associated with the four CVICU rooms are included in the total open heart surgery project costs. Existing Open Heart Surgery Providers In Or Adjacent To District 9 All of the existing adult open heart surgery programs in District 9 are in Palm Beach County, at Delray Community Hospital ("Delray"), JFK Medical Center, Inc. ("JFK"), and AMI Palm Beach Gardens Community Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center ("Palm Beach Gardens"). The same services are also available in the adjacent districts to the north in District 7 at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County, and to the south in District 10 at AMI North Ridge General Hospital in Broward County. In addition, established referral patterns exist from District 9 to Miami Heart Institute in Dade County and Holy Cross Hospital in Broward County. All residents of District 9 have access to open heart surgery within two hours average drive time, which exceeds the geographic access standard of Rule 59C-1.033(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Delray is located in southern Palm Beach County and is a level II trauma center for that area. JFK is a 369-bed not-for-profit hospital located in Atlantis, Florida, approximately midway between Boca Raton and West Palm Beach, in north central Palm Beach County. The corporation which owns and operates JFK, also is the parent of a fund-raising foundation, and other subsidiaries, some of which are for-profit corporations. JFK has had an open heart surgery program since 1987. JFK's two operating rooms are equipped and sized identically, and located in close proximity to the two room cardiac cath lab and the intensive care unit. JFK has the capacity to perform up to 1000 cases annually, while actual annual volumes at JFK have ranged from 350 to 370 cases. Palm Beach Gardens is a 204-bed for-profit hospital located in the northern part of Palm Beach County. It operates the oldest open heart surgery program in the district, having started in 1982 or 1983. In fiscal year 1992- 1993, there were 477 open heart surgery patients at Palm Beach Gardens, of which 173 resided in the four northern counties of the District. Palm Beach Gardens has 11 operating suites, 7 capable of being used for open heart surgeries, and 4 dedicated solely to open heart surgeries. The current capacity of Palm Beach Gardens is 900 open heart procedures a year. By adding staff, Palm Beach Gardens could reach a volume of 1100 cases a year. While Palm Beach Gardens has excess capacity in its operating rooms, at the peak of its seasonal demand, delays occur in scheduling non-emergency surgeries due to inadequate capacity in its 24-bed intensive care unit. Occupancy levels in the 24 beds were 112.5 percent in 1993, according to Treasure Coast Health Council data. Although Palm Beach Gardens also suggested that an 8-bed overflow unit supplemented the 24 beds, accounting reports do not reflect billings for their use as intensive care services. Comparison of Applicants and Applications Subsection 408.035(1)(a) -- need in relation to state and local plans The 1989 state health plan, Healthy Floridians, includes six preferences for the review of open heart surgery applications. The first preference favors applicants establishing programs in counties with a population over 100,000 and a higher percentage than statewide average of 18.8 percent elderly persons. All the experts in health planning testified that the term "elderly" in this preference means persons 65 years of age and older, which is consistent with the age group with the greatest demand for open heart surgery. St. Mary, Lawnwood, and Martin meet the preference. The 1993 population of Palm Beach County was 900,000, St. Lucie's was 162, 598, and Martin's was 108,089. The population age 65 and over as a percentage of total population was 24 percent in Palm Beach, 21.2 percent in Lawnwood, and 27.5 percent in Martin County. The second state preference is for applicants who can demonstrate the ability to perform at least 350 annual procedures within 3 years of initiating an open heart program. Lawnwood reasonably projected a total of 314 open heart surgery procedures in year one, 350 in year two, and 386 in year three. Lawnwood's utilization projections are conservatively based on the assumption that, by the third year, 70 percent of its open heart patients will come from St. Lucie and Okeechobee Counties, which are already in its primary service area. Martin Memorial's expert questioned Lawnwood's projected open heart volumes from Martin and Indian River Counties, based on its acute care and cath lab patient origins. In addition, traditional referral patterns show Indian River patients going north to Brevard and Orange Counties, while Martin County patients go south to Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties. Considering the acute care and cath lab competition within the four northern counties, the absence in that area of any competition for an open heart surgery program, the relative success of Lawnwood's outpatient cath lab despite its limitations and competition, and its affiliation with Port St. Lucie and Raulerson hospitals, Lawnwood established the reasonableness of its projected utilization. Lawnwood also reasonably expects to reverse some of the 73.5 percent out-migration for open heart surgery by residents of the northern four counties. See, Findings of Fact 27, infra. Martin Memorial's projections of 249 cases in year one, 317 in year two, and over 350 in year three are also reasonable. Martin Memorial's underlying assumptions, that its open heart surgery market share will at least equal that of its acute care, that it will keep some patients previously referred from its cath lab, and that, it, like Lawnwood, would reverse some district out-migration, are also reasonable. Martin Memorial referred 172 patients from its cath lab for open heart surgery in 1993, in contrast to 45 from St. Mary's, and 41 from Lawnwood. Martin Memorial's projections are based on 1991-1992 use rates which declined in 1993. Despite the one year decline and some expert predictions of a continuing downward trend in use rates, Martin Memorial's projections are bolstered by the fact that its open heart surgery primary service area includes Port St. Lucie, which contains 40 percent of the population of St. Lucie County and is the fastest growing area of District 9. That area, which is closer to Stuart, but is located in the St. Lucie County community in which Lawnwood has an affiliate hospital, supports both the projections of Lawnwood and Martin Memorial, and could be served by an open heart surgery program at either facility. Although Martin Memorial's projected volumes are higher than and inconsistent with other projections made by Martin Memorial, the reasonableness of the projections was established. St. Mary's projected 171 open heart surgeries in year one, 265 in year two, and 363 in year three. The projections are based on the use of a gravity model designed to determine potential volume "attracted" to the program by using the size of the hospital and the proximity of patients as factors. The model used a zip code level analysis to take into consideration the fact that St. Mary's expects a sub-county primary service area, as a result of sharing the county with the three existing District 9 providers. The projected utilization was reduced, by St. Mary's expert, to take into consideration an expected start- up factor. There is, however, substantial expert testimony that the variables and/or the weight attributed to each variable included in this gravity model are inadequate to explain actual or potential volumes. There is substantial evidence that the size of a hospital is not reliable enough to be one of only two variables in a model. For example, JFK although larger than Palm Beach Gardens, only exceeded 350 cases in 1991-1992 by 16, when smaller Palm Beach Gardens with an older open heart surgery program reached 499 cases. The model also fails to consider actual physician referral patterns. St. Mary's projections and its ability to exceed 350 cases also depend on its ability to attract Medicaid patients over and above the patients projected by the gravity model. See, Findings of Fact 35, infra. The volume of diagnostic cardiac caths at St. Mary's is low and has declined over the past three years. In part, the volume is low because there is no open heart surgery back-up available in the event the diagnostic cardiac cath indicates that need. Cath patients suspected of needing more invasive procedures are diverted by referring physicians to hospitals with angioplasty and open heart programs. But that explanation of St. Mary's volumes apparently is incomplete, since, by contrast Boca Raton Community Hospital and Martin Memorial, which also have no open heart surgery back-up, have had more steadily increasing cardiac cath volumes. The fact that St. Mary's cath volumes are low and its open heart surgery projections unreliable is also attributable to the fact that St. Mary's is located 11 miles north of JFK and 5 1/2 miles south of Palm Beach Gardens, therefore, at a competitive disadvantage with these established programs. The third state health plan preference applies to proposals, for improving access for persons currently leaving the district. With almost half of Palm Beach County open heart surgery patients receiving the service outside the county, St. Mary's claims to be in the best location to reverse that trend if geographical access is the problem. St. Mary's also points to the convenience of access to its hospital, which is 2 miles from Interstate 95, the main north-south transportation corridor through the district. Approval of St. Mary's proposal will not, however, reverse out-migration to the extent that it is attributable to factors such as seasonal residency, established physician referral practices from northern areas of District 9 to providers in adjacent districts, and managed care contractual arrangements. Lawnwood is located in the largest, fastest growing, and most centrally located county of the northern four counties. St. Lucie County is adjacent to each of the other three northern counties, with Martin to the south, Okeechobee to the west, and Indian River to the north. The level of "out-migration," defined as those patients leaving the district to receive the service, increases dramatically from south to north in District 9, from 55 percent in Martin, 70 percent in St. Lucie, 80 percent in Okeechobee, to 100 percent in Indian River County. Considering growth in western St. Lucie County, the needs of St. Lucie and Okeechobee County residents, and the alternative to out-migration provided for both Indian River and Martin County residents, the Lawnwood location is superior to that of Martin Memorial in terms of the ability to improve access to the service. See, also Findings of Fact 23-24, supra. The fourth state preference for applicants with a history of providing disproportionate share Medicaid and charity care favors the applications of St. Mary's and Lawnwood, in that order. Martin Memorial argues that it also meets the disproportionate share criteria, which the preference requires, although it has not been designated by the State, which the preference does not require. Relying on the criteria in subsection 409.911(2), Florida Statutes, Martin claims to meet or exceed the disproportionate share requirements for 1990, despite the agency's reliance on 1989 data. Assuming, arguendo, that Martin is entitled to the preference, the comparative ranking of St. Mary's first, Lawnwood second, and Martin third remains the same. In addition, the preference looks at a history of disproportionate service, as does subsection 408.035(1)(n), in part, which Martin failed to establish. For 1991, St. Mary's provided 15.8 percent of total District 9 Medicaid, Lawnwood provided 11.7 percent, and Martin Memorial, 1.7 percent. Martin Memorial established that it treated a larger number of Medicaid patients with circulatory diseases as a proportion of Medicaid patients in Martin County, as compared to St. Lucie County residents treated at Lawnwood. However, the absolute number of circulatory disease Medicaid patients treated at Lawnwood was approximately two and half times the number treated at Martin Memorial. Statistical indicators, including per capita income and low income patients diagnosed with circulatory diseases, demonstrate that residents of St. Lucie and Okeechobee Counties are less affluent, and more medically needy than those in Palm Beach and Martin Counties. The fifth state preference favors the applicant offering a service with the highest quality of care at the least expense. The preference includes an explanation that larger facilities usually have more available resources to meet the preference. As the largest hospital with the lowest cost per case by the second year of the program, $22,659, St. Mary's best meets the preference. Martin's projected cost is $26,909 and Lawnwood's is $27,085. Martin Memorial's expert calculated total expenses per case at $23,221 for Martin Memorial, $22,615 for St. Mary's, and $23,645 for Lawnwood. St. Mary's projected charges of $50,600 in year one and $53,100 in year two. Lawnwood projected charges of $55,199 in year one, and $58,133 in year two. Martin Memorial projected charges of $55,594, in year one, $58,955 in year two. Total project costs were estimated at $2,166,351 for St. Mary's, $3,594,720 for Martin Memorial, and $4,995,039 for Lawnwood. Using either set of cost data or the projected charges, St. Mary's best meets this preference based on size, the lowest total project costs, and the lowest projected charges for open heart surgery services. Martin Memorial and Lawnwood have, as described by one expert, remarkably similar costs, and the same is true of projected average charges per case. The final state preference favors applicants who will include protocols for the use of innovative therapeutic alternatives to surgery for appropriate patients, including streptokinase and tissue plaminogen activator therapies. Lawnwood and Martin Memorial currently use streptokinase. St. Mary's performs emergency angioplasties, and uses streptokinase therapy. All three applicants meet the preference for providing and/or planning to provide alternative therapies to open heart surgery. The first District 9 local health plan allocation factor gives a priority for established cardiac cath programs. Based on expert testimony, a cardiac cath program exceeding 150 annual procedures is established. All the applicants exceed the minimum volume and, therefore, comply with the allocation factor. Martin Memorial has the highest volume in an operational inpatient and outpatient lab and, meets the allocation factor better than Lawnwood and St. Mary's. The other District 9 factor favors applicants with a documented commitment to provide services regardless of patient's ability to pay. Lawnwood projects 2.51 percent Medicaid and 1.5 percent charity care in year two. St. Mary's projects providing 5 percent Medicaid and 3.5 percent charity care in year two. Martin Memorial projects 2 percent Medicaid and 1.9 percent charity care in year two. St. Mary's best meets the factor, followed by Lawnwood, and then Martin Memorial. More Medicaid residents live in the primary service area of Lawnwood than that of Martin Memorial. Martin has filed CON compliance reports demonstrating difficulty in meeting prior CON Medicaid conditions due to the demographics of its service area. Subsections 408.035(1)(b) - availability, quality of care, efficiency, accessibility, extent of utilization of like and existing programs; 408.035(2)(b) - appropriate and efficient use of existing inpatient facilities; and 408.035(2)(d) - serious problems in obtaining care without proposed new program(s). With the exception of seasonal excess demand for Palm Beach Gardens' ICU beds, the evidence demonstrates there is excess capacity in existing District 9 providers. Geographic access to existing providers in or adjacent to the district is also reasonable. The quality of care at existing providers is excellent. St. Mary's asserts that its proposal will best assist in alleviating access barriers to open heart surgery for low income persons with limited geographic mobility. One expert estimated that 38 District 9 Medicaid patients needed, but did not receive, open heart surgeries in 1991, based on the use rates for commercially insured patients. In general, the highest density of population with a demand for invasive heart therapies and open heart surgeries is concentrated in southern and central Palm Beach County. However, expert testimony established that Medicaid patients are underserved for reasons, other than the policies of the existing providers. The evidence does not show that St. Mary's proposal can overcome these financial barriers. St. Mary's is a level II trauma center, and maintains that trauma patients in need of open heart surgery are at risk of death from having to wait for transfers. Transfers of patients from St. Mary's to Palm Beach Gardens or JFK for open heart surgery take from three hours to three days, averaging 8 to 12 hours, in approximately 30 percent of the cases. From May 1991 through January 1994, over 2600 trauma patients were treated at St. Mary's. Expert testimony, after review of medical records, indicates that from one to six patients needed open heart surgery, an insufficient number to constitute a not normal circumstance for the establishment of an open heart program at St. Mary's. Palm Beach Gardens' position that an additional adult open heart surgery program is not needed in District 9 is rejected. Open heart surgery use rates are not increasing nationally or in Florida. However, District 9 population is increasing, as is open heart surgery utilization for District 9 as a whole, and for Palm Beach, St. Lucie and Okeechobee Counites, while remaining static in Martin County and decreasing in Indian River. Palm Beach Gardens and JFK have demonstrated that in Palm Beach County, an additional open heart surgery program is not needed, and would be detrimental to existing programs. See, Findings of Fact 51-52. Subsection 408.035(1)(c) - quality of care The applicants, like the existing providers, are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. All of the applicants provide excellent quality care, as indicated by their accreditations and proposals, compromised only by their ability to achieve the projected volumes. See, Findings of Fact 23-26. Subsection 408.035(1)(d) - alternatives or outpatient facilities and 408.035(2)(a) - alternatives to inpatient services There are no alternatives or facilities other than acute care hospitals in which open heart surgeries can be performed. The criterion is inapplicable to this case. Subsections 408.035(1)(e) - economies of joint or shared facilities and 408.035(2(k) - modernization or sharing arrangements as alternatives to new construction. Martin Memorial is a part of a network of hospitals planning a more formalized affiliation to attract managed care contracts. Lawnwood is a part of a large corporate group, which can offer experience in establishing an open heart surgery program. Neither of these arrangements entitles the applicants to special consideration under the statutory criterion, as it has been construed by AHCA. In this case, each applicant is a separate acute care hospital. An alternative arrangement for a shared program was considered by Martin Memorial, but there is no showing that any proposal which improves access for the northern four counties could avoid the necessity for new construction. Subsection 408.035(1)(f) - needs for equipment and services not accessible in adjoining areas There is no evidence that any applicant proposes to provide a service not readily available in adjoining areas. On the contrary, each applicant proposes to offer an alternative within the district for residents who currently use providers in adjoining areas. See, Finding of Fact 27. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) - need for research and educational programs There is no evidence that any of the applicants will meet research or educational needs, or is a teaching hospital. AHCA has strictly construed the statutory criterion to apply to teaching hospitals. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - availability of resources, including staff, management, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, including personnel required in Rule 59C-1.033(5)(b). The Cleveland Clinic has expressed an interest in providing surgeons for Martin Memorial's program, but no agreement has been formalized. Martin Memorial was criticized for not having a full-time infectious disease specialist, inadequate pulmonary and nephrology specialists, and for being unable to perform transesophageal echocardiology, all of which are necessary to support an open heart surgery program. St. Mary's was criticized for not planning to have nurses assigned exclusively to its open heart surgery team. Lawnwood has been unable to attract full-time coverage in thoracic, orthopedic, and neurosurgery. Despite these specific criticisms, each applicant has successful recruitment mechanisms and affiliations which will be enhanced by the presence of an open heart surgery program. The applicants' staffing and equipment proposals are reasonable. Both St. Mary's and Lawnwood are subsidiaries of larger organizations which include hospitals with open heart surgery programs. Subsection 408.035(1)(i) - immediate and long term financial feasibility St. Mary's has the ability to establish an adult open heart surgery program for a total of $2,166,351, funded by private donors. St. Mary's provided a pro forma of expected revenues and expenses to establish financial feasibility based on two factors which were challenged, the average length of stay ("ALOS") and the mix of payer classifications for patients. St. Mary's projected 10.3 days as the ALOS. JFK's experts suggested that a 13-day ALOS is more reasonable, particularly for a new program. JFK's actual experience was an ALOS of 16.1 days in 1988, 14.5 days in 1992, and 12.6 days by the year ending June 1993. Mature programs generally have lower ALOS than newer ones. Currently, ALOS in the District are 10.9 for Palm Beach Gardens, 12.5 for Delray, and 14.5 for JFK. JFK's assertion that St. Mary's initial ALOS will more likely be 13 days not 10.3 is reasonable. The fact that the ALOS will be longer than that projected in the pro forma means that expenses for the care of each patient will be greater, while revenues will not increase proportionately. Revenues are limited in fixed Diagnostic Related Group ("DRG") reimbursement categories, such as Medicare and managed care, which are the dominant payer groups, in contrast to the more flexible per diem reimbursement of commercial insurers. St. Mary's failed to include revenues and expenses for the construction period, anticipating only capital expenditures and start-up costs for implementing a new service. St. Mary's pro forma was based on a first year payer mix which includes 12.4 percent managed care and 11.6 percent commercial insurance in 1995. At JFK, the open heart surgery payor mix was 33 percent managed care and 9 percent commercial in 1993. St. Mary's underestimated the proportion of patients in the DRG-based managed care category, as compared to the per diem arrangements typical of commercial insurance. Taking into consideration increased expenses of $251,000 in year one and $409,000 in year two, due to adjustments from 10.3 to 13 days in the ALOS, and reduced revenues of $350,000 in year two, St. Mary's proposal is not financially feasible. The conclusion is also compelled by St. Mary's failure to establish the reasonableness of its utilization projections for the program. See, Finding of Fact 25. Martin Memorial has the funds necessary to establish an open heart surgery program for $3,594,720. Its pro forma shows revenues and expenses for the construction period, which are identical with or without the open heart surgery program. Martin Memorial's pro forma is flawed by double counting revenues from patients currently spending some time and revenues at Martin Memorial prior to transfers for open heart surgery. Revenues associated with pre-transfer stays must be deducted from revenues for open heart surgeries of average total lengths of stay. The amounts of over-stated revenues were not calculated by Palm Beach Gardens expert, and other criticisms of Martin Memorial's pro forma are rejected. Lawnwood, like St. Mary's, failed to include any construction period revenues and expenses in its pro forma. Lawnwood, as a separate legal entity, does not have the funds to establish its open heart surgery program, without relying on its parent, Hospital Corporation of America. The commitment of funds, represented by a letter dated April 30, 1993, indicated the source as either internally generated cash or available lines of credit. Lawnwood demonstrated its financial feasibility, in part, by showing that its open heart program's break-even point, at which expenses and revenues would be equal is 182 cases, well below projected utilization. See, Findings of Fact 23. Subsection 408.035(1)(j) - special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations The applicants do not propose to provide any different or special services for health maintenance organizations, nor is any applicant in this batch itself a health maintenance organization, as required by AHCA's interpretation to the statutory criterion. NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a West Boca Medical Center v. HRS, DOAH Case Nos. 90-7037 and 91-1533 (F.O. 4/8/92). Subsection 408.035(1)(k) - substantial, specialty services to non-residents of the service district Although the applicants propose to provide open heart surgery, which is one of the specialty services listed in the statute, they do not project that they will serve residents of other districts. The applications are not distinguishable on the basis of Subsection 408.035(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - impact on costs and effects of competition with existing providers. If St. Mary's proposal is approved and, as St. Mary's projects, two- thirds of its patients come from existing district providers, the program at JFK will be adversely affected. As the result of JFK's loss of approximately 106 cases, its net income could also be reduced up to $2.6 million. By contrast, programs at Lawnwood or Martin Memorial would have a negligible impact on JFK. The existing program at Palm Beach Gardens would suffer an adverse impact from the approval of programs at either St. Mary's or Martin Memorial. The adverse impact of a program at Martin Memorial is greater. Palm Beach Gardens could lose from 128 to 142 cases in the first year and from 179 to 198 cases in the third year in the worst case scenarios, depending on whether the use rate declines or remains constant. In addition, the further development of the VHA Network proposed by some District 9 hospitals, including Martin Memorial, as a means to attract managed care contracts, would enhance referrals to an open heart surgery program at Martin Memorial. Reasonable estimates of the financial loss to Palm Beach Gardens range between $2.8 and $3.1 million, although Palm Beach Gardens, with $9 million in annual income, would still be profitable. While the numeric calculations required in Rule 59C-1.033(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code, indicate that there will be enough total open heart surgeries to allow each of the existing providers to continue to exceed 350 operations, Palm Beach Gardens would be disproportionately, adversely affected by a program at Martin Memorial, as would JFK by a program at a St. Mary's. As the lowest volume provider, JFK is also at greater risk of dropping below the 350 minimum level established as indicative of the quality of care. Subsection 408.035(1)(m) - costs and methods of construction With total project costs of $4.99 million, Lawnwood's proposal to construct two new, dedicated operating rooms is the most expensive. Martin Memorial's cost of $3.59 million includes new construction of one and renovation of another operating room. St. Mary's low project cost of $2.16 reflects the fact that renovations rather than new construction is planned. The advantages of new construction, however, are that the size of the operating rooms will exceed general state requirements, and comply with recommendations developed specifically for open heart surgery. See, Findings of Fact 58, infra. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed service to Medicaid and medically indigent patients Based on history and proposed service, the applicants rank, in order, St. Mary's, Lawnwood, and Martin Memorial in complying with the criterion. See, Findings of Fact 28 and 32, supra. Subsection 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care in multilevel system, including acute, skilled nursing, and home health care The applicants failed to distinguish their proposals on the basis of this statutory criterion. Other Criticisms of the Applications St. Mary's has a 16-bed intensive care unit, 4 of those beds will require no additional equipment to be used to provide post-operative care for open heart surgery patients. The 4 beds are located adjacent to the intended open heart surgery operating suite. The proposed 4-bed ICU was criticized for being too crowded, and inadequately designed to allow adequate patient observation and monitoring, and for not being dedicated solely to open heart surgery patients. The 16-bed unit has experienced over 90 percent occupancy rates, but some of those patients have required the staffing, but not the equipment available in the intensive care unit. St. Mary's acknowledged potential capacity problems, but has the ability to create additional step-down unit beds to relieve the ICU unit, when necessary. In addition, outpatient surgeries were scheduled to be performed in a separate facility beginning in July 1994. While some clinicians may prefer a separate ICU, there was no evidence of any requirements that open heart surgery patients receive post-operative care in a separate ICU, nor that the lack of a specialized unit means a lack of staff capable of caring for such patients. St. Mary's project involves the renovation of a total of 1731 square feet, 764 net square feet of that in the main operating room on the first floor. The back-up operating room at St. Mary's is 480 square feet, below the American College of Cardiologists' recommendation and 1992 Federal Guidelines of a minimum of 600 and up to 800 square feet. Despite the term "back-up," expert testimony established the need for regular use of both operating rooms, one for regularly scheduled procedures and one for emergencies which occur within the cardiac cath lab or the post-operative intensive care unit. The size of St. Mary's back-up operating room meets state requirements for operating rooms, which do not differentiate on the basis of the type of surgery. St. Mary's also demonstrated that open heart surgeries are performed in comparably sized or smaller operating rooms at JFK. The space allocated to Lawnwood's 4-bed open heart surgery recovery room was criticized as inadequate to accommodate the equipment and personnel required to monitor and, if necessary, to revive post-operative patients. The space allocated complies with state licensure requirements. Reconfiguration of the beds and equipment in the space is permissible, if necessary, in final construction documents which must be approved by AHCA. Lawnwood's proposal was also criticized because the CVICU will be located three stories above the surgical area and recovery rooms. There was no evidence that the location of the CVICU violated licensure requirements or compromised the quality of care. The use of restricted elevator access between the surgical/recovery area and the CVICU is reasonable. AHCA favored the applications of both Lawnwood and Martin over that of St. Mary's due to their locations outside Palm Beach County. Having been told by staff that it was then a "toss up" between the two, AHCA's Division Director selected Martin Memorial. The Division Director, Dr. James Howell, is a former Deputy District Administrator for AHCA District 9 and former County Health Director for Palm Beach County. In explaining his decision, Dr. Howell testified as follows: Q. Ultimately, sir, you recommended to Ms. Dudek that Martin be approved rather than Lawnwood; isn't that correct, sir? A. Yes, sir. In our mutual discussions we had a discussion about two. To be straightforward, the reason that I'd recommended Martin was that Martin is a long-term community hospital with local community responsiveness or local community board of directors, as far as I know, and that AHCA owned - now I believe, it's part of the Columbia system, was in St. Lucie County and was a newer hospital, and that, you know, I felt more comfortable with giving the first CON in the area to a group that had a long heritage and commitment to the area, even though I can tell you I can't say anything negative about AHCA in dealings with them. Q. Or Columbia? A. Or Columbia; right. I can't say anything. That's not meant to be prejudicial with them. They did a good job with us, with maternity/child health. Q. You did approach this batch, did you not, sir, with a bias towards Martin Memorial because you knew the institution had been there a long, long time and was a very stable institution; isn't that correct? A. That is quite correct, yes, sir. See, Transcript, p. 251. The court reporter's references to "AHCA" are corrected and understood, in this context, to refer to HCA or Hospital Corporation of America. The statutory and rule criteria, on balance, demonstrate that open heart surgery programs at Martin Memorial or Lawnwood are more likely to improve access, to meet projected volumes, and to be financially feasible. Of these two, however, Lawnwood is better situated to reverse district out-migration, and has to be preferred, under the state and local health plans and subsection 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, for its history of providing a disproportionate share of its services to Medicaid and charity patients. Finally, the most significant distinction between the applicants is that the quality of care at existing providers, as measured by their volumes of open heart surgeries, will not be adversely affected by the approval of a new program at Lawnwood. Application Content AHCA accepted Martin Memorial's application, although two different letters of intent for mutually exclusive open heart surgery programs were filed simultaneously by Martin Memorial, one for a program shared with Indian River Memorial, and one for a separate program. Martin Memorial's application also, arguably exceeds the scope of its Board approval by including renovation of a portion of the surgical intensive care unit ("SICU"). AHCA accepted Martin Memorial's proposal to allocate the cost of 4 of 13 SICU beds to the open heart surgery project. As a practical matter, Martin Memorial's witnesses concede, the 4 beds cannot be constructed independently. The Board separately authorized the filing of an expedited CON for the SICU construction and renovations. In an Additional Motion For Summary Recommended Order Palm Beach Gardens' submitted correspondence between AHCA and Martin Memorial attempting to establish that the separate SICU CON has expired. AHCA accepted Lawnwood's application without a construction period pro forma, and without identification of the ultimate parent corporation of the subsidiary, Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency For Health Care Administration enter a Final Order issuing Certificate of Need 7245 to Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., denying Certificate of Need 7244 to St. Mary's Hospital, Inc., and denying Certificate of Need 7243 to Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4908 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Lawnwood's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. 6-12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 14-20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 23-39. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 40-47. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 48-61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. 62-64. Accepted in relative terms or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 65-70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. 71-73. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 28. 74-86. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 2, 23 and 27. 87. Issue not reached. 88-94. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. 95. Rejected in part and accepted in part in Findings of Fact 24. 96-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. 101-105. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 24. 106-111. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 22-29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 120-122. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31. 123-131. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 43, and 48. 132-133. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 134-146. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 45, 48 and conclusions of law 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48. 139-141. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 142-147. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48. 148-152. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8 and 53. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 53. 155-164. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. 165-173. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 174. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 38 and 43. 175-176. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 38 and 43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 180-181. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38. 182-187. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 188. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61. Petitioner, Palm Beach Gardens' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13 and 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 16. 10-15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. Rejected in conclusions of law 69. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53. Rejected in Findings of Fact 2 and 27. 19-25. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 33. 26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 27-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 45-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18-19 and 27-28. 49-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51 and 52. 53. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 27. 54-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 33. 56-60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 61. Rejected "substantially" in Findings of Fact 52. 62-72. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16, 27, and 33. 73-76. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 77-84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 85-92. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27,28 and 34. 93-103. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. 104-105. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. 106. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 107-109. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 32. 110-111. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. 112-125. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. 126. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 127-141. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23 and 24. 142. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7 and 23. 143-145. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 23. 146-151. Issue not reached. 152-158. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 159-160. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. 161-162. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 165-167. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 168-169. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 170. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-30. 171-172. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 47. 173. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. 174-184. Rejected or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47. 185-187. Rejected or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43 and 47. 188-193. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. 194-199. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. 200. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 201-208. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 209. Rejected. 210-218. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 219. Rejected conclusion as to "substantial" in Findings of Fact 52. 220-229. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 230. Rejected conclusion as to "substantial" in Findings of Fact 52. Petitioner, St. Mary's, Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Facts 3 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 10-12. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 12. 13-14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. 15-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 18-24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 25-26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 44-46. 27-29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected in Findings of Facts 44-46. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 44. 33-35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. 36. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. 37 Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 60. 41-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56 and 57. 45-54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. 55. Rejected in Findings of Fact 35. 56-57. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 58. Conclusion rejected, although access is limited by comparison to commercially insured patients, See, Findings of Fact 34. 59-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 67-73. Accepted in Findings of Facts 9, 28 and 32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Rejected as significant benefit in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted (as both interests can be better accomplished) in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 80-81. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. Rejected as valid in Findings of Fact 34. 86-88. Accepted in Findings of Facts 27 and 36. 89-91. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25-26. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 27. 97-98. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 35. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. 103-104. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. 105. Accepted in Findings of Fact 37. 106-107. Rejected in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. Rejected in Findings of Fact 47. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48. Rejected in Findings of Fact 24. Intervenor, JFK Medical Center, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. 4-6. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement. 7-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 16 and 27. 13-19. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18 Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. 23 Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 33. 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 36. 25-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 33. 28-31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 32-34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 34. 35-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. 45-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 49-50. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 52-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 44-46. 58. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 44-46. 59-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. 67-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. 76-78. Rejected in Findings of Fact 59. 79-80. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 81-82. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57. 83-84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 85. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. 86-89. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in general or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-8. 2. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9-12. 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13-15. 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 18. 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6 and 19. 6. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 2. 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 13,14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6, 28 and 32. 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, 28 and 32. 16,17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. 20,21. Accepted in part in Findings of Facts 23 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25, 26 and 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5, 9 and 13. Rejected conclusion in terms of other indicators in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 9, 13 and 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 30-33. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23-26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 34-37. 36-37. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. 38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 32 and 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted conclusion in Findings of Fact 52. 46-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23-26 and 38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 14 and 24. Accepted if last line changed from "St. Mary's" to "Lawnwood" in Findings of Fact 27, 36 and 37. 51-52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40 and 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 44-46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29 and 51. Respondent, Martin Memorial's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. 5-6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7, 11 and 14. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23 and 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 14-15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 49. 20-21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 62. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Conclusions of Law 74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38. 27-28. Rejected conclusion that program is superior in terms of quality of care in Findings of Fact 38. 29-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in general or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. 33-34.. Accepted conclusion in Findings of Fact 43. 35-37. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23-26. 38-40. Conclusion rejected in substantial part in Findings of Fact 23. 41-43. Accepted in substantial part in Findings of Fact 24. 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. 45-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48. 49-50. Rejected in Findings of Fact 66 and 67. 51-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Rejected conclusion in part in Findings of Fact 23 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. 55-59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 34. 60. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 32. 61-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. 63. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 23 and 27. 64-65. Rejected as to alternatives for "residents most likely" to the extent that is inconsistent with need in relation to state plan, in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51 and 52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Rejected in Findings of Fact 52. 69-70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22 and 30. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 23 and 24. Accepted except last sentence in Findings of Fact 27. 74-75. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 76-77. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Rejected conclusion or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 80-82. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 (Counsel for St. Mary's Hospital) Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire David C. Ashburn, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, et al. Suite 2000 111 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (Counsel for Palm Beach Gardens Community Hospital) Elizabeth McArthur, Esquire 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (Counsel for Lawnwood Medical Center) Leslie Mendelson, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Byron B. Mathews, Jr., Esquire 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire John M. Knight, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Conclusions Sovereign immunity extends to “corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities . . . of the state, county, or municipalities.” See § 68.28(2), F.S.; Pagan v. Sarasota County Public Hospital Board, 884 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). MRHS was deemed to be an instrumentality of the hospital district by the Attorney General in an opinion dated December 8, 2006 and the circuit court in Marion County has reached the same conclusion in several cases. As a result, MRHS is entitled to sovereign immunity under § 768.28, F.S. The public policy basis for extending sovereign immunity to private entities such as MRHS has recently been questioned by two appellate courts. See University of Florida Board of Trustees v. Morris, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1803 (Fla 2d DCA July 27, 2007) (Altenbernd, J., concurring), rev. denied, 2008 Fla LEXIS (Fla. Jan. 7, 2008); Andrews v. Shands at Lakeshore, Inc., 33 Fla. L. Weekly D30 (Fla 1st DCA Dec. 20, 2007). The nurses are employees of MRHS and they were acting within the scope of their employment when providing services to Tyler. As a result, the nurses’ negligence is attributable to MRHS. The nurses had a duty to provide competent medical care to Tyler. They breached this duty and violated the standards of care for nursing personnel by failing to report the cyanotic episodes to Dr. Pierre and by failing to properly perform the four-extremity blood pressure test. The nurses’ actions and inactions contributed to the delayed diagnosis of Tyler’s heart condition. However, Dr. Pierre’s failure to order an immediate cardiology consultation when she detected a heart murmur shortly after Tyler’s birth also contributed to the delayed diagnosis of Tyler’s heart condition. The delayed diagnosis of Tyler’s heart condition led to his “crash” on December 16 because it is more likely than not that Tyler would have been transferred to Shands or another tertiary facility had his condition been diagnosed sooner. Tyler was not a candidate for the second and third stages of the Norwood procedure because of the damage caused by the “crash,” and he also suffered brain damage during the “crash” that caused his developmental delay. The amount of damages agreed to by MRHS is reasonable, even though Dr. Pierre likely shares some of the responsibility for Tyler’s condition. Indeed, the life care plan prepared for Tyler reflects that the cost of a transplant is between $650,000 and $700,000 and Tyler is expected to require multiple transplants over the course of his life. Moreover, the non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) of Tyler and his parents could very well have exceeded the settlement amount had the case gone to jury trial. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: This is the first year that this claim has been presented to the Legislature. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LOBBYIST’S FEES: The claimants’ attorney provided an affidavit stating that that attorney’s fees will be capped at 25 percent of the amount awarded by the claim bill in accordance with §768.28(8), F.S. Lobbyist’s fees are not included in the 25 percent attorney’s fees. Lobbyist’s fees will be an additional 4 percent of the amount awarded by the claim bill, which would be $28,000 based upon the $700,000 claim. The Legislature is free to limit the fees and costs paid in connection with a claim bill as it sees fit. See Gamble v. Wells, 450 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1984). The bill does so by stating that “[t]he total amount paid for attorney’s fees, lobbying fees, costs and other similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25 percent of the amount awarded [by the bill].” If this language remains in the bill (and the bill is amended as recommended below to reflect the allocation approved by the circuit court), the claimants will receive a total of $525,000, with $393,750 going into Tyler’s special needs trust and $131,250 going to his parents. The remaining $175,000 will go to attorney’s fees, costs, and lobbyist’s fees. If this language was not in the bill (and the bill is amended as recommended below to reflect the allocation approved by the circuit court), the claimants would receive approximately $362,000, with approximately $271,500 going into Tyler’s special needs trust and approximately $90,500 going to his parents. The claimants’ attorney would receive a total of approximately $310,000 ($175,000 for attorney’s fees and approximately $135,000 for costs), and the lobbyist would receive $28,000. OTHER ISSUES: The bill identifies the Marion County Hospital District as the entity responsible for payment of the claim. The parties agree, and I recommend that the bill be amended to reflect MRHS as the entity responsible for payment because it is responsible for operating the hospital pursuant to a lease from the hospital district. The bill requires the entire claim to be paid into Tyler’s special needs trust. The parties agree, and I recommend that the bill be amended to require payment of the claim in accordance with the allocation approved by the circuit court, i.e., 75 percent into Tyler’s special needs trust and 25 percent to his parents. The bill requires any funds remaining in Tyler’s special needs trust upon his death to revert to the General Revenue Fund. The parties agree, and I recommend that the bill be amended to remove this language because the bill is being paid from the hospital’s funds, not State funds. The bill should be also amended to include the standard language requiring payment of Medicaid liens prior to disbursing any funds to the claimants. See § 409.910, F.S. RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that Senate Bill 68 (2008) be reported FAVORABLY, as amended. Respectfully submitted, cc: Senator Charlie Dean Representative Marcelo Llorente Faye Blanton, Secretary of the Senate T. Kent Wetherell Senate Special Master House Committee on Constitution and Civil Law Tony DePalma, House Special Master Counsel of Record
The Issue Whether the adult open heart surgery rule in effect at the time the certificate of need (CON) applications were filed, and until January 24, 2002, or the rule as amended on that date is applicable to this case. Which, if any, of the applications filed by Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (Martin Memorial); Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda); and Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCH) meet the requirements for a CON to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Health Planning District 9, for Okeechobee, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the agency which administers the certificate of need (CON) program for health care facilities and programs in Florida. It is also the designated state health planning agency. See Subsection 408.034(1), Florida Statutes. For health planning purposes, AHCA District 9 includes Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. See Subsection 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero for additional open heart surgery programs in District 9, for the January 2002, planning horizon. The mathematical need formula in the rule, using the use rate for open heart surgery procedures in the district as applied to the projected population growth, indicated a gross numeric need for 7.9 programs in District 9. After rounding off the decimal and subtracting four, for the number of existing District 9 open heart surgery programs, the formula showed a numerical need for four additional ones. The need number defaulted to zero, however, because one of the existing programs, at Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (Lawnwood), had not reached the required minimum of 350 surgeries a year, or 29 cases a month for 12 months prior to the quarter in which need was published. Having initiated services in March 1999, the Lawnwood program had not been operational for 12 months at the time the applications were filed in October 1999. The other existing providers of adult open heart services in District 9, in addition to Lawnwood, are Palm Beach Gardens Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center (PBGMC); Columbia/JFK Medical Center Limited Partnership, d/b/a JFK Medical Center (JFK); and Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Delray Medical Center (Delray). All are intervening parties to this proceeding. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed that the Intervenors have standing to participate in this proceeding. Despite the publication of zero numeric need, five hospitals in District 9 applied for CONs to establish new adult open heart programs asserting need based on not normal circumstances. Three of those applications are at issue in this case: CON Number 9249 filed by Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (Martin Memorial); CON Number 9250 by Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda); and CON Number 9248 by Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCH). AHCA initially reviewed and denied all of the applications. After changing its position before the final hearing, AHCA supports the approval of the applications filed by Martin Memorial and BRCH. Martin Memorial Martin Memorial, the only hospital in Martin County, and the only party/applicant not located in Palm Beach County, operates two facilities, a total of 336 beds, on two separate campuses under a single license. The larger hospital, in Stuart, has 236 beds and is located approximately 20 miles south of Lawnwood and 30 miles north of PBGMC. Martin Memorial owns and maintains, at the hospital, its own ambulance service used exclusively for hospital-to-hospital transfers. The drive from Martin Memorial to Lawnwood averages 38 minutes. The drive time to PBGMC averages 48 minutes. By helicopter, it takes 11 or 12 minutes to get from Martin Memorial to PBGMC. The remaining 100 Martin Memorial Hospital beds are located on its southern campus, approximately six miles south of the Stuart facility. Martin Memorial is a private not-for-profit hospital, established in 1939. The parent corporation also operates an ambulatory care center, physician group, billing and collection company, and a foundation. Martin Memorial is applying to operate an open heart program at its Stuart location, where it currently offers cardiology, hematology, nephrology, pulmonary, infectious disease, pathology, blood bank, anesthesiology, diagnostic nuclear medicine, and intensive care services. Martin Memorial has a 25-bed telemetry unit, a 14-bed medical intensive care unit, a nine-bed surgical intensive care unit, and a 22-bed progressive care unit, with an identically equipped 16-bed overflow unit used only for high seasonal occupancy, from approximately December to April. If its CON is approved, Martin Memorial will dedicate four surgical intensive care unit beds and six progressive care beds for post-open heart surgery patients. Martin Memorial agreed to condition its CON on the provision of 2.4% of the project's gross revenues for charity care and 2% for Medicaid. The total estimated project cost is $6.5 million. Martin Memorial intends to affiliate with the University of Florida and its teaching facility, Shands Hospital, to assist in establishing the program and training staff. The cardiovascular surgeon is expected to be a full-time faculty member who will live and work in Martin County. Although initially opposed, AHCA now supports Martin Memorial’s application primarily because (1) it has the largest cardiac catheterization (cath) program at any hospital in this state which does not also provide open heart services; (2) it has a medium size and growing Medicare population, which constitutes the age group most likely to require open heart surgery and related services; (3) Martin County residents now must receive open heart and related services at hospitals outside Martin County, primarily in areas ranging from Palm Beach County south to Dade County; (4) emergency heart attack patients who present at Martin Memorial-Stuart could receive primary angioplasties without transfer; and (5) it is a not-for-profit hospital, while all of the existing open heart providers in the District are for- profit corporate subsidiaries. Of the applicants, Martin Memorial is also located the greatest distance from the existing providers. Bethesda Memorial Bethesda has 362 licensed beds located in Boynton Beach. JFK is nine miles north or an average drive of 18 minutes from Bethesda. Delray is nine miles south or an average drive of 17 minutes from Bethesda. Established in February 1959, Bethesda is a not-for- profit subsidiary of Bethesda Health Care Systems, Inc., which also operates some for-profit subsidiaries, including Bethesda Medical/Surgical Specialists, Bethesda Management Services, and Bethesda Comprehensive Cancer Institute. Bethesda is a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid and Medicare services. The services currently available at Bethesda include obstetrics, Level II and III neonatal intensive care, cardiology, orthopedics, pediatrics, neurological and stroke care, peripheral vascular surgery, wound care, pulmonary and infectious disease care. Bethesda recently eliminated a 20-bed unit for adult psychiatric services, and a 20-bed skilled nursing unit. Currently, at Bethesda, the sickest patients are placed in a 10-bed critical care unit. The hospital also operates a 12- bed surgical intensive care unit, an eight-bed medical intensive care unit, and 30 and 25-bed telemetry units. Bethesda was planning to open a 20-bed extension to the telemetry unit, all in private rooms, in January 2002. If an open heart surgery program is established, Bethesda, will add an eight-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit to care post-operatively for the patients. Bethesda offered to condition its CON on the provision of 3% of total open heart surgeries to Medicaid and 3% of total open heart surgeries to indigent patients. Bethesda's estimated total project cost is $4 million, $1.7 million for equipment, and $2.24 for construction. Bethesda will receive assistance from Orlando Regional Medical Center in training personnel and developing protocols for an open heart program. At Orlando Regional, a statutory teaching hospital, the number of open heart cases ranges from 1,300 to 1,600 a year. Bethesda has a contract with a physicians' group to provide a board-certified cardiovascular surgeon to serve as medical director for the open heart program. AHCA’s position is that the Bethesda application is "approvable" but, of the Palm Beach County applicants, less desirable than that of BRCH. By contrast, Bethesda's experts emphasized (1) the absence of any overlap with the Lawnwood market; (2) the greater need for a new program, based on the volume of cases, in Palm Beach County than elsewhere in the District; (3) the size, growth, and age of the population within Bethesda's market area, and (4) the ability of Bethesda to enhance access for underserved groups, particularly Medicaid patients. Boca Raton Community Hospital BRCH is licensed for 394 beds. Located in southern Palm Beach County, close to the Broward County line, BRCH is from eight to nine miles south of Delray and approximately 15 miles north of North Ridge Medical Center (North Ridge), in adjacent Broward County. On average, the drive from BRCH to Delray takes 20 minutes. The drive from BRCH to North Ridge takes about 25 minutes. Founded in the late 1960's, BRCH operates as a not-for- profit corporation. BRCH has a staff of 750 physicians and 1,600 employees. Services at BRCH include cardiology, a 10-bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit, hematology, nephrology, pulmonology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and neurology. If approved and issued a CON for adult open heart surgery, BRCH will build a new facility for the program, including two new cath labs, an electrophysiology lab and 12 intensive care beds. In the CON, the estimated construction cost was $16.5 million and the estimated equipment cost was $2.7 million of the $20 million estimated for the total project. BRCH agreed to having conditions on its CON (1) to provide 5% of open heart cases in year two to uninsured patients, (2) to establish an outreach program to increase the utilization of open heart services among the uninsured, and (3) to relinquish the CON if it fails to perform at least 350 open heart surgery procedures a year in any two consecutive years after the end of the second year of operations. AHCA determined that it should change its initial position opposing the approval of the BRCH application to one of approval because of (1) the large Medicare population in the service area; (2) the volume of emergency room heart attack patients; (3) the district out-migration for services primarily to North Ridge; (4) the large, well-developed interventional cardiology program; and (5) the not-for-profit organizational structure. When AHCA decided to support the approval of the BRCH application, it did so, in part, based on erroneous data. The cath lab volume was assumed to be approximately 1,800 caths a year, as compared to the actual volume of 667 caths for the year ending March 2001. Having considered the corrected data, AHCA’s expert described BRCH’s application as significantly less compelling, but still preferable to that of Bethesda. BRCH is the largest hospital in number of beds in Florida which does not have an open heart surgery program. AHCA also responded favorably to identified "cultural" access issues, described as underservice to demographic groups, based on race, gender, and class. BRCH presented a plan to equip a mobile unit to provide diagnostic screenings and primary care in underserved areas. Pre-Hearing Stipulations The parties stipulated that all of the applications met the statutory requirements concerning the application content and filing procedures of Sections 408.037 and 408.039, Florida Statutes (1999), and Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code. Martin Memorial, Bethesda, and BRCH have a history of providing quality care. See Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). There are no existing outpatient, ambulatory or home care services which can be used as alternatives to inpatient adult open heart and angioplasty services. See Subsection 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). Martin Memorial and Bethesda have sufficient available funds for capital and operating expenses required for their proposed open heart surgery programs. See Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1999). Martin Memorial complied with the requirements related to costs and methods of construction, and equipment for the proposed project. Except for the contention that it omitted $1,687,180 in fixed equipment costs and that the proposed construction project is excessively large and expensive, the parties stipulated that BRCH reasonably estimated construction and equipment costs, including costs and methods of energy provision. See Subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1999). The parties agreed that Subsections 408.035(1)(p), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes, related to nursing home beds, are not at issue at in this proceeding. If Bethesda, BRCH, and Martin Memorial can recruit the necessary, competent nursing and surgical staff, they will meet the requirements of Rule 59C-1.033(3), (4)(b), (4)(c), and (5)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Adult open heart surgery services are currently available to District 9 residents within the two-hour travel standard of Rule 59C-1.033(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Bethesda, BRCH, and Martin Memorial are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), assuring quality as required by Rule 59C-1.033(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The parties agreed that if Bethesda, BRCH, and Martin Memorial can recruit the necessary nursing and surgical personnel, their programs would meet the requirements of Rule 59C-1.033(4)(b), (4)(c), (5)(b), and (5)(c), Florida Administrative Code, except that JFK and Lawnwood did not agree that the applicants satisfied the requirements related to cardiovascular surgeons. Martin Memorial will be able to obtain perfusionist services, as required by Rule 59C-1.033(5)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code. Bethesda and BRCH projected reasonable staffing patterns, in their CON schedules 6A, given projected census levels, although the ability to recruit staff and adequacy of projected salaries are at issue. The rule criteria related to pediatric open heart surgery are not applicable to this proceeding. Disputed Statutory and Rule Criteria The following statutory criteria and applicable in this case: Subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (c) - for comparison; (e), (f), (g), (h) - related to funding for BRCH, and related to staff recruitment and salaries; (i), (j), (k), (l), (m) - for Bethesda, and related to the size, scope, and fixed equipment cost for BRCH, (n), and (o); and Subsections 408.035(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes. The criteria in Rules 59C-1.030, and of Rule 59C-1.033(5)(b) - related to staffing, except as stipulated - are at issue. The parties have also raised the issue of whether AHCA is consistent in applying its agency rules related to open heart cases. The District 9 health plan contains two preferences for open heart applicant hospitals, the first for hospitals with established cardiac cath programs, the second for applicants with a documented commitment to serve patients regardless of their ability to pay or county of residence. All of the applicants have established diagnostic cardiac cath programs and related cardiology services. During the cardiac cath procedure, a catheter is inserted into a cardiac chamber to diagnose heart disease. During a therapeutic cardiac cath procedure, or angioplasty, the catheter with a balloon-tip is inserted into a coronary artery and inflated to open blockages. The latter requires open heart surgery back-up in case a vessel is ruptured and thus, an open heart surgery certificate of need. Martin Memorial operates the largest cardiac cath program at a hospital in Florida which does not also offer open heart surgery. At Martin Memorial, 1,885 inpatient and outpatient caths were performed in 1999, 1,770 in 2000, and 1,286 in the first nine months of 2001. Cardiac caths are only performed at the Stuart facility. Non-invasive cardiology services began in the 1970's at Martin Memorial. A CON to establish the first cardiac cath lab was issued in 1989, and a second, CON-exempt cath lab opened in 1998. Martin Memorial also offers pacemaker implants and peripheral angioplasties to eliminate clots in other areas of the body, for example, in the legs, electrocardiography, echocardiography, stress tests, and cardiac rehabilitation. Neither electrophysiology studies nor defibrillator implants are performed at Martin Memorial. Martin Memorial has an open staff of cardiologists, meaning that its cath lab is available for use by any of the invasive cardiologists on staff. The facilities include two cardiac cath procedure rooms, a control room for the laboratory, a five-bed holding room and a two-bay inpatient recovery area. Bethesda also has an established cardiac cath program with an open staff. Seventeen cathing physicians were listed on the Bethesda roster for the month of March 2001. Of those, five were also the only cardiologists allowed to perform caths at the closed lab at JFK. Some of these cardiologists are permitted to perform emergency angioplasties at Bethesda. Bethesda has, at least, two cardiovascular surgeons on staff. From 1995 to 1998, the volume of cardiac caths at Bethesda increased over 60%, from 133 to 213. For the 12 months ending August 31, 2000, Bethesda cardiologists performed 428 caths. For the 12 months ending September 30, 2001, the cath volume was 506 cases. Currently, cath procedures at Bethesda are performed in one lab with recently upgraded digital equipment. As part of the planned expansion of the hospital, the existing lab will be relocated and a second one added. Permanent pacemakers are implanted at Bethesda, but internal cardioverter defibrillator procedures, electrophysiology, and table studies are not performed. Cardiac cath services, at BRCH, started in 1987. Two cath labs with state-of-the-art digital equipment are used. In the 12 months ending March 31, 2001, there were 667 inpatient and outpatient caths performed at BRCH. Currently, cardiac services at BRCH are the largest source of admissions, approximately 20% of total admissions. The available services include echocardiography, tilt table studies, electrocardiography, stress tests, cardiac wellness and rehabilitation programs, electrophysiology studies, and internal cardioverter defibrillator implants. Each year, one or two "rescue" or salvage angioplasties are performed in extreme, life- threatening circumstances at BRCH. Forty-nine cardiologists are on the closed "invitation-only" medical staff at BRCH, 47 are board-certified and approximately half are invasive cardiologists. The staff also includes seven electrophysiologists, five of whom are board-certified, and seven thoracic surgeons, five of whom perform open heart surgeries at other hospitals. For the first two years of operating an open heart program, BRCH intends to have a closed program, by virtue of an exclusive contract with a single group of cardiovascular surgeons. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - district health plan preference for serving patients regardless of county of residence or ability to pay; and Subsection 408.035 (1)(n) - history of and proposed services to Medicaid and indigent patients Martin Memorial, Bethesda, and BRCH will serve patients regardless of residence and, they contend, will enhance access for Medicaid, indigent, charity and/or self-pay patients. Each applicant has offered to care for patients in some of these categories as a condition for CON approval. The proposed conditions, are, for Martin Memorial, 2.4% of total project revenues for charity and 2% of admissions for Medicaid patients. Martin Memorial provides a number of services without charge, including follow-up education to former inpatients to assist them in managing diseases such as asthma, diabetes, congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Obstetric care includes one free home visit by a nurse/midwife to check the health of newborns and mothers. Office space is provided for a free clinic for the "working poor" of Martin County, which receives approximately 10,000 annual visits from a patient base of about 2,000 patients. Over $100,000 a year is provided for an indigent pharmacy program. Combining the outreach services with other charitable contributions, including charity care, Martin Memorial valued "community benefits" at $24 million in 1998, $30.5 million in 2000. When Martin Memorial received an inpatient cardiac cath CON, it agreed to provide a minimum of 2.5% of total cardiac caths to Medicaid patients and 3% to charity care. Due to changes in state regulation, Medicaid and charity care for cardiac caths no longer needs to be reported to the state. That data, representing as it does, the base of patients from which open heart cases will come, is useful in evaluating Martin Memorial's projections. In 1999, seven-tenths of one percent of the patients in Martin Memorial's cath lab were Medicaid and four-tenths of one percent were indigent. In 2000, seven-tenths of one percent were Medicaid and two-tenths of one percent were indigent. Martin's cath lab data indicates that its projected open heart levels of Medicaid and indigent care are not attainable. Bethesda offered a commitment to provide 3% of total open heart cases for Medicaid patients and 3% to indigent patients annually. Historically, Bethesda has cared for a relatively large number of Medicaid, minority, and indigent patients. It is recognized as a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid care under the Florida program and of Medicare under the Federal program. The Palm Beach County Health Department provides approximately $1 million a year to Bethesda for charity care. As a percentage of gross revenue, Bethesda provided 8.8% Medicaid and 3.46% charity care in 1999. Approximately 54% of the charity care is attributable to obstetrics and pediatric services. Bethesda's younger patient base and the number of adult open heart Medicaid cases from Bethesda's service area, 2.4% or 7 cases in the year ending September 2000, raise the issue of its ability to generate sufficient cases to meet the proposed commitment. In 1995, 20 of the 36 total resident Medicaid open heart surgeries were performed at the three providers in District 9, Delray, JFK, and PBGMC. In 1999, when Lawnwood began open heart care, the Medicaid volume at the District providers increased to 51 of the 64 total Medicaid resident cases. In 2000, the four programs treated a net number of 56 of 60 resident Medicaid cases. A program at Bethesda also could reasonably be expected to increase the number of Medicaid and charity cases performed in the District, in volume and by reversing outmigration, but the patients must come from a base of patients with cardiac diagnoses. For the year ending September 2000, in Bethesda's service area, 4.9% of cardiac patients were Medicaid and charity patients combined, 1.6% Medicaid and 3.3% charity. Assuming that the same proportions could be maintained for open heart surgeries, Bethesda cannot achieve 3% Medicaid and, although unlikely, has a chance of reaching 3% charity only in the best case scenario. If approved, BRCH commits to providing 5% of total OHS in the second year to uninsured patients and to establish an outreach program to increase utilization by uninsured patients. BRCH has, over the past three and a half years, established outreach programs, which include having nurses and social workers in schools, providing free physical examinations to children who do not have primary care doctors, and performing echocardiograms for high school athletes, equipping police and fire rescue units with portable defibrillators, and operating mobile units for mammography screenings and vans to transport patients to and from their homes for hospital care. A free dental screening program is operated in conjunction with Nova Southeastern University. BRCH also operates a family medical center approximately seven miles west of the hospital. Recently, the Foundation for BRCH purchased, for $1.8 million, a large bus to equip as a mobile clinic. The mobile diagnostic unit is intended to reach uninsured patients to provide primary care and ultimately open heart surgery care to those who might not otherwise be screened, diagnosed and referred. No information was available and no decisions had been made about the staff and equipment, or service areas for use of the van. Because of the lack of more specific plans, it is impossible to determine whether the outreach effort has any reasonable prospects for success in meeting any unmet need. For the years ending June 1996, 1997, and 1998, BRCH provided six-tenths of one percent, and five-tenths of one percent of gross revenues for charity care. In 2000, BRCH provided one-half of one percent for charity care and, in 2001, twenty-seventh hundreds of a percent. The historical levels do not support the proposed commitment of 5% of open heart surgeries for uninsured patients in the second year of the program. Although worded to apply only to the second year, BRCH's President and CEO testified concerning the condition without limiting it to the second year. In Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc.'s Proposed Recommended Order (Reformatted), filed on July 5, 2002, the condition is described as follows: 49. As conditions of CON approval, Boca will, beginning in the second year of operation of the program and continuing thereafter, provide a minimum of five percent each year of OHS cases to uninsured patients, and establish an outreach program to locate and provide OHS and cardiology services to uninsured patients in Palm Beach County. (Boca Ex. 3 at Schedule C; Pierce, 1899). Boca reasonably decided to focus on the needs of the uninsured, rather than Medicaid patients, because of the low volume of Medicaid patients who require OHS services. (Pierce, 1902). At BRCH, Medicaid and Medicaid health maintenance organization (HMO) care as a percent of total ranged from 1.3% to 1.4% from 1996 through 1998. BRCH projected serving 1.2% to 1.3% open heart Medicaid cases, or four patients in the first year and 1.5% to 1.6%, or seven Medicaid patients in the second year. The projections are consistent with its history although BRCH offered no Medicaid condition. Bethesda and BRCH also claimed not normal circumstances exist in District 9 due to the disparity in open heart care for uninsured and Medicaid patients as compared to the insured. For uninsured residents of Palm Beach County during the twelve months ending June 30, 2000, the use rate was 4.7 per 1000, as compared to 21.8 per 1,000 for insured open heart patients. For angioplasty patients, the insured use rate was 38.2, but the uninsured rate was only 8.9. Assuming that the use rates should not be so different, the discrepancy in access for the uninsured is significant and unfortunate but was not shown to be a not normal circumstance in the health care delivery system. The applicants' proposals, unlikely as they are to meet even the proposed conditions, are inadequate to increase access materially for the uninsured. Comparisons of the level of Medicaid provided statewide to that provided in District 9 without consideration of other factors, including age and income levels, were not useful in analyzing access. Assertions that any discrepancy in care for potential Medicaid open heart patients constitutes a not normal circumstance are not substantiated by this evidence. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (2)(b) - availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing facilities in District Nine In 2006, the population in District 9 is projected to reach 1.2 million people, of which approximately 992,378 will reside in Palm Beach County, 119,573 in Martin County, 181,406 in St. Lucie County, 106,790 in Indian River County, and 31,140 in Okeechobee County. In District 9, throughout Florida, and in the United States, heart disease is the leading cause of death. In 2000, heart disease was the cause in 522 of 1,560 total deaths in Martin County, and 4,337 of 12,795 total deaths in Palm Beach County. From 1995 to 2000, the number of Florida residents having open heart surgeries increased 15.1%. During the same period of time, the number of District 9 resident cases, regardless of where the surgeries were performed, increased from 3,119, to 3,938, an increase of 755 OHS cases, or 24%. Palm Beach County residents represented 427 of the 755 increase, and 2,633 of the total of 3,938 resident cases. The distribution of the remaining 1,305 District resident cases by county was as follows: 597 from St. Lucie, 339 from Martin, 269 from Indian River, and 100 from Okeechobee County. More recent data, however, indicates trends towards a leveling off or even decline in the number, but an increase in the complexity of open heart procedures. Some experts describe open heart volumes having reached a "plateau" in the United States, in Florida, and in District 9. Last year, the number of open heart surgeries in the United States declined 22%. The statewide volume of cases was 32,199 in 1996, 33,507 in 1997, 34,013 in 1998, and 32,097 in 1999. At District 9 hospitals, open heart volumes were 1,670 in 1994, 1,841 in 1995, 2,152 in 1996, 2,407 in 1997, 2,527 in 1998, 2,656 in 1999, and 2,650 in 2000. Cardiac Catheterizations and Angioplasties The major reason given for the stable and declining open heart volume is the increase in the utilization of angioplasty, or therapeutic cardiac cathing, an alternative which costs less and is less invasive. Angioplasty procedures increased from 1995-2000, by over 2,500 cases for District 9 residents, and over 2,600 cases in District 9 hospitals, from 2,104 cases in 1995, to 4,714 in 2000. Among the procedures generally referred to as angioplasties are percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTCA) or balloon angioplasty, percutaneous transluminal coronary rotational atherectomy (PTCRA), and the insertion of scaffolding- like devices, called stents, to prevent re-occlusion of coronary arteries. In Florida, diagnostic cardiac caths may be performed at facilities which do not have angioplasty and open heart surgery programs, but angioplasties must be performed, except in rare emergency circumstances, only at hospitals which are licensed to provide open heart services, in case back-up surgery is needed. Lawnwood Regional Lawnwood is located in Fort Pierce, in St. Lucie County, which is second to Palm Beach County in population and in District 9 resident open heart cases. Lawnwood is owned by a subsidiary of HCA, the Hospital Corporation of America, formerly known as Columbia. HCA is a for-profit, investor-owned corporation which owns and operates approximately 200 hospitals in the United States. A $17 million addition at Lawnwood, designed for the open heart program, includes two dedicated operating rooms and a 12-bed intensive care unit. The Lawnwood program has a full-time staff of two surgeons and one additional surgeon who divides his time between Lawnwood and PBGMC. Lawnwood, having opened its program early in 1999, is not considered a mature program. In addition, Lawnwood has had some difficulties with accreditation and disputes with cardiologists. Lawnwood reported one open heart case in the first quarter of 1999, and 143 or 144 for the year. In calendar year 2000, between 330 to 340 open heart surgeries were performed at Lawnwood. In calendar year 2001, the volume was between 333 and 336 cases. Depending on the source of the data, the volume at Lawnwood was reported to be as high as 364 for the twelve months ending September 30, 2000; in a range from 336 to 396 for the twelve months ending March 31, 2001; and up to 412 for the twelve months ending July 2001. The variances result from seasonal patient utilization, and from AHCA’s use, for the fixed need pool, of the most current available data which it receives from the various local health councils. That data is submitted on handwritten or typed forms which are not uniform across districts. Subsequently, the hospitals provide electronic data tapes directly to AHCA, which if properly decoded, should provide more accurate statistics. While there may be variances either way, in this case, the lower volumes for Lawnwood were derived from the more reliable electronic tapes. Based on that data and the testimony of the cardiac surgeon who is the director of the program at Lawnwood, the annual volume of open heart surgeries was approximately 330 in 2000, and 348 in 2001. The new rule, adopted on January 24, 2002, reduces the minimum number required for existing programs to 300 a year, or 25 adult operations a month. The number of angioplasties performed at Lawnwood increased from 465 in 1999, to 845 in 2000. Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center South of the four relatively small northern counties in District 9, PBGMC has 204 beds located in northern Palm Beach County. It is a subsidiary of Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals (Tenet). Adult open heart surgery has been available at PBGMC since 1983. The surgeries are typically performed in two or three of the 11 operating rooms, although five are equipped to handle open heart cases. PBGMC has 94 telemetry beds, and 32 intensive care beds, eight designated for cardiovascular intensive care patients. PBGMC has four cardiac cath labs and separate electrophysiology labs. The medical staff of approximately 400 physicians includes about 200 cardiologists, 24 invasive cardiologists and seven cardiac surgeons. The number of open heart cases at PBGMC was 700 in 1994, 801 in 1995, 913 in 1996, 1,028 in 1997, 1,045 in 1998, 1,124 in 1999, 940 in 2000, and 871 in 2001. The number of angioplasties increased from 552 in 1994, to 1,019 in 1997, to 1,431 in 2000. JFK JFK, which has 387 beds, is located roughly in the center of Palm Beach County, in the City of Lake Worth. Like Lawnwood, JFK is an HCA's subsidiary, having been purchased by that corporation in 1995. Open heart services and cardiac cath services began simultaneously at JFK in 1987. JFK has three open heart operating rooms. JFK, after a major expansion, has a separate entrance to its three cardiac cath laboratories, a dedicated electrophysiology suite, for treatment of arrhythmias, and 17- patient holding area. JFK provides all cardiac services, except heart transplants. The average age of patients at JFK is 74 years old. The medical staff of 504 board-certified or board- eligible physicians includes 25 cardiologists, five invasive cardiologists, two electrophysiologists, and three cardiac surgeons. JFK has recently accepted applications from but not yet extended privileges to three additional cardiovascular surgeons. Volumes of open heart cases at JFK were, with some variances depending on the data source, approximately 428 in 1994, 434 in 1995, 630 in 1996, 674 in 1997, 711 in 1998, 613 in 1999, 621 in 2000, and 610 in 2001. The number of angioplasties ranged from 709 in 1994, to 1,152 in 1997, to 1,281 in 2000. Delray Delray, with 343 beds, in Delray Beach, is the trauma center for southern Palm Beach County. Open heart care began at Delray in 1986. The surgeries are currently performed in three of ten, but soon to be a total of twelve operating rooms with shelled-in spaces set aside for two more. Patients recover in a 15-bed surgical intensive care unit. The Delray medical staff of over 600 physicians has close to 60 cardiologists, including 15 invasive cardiologists and six cardiovascular surgeons. Delray has three cath lab rooms and seven bays for holding patients pre- and post-procedure. For the years 1994 through 2001, open heart volumes at Delray were 542, 606, 609, 705, 771, 758, 759, and 738, respectively. During the same period of time, the annual number of angioplasty procedures increased from 591 in 1994, to 810 in 1997, to 929 in 2000. The existing CON-planned and approved programs in the District are well distributed geographically and allocated appropriately based on population. Considering the declining utilization, the like and existing open heart surgery programs are available and accessible. Subsection 408.035(1)(f) - services that are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas Over 30% of District 9 resident open heart cases are performed in other districts, the vast majority at North Ridge in District 10 (Broward County). The district outmigration for a service when excessive or difficult can indicate access or quality concerns and constitute a not normal circumstance for approval of a new program. In this case, with adequate available services in District 9 and its close proximity, the outmigration to North Ridge, which is 15 miles or 25 minutes from BRCH is not a not normal circumstance. There is also substantial overlap in the medical staff at both hospitals which allows continuity of care for patients despite transfers. The argument that families, particularly an older spouse, will necessarily have to drive farther to visit the patient is rejected, since that depends on where in the district the person resides not on the distances between hospitals. North Ridge has 391 licensed beds, with 260 to 270 acute care beds in use. At North Ridge, cardiovascular surgeons usually use three OHS operating rooms, although a fourth is also available. Open heart patients recover in a six-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. The reported volumes of open hearts at North Ridge have been from 1994 through 2001, respectively, 864, 935, 893, 826, 882, 890, 905, and 795. The total number of open heart cases in District 10 has been declining since 1998. The volume of angioplasties at North Ridge increased from 793 in 1994, to 829 in 1997, to 1,155 in 2000, consistent with a rising District 10 use rate from 2.95 to 3.66 over the same period of time. The staff at North Ridge includes 107 cardiologists, 27 interventional cardiologists, and 17 cardiovascular surgeons, many of whom also regularly perform open heart surgeries at Holy Cross, which is approximately a mile south of North Ridge in Fort Lauderdale. At Holy Cross, which also has established referral networks from District 9, open heart volumes declined from a high of 753 in 1998 to 693 in 2000. All of the open heart services proposed by the applicants are reasonably available in adjoining areas, in Districts 10 and 11 to the south and in the other districts to the north. Subsection 408.035(1)(c) - comparisons of quality; and Subsection 408.035(1)(e) - joint, cooperative or shared resources; and Subsection 408.035(1)(g), (h), and (k) - need for research, educational and training programs or facilities for medical and health care professionals; and Subsection 408.035(1)(h) and Rule 59C-1.033 - recruitment, training and salaries for staff The parties stipulated that the applicants have a history of providing quality care. Martin Memorial was accredited with commendation by the JCAHO in 1997, which is now called accreditation without Type I Recommendations. That was followed, in July 2001, with a score of 93 on survey items with some follow-up improvements required related to patient assessment and nutrition. Martin Memorial offers internships, and residencies for training non-physician medical personnel from Barry University, Indian River Community College, and Florida Atlantic University. The cancer center at Martin Memorial is affiliated with the Moffitt Center. Despite the absence of an open heart program, Martin Memorial has participated in clinical trials of cardiac drugs. The Shands Healthcare System of nine affiliated hospitals, including two research and teaching hospitals, is the model for the relationship proposed with Martin Memorial. The partnerships are intended to upgrade the care available in community hospitals and to establish, for complex cases, referral networks for the Shands teaching hospitals. Shands has already satisfied itself that Martin Memorial meets its due diligence test for the quality of its existing program and philosophical compatibility. If Martin Memorial's CON is approved, Shands will assist in training staff for the program. Initially, the program will have one cardiovascular surgeon, a University of Florida medical school faculty member, in Martin County. When that surgeon is ill or on vacation, others from the University of Florida will be available. The logistics of the plan raises questions about the adequacy of coverage to meet the 24-hour requirements of Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code. In the JCAHO survey process, Bethesda received a score of 97, as a result of its survey in June 2000, and was accredited for the maximum allowable time, three years. Personnel for a Bethesda program can be appropriately trained at Orlando Regional, a statutory teaching hospital with a high volume open heart program. In June 2000, BRCH received a JCAHO score of 96. BRCH maintains a scholarship program for new nurses making a two-year commitment, and an on-site educational department with a preceptorship for training operating room and emergency room nurses. Nursing students from Florida Atlantic University (FAU), which is located across Glades Road from BRCH, rotate at BRCH. FAU is in the process of establishing a medical school. There is a severe shortage of nurses in the United States, in Florida, and in District 9. All of the hospitals in District 9 have resorted to highly competitive and innovative recruitment and retention strategies, including international recruiting, signing bonuses, child care and, of course, rising salaries and benefits. The demand is greater and shortages more severe in highly specialized areas, such as critical care, telemetry and open heart surgery nursing. The average age of nurses has also increased to 46 or 47 years old, while enrollment in nursing schools and the number of nursing school professors have declined. All of the applicants concede that recruiting and retaining nurses for new open heart program will be a challenge. The likely results are a loss of experienced nurses from existing programs, an increase in total health care costs, an increase in vacancies, and, at least temporarily a decline in the quality of experienced nursing care in existing open heart programs. At this time, there is no evidence that declining open heart utilization will eventually alleviate the shortage of experienced nurses. It has, so far, only eased the need to resort as frequently to other extreme and expensive alternatives, including pay overtime, contracting with private agencies, and bringing in traveling nurses. Subsection 408.035(1)(m) - size, scope and fixed equipment cost at BRCH; Subsection 408.035(2)(c) - alternatives to new construction; and Subsection 408.035(1) (h) - funding for BRCH BRCH plans to construct a 74,000 square-foot cardiac care facility, which will include two open heart operating rooms and two cardiac cath labs, an electrophysiology lab, 12 cardiovascular intensive care beds, and 18 cardiac cath lab bays. Only 18,568 square feet are attributable to the open heart operating rooms and cardiovascular intensive care unit which compares favorably with Bethesda's estimate of 17,759 square feet for the same functions. It is not possible, therefore, to conclude that the size of the BRCH project is excessive as compared to that proposed by Bethesda. BRCH underestimated the cost for fixed equipment for the open heart project by approximately $1.6 million. That omission resulted in understated estimates of depreciation by approximately $275,000. The total project cost for BRCH is approximately $2.2 million when almost $2 million in omitted equipment costs is added to the original estimate of $20 million. All pending capital projects, as shown on Schedule 2 of the BRCH application, total $54 million. With combined cash and investments of $160 million, the BRCH foundation has sufficient funds for the hospital's projects. Although BRCH earned profits of $6.6 million and $7.3 million in 1998 and 1999, respectively, the hospital lost $30 million from operations due to billing and collection errors in 2000. BRCH has a donor who has stated a willingness to donate $20 million for the cardiac care center. BRCH has the funds necessary to build the facility. With Medicare capital cost reimbursement completely phased out, there is insufficient evidence of a direct impact on health care costs based on this proposed capital expenditure. Subsection 408.035(1)(i) - short and long term financial feasibility Martin Memorial initially projected that its program would perform 360 open heart surgeries in year one and 405 in year two. As a result of changes in the use rate, Martin Memorial lowered its second year projection to 375 surgeries while increasing staffing levels. Even if projected open heart surgery revenues of $264,000 in the second year decline in proportion to expected lower utilization, estimated angioplasty revenues of $468,000, are sufficient to make up the deficit and to keep the combined program financially feasible in the short and long term. Bethesda projected volumes of 165 open heart surgeries in the first year and 270 in the second year. Assuming Bethesda's revenues are 90% of the district average, the combined net profit for open heart and angioplasty services is reasonably expected to be approximately $750,000 in the second year operations. The project is profitable, therefore, financially feasible in the short and long term. BRCH's expert projected volumes of 308 open heart surgeries and 289 angioplasties in the first year, and 451 open heart surgeries and 422 angioplasties in the second year. If utilization projections are correct, then BRCH will receive incremental net income of $1.6 million from the open heart surgery program and $825,000 from the angioplasty services. Factoring in claims that the Medicare case weight was overstated and depreciation underestimated, the BRCH project is, nevertheless, financially feasible for the short and long term. Typically, any open heart surgery program that can reach volumes in the range of 200 to 250 cases, will be financially feasible. The establishment of an open heart program also has a "halo effect," for the hospital, attracting more patients to the cardiac cath labs and other related cardiology services. Open heart surgery and angioplasty tend to be profitable, generating revenue which hospitals use to offset losses from other services. Subsection 408.035(1)(j) - needs of HMOs All of the applicants will enter into contracts with, but none is a health maintenance organization. Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - probable impact of fostering competition to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness Hospitals with higher volumes of open heart surgeries and angioplasties usually have higher quality as measured by lower mortality rates and fewer complications. The open heart surgery rule, in effect at the time the applications were filed, established a minimum volume of 350 annual admissions for existing providers. In the rule as amended on January 24, 2002, the minimum volume for existing programs was reduced to 300. The divisor in the formula for determining need, which represents the average size of a program in the district, was 350 prior to amendment and 500 subsequently. The minimum and average volumes in the rule set, in effect, the protected range for existing programs, not the optimal size, or "cut point" at which outcomes are worse below and better above. According to the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) the evidence is clear that outcomes are better if an individual performs at least 75 procedures at a high volume center with more than 400 cases. The ACC/AHA guidelines indicate, although more controversial and less clearly established, that acceptable outcomes may be achieved if the individual operator performs at least 75 procedures in centers with volumes from 200 to 400 cases. Because the relationship between higher volumes and better outcomes is continuous and linear, and because research showing the benefits of primary angioplasty with or without open heart surgery back-up is preliminary and limited, the position of the ACC/AHA is, in summary, as follows: The proliferation of small angioplasty or small surgical programs to support such angioplasty programs is strongly discouraged. (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 37, no. 8 June 15, 2001, pp. 2239xvii (Tenet Exhibit 5)) An open heart program at Martin Memorial will redirect cases that would otherwise have gone to Lawnwood, PBGMC, and JFK. The proposed Martin Memorial Service area overlaps that of Lawnwood in southern St. Lucie County, an area which generates one quarter of the open heart cases at Lawnwood. Lawnwood is reasonably expected to lose 56 open heart cases a year with total volume going down below 300, resulting in loss of $1.8 million, or 20% of its total revenues. Lawnwood would have unacceptably low volumes threatening the quality of the open heart program. PBGMC, as a result of a new program at Martin Memorial, will lose approximately 170 and 180 open heart cases annually and an equal number of angioplasties reducing its open heart volume to approximately 700 a year. The financial loss would range from $4 to $5 million a year, as compared to total net income which was between $20 and $30 million a year for past three years. PBGMC would not suffer an adverse impact sufficient to threaten either the quality or the financial feasibility of the open heart program or total hospital operations. JFK, which currently receives most of the angioplasty referrals from Martin Memorial, is expected to lose from 25 to 30 open heart cases, and 65 to 70 angioplasties each year during the first two years of a Martin Memorial program. The estimated financial loss to JFK is $1.7 million, a significant detriment when compared to $2.8 million in net income from operations in calendar year 2000. Approval of open heart program at Bethesda will adversely affect case volumes at JFK and Delray. Bethesda projected that, in its first year, 75% of its cases would have gone to Delray and 25% to JFK, and that by the third year, the split would be even at 50% from Delray and 50% from JFK. JFK, depending on the approach to the impact analysis, will lose from 40 to 60 open heart cases in the first year, from 90 to 110 in the second year, and from 115 to 170 in the third year of a program at Bethesda. The volumes of lost angioplasties is expected to be slightly higher. The resulting combined open heart and angioplasty financial loss is $6.6 million, far greater than the significant detriment expected from a Martin Memorial program alone. The annual volume of open heart cases at JFK would be approximately 400 to 500, assuming flat not continued declining utilization. If Bethesda offered the service, Delray's open heart volumes would decline by 124 cases in the first year and by 248 cases in the third year of operations, decreasing total volume to 500 or 600 annual surgeries. Delray had a net income from operations of approximately $24.7 million in 2000, which would indicate that neither quality nor financial stability would be significantly adversely affected. If an open heart program is approved for BRCH, the volumes of cases at Delray and North Ridge will decline. Delray would be expected to lose 163 open heart cases and 235 in years one and two, respectively, and equal numbers of caths and angioplasties, resulting in annual open heart cases reduced from the low 700s to approximately 500 cases. Delray's pre-tax revenue was $39 million in 2001. In terms of quality and financial stability, Delray can withstand the adverse impact of a new program at BRCH. North Ridge would lose approximately 124 open heart cases in year one and 178 in year two, and similar numbers of caths, reducing open heart volumes from the upper 700s to approximately 600 annual cases. North Ridge's pre-tax income was $21 million for the year ending May 31, 2001. It appears that North Ridge could, even with the adverse impact of BRCH, maintain a quality, financially viable open heart program. Subsection 408.035(l) - probable impact on costs The applicants, all not-for-profit corporations, contend that the fact that District 9 has only for-profit open heart hospitals affects charges and is a not normal circumstance for the approval of one or more not-for-profit. District 9 is the only district in Florida in which all open heart providers are for-profit corporations. Statewide, not-for-profit open heart hospitals charge 31% less than for-profit. Martin Memorial's CON proposal includes a charge structure below that at existing programs. Bethesda's planned charges are 10% less than the District 9 average for open heart and angioplasty services. BRCH is the applicant which is most likely to increase competition in District 9, based on the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). The HHI's measurement of competition in a market used by economists frequently to analyze anti-trust issues. Charges are not a factor in up to 75% of open heart/angioplasty cases reimbursed by payors, such as Medicare, at set flat rates. In approximately 10% of cases, including complex "outlier" cases exceeding the range for flat rate reimbursement and for other payors on a percent-of-charges basis, charges are not irrelevant. But, the evidence to demonstrate lower charges were applicable to patients of the same severity was questionable. Subsection 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care There is insufficient evidence the any applicant is preferable based on its ability to promote a continuum of care in a multilevel system. Subsection 408.035(2)(a) - alternatives to inpatient services There are no alternatives to inpatient services for open heart surgery and angioplasty patients. Subsection 408.035(2)(d) - patients who will experience serious problems in the absence of the proposed new service The applicants and AHCA determined that new open heart surgery programs are needed mainly to provide emergency or "primary" angioplasty to patients suffering heart attacks (acute myocardial infections). Primary angioplasty is an alternative to "clot busting" medications, or thrombolytics, and to open heart surgery. Performed on an emergency basis, the three different treatments are used to restore blood flow before heart muscle dies. Because "time is muscle," patients benefit only if treated within a relatively short time after the onset of symptoms. The goal is 90 minutes from door-to-balloon for angioplasty. The decision to treat a patient with a particular therapy is based on a number of factors assessed during triage. Paramedics in consultation with ER doctors at the receiving hospital frequently begin triage and administering medications and oxygen in ambulances equipped with sophisticated diagnostic equipment. As the statistical data demonstrates, angioplasty, whether scheduled or emergency, is increasingly becoming the preferred therapy. Some studies have shown improved outcomes, higher survival rates and fewer complications, from primary angioplasty as compared to thrombolytics. Comparisons have not been made over extended periods of time, and the apparent benefits of angioplasty have not been duplicated in community hospitals as compared to clinical trials in high volume research centers. Estimates of the number of people who could benefit from the availability of angioplasty services at the applicants vary based on the number of elderly in the service area, the number of non-traumatic chest pain ER visits, delays in transfers of emergency patients, and the number of patients being transferred to existing providers for angioplasties or open heart surgeries. Martin Memorial selected five patients as examples of those who could be served in an open heart program at Martin Memorial. The anecdotal evidence of transfer "delays" is insufficient to demonstrate bed unavailability or capacity constraints. Martin Memorial-Stuart and Martin Memorial South transferred 240 heart attack patients to open heart surgery hospitals. Only 18 of the emergency heart attack patients who presented at the Martin Memorial ER were transferred from the ER. Approximately ten patients a year are so unstable that an intra- aortic balloon pump is required during transfer. Martin Memorial presented evidence of delays of two hours or more in transfers of 84 patients from its cath labs to open heart surgery hospitals. The transfer records, created for subsequent certificate of need litigation, were of questionable probative value. The case studies were inadequate to establish whether "delays" were reasonable or not. Factors such as physician consultation time, time to stabilize a patient for transfer and the assumed travel time seem to have been included in the time periods. Bethesda transferred 270 patients for cardiac care from October 1999 through September 2000. Thirty patients were transferred, from November 2000 to July 2001, for angioplasties or open heart surgery after having cardiac caths at Bethesda. Bethesda failed to establish that transfers were delayed due to capacity problems at existing hospitals because emergency patients were not classified separately, and the causes of the time lapses were not identified. Of the applicants, BRCH has the busiest ER, with 50,000 to 52,000 annual visits compared to approximately 48,000 at the two Martin Memorial locations combined. BRCH admitted 439 heart attack patients through its ER during the year ending June 30, 2000. The majority of patients are treated with thrombolytics at BRCH. BRCH transfers approximately one emergency heart attack patient a week on average, or from 30 to 50 a year, for interventional cardiac procedures. BRCH's presentation of evidence of delays in transfers was flawed. The data was collected and used only for litigation, and was incomplete. Some patient records were lost and others were deleted due to inaccurate data. Of the applicants, BRCH is located in an area with the largest percentage of the population age 65 and older, approximately 35%, as compared to 24% in Martin Memorial's service area. Agency Consistency Martin Memorial, through expert witness testimony, compared its situation to that of Brandon, a hospital in AHCA District 6, which was issued an open heart surgery CON in 2001. The expert noted that Martin Memorial and Brandon are both in five county health planning districts, and that they are 19 and from 15 to 17 miles, respectively, from the nearest open heart provider. Three of the counties in District 6 have open heart programs, including Hillsborough County where Brandon is located, as compared to two District 9 counties, St. Lucie and Palm Beach, but not Martin. The Martin Memorial primary service area projected population is 238,861 for 2004, 24.1% aged 65 and older. The Brandon service area population projection is 309,000 for 2004, with 10.5% aged 65 and older. Brandon has 255 beds, Martin Memorial-Stuart has 236. Brandon had 53,000 emergency room visits, and Martin Memorial, at both locations, had 48,503 in 1999. Before defaulting to zero, the numerical formula yielded a need for 3.27 additional open heart programs in District 6 as compared to 3.9 in District 9. Other specific comparisons favorable to Martin Memorial included the number of heart attack patients presenting at its ER, cath lab volumes, patient transfers for open heart and angioplasty procedures. Among others, there are several significant distinguishing facts in Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 00-0481CON, (R.O. Mar. 30, 3001, F.O. Oct. 17, 2001) aff'd per curiam sub nom, University Community Hospital v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 1DO1-3592, et al. (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 19, 2002), the Brandon case. In that case, the two existing providers performing fewer than 350 cases a year, Blake Medical Center, and Manatee Memorial Hospital, both in Manatee County, were mature programs located 40 miles from Brandon with no service area overlap. By contrast, Lawnwood which is not a mature program and, therefore, has not reached its potential volume, is 20 miles from Martin Memorial, and has an overlapping service area. Martin Memorial's ER volume and the number of transfers from its ERs are the combined experience from two locations. The more accurate comparison is 27,000 ER visits at Martin Memorial-Stuart to 53,000 at Brandon. Emergency heart attack patients presenting at Martin Memorial South would continue to require transfers for primary angioplasty. Finally, the decision in Brandon was based, in large part, on transportation difficulties, inadequate interfacility ambulances and traffic congestion, which are not factors in District 9. Factually, the case of Halifax Hospital Medical Center, d/b/a Halifax Medical Center v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al., Case No. 95-0742 (AHCA Jan. 14, 1997) is also distinguishable. The applicant could have no effect on the low volume providers located 80 miles to the north. That was one not normal circumstance. Need existed because of another not normal circumstance, i.e., capacity constraints at the only other provider in the same primary service area. In Oak Hill Hospital v. AHCA, Case No. 00-3216CON (R.O. Oct. 4, 2001, F.O. Jan. 22, 2002), appeal dismissed sub nom Hernando HMA, Inc. v. HCA Services of Florida, Inc., Case No. 1DO2-854 (Fla. 1st DCA June 6, 2002), the two approved applicants were in separate counties which constituted entirely separate health care markets. Neither applicant would adversely affect the low volume providers. After the Administrative Law Judge recommended approval of the Citrus County applicant, AHCA, engaging in what appears to be a comparative review of the two remaining applicants from Hernando County, approved a second applicant from the same district at the same time. Some facts are similar to those in this case: The average drive time between hospitals was 30 minutes; transfers and admissions procedures required additional time; there was a recognition of increasing preferences for reperfusion of heart muscle using primary angioplasty; patients and families experience stress and anxiety as a result of transfers. Institution-specific issues included the transfer of 600 cardiac patients by ambulance from Oak Hill, the size of the cardiology and cardiac cath programs (1,641 caths in 1999), the larger elderly population in the service area, and the hospital's size.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying Certificate of Need Application Number 9248 filed by BRCH, Certificate of Need Application Number 9249 filed by Martin Memorial, and Certificate of Need Application Number 9250 filed by Bethesda. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Sebring Building, Suite 310K St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lori C. Desnick, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 W. David Watkins, Esquire R. L. Caleen, Jr., Esquire Watkins & Caleen, P.A. 1725 Mahan Drive, Suite 201 Post Office Box 15828 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5828 H. Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Paul H. Amundsen, Esquire Amundsen, Moore & Torpy, P.A. 502 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Law Firm of Newell & Terry, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need (CON) applications 10386 and 10388 filed by South Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Memorial Regional Hospital (Memorial), to establish a pediatric kidney transplantation program at Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital and an adult kidney transplantation program at Memorial Regional Hospital in Broward County, both of which are proposed for organ transplantation service area (OTSA) 4, should be approved. Alternatively, do competing CON applications 10387 and 10389 filed by North Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Broward Health Medical Center (Broward Health), to establish a pediatric kidney transplantation program at Chris Evert Children’s Hospital and Broward Health Medical Center, on balance, better satisfy the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for award of a CON to establish a pediatric or adult kidney transplantation program in OTSA 4?
Findings Of Fact Background AHCA is the state health planning agency charged with administering the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044, AHCA requires applicants to obtain separate CONs for the establishment of each adult or pediatric organ transplantation program, including heart, kidney, liver, bone marrow, lung, lung and heart, pancreas and islet cells, and intestines transplantations. For purposes of determining the need for organ transplantation services, the State of Florida is divided, by rule, into four service planning areas, corresponding generally with the northern, western central, eastern central, and southern regions of the state. “Transplantation” is “the surgical grafting or implanting in its entirety or in part one or more tissues or organs taken from another person.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A- 3.065. “Kidney transplantation” is defined by rule 59C- 1.002(41) as a “tertiary health service, “a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of such service.” For purposes of kidney transplantation, a “pediatric patient” is “a patient under the age of 15 years.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(c). The Applicants The North Broward Hospital District and South Broward Hospital District are special, independent taxing districts established by the Legislature to ensure access to needed medical services to the residents of Broward County. Both districts are governed by respective boards appointed by the Governor. BHMC has a strong and diverse medical staff, including a broad mix of pediatric and adult specialists and subspecialists who provide high quality care to all segments of the community. More than 350 physicians are on BHMC's active medical staff, with the comprehensive medical staff totaling more than 900 professionals. BHMC is a statutory teaching hospital and the flagship hospital of the North Broward Hospital District. CECH is located within BHMC and offers pediatric specialists and subspecialists, including physicians in the areas of pediatric cardiology, pediatric critical care medicine, pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric endocrinology, pediatric gastroenterology, pediatric genetics, pediatric hematology- oncology, pediatric infectious disease, pediatric intensivist, pediatric nephrology, pediatric ophthalmology, pediatric pulmonary, pediatric rheumatology, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology. The South Broward Hospital District operates MRH, Memorial Regional Hospital South, JDCH, Memorial Hospital West, Memorial Hospital Miramar, and Memorial Hospital Pembroke. MRH is a 777-bed acute care tertiary hospital. It is the flagship facility of the South Broward Hospital District and is one of the largest hospitals in Florida. MRH offers extensive and diverse health care services, including the Memorial Cardiac and Vascular Institute, which features renowned surgeons and an adult heart transplantation program. MRH also includes the Memorial Cancer Institute, which treats more inpatients than any other in AHCA District 10, and Memorial Neuroscience Center, which provides innovative technology and world-class physicians. JDCH is a dedicated pediatric hospital physically connected to MRH. The leadership of both the North Broward and South Broward Hospital Districts were in the midst of transition at the time of the final hearing. Although there was an attempt to suggest that such transitions should be a factor in this CON proceeding, both Districts are stable, well-established providers. Personnel changes, including the replacement of chief executive officers at both Districts, were not an influential factor in this proceeding. The Applicants’ Experience with Transplant Services Broward Health has provided liver transplantation since 2004. Broward Health's liver transplantation program has had higher annual volumes in the past, but is currently offering approximately 12 liver transplantations per year. In total, Broward Health has performed more than 200 liver transplantations since beginning its program. On or about June 23, 2010, Broward Health entered into a five-year contract with the University of Miami (UM) under which UM agreed to provide Broward Health with surgical coverage for Broward Health’s liver transplantation program. Throughout its history, Broward Health's liver transplantation program has offered high quality. During the two most recent surveys, in 2009 and 2012, inspectors with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) found that Broward Health's liver transplant program had no deficiencies. Broward Health’s liver program complies with all CMS and United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) standards. Broward Health’s liver transplant program exceeds national standards. As of June 2014, 63.3 percent of Broward Health’s transplant patients received a liver transplant within six months of being placed on the waitlist. This is less than half of the national average of 15.3 months. Additionally, Broward Health's mortality rate for liver transplantation is far better than national standards. Memorial established a pediatric heart transplant program in 2011 and an adult heart transplant program in 2014. Memorial's adult and pediatric heart transplant volumes have been relatively low. Memorial has performed a total of 14 pediatric heart transplants over the past five years. In 2012, Cleveland Clinic Hospital (CCH) filed a letter of intent (LOI) and application to establish an adult kidney transplant program. Broward Health submitted a grace period LOI and competing application, No. 10152. Both applications were initially approved and neither was challenged. Accordingly, both programs received final approval by AHCA. After receiving the adult kidney transplant program approval, Broward Health attempted to amend or supplement its liver transplantation agreement with UM to include UM surgical and medical support for Broward Health’s adult kidney transplantation program. Broward Health also applied to UNOS for approval of the adult kidney transplantation program, and identified the UM physicians as those who would provide the necessary surgical support for the program. However, Broward Health never reached an agreement with UM to use its kidney transplant surgeons and did not otherwise recruit the necessary physicians. Broward Health's CEO at that time, Mr. Frank Nask, found UM's proposal to support the kidney transplantation program to be cost prohibitive and decided not to execute the contract amendment with UM. He then instructed staff to dismantle the UNOS-approved kidney transplant program they had already created. Despite the inability to negotiate kidney coverage with UM in 2012, Broward Health continued to offer its adult liver transplantation program using UM surgeons. Had UNOS known that the UM doctors were not available to perform kidney transplants, it would not have approved Broward Health’s adult kidney transplantation program. In March 2014, Broward Health notified CMS, UNOS, and its patients that it was “inactivating” its adult kidney transplantation program. Inexplicably, Broward Health never notified AHCA of this decision. On January 14, 2015, AHCA advised Broward Health that CON No. 10152 had expired and requested that Broward Health return the CON. There is no dispute that CON 10152 has been terminated. Two batching cycles passed from the time Broward Health closed its adult kidney transplantation program until the cycle at issue in these proceedings. In its application for CON No. 10152, Broward Health recognized that an applicant’s prior failure to implement a CON is a proper consideration in the award of future CONs. The application touted Broward Health’s “history of providing transplantation services compared to that of CCH. CCH had an adult kidney transplant program . . . but elected to abandon [it] . . . .” (Memorial Ex. 23, pp. MHS15031-32). Memorial was awarded a CON to establish an adult heart transplantation program at the same time Broward Health was awarded CON No. 10152. Memorial successfully recruited the necessary physicians and staff and implemented that program. The nature of the tertiary services and the two-year planning horizon in this proceeding underscore the importance of applicants being positioned to successfully implement the programs with as little delay as possible. The Applicants’ Proposals Broward Health Broward Health’s proposal relies on the experience it gained through its substantial implementation of its kidney transplantation program in 2012, as well as existing experience and resources related to their adult liver transplantation program. Broward Health acquired significant experience in establishing an adult kidney transplantation program by applying for, and receiving, UNOS approval in 2012. Broward Health's application proposed to hire two abdominal transplant surgeons, Dr. El Gazzaz and Dr. Misawa. The offer to Dr. Misawa, however, has since been withdrawn. Broward Health expects to hire Dr. El Gazzaz. Since the filing of its CON application, Broward Health decided to supplement its surgical coverage by expanding its existing contract with the Cleveland Clinic for liver transplant surgical coverage to include kidney transplantation services should the kidney program receive approval. Broward Health conditioned acceptance of a pediatric kidney transplantation CON on also receiving approval of the adult kidney transplantation CON. Broward Health prepared its financial schedules under the assumption that the adult and pediatric programs were linked, and that both would receive approval. Since livers and kidneys are both abdominal organs, there is substantial overlap in the type of care that is required for transplant patients for each organ. Sometimes both kidneys and livers are transplanted at the same time. Historically, Broward Health has referred out 10 to 15 percent of its liver transplant patients to other providers because it could not offer combined kidney/liver transplantation. Broward Health has accumulated experienced personnel for abdominal transplants. Broward Health's existing nurses care for liver transplant patients and are therefore already prepared to care for kidney transplant patients. Broward Health's team also includes a transplant social worker, transplant psychologist, financial counselors, and quality coordinators. Broward Health plans to hire an additional financial specialist and two Registered nurses (RNs), as well as additional full-time equivalents (FTEs) for a data analyst, pharmacist, and dietician. Broward Health proposes to use the same clinical and ancillary staff for both adult and pediatric kidney transplantation. Unlike Memorial, Broward Health does not intend to perform kidney transplants using live donor organs. Rather, cadaveric organs will be used exclusively. Neither of Broward Health’s applications includes the expense of hiring or contracting for the surgeons needed for its proposed programs. Indeed, there was no evidence that Broward Health’s existing liver transplant surgeons would be willing to perform kidney transplants such that their presence at BHMC or CECH would give Broward Health an advantage in terms of the degree to which its existing services would support its proposed programs. Broward Health has previously developed kidney transplantation policies and procedures related to its 2012 kidney program. These policies and procedures will only require minor updates relative to its later application. Memorial The Memorial adult program would be located at its flagship hospital, MRH. Memorial asserts that it has the requisite staff and resources currently in place to provide expert care to adult patients with chronic end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Memorial points out that staff on the general nursing units and critical care units have extensive experience in the care of patients with chronic kidney disease. Memorial asserts a full range of appropriate inpatient and outpatient services for this patient population on a 24-hour basis including, but not limited to, continuous renal replacement therapy, hemodialysis, and cyclic peritoneal dialysis. Memorial points out that it developed a program to educate staff regarding specific issues related to transplant care (as part of the development of its cardiac transplant program) and that much of this education is relevant to the kidney transplant population. Memorial plans to recruit an experienced transplant surgical director, transplant surgeons, transplant nephrologists and surgical team, and all necessary staff as required. As to Memorial’s proposed pediatric program, the program would be located at JDCH, which is on the campus of, and physically connected to, MRH. JDCH has operated a pediatric nephrology and hypertension program, offering advanced care for children with acute or chronic kidney disorders since 2003. The program is headed by Dr. Alexandru Constantinescu, a board certified pediatric nephrologist. JDCH operates the only pediatric outpatient dialysis unit in Broward County. Dialysis is necessary to sustain the life of a patient with ESRD. With the exception of the actual surgical procedure, JDCH currently provides all the medical care and ancillary services required by pediatric kidney transplant patients, including pre-transplant care, transplant follow-up, and long- term post-transplant care. The only additional personnel JDCH needs in order to implement a pediatric kidney transplantation program is a transplant surgeon and a transplant coordinator, and both are identified in JDCH’s application. JDCH currently refers children who need kidney transplants to other facilities to receive the actual transplant surgery. After transplantation, the patients return to JDCH for their ongoing follow-up care. JDCH’s program also includes a cutting-edge component to transition pediatric transplant patients into the adult clinical setting. Because a transplant patient never ceases to be followed by his or her medical providers, JDCH’s program allows patients to stay within the same institution and to interact with the adult providers during the transition and adjustment period from child to adult. This existing program gives Memorial an advantage over Broward Health with respect to its pediatric and adult applications. In 2006, JDCH became one of five centers that compose the Florida’s Comprehensive Children’s Kidney Failure Center (“CCKFC”) program. JDCH is the only non-academic center approved to provide nephrology care for children with chronic kidney disease who are enrolled in the Department of Health Children’s Medical Services network. In addition, JDCH and Memorial have provided pediatric and adult heart transplantation services since 2010 and 2014, respectively. JDCH’s pediatric heart transplantation program was certified by the CMS in 2011 and was recertified in 2015. CMS certified Memorial’s adult heart transplantation program in November 2015. Memorial has committed to the development and implementation of its pediatric kidney transplant program, regardless of whether its adult program is also approved. The Review Criteria The statutory criterion for the evaluation of CON applications, including applications for organ transplantation programs, is set forth at section 408.035. In addition, AHCA has promulgated a transplantation rule, rule 59C-1.044, which governs the approval of new programs. However, the rule does not contain a methodology that predicts the future need for transplant programs. Instead, the rule sets forth a minimum volume of annual transplants for existing programs that must be met before a new program will normally be approved. The parties agree that the availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in OTSA 4 under section 408.035(1)(a), immediate financial feasibility under section 408.035(1)(f), and costs and methods of construction under section 408.035(1)(i) are not at issue. Section 408.035(1)(a) and Rule 59C-1.044(8)(d): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed All parties are in agreement that there is a need for at least one new adult kidney transplant program and one new pediatric kidney transplant program in OTSA 4. However, Broward Health argues that two additional adult kidney transplantation programs could be supported in OTSA 4. Memorial disagrees with this contention. Neither applicant’s need or utilization projections, nor the Agency’s SAARs, considered simultaneous approval of two new adult kidney transplant programs. Broward Health’s applications make no mention of a need for two adult kidney transplantation programs, and do not include any analysis of the impact of approving two programs. Broward Health’s health planning expert, Mark Richardson, acknowledged that “the application basically was put forth to show there was a need for the Broward program. It was silent on whether there is a need for a second or not.” Nothing in Broward Health’s applications address the impact Memorial and Broward Health’s proposed adult kidney transplantation programs would have upon each other or upon existing providers if both were approved. The notion of approving both adult applications would have impacted AHCA’s analysis with respect to a number of review criteria, including utilization of existing programs, availability of resources such as health personnel, extent to which the proposed services will enhance access and competition, and the impact on existing providers. Stated differently, Broward Health’s position at hearing that two adult kidney transplantation programs should be approved would have altered the nature and scope of Broward Health’s adult application, as well as the Agency’s review of both the Memorial and Broward Health adult applications. Memorial’s health care planning and financial expert, Michael Carroll, assessed the applicants’ need projections as well as population growth, the incidence of ESRD in OTSA 4, volumes of existing kidney transplant providers in Florida, and availability of organs. Memorial projects that its programs will perform 30 adult kidney transplants and five pediatric kidney transplants. Mr. Carroll found the projections reasonable based on the number of kidney transplants being performed in OTSA 4, and the recent growth in procedures. No contrary evidence was presented. Mr. Carroll’s analysis confirms the need for one additional adult kidney transplantation program in OTSA 4. In part because kidney transplantation is constrained by the availability of organs, Mr. Carroll opined that only one adult program should be established at this time. Broward Health’s planning expert, Mark Richardson, also reviewed existing volumes, population and discharge data, and information gathered from meetings with Broward Health representatives. He opined at final hearing that OTSA 4 could sustain two additional adult kidney transplantation programs. Mr. Richardson’s opinion is based on the fact that each applicant forecasted 30 adult kidney transplants by the end of year two for what he interpreted as a total of 60 cases. Mr. Richardson argued that, even if two new programs were approved, these figures would satisfy the requirement in rule 59C-1.044(8)(d), that each applicant project a minimum of 15 adult kidney transplants per year by the end of year two. Mr. Richardson’s opinions assume that Broward Health will capture approximately 29 percent of Broward County kidney transplant patients, its current market share of patients discharged with certain renal failure diagnostic codes. In 2013, 97 Broward County residents received kidney transplants somewhere in Florida. Mr. Richardson assumed that if Broward Health captured 29 percent of those patients, they would account for 80 percent of Broward Health’s projected kidney transplant volume, with the other 20 percent resulting from in-migration, for a total of 35 kidney transplants. Mr. Richardson assumed that 30 of those patients would be adults, and five pediatric. The 97 patients in Mr. Richardson’s analysis received both cadaveric and living donor transplants. Broward Health will not use living donor organs at least for the first four years of its programs. Living donor transplants account for 20 to as much as 40 percent of kidney transplants. Mr. Richardson’s methodology therefore cannot be applied to a program like Broward Health’s, which would be restricted to cadaveric donors. The credible evidence of record established that there is a need for one additional pediatric kidney transplantation program and one, not two, additional adult kidney transplantation program in OTSA 4. Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant’s record of providing quality of care; Section 408.035(1)(d): The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation; and Rules 59C-1.044(3-4) and 59C- 1.044(8)(a-c) The parties’ disagreement concerning which applications best satisfy the above criteria centered on: (1) which applicant’s existing programs provide a greater degree of support for the proposed programs; (2) the applicants’ ability to recruit the necessary physicians to implement the programs, taking into consideration Broward Health’s failure to implement the adult kidney transplantation program awarded by CON No. 10152; (3) the use of employed versus contracted physicians; (4) the use of living donor organs; (5) the “co- location” of the proposed adult and pediatric programs; and the results of a May 2015 CMS survey of Memorial’s pediatric heart transplantation program. Which applicant’s existing programs provide a greater potential degree of support Broward Health relies heavily on its existing adult liver transplantation program, and the prior approval by UNOS of its now-terminated adult kidney transplantation program, to argue that it is best-suited to operate the adult and pediatric kidney transplantations programs at issue in this proceeding. However, there was no evidence that Broward Health’s existing liver transplant surgeons will perform kidney transplants such that their presence at BHMC or CECH could give Broward Health an advantage in terms of the degree to which its existing services would support its proposed programs. Moreover, liver transplant volume at Broward Health has steadily declined since 2007. The program has never been profitable, and Broward Health has considered discontinuing it. Broward Health also asserts that its experience transplanting livers, which, like kidneys, is an abdominal organ, should be weighed more heavily than Memorial’s experience with heart transplants. According to Broward Health, many staff members from Broward's liver transplant program can simultaneously work with the kidney transplant program, because the two abdominal transplant programs require a similar skill set that is transferrable from one to the other. However, again, given the uncertainty as to the identity of the surgeons who will be performing the kidney transplants for Broward Health, this argument is unpersuasive. Given the history, size, and resources of both hospital systems, the undersigned concludes that the proposed adult kidney transplantation programs are on equal footing as to the support offered by their existing programs. However, given Memorial’s experience with pediatric heart transplant patients, Memorial has an advantage over Broward Health with respect to the pediatric kidney program. As noted by several witnesses at hearing, children are not “little adults,” and therefore a track record of working with children is crucial. The applicants’ ability to recruit the necessary physicians to implement the programs; and The use of employed versus contracted physicians Rule 59C-1.044(4) requires that applicants meet certain staffing requirements, including: ”The program shall employ a transplant physician, and a transplant surgeon, if applicable, as defined by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) June 1994.” Absent evidence that either applicant had secured the necessary physicians to support its programs, AHCA properly reviewed each applicant’s history of recruitment and establishing transplant programs. Memorial has already successfully recruited physicians and other health care professionals needed to care for ESRD and kidney transplant patients. Its existing transplant programs are operated under the direction of physicians who are employed by MRH. In contrast, for whatever reason, Broward Health was not able to reach an agreement with UM to provide the required surgical and medical support for its previously approved kidney transplantation program, resulting in the abandonment of the program. Memorial’s record of recruiting for, and implementing organ transplantation programs, compared to Broward Health’s record, gives Memorial an advantage in terms of the applicants’ history of providing, and ability to provide, quality of care in organ transplantation. Employed, as opposed to contracted physicians, are more invested in their transplant programs, and provide the hospital with more control in ensuring that the service is implemented and operational. Employing physicians also improves patient safety and outcomes. Unlike Memorial, Broward Health’s existing transplantation program is directed by contracted physicians. Broward Health’s applications state that “two kidney transplant surgeons [are] currently committed to support the proposed new adult and pediatric programs and a third surgeon [is] currently being recruited.” The “two kidney transplant surgeons” are identified in letters of intent, accepted into evidence over a hearsay objection. Neither of the physicians who purportedly signed the letters testified at the hearing. The letters of intent are not binding. Indeed, one of the letters was revoked at the instruction of Dr. Tzakis, the Cleveland Clinic surgeon who serves as medical director for Broward Health’s liver program. The second physician was being recruited for Broward Health’s liver transplantation program; his letter of intent did not address kidney transplantation. It became apparent at hearing that Broward Health’s “plan A” has now become to contract with the Cleveland Clinic to provide professional services, including surgical coverage for the proposed kidney transplantation programs. Memorial’s plan to employ physicians, rather than contract for their services, gives Memorial and JDCH an additional advantage over BHMC and CECH. The use of living donor organs Unlike Broward Health, Memorial will use living donor organs, as well as deceased or “cadaveric” donor organs, in its proposed programs, and its applications include the related costs associated with establishing a live donor program. There are significant benefits to use of living donor organs, including reduction or elimination of a patient’s time on the waiting list, improved recovery times, better patient outcomes, increased organ life, and the possibility of avoiding dialysis, which carries an increased risk of mortality for children. As acknowledged by Broward Health in its application for CON No. 10152, living donor kidney transplantation also has the following “distinct advantages:” instead of occurring on an emergency schedule based upon the availability of a suitable organ, the procedure can be scheduled so as to best accommodate the needs of both recipient and donor, and to minimize organ preservation time. In many instances, the total time from removal of the organ to restoration of blood flow in the recipient can be less than one hour. For these and other reasons, live donor transplants typically result in better quality of life and longer survival rates for recipients. (Memorial Ex. 23, p. MHS15056). Memorial’s plan to use living donor organs gives it an advantage over Broward Health in terms of its ability to provide quality of care in pediatric and adult kidney transplantation. The “co-location” of the proposed adult and pediatric programs Especially for pediatric patients nearing the transition to adult care, there are significant benefits in “co- locating” adult and pediatric transplant programs, i.e., one provider operating both programs. For example, co-location allows pediatric patients to transition into the adult setting with providers they trust, reduces the patient and family’s stress, and improves quality of care. In addition, some resources from adult and pediatric kidney transplantation programs can be shared if they are co- located, which improves the programs’ financial feasibility. These factors weigh in favor of granting both pediatric and adult programs to one provider, if appropriate. The May 2015 CMS survey of Memorial’s pediatric heart transplantation program Broward Health’s primary attack against Memorial with respect to sections 408.035(1)(c) and (d), centered on the results of a May 2015 CMS survey of Memorial’s pediatric heart transplantation program. The survey found numerous deficiencies, including deficiencies related to patient safety. CMS notified Memorial that the deficiencies were substantial enough to warrant terminating the program if not immediately corrected. CMS notified Memorial that the program would be terminated unless the deficiencies were cured within 45 days. In response to the survey, Memorial hired an outside consultant, Transplant Solutions. Transplant Solutions conducted its own survey and identified the same deficiencies noted in the CMS survey. Even after Memorial implemented its corrective action plan, CMS found additional deficiencies, though the new deficiencies were not sufficient to warrant termination of the program. Barbara Sverdlik, Director of Nursing and Transplant Administrator at BHMC, compared the lack of deficiencies in the 2012 survey of Broward Health’s adult liver transplantation program with the results of the May 2015 survey of JDCH’s pediatric heart transplantation program. As Ms. Sverdlik acknowledged, JDCH ultimately passed its 2015 survey and, in spite of the results of the initial survey, “[JDCH] could offer a good quality [pediatric kidney transplantation] program.” Although concerning, it is not entirely surprising that numerous deficiencies were found in Memorial’s relatively new pediatric heart transplant program. However, it is more significant to the undersigned that Memorial took immediate action to correct those deficiencies in order to ensure that the program continued without interruption. JDCH’s May 2015 Survey therefore does not give Broward Health any advantage or Memorial any disadvantage under the review criteria. Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district Three primary considerations were identified at final hearing relevant to which applicant’s proposed programs are more likely to enhance access: the commitment of each applicant to the proposed programs; the availability of donor organs at each facility; and the availability of services at each facility. Access is significantly enhanced by the use of living donor organs, not only for the living donor recipient, but also for other potential transplant recipients on the wait list. The 20 to 40 percent of kidney transplant patients who could receive a living donor transplant would not have access to kidney transplantation at Broward Health for at least the first four years of its programs, whereas those same patients would have immediate access to the needed services at Memorial. In this regard, and as acknowledged by witnesses for the Agency and Broward Health, Memorial’s programs would enhance access to needed kidney transplantation services to a significantly greater extent than Broward Health’s. In its applications and at final hearing, Broward Health touted its existing adult liver program as providing a foundation for its proposed kidney transplantation programs. However, just five percent of liver transplant recipients require a simultaneous liver and kidney transplant. Any access advantage Broward Health might claim to patients requiring dual transplantations is outweighed by Memorial’s use of living donor organs which impacts a much larger percentage of transplant patients. It is uncontroverted that Broward Health abandoned its prior adult kidney transplantation program, thereby exacerbating the access challenges that exist in OTSA 4 with regard to kidney transplant services. Also, despite a recognized need for a pediatric program, Broward Health’s pediatric application was conditioned on the award of the adult program; it “will not be developed as a stand-alone pediatric kidney transplant program.” (JE 12, p. BH83). The adult program is really Broward Health’s focus, and this is evident even in Broward Health’s financial and staffing projections. As established through the final hearing testimony of their CEOs, MRH and JDCH are steadfastly committed to establishing pediatric and adult kidney transplantation programs. It is also noteworthy that JDCH operates the only pediatric outpatient dialysis program in Broward County, again highlighting its commitment to the pediatric population suffering from kidney disease. In contrast, the proposed Broward Health program would rely on a third party, DaVita, to provide pediatric outpatient dialysis. As the applicant which is more committed to provide the needed services to both the pediatric and adult populations, and which has an unblemished track record of implementing programs, Memorial would enhance access to pediatric and adult kidney transplantation services in OTSA 4 to a greater extent than Broward Health. At hearing, Marisol Fitch, the Agency representative, explained why AHCA concluded that as between the two applicants, Memorial would be most likely to enhance access to this needed service: Q So as between these two applicants, one telling you that if you don’t give them a CON for an adult program, they are not going to implement a CON for the children’s program, versus the other one, which of these two applicants would best ensure and enhance access for residents of this area of the state? A If you are talking about all residents, including the pediatric population, then it would be the applicant that was going to do both. Q That’s Memorial; isn’t that right? A They did not condition their application on – they would do the pediatric without the adult. Q Now I will ask you the same question regarding the issue of the live donor program. One applicant is indicating they will not establish and operate a live donor program, the other one will. Of the two applicants, which would enhance access to the residents of the district that we are dealing with here? A The applicant that used live donor since a large chunk of donors for kidneys are live donors. Q That would mean Memorial; isn’t that right? A That is correct. Section 408.035(1)(f): The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal The parties have stipulated that short-term financial feasibility, the ability to fund and open the projects, is not at issue. However, the parties contested the long-term financial feasibility of each proposal. The Agency’s application review concluded that the proposed programs were financially feasible in the long-term. That conclusion presumed that the assumptions underlying the applicants’ financial figures were appropriate. In Schedule 8A of its pediatric application, Memorial projected a net loss of $1,129,885 in its second year, while Broward Health projected a net excess of revenue over expenses of $200,717 at the end of year two. In Schedule 8A of its adult application, Memorial projected a net loss of $589,691 in its second year, and Broward Health projected a net excess of revenue over expenses of $560,709 at the end of year two. According to Broward Health’s financial consultant, Tom Davidson, the primary reason Broward Health’s financial projections appear more favorable than Memorial’s is because Memorial’s applications include the costs of required transplant physicians, while Broward Health’s do not. As Mr. Davidson testified at hearing: Q How can you explain that difference? Have you analyzed the two pro formas to figure out why Broward Health projects it can make money at a lower volume than what you think Memorial Health would do to break even? A Yes, I mean it’s entirely – not only in the pro formas, but actually in the real world, it is a function of the physician expense. This is kind of an interesting case from a financial feasibility point of view because there is really only one issue that needs to be analyzed. You have two applicants in the same county, both tax- supported programs that provide a lot of charity care. They both want the same service, they are both projecting the same volume. Every line item in the real world, forget about what’s in the pro formas, but when the real world comes around, whatever goes on in terms of payer mix, gross charges, and in particular net revenues with Medicare and Medicaid and commercial insurers, all those numbers are just going to be what they are. They are going to have to spend the same money to take care of the transplant patient. There is nothing really that a sensible human being could bring up that would distinguish the two in terms of financial feasibility except for this one issue. Does one hospital have to hire a bunch of new doctors to get into business or do both? Broward Health represented to me and I represented in the financial projections that I prepared that they would not. Memorial represented in their forecasts that they would. And that’s the entire difference. And it’s really the only difference that there can be between these two applications. Because otherwise, if you just think about it logically – you don’t have to be a finance person – there’s no – you can’t slip a piece of paper between these two programs in terms of revenues, expenses, and other expenses, because you’ve got to take care of patients. You have to give them lab tests and things cost what they cost. So without getting into some really kind of bazaar attempts to distinguish these two, that’s the question. And I think as a health planner it is my firm opinion that that is the only thing on the financial side that Your Honor has to consider, whether or not Broward Health has to hire doctors. Originally, Mr. Davidson included approximately $900,000 in his expense projections for the cost of adding two physicians. He later eliminated those expenses by assuming that the surgeons currently performing adult liver transplants would also perform Broward Health’s adult and pediatric kidney transplants at no additional cost. Broward Health’s applications do not include any costs associated with employing or contracting for physicians needed to operate its programs and Broward Health does not know what the financial terms of either arrangement might be. As acknowledged by Robyn Farrington, Chief Nursing Officer at BHMC, Broward Health will need additional physicians beyond those who are already either employed or contracted by Broward Health in order to operate adult and pediatric kidney transplant programs. As Michael Carroll credibly testified, even assuming the surgeons performing liver transplants at BHMC also performed kidney transplants at no additional cost, it is improper to exclude the costs for those physicians from a financial assessment of the kidney program: “whatever time that liver transplant surgeon spends [performing kidney transplants] should be allocated to the kidney transplant program.” Broward Health’s pediatric application also failed to include any additional staff for the proposed project. This is because, unlike Memorial, the financial and staffing projections in Broward Health’s applications are interdependent: the staffing and expenses in Broward Health’s pediatric application assume that Broward Health is awarded the CON for an adult program and that, in large part, the adult program would support the pediatric program without the need for additional resources. Accordingly, no expenses associated with adding staff is reflected on Schedule 8A of Broward Health’s pediatric application. However, since children are not simply small adults, additional staff would, in fact, be required for Broward Health’s pediatric program. If its pediatric application is approved, Broward Health will then evaluate what additional staffing it might need for its program. However, as of now there is no way to determine from its applications what staff Broward Health will need for its pediatric program or what the additional cost of that staff will be. In short, there is no way to forecast the cost of either of Broward Health’s proposed programs. The uncertainty regarding the ultimate cost of the Broward Health programs contrasts with Memorial’s applications, which were presented as “stand-alone” projects with regard to projected costs. All resources necessary to operate the adult and pediatric kidney transplantation programs are included in each application. Notwithstanding the stand alone financial presentations, it is reasonable to assume that some resources will be shared if Memorial receives final approvals for both programs. As pointed out by Broward Health, Memorial’s applications contained four mathematical errors that impacted its financial projections. Specifically, Memorial included an incorrect number of adult transplants to be performed prior to CMS certification, improperly calculated Medicare reimbursements, overstated organ procurement costs, and included too many post-transplant follow up appointments. Memorial prepared corrected financial schedules to account for these errors. Revised Schedule 8A for Memorial’s adult application showed a net excess of revenue over expenses of $745,434 at the end of year two. Revised Schedule 8A for Memorial’s proposed pediatric program showed a net loss of $1,026,422 at the end of year two. The combined net loss at the end of year two for both programs totals $280,988. The errors did not affect Memorial’s volume projections, the programs’ scope, orientation, philosophy, accessibility, or need assessment. Memorial has the financial ability to absorb the losses for its proposed pediatric program, even if operated as a stand-alone program. If Memorial’s adult and pediatric programs are co- located, some resources will be shared, and the combined programs will approach break even by the end of year two. In this case, long-term financial feasibility is not accorded as much weight as it might be in other CON determinations, because there is an established need for these tertiary services, and both applicant organizations have the ability, if they so choose, to subsidize operational losses in order to maintain the programs. Stated differently, the projected long-term financial feasibility of both applicants’ proposals is not a basis for distinguishing between them. Rather, the commitment of the applicants to their proposals, as addressed above, is the more critical consideration. Section 408.035(1)(g): The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness The Cleveland Clinic is an existing provider of adult kidney transplantation services in OTSA 4. If Broward Health’s “plan A” is implemented, a contract with the Cleveland Clinic for surgeons to operate an adult kidney transplantation program in the same county and OTSA is less likely to foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness than approval of Memorial’s independent programs. Broward Health’s proposals will not foster competition for pediatric or adult living donor transplants. These considerations weigh in favor of Memorial with respect to the ability of both its proposed adult and pediatric kidney transplantation programs to foster competition pursuant to section 408.035(1)(g). Section 408.035(1)(i): The applicants’ past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Consistent with their missions, both applicants provide substantial services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Mr. Richardson was critical of Memorial’s applications because they do not include Medicaid in their projected payor mix. However, Mr. Richardson’s data showed a miniscule percentage of Broward County residents who received a kidney transplant and are Medicaid-eligible. And although Medicare makes up a far larger portion of the payor mix, Broward Health’s pediatric application included no Medicare in its payor mix assumptions. As Mr. Davidson testified, it is improper to draw any conclusions from an applicant excluding Medicaid as a payor source or from the fact that Broward Health did not include any bad debt or charity care in its applications. As Mr. Richardson agreed, Memorial provides a large volume of Medicaid care and the pediatric applications are on equal footing on this criterion. Mr. Richardson also correctly agreed that the applicants are the same in terms of their history of serving Medicaid and medically-indigent adult patients. There is no evidence that either applicant has a greater commitment to providing kidney transplantation services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent than the other. Accordingly, neither applicant is entitled to preference under this criterion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving CON Application Nos. 10386 and 10388 filed by the South Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Memorial Regional Hospital, subject to the conditions contained in the applications, and denying CON Application Nos. 10387 and 10389 filed by the North Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Broward Health Medical Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. ("ORHS") filed a letter of intent to apply for certificate of need ("CON") 8039 for the approval of a bone marrow transplantation program. ORHS also submitted a Notice of Filing the letter of intent for publication in The Orlando Sentinel newspaper. The notice, which is as follows, did not include the capital expenditure cost of the project. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION NOTICE OF FILING The applicant, Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., which is authorized to operate Orlando Regional Medical Center, announces its intent to file a certificate of need application on March 22, 1995 with the Agency for Health Care Administration to establish Bone Marrow Transplantation Services at Orlando Regional Medical Center, located in Orlando, FL, the Agency's District 7, Orange County Subdistrict, which is designated as Organ Transplant Planning Area 3 by the Agency's Certificate of Need Program Office. The project, if granted is expected to become operational in 1996. Signed: /s/ Garry J. Singleton Garry J. Singleton Vice President of Acute Care Operations Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. 1414 Kuhl Avenue Orlando, Fl. 32806 The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency that administers the CON program. AHCA published notice of receiving ORHS' letter of intent in Vol. 21, Number 10 of Florida Administrative Weekly on March 10, 1995. AHCA's notices do not contain cost estimates. AHCA deemed ORHS' application incomplete and withdrew it from consideration due to omission of capital costs from the published notice in the newspaper. AHCA relied on the requirements on Rule 59C-1.008(1)(i) and (j), Florida Administrative Code. See, Conclusion of Law 11, infra. There is no evidence that The Orlando Sentinel made an error in the publication of the Notice of Filing. Capital expenditure costs, when estimated in letters of intent and in notices of filing letters of intent, are often inflated. That is done because CON applications, filed subsequently with higher capital expenditure costs than those stated in the letter of intent, are rejected. Rule 59C-1.008(1)(k)3, Florida Administrative Code. Because the capital costs are often inflated in letters of intent, ORHS' expert concluded that notices of capital expenditure costs are meaningless, and that the omission of such costs from the newspaper notice is insignificant. Therefore, he asserts that the ORHS' notice of filing its letter of intent substantially complied with the requirements of the rule. ORHS' expert also notes that the publication rule requires the notice to include eleven different items, and that ORHS' notice omitted only one of the eleven. AHCA does not always require letters of intent or newspaper notices. They are not required for expedited applications, and errors in notices are excused if made by the newspaper and not the applicant. However, there are no batching cycles or comparative review of expedited CON applications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order withdrawing from consideration CON application 8039 filed by ORHS. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3059 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: ORHS' Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 (as $5,000,000 each in proposed project costs in Exhibit 3 and approximately $5,000 total actual costs in Exhibit 4). Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 2 and conclusions of law 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Rejected in conclusions of law 13. 11-13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 (as $5,000,000 each in proposed project costs in Exhibit 3 and approximately $5,000 total actual costs in Exhibit 4). Accepted in Findings of Fact 5 and Conclusions of Law 13. 16-17. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted. Conclusion rejected in conclusions of law 11. See, 5 supra. AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. 3-5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-8. COPIES FURNISHED: John Gilroy, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 James M. Barclay, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Tom Wallace Assistant Director Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether the medical services prescribed for the Petitioner are experimental or investigative under terms of the state insurance contract, and excluded from coverage.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John M. Compton, is 55 years of age, and has been an employee of the State of Florida for 21 years and 2 months. Mr. Compton is a participant in the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan (Group Plan), and entitled to coverage in accordance with the provisions of the Group Plan. The Respondent is the Division of State Employees' Insurance, Department of Management Services (Department) which is charged with the administration of the Group Plan. BCBS is the contract administrative agency for the Group Plan, and makes recommendations to the Administrator regarding covered procedures. In February 1992, the Petitioner was diagnosed by Dr. Mark Currie, a physician who specializes in treatment of diseases of the blood and cancer, with multiple myeloma, a form of cancer which attacks the blood and bone marrow. Dr. Currie treated the Petitioner using chemotherapy with good results; however, recognizing that the prescribed chemotherapy would be effective for a finite, but unknown period of time, Dr. Currie suggested intensive chemotherapy treatment with stem cell support upon relapse. Stem cell support is another term for bone marrow transplants which today includes withdrawing the blood from the donor, extracting the stem cells which form bone marrow cells, freezing these cells, and reintroducing them into the donor. This would be done after the Petitioner had had high dose chemotherapy which would kill his existing bone marrow. Chemotherapy utilizing the drugs which would be used in this procedure has been conducted for many years and the maximum dosages, maximum toxicity, and similar information have been investigated and studied in trials which have been concluded. This therapy is standardized treatment of the type administered by Dr. Currie and presumably covered by the plan. Bone marrow transplants using the procedure described above is a relatively new procedure, compared with the chemotherapy, but has been performed for four to five years and has been accepted as a standard treatment. Dr. Currie referred the Petitioner to Dr. Robert Joyce at Baptist for assessment as a subject for treatment upon relapse using a combination of the two procedures described in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, above. Dr. Joyce is a physician experienced in bone marrow research and the treatment of diseases of the blood and bone marrow using chemotherapy and bond marrow transplants. Dr. Joyce was the principal investigator and primary physician in the program to which the Petitioner was referred. After examination, testing and an initial series of chemotherapy using the drugs used in the high dose therapy, Dr. Joyce determined that the Petitioner is an excellent candidate for this procedure because he does not have many of the diseased cells in his system and they are destroyed by the drugs used in the chemotherapy. For the maximum benefit, the procedure must be undertaken before the number of diseased cells increase in the Petitioner's system. This is what creates the urgency in these proceedings. Dr. Joyce requested a predetermination of coverage for the proposed procedure from the Group Plan's administration, BCBS, which recommended to the Group Plan's Administrator that the coverage was excluded as investigative or experimental. See Subsection G.28 of the Insurance Plan Benefit Document, Respondent's Exhibit 3. By letter dated March 15, 1995, the administrator denied coverage. The denial letter states erroneously that the proposed procedure is a Phase II investigation, which gave rise to efforts at hearing to show that the proposed procedure was not a Phase I, II or III investigation or experiment. The benefit document, Respondent's Exhibit 3, defines "Experimental or Investigative" as meaning: . . . any evaluation, treatment, therapy, or device which involves the application, admin- istration or use, of procedures, techniques, equipment, supplies, products, remedies, vaccines, biological products, drugs, pharmaceuticals, or chemical compounds if, as recommended by the Servicing Agent and determined by the Administrator: such evaluation, treatment, therapy, or device cannot be lawfully marketed without approval of the United States Food and Drug Administration or the Florida Department of Health and Rehabi- litative Services and approval for marketing has not, in fact, been given at the time such is furnished to the Insured; such evaluation, treatment, therapy, or device is the subject of an ongoing Phase I, II, or III clinical investigation or under study to determine: maximum tolerated dosage(s), toxicity, safety, efficacy, or efficacy as compared with the standard means for treatment or diagnosis of the condition in question; that the consensus of opinion among experts is that further studies, research, or clinical investigations are necessary to determine: maximum tolerated dosage(s), toxicity, safety, efficacy, or efficacy as compared with the standard means for treatment or diagnosis of the Condition in question; that such evaluation, treatment, therapy, or device has not been proven safe and effective for treatment of the condition in question, as evidenced in the most recently published medical literature in the United States, Canada, or Great Britain, using generally accepted scientific, medical, or public health methodologies or statistical practices; there is no consensus among practicing Physicians that the treatment, therapy, or device is safe and effective for the condition in question; or such evaluation, treatment, therapy, or device is not the standard treatment, therapy or device utilized by practicing Physicians in treating other patients with the same or similar condition. The testimony of Dr. Currie and of Dr. Joyce established that this procedure was not a Phase I, II, or III investigation; that this procedure is safe and effective within the acceptable limits of such therapies; and that there is a consensus that the procedure is safe and effective for the condition. The testimony of Dr. Joyce established that under the protocols under which the Petitioner would received the proposed treatment, information would be gathered on toxicity and on the efficacy of this treatment compared with current treatments. Deposition of Dr. Joyce, Page 113, line 9. The evidence also establishes that the treatment proposed is not the "standard" treatment for this disease. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8, Letter of September 28, 1994, Dr. Joyce to Dr. McLear attached to letter dated October 13, 1994, Dr. McLear to Dr. Joyce. Although these conditions do not define the treatment as even a Phase IV investigation, it does place the treatment within the exclusions (b) and (c) cited in Paragraph 11, above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the proposed procedure be excluded under the terms of the State Group Plan. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings Paragraphs 1-9 Adopted and subsumed in paragraphs 1-8. Paragraphs 10-15 Adopted and subsumed in paragraphs 9-11. Paragraph 16 True, the plan does not name any specific procedure. Paragraph 17,18 There is no presumption regarding the proposed procedure as experimental. Paragraph 19,20 True, but unnecessary to resolve the legal and factual dispute. Paragraph 21-37 Subsumed in paragraph 12. Paragraph 38 Subsumed in paragraph 8. Paragraph 39 The study shows that the treatment is accepted as safe and effective, but does not address the issue of whether it is experimental. Further, the exclusion is not based upon the experimental nature of the procedure, but upon the fact that it would be excluded under specific language of the benefit plan. Paragraph 40,41 See comments to Paragraph 21. Paragraph 42-43 See comments to Paragraph 39. Paragraph 44 Subsumed in paragraphs 6,7. Paragraph 45-49 True, but not required for a determination of the issue. Paragraph 50 Subsumed in paragraph 8. Paragraph 51 Rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 52 Subsumed in paragraph 12. Paragraph 53-55 Rejected as argument. Paragraph 56 0True, but not required for a determination of the issue. Respondent's Proposed Findings Paragraphs 1-5 Paragraphs 1-4. Paragraphs 6,7 Not necessary for determination of the issue. Paragraphs 8-13 Paragraphs 3-8. Paragraphs 12 Deleted by Respondent. Paragraphs 14,15,16 Paragraphs 9-11. Paragraph 17 Paragraph 8. Paragraph 18 True, but not necessary for determination of the issue. The evidence tends to show that, notwithstanding the newness of the procedure, it is rapidly being accepted as the procedure of choice in treatment of this type of disease. Paragraph 19-23 Irrelevant. Paragraph 24 The information quoted is quoted from another source attributable to Dr. Joyce. Paragraph 25 Supports finding that the treatment is not standard, but is rejected for the purpose that it was apparently offered. Paragraph 26-29 Irrelevant. Paragraph 30,31 Conclusion of Law. Paragraph 32 Subsumed in findings that proposed procedure in not the standard treatment. Paragraph 33-39 Irrelevant. Paragraph 40 See comments to paragraph 32. Paragraph 41,42 Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Chief Benefit Programs and Legal Services Division of State Employees' Insurance 2002 Old St. Augustine Road, B-12 Tallahassee, FL 32301-4876 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in this case is whether either Mease Health Care (Mease) or St. Anthony's Hospital (St. Anthony's), or both, meet the statutory and rule criteria for a Certificate of Need (CON) to operate an open heart surgery program, and therefore, whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) should approve either, or both, of their CON Applications.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Mease is a 278 bed, non-profit acute care hospital located in Dunedin, Florida, which is within the Department's Service District V. Its service area is mid-Pinellas through Pasco Counties, with mid-Pinellas to northern Pinellas being its primary service area. It has operated a special procedures room since before July 1, 1977, but that room is not a cardiac catheterization laboratory. The special procedures room has been staffed with persons trained in treating critical care patients, with special knowledge of cardiovascular medication and catheterization equipment. The catheterization team usually consists of a physician, special procedures nurse, and at least two dedicated radiographer technologists. Procedures performed at Mease in the special procedures room include renal arteriograms, pulmonary arteriograms which involve passing a catheter through a right side chamber of the heart into the lungs, as well as cerebral and femoral arteriograms. Pulmonary angiograms, right ventriculography and right atrial injections are all currently performed at Mease, with right catheterization procedures performed in the CCU and special procedures lab. The special procedures room is not used by radiologists or cardiologists at Mease to do any therapeutic or diagnostic studies of the left chambers of the heart, but rather these procedures are performed at Plant or Largo Medical Center in Clearwater. The Mease special procedures room does not have the more sophisticated equipment necessary to perform catheterizations in the left chambers of the heart, and such equipment would be found in a CCL. Mease does not have a CON for inpatient cardiac catheterization, but does have a separate pending application for such program. It has an outpatient cardiac catheterization lab which opened in April, 1989. Mease proposes to do angioplasties on an outpatient basis, which is contrary to the Department's Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)2b, which defines this as an inpatient procedure. Mease Clinic is located adjacent to Mease Hospital/Dunedin, and consists of approximately 90 physicians who have a contractual relation with Mease. Mease Clinic is a major source of referrals for Mease Hospital/Dunedin. St. Anthony's is a 434 bed, not-for-profit acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida, which is within the Department's Service District V. Its primary service area is southern Pinellas County, south of Ulmerton Road, where 80% of its patients reside. It provides a full range of services, including inpatient cardiac catheterization, with a CCL, coronary care unit, holter monitor service, and echocardiography laboratory. St. Anthony's presently has 5 cardiologists on staff, and will be adding 3 more. It offers a full array of diagnostic services including nuclear cardiography, basic electrocardiography, a magnetic resonance imaging unit. St. Anthony's is also the site of the Rogers Heart Foundation which performs research, education, and clinical diagnostic studies involving cardiovascular diseases. Plant is a 740 bed, general acute care, not-for-profit hospital located on an 11 building campus in Clearwater, Florida, approximately 3 to 4 miles south of Mease. It provides a wide range of services, including open heart surgery, medical/surgical with all subspecialties, obstetrics and psychiatry. It also operates a nursing home, ACLF, ambulatory surgery center, rehabilitation center, and arthritis center. Bayfront is a 518 bed, not-for-profit, full service acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida, adjacent to Children's. It is connected to Children's by an enclosed passageway, and operates a shared diagnostic, open heart surgery and cardiac catheterization program with Children's. The usual procedure under this shared progam is that adult patients requiring open heart surgery are admitted to Bayfront the day prior to surgery, and then are prepared and transported through the passageway by Bayfront personnel to Children's, where the actual surgery is performed. Normally the patient is kept overnight at Children's following surgery, and is then returned to Bayfront by Bayfront personnel to continue recovery, and eventual discharge. Children's is a 113 bed children's hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida, approximately two miles from St. Anthony's. It is a full service tertiary facility, which serves as a referral center for children from throughout the State of Florida, and will have 6 operating rooms, 2 CCLs, and 13 ICU beds when construction underway is completed. It has an approved CON for 55 additional beds. Two of its operating rooms are used for open heart surgery. It has an open heart surgery program which has been in operation since the early 1970's, with 3 pediatric cardiologists and 12 to 15 adult cardiologists on staff. The Department is the state agency which is responsible for administering Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes, the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", under which applications for Certificates of Need (CON) are filed, reviewed, and either granted or denied by the Department. Currently, Children's/Bayfront, Plant, and Largo Medical Center, which is located near Ulmerton Road in central Pinellas County, have existing open heart surgery programs. There is an additional approved CON for an open heart surgery program at Bayonet Point Hospital in Pasco County. The 3 existing programs each have more than one operating room dedicated for open heart surgery. For every dedicated open heart surgery suite, approximately 500 open heart surgery cases can be performed per year, and thus, each of these existing programs in District V has the capacity to perform well over 500 cases each year. The Applications On or about September 28, 1988, Mease filed an application with the Department for a CON to implement an open heart surgery program at its hospital in Dunedin, Florida. This application was designated as CON Application Number 5679. The Department reviewed this application, and on October 13, 1988, forwarded an omissions letter to Mease. Mease responded to the omissions letter on November 14, 1988, and on November 15, 1988 the Department deemed its application complete. Thereafter, the Department reviewed and considered all material received from the applicant, and issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR) on or about January 12, 1989, noticing its intent to deny CON 5679. Mease timely filed a petition for formal hearing to challenge the Department's notice of intent to deny this CON, and Plant timely intervened in opposition to this application. On or about September 28 1988, St. Anthony's filed an application with the Department for a CON to implement an open heart surgery program at its hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida. This application was designated as CON Application Number 5678. The Department reviewed this application, and on October 13, 1988, forwarded an omissions letter to St. Anthony's. St. Anthony's responded to the omissions letter on November 11, 1988, and the Department deemed its application complete. Thereafter, the Department reviewed and considered all materials received from the applicant, and issued its SAAR on or about January 12, 1989, noticing its intent to deny CON 5678. St. Anthony's timely filed a petition for formal hearing to challenge the Department's notice of intent to deny this CON, and both Bayfront and Children's timely intervened in opposition to this application. On or about May 26, 1989, Mease filed certain revisions to its CON application, purportedly by agreement of counsel. However, these revisions were not filed with, or reviewed by, the Department in the preparation of its SAAR. The applicants and intervenors in this proceeding are all located in District V, which is composed of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. There are no subdistricts within District V for purposes of open heart surgery programs, and the Department's numeric need methodology for such programs. The open heart surgery and population growth rates for northern Pinellas and Pasco Counties exceed that of southern Pinellas County, south of Ulmerton Road. However, the total population of south Pinellas exceeds that of northern Pinellas. Utilization rates are also lower in south Pinellas than elsewhere in District V. Stipulations The parties stipulated that: The licensure and accreditation of each hospital in this proceeding is not at issue and does not have to be proven; The equipment proposed by Mease and St. Anthony's is adequate, and the costs projected for that equipment are reasonable, as well as the costs associated with architectural design and construction; St. Anthony's and Mease have the ability to finance the proposed project costs; St. Anthony's, Bayfront and Children's have stipulated to each other's standing in Case Number 89-0727; Plant has stipulated that Mease renders quality care in its existing programs; and The term "case" means "admissions" or "discharges", and there can be multiple procedures performed in each case. State Health Plan Objective 4.2 of the State Health Plan applicable to this application is to "maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990." (Emphasis Supplied.) The goal set forth in the State Plan relative to open heart surgery programs is to ensure the appropriate availability of such services at reasonable costs. These applications are not consistent with Objective 4.2. If these application were to be approved, there would be 6 (3 existing and 3 approved) programs in the District. The number of procedures projected for 1990 is 1271, and if this is divided by 6 programs, the result is an average of only 212 procedures per program. If only one of these two application were to be approved, and the number of procedures projected for 1990 were to be divided by 5 instead of 6, the result of 254 would still fall below the 350 standard. Approval of either of these applications will also significantly and adversely impact the ability of the already approved program in the District, located at Bayonet Point Hospital in Pasco County, to achieve an acceptable level of service. In the State Health Plan narrative, it is recognized that "quality of patient care is a primary concern in open heart surgery programs due to the potential consequences to the patient of poorly trained and/or skilled staff." In order to ensure quality, and in recognition of the relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures and quality, the State Plan references the Department's requirement, set forth by rule, that a minimum of 200 adult procedures be performed within 3 years of initiation of an open heart program. The narrative also notes that a broad range of services must be provided to fulfill the requirements of an open heart surgery program. Both of these applications are partially consistent with these narrative statements in the State Health Plan since they have a record of providing quality care, and offering a complete range of services within departments at these hospitals, where a broad range of diagnostic techniques and expertise are available. However, it was not established that a minimum of 200 adult open heart surgical procedures would be performed at either Mease or St. Anthony's within three years of initiation of this program. Local Health Plan The applicable portions of the District V Health Plan recommend that in a comparative review of open heart surgery applications, preference should be given to those hospitals with a documented record as a major referral center for open heart surgery, and which serve the entire community regardless of ability to pay, using the proportion of Medicaid patient days of the planning area total as a measure. The Local Plan also recommends that future expansion of open heart surgical programs occur so as to serve population areas which will generate a minimum of 350 open heart operations annually. Finally, the Local Plan states that applicants should be able to justify the projected minimum number of 200 procedures stated in the Department's rule within three years of the beginning of service, there should be a numeric need shown in accordance with the Department's numeric need methodology for open heart surgery, existing programs should be performing the number of procedures required in the Department's methodology, and priority should be given to applicants in areas which do not have existing or approved programs. District V is not divided into subdistricts for purposes of determining the need for additional open heart surgery programs. Neither of the applicants in this case are major referral centers, and neither provides a significant volume of services to Medicaid or chronically underserved groups, as discussed further below, although they have provided services to those who are unable to pay. According to the Department's numeric need methodology, there is no need for any additional open heart surgery programs in District V. There are existing open heart programs in both north and south Pinellas County, the primary service areas of each of these applicants. The Department's Numeric Need Methodology and the "350 Standard" Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Department's methodology for calculating the numeric need for additional open heart surgery programs. It provides a formula by which the number of open heart procedures for the horizon year, in this case 1990, are to be estimated. (See Finding of Fact 19 for an explanation of the interchangeable use of the terms "procedures" and "cases".) Pursuant to the formula, there are projected to be 1271 open heart surgery procedures performed in 1990 in District V. This number of projected procedures is then divided by 350 procedures in order to determine the number of programs which will be needed. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11b. Using this methodology, the Department has identified the need for 3.6 (rounded to 4) programs in the District in the horizon year. Since there are currently 3 existing (Plant, Bayfront/Children's and Largo Medical Center) and 1 approved program (Bayonet Point Hospital) in District V, the Department has concluded that there is no projected numeric need for either of these additional programs in 1990. The Department will not normally approve a CON for a new open heart surgery program unless a numeric need is projected under its methodology. In performing the calculations under its numeric need methodology, the Department correctly determined that the actual use rate in District V was 110.35 procedures per 100,000 population. This actual use rate properly does not adjust for outmigration of residents of District V to facilities outside the District. It has been the consistent policy of the Department in determining actual use rates to consider only the total number of procedures performed at facilities within the District since the numeric need methodology calculates the need for additional programs within the same District. As long as there are sufficient resources to serve the volume of patients needing service in a given District, it does not matter where those patients reside. Patients choose to go to another District for open heart services for many reasons other than a lack of resources within their own District, such as physician preference. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that all patients who outmigrate for one reason or another will return to their own District for services if an additional program is approved. For this reason, as well as the double counting of the same patients which would result if they were counted in determining the actual use rate in both the District in which they reside, and in the District to which they outmigrated for service, the Department's interpreptation and policy is reasonable. For purposes of applying the Department's numeric need methodology rule, the words "cases", "procedures", and "admissions" are used interchangeably. This is the result of the historical development of the rule, which preceded the development and implementation of DRG's precisely defining "procedures". Thus, while the rule states that need for open heart surgery programs shall be determined by computing the projected number of open heart surgical "procedures", the Department has consistently interpreted this rule to mean the number of "cases", and used the number of "cases" in performing the calculations under the methodology. Hospitals reporting data to local health councils generally report the number of cases or discharges, and most health planners similarly use the number of patients or discharges when calculating the need for a new program. Through the testimony of Michael L. Schwartz, an expert in health care planning, Mease erroneously attempted to inflate the need projected under the rule by using "procedures" instead of "cases" in its calculations. It applied the multiplier of 1.77 or 1.44 to reported "cases", since this represents an estimate of the number of procedures per case, and thus incorrectly projected a need for an additional program. The Mease methodology is in error because it is inconsistent with the Department's reasonable, historical interpretation and application of this rule, as well as the manner by which data is reported under the rule to local health councils. Recognizing that the numeric need methodology does not project the need for any additional programs, the applicants herein both seek to justify the approval of their applications under a "not normal" rationale, which relies primarily upon outmigration of patients from District V to Hillsborough County in District VI. In fact, outmigration is the only "not normal" circumstance raised in the Mease application. Therefore, arguments at hearing that the existence of the Mease Clinic should also constitute a "not normal" circumstance are rejected. The data demonstrates insignificant outmigration from Pinellas County. From July 1987 through June 1988, only 32 patients (5.9%) outmigrated from north Pinellas where Mease is located and only 36 (6.8%) outmigrated from south Pinellas where St. Anthony's is located. The main outmigration was from Pasco County in which approximately 85.5% of Pasco residents receiving open heart surgery (488 of 571) outmigrated from District V. However, there is now a CON approved program in Pasco County which will be located at Bayonet Point Hospital which will be available to serve Pasco residents who have been outmigrating to District VI. There is a direct relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures performed at a facility and the quality of care provided at such facility, with lower mortality rates generally at hospitals with higher volumes than those with low volumes. Therefore, in addition to its numeric need calculation, the Department has also developed a "350 Standard" to address patient safety and quality of care concerns by ensuring that each existing and approved open heart surgery program achieves a volume sufficient to assure quality and efficiency prior to approval of a new program. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)11aI, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the establishment of new open heart surgery programs unless: . . . the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart cases per year. . . Bayfront/Children's urges an interpretation and application of the 350 Standard in a manner which would require each existing and approved program to actually operate at the level of 350 cases per year. Since approved programs are not yet operational, and therefore cannot operate at the 350 level, they argue that the intent of this Standard, as set forth in the above-cited rule, is to preclude the approval of any additional programs while there are approved programs, or existing programs which are not meeting the 350 Standard. To the contrary, the Department and the applicants urge that the 350 Standard be applied by averaging the actual number of cases at existing programs, and the number of cases which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs. Under this interpretation, as long as the average between cases which are performed at existing, and which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs exceeds 350, then the further approval of an additional program is not prohibited. Having considered the testimony and evidence presented by the parties, and in particular the testimony of Sharon Gordon-Girven, who was accepted as an expert in health planning, which is found to be more credible, consistent, and reasonable on this point than the testimony of Michael C. Carroll, who was accepted as an expert in health planning and hospital administration, it is found that the Department's interpretation and application of the 350 Standard is reasonable and consistent with the terms of Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11aI. The Department has consistently applied this 350 Standard since this rule's adoption by averaging caseloads at existing programs and reasonably projected caseloads for approved programs. To interpret this Standard as urged by Bayfront/Children's would impose a moratorium on new open heart surgery programs while there is an already approved, but not operational, program in a District, or while a newly operational program has not yet attained the 350 Standard. There is no basis for this prohibitory interpretation which would not only reduce competition, but would also be inconsistent with sound health planning and the State Health Plan Objective 4.2, as discussed above. Quality of Care Both Mease and St. Anthony's are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Facilities and have a record of providing quality care in their existing programs. On average, hospitals performing greater than 200 open heart procedures per year have superior surgical outcomes than hospitals doing less than 200 procedures. Mortality rates are significantly lower at hospitals performing more than 200 procedures annually than at those performing less. It was established that there is a direct relationship between volume of open heart surgical procedures and quality of care at facilities with open heart surgery programs. Therefore, the existence of more open heart programs than are needed in an area may result in some existing programs not achieving sufficient volume to assure patient safety and quality of care. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)5d, Florida Administrative Code, was adopted by the Department in order to set forth the minimum volume deemed necessary to assure quality of care, and provides, in part: There shall be a minimum of 200 adult open heart procedures performed annually, within 3 years after initiation of service, in any institution in which open heart surgery is performed for adults. Although the applicants urge that they will be able to meet this threshold level within three years, they failed to establish by competent substantial evidence that they would actually attract the patients necessary to perform either the number of open heart procedures projected in their applications, or this minimum number of 200 procedures required by the Department to assure quality of care in its third year of operation, given the current pattern of physician referrals in the area, their market share in relation to those of existing programs, and actual utilization levels for the existing District V programs. Without the assurance of sufficient volume to meet the 200 procedure threshold established by the Department by rule, the validity of which is not at issue in this case, the applicants have failed to show that they will be able to achieve and maintain a patient volume in their proposed program which will assure quality of care in their proposed open heart surgery program. St. Anthony's sought to question the quality of care provided at the Bayfront/Children's program by citing an 8% mortality rate in 1987-88, and a 5.5% rate in 1988-89, while 3% is the national standard. However, mortality rates are only one indicator of quality, and a significant number of these cases at Bayfront/Children's involved complex open heart surgery on patients whose mean age was significantly higher than would be expected in a normal case mix, which presents a greater risk potential than less complex surgery on a younger case mix. In any event, this issue was not clearly raised in St. Anthony's application. Further, the evidence that was received, including testimony of physicians on staff at St. Anthony's and Children's/Bayfront, establishes that the quality of care at the Children's program is excellent, and that scheduling problems relating to availability of operating rooms are being resolved. It was not shown that there is any adverse impact on quality from having to move patients between Bayfront and Children's for open heart surgery. The fact that Mease does not have a CON for an inpatient cardiac catheterization program adversely affects the potential quality of care of any open heart surgery program at its facility since the medically preferred practice when performing such surgery is to have inpatient cardiac catheterization available. Open heart surgery programs do not, and should not, operate without this inpatient cardiac catheterization capability. Availability and Access While the addition of these two new programs would obviously increase the availability of services in the District, open heart surgery services are already reasonably available in District V. St. Anthony's is only two miles from the Bayfront/Children's program in St. Petersburg, and Mease is located in Dunedin, approximately 3 to 4 miles north of Plant in Clearwater. The two hour travel time standard is already being met in District V, and geographic accessibility will not be appreciably or significantly increased by these proposals. There is excess capacity in existing and approved open heart surgery programs in District V during most of the year, including at the Bayfront/Children's and Plant programs. Therefore, there is ready access to, and availability of open heart surgery services to patients in the District. The applicants did not establish that approval of their applications would enhance access to open heart surgery services for the medically indigent. Despite the assertion in these applications that each program would be available to the underserved, there is no definite commitment to serve charity care patients as a percentage of total patient days or of total revenue. Bayfront and Children's exceed St. Anthony's in their commitment to indigent, charity care. As a percentage of total patient days in 1987, Medicaid patients represented 2.3% of St. Anthony's, and 2.1% of Mease's total patient days, while for Children's, Medicaid patients in 1987 represented 34.2%, and for Bayfront, they represented 8.9% of total patient days. While unstable patients who have to be transferred from one hospital to another face increased risks, it was not shown that transfers from Mease to Plant, or from St. Anthony's to the Bayfront/Children's program have actually jeopardized the safety of patients or resulted in a reduction in the quality of care received by patients. Transfer delays are exacerbated by seasonal increases in population in District V, but there continues to be a reasonable likelihood that patient transfers can be accommodated, even during seasonal population increases, without adverse impacts to patient care. However, a large majority of open heart surgery cases are non-emergency that can be scheduled for surgery after diagnosis without any compromise in patient care. Emergency patients can be given priority, and there are sufficient available beds to accommodate emergency patients, regardless of seasonal delays, and such seasonal delays do not establish that there is a lack of available beds in District V which would require the approval of either of these applications. Alternatives Considered The applicants did not fully explore alternatives, including less costly alternatives, to a new program at their facility, such as a joint or shared program with an existing provider. This would have been particularly relevant to these applications since District V already has a quality joint program at Bayfront/Children's which is operating successfully in the community. A less costly alternative to approval of either, or both, of these applications would be greater utilization of existing programs, especially where excess capacity exists, such as at the Bayfront/Children's and Plant programs, and in view of there being an already approved program in District V at Bayonet Point. Personnel Availability and Costs There has been a long-term shortage of nurses, particularly in intensive care and open heart surgery, and this shortage is present in District V not merely for nursing staff, but also for technical support staff, and is particularly acute in operating room and critical care personnel. It is not always possible to fill open heart surgery or critical care nursing positions with trained personnel. At hearing, St. Anthony's proposed a joint training program with St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa for open heart personnel. However, this was not explicitly raised in the St. Anthony application, and therefore, it cannot be considered. The applicants will compete with existing providers in attracting open heart surgery nursing and technical staff. The implementation of these new programs would have an adverse impact on the ability of existing and approved programs to attract and retain trained open heart surgery nursing and technical staff, and can reasonably be expected to increase personnel costs for these providers. The salaries and benefits identified in these applications are generally reasonable and complete. However, Mease's estimate of the number of additional nursing positions, or FTE, which would be required throughout the hospital to accommodate the workload resulting from an open heart surgery program is incomplete and inadequate, and St. Anthony's failed to fully consider the need for additional personnel for its proposed open heart step-down unit, angioplasty recovery, open heart "stat" lab, and resperator machine operators. Financial Feasibility In their applications, Mease has projected 200 open heart surgery cases, and St. Anthony's has projected 150 open heart surgery cases, in their first year of operation; Mease has projected 240 cases and St. Anthony's projected 200 cases in their second year; St. Anthony's projected 250 cases in their third year of operation, but Mease did not include a third year projection. However, it is specifically found that these projections are not reasonable, based upon the testimony and evidence received, as well as the results of the Department's numeric need methodology calculations, performed pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8, the validity of which is not at issue in these proceedings. A basic assumption used by Mease in the preparation of its pro forma is flawed. The utilization projections which drive the necessary calculations in the pro forma are based upon a percentage of patients who have cardiac catheterizations who subsequently have to have open heart surgery. That percentage is 25%, but is based upon experience in which the facility at which these patients received this treatment had both inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery programs. Mease does not have inpatient cardiac catheterization, and therefore, there is a reasonable likelihood that the percentage of cardiac catheterization patients who would choose to be transferred from another facility, such as Plant, to Mease for open heart surgery would be substantially less than 25%, thereby reducing Mease's projected utilization. For example, it was shown that 75% of patients who receive inpatient cardiac catheterization remain at the same hospital for open heart surgery, if that becomes necessary and if that hospital has both programs. The pro forma which has been filed by St. Anthony's includes revenues that St. Anthony's is already receiving for treatment of patients who are subsequently transferred to Bayfront/Children's for open heart surgery. This amounts to approximately $11,000 per admission which St. Anthony's is already receiving and which, therefore, should not have been shown on its pro forma of revenues to be expected from a new open heart surgery program. The inclusion of this amount results in inflating St. Anthony's revenue projections. Additionally, St. Anthony's has incorrectly estimated its Medicare utilization at 65%, while it should have been estimated at 80% of patient mix. This error also has the effect of inflating expected revenues, and placing unjustified greater significance than there should be on its proposed fixed price discount, which is discussed later, and which applies only to non-Medicare, non-Medicaid, non-charity cases. For the July 1990, planning horizon in District V, the Department's numeric need methodology projects that there will be 1271 open heart surgery procedures. With referral patterns in place and existing providers with operational and well regarded programs, it is unlikely that either applicant would have an automatic, equal share of the District's pool of open heart patients, or even that they would perform the number of procedures projected in their pro forma for their first and second years of operation. In fact, the 3 existing providers in District V performed 1215 procedures (355 at Children's, 416 at Plant, and 444 at Largo Medical Center) between July 1987 and June 1988, leaving fewer than 56 procedures projected through the Department's numeric need methodology for the one already approved program and these applicants, if they were to be approved. It defies logic and reason to argue that the applicants will achieve their projected caseloads, given the existing levels of service at existing programs in District V, the fact there is an additional program that has already been approved, and the fact that the Department's numeric need methodology projects 1271 procedures in 1990. Since the applicants base their assessment of financial feasibility upon their unsubstantiated, inflated projections, and since the applicants have not established the reasonableness of these projections, the long-term financial feasibility of these proposed new programs has not been shown. Further, the applicants have also failed to establish that they can reasonably be expected to achieve the level of 200 procedures in their third year, and therefore, they have also failed to show that they can achieve that minimum level which the Department, by rule, requires to ensure quality of care. In other respects, the assumptions used by the applicants in their pro forma are reasonable, including their inflation factor for income, bad debt, expenses, and depreciation. Effect on Competition and Costs It cannot be determined whether there will be a significant difference between the charges proposed by each of these applicants and the actual charges at existing providers. Actual charges are dependent on case mix, Medicare percentage, payor mix and illness severity. Meaningful charge comparisons can only be made for hospitals in the same Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) peer grouping based on case mix, Medicare percentage and location, and the parties in this case are in various groupings. This finding is based on the testimony of Margo Kelly, who was accepted as an expert in health care planning and finance, and Larry Ward, an expert in hospital finance and financial feasibility, and applies to both overall hospital charges and charges for specific services. There are simply too many variables to make any meaningful comparison of charges between hospitals which are in different HCCB peer groupings. A unique aspect of the St. Anthony's application is that it has proposed a fixed fee of $32,000, adjusted 6% annually for inflation, for open heart surgery for the first 3 years of the program, if approved. However, this factor is not as significant as it may appear from St. Anthony's pro forma since St. Anthony's has erroneously underestimated its Medicare mix at 65% instead of 80%, based upon actual Medicare percentages at existing programs, and thus, the mix of patients to whom this fixed fee would apply was overestimated by 15%. The fixed fee program is applicable to such a limited number of patients that the program is insignificant as a factor upon which approval of this application should be based. Additionally, based on the testimony of Sharon Gordon-Girven, it is found that while a fixed fee may be an attractive aspect of a CON application, it is not a "not normal" circumstance which can be used to approve an application notwithstanding a showing of no numeric need. It has not been shown whether there would be an appreciable positive impact on costs in the health care community if either, or both, of these applications were approved. When health care services are duplicated and associated costs are spread over the same number of patients, charges for those patients tend to increase. The evidence showns there is virtually no price competition for open heart surgery services. Mease has underprojected charges for its open heart surgery program by estimating an average length of stay of only 10 days instead of 13, which is the average at other area hospitals, and also by failing to include cardiac catherization charges, which should be included for those patients on whom both a catheterization and open heart surgerical procedure are performed in the same episode of care. As previously discussed, there would be greater competition among existing and approved programs in District V for trained open heart surgery and critical care nurses, which are in short supply, and it can reasonably be expected that greater competition for trained personnel who are in short supply will eventually result in higher salaries and health care costs. Impact on Existing and Approved Programs As discussed above, approval of these applications will adversely affect the ability of existing providers to attract and retain trained open heart surgery and critical care RNs due to the already existing shortage of personnel to fill these positions, and the fact that one already approved program would become operational prior to either of these programs, if they were to be approved. The proposed primary service area for Mease overlaps with the primary service area of Plant, and the primary service area of St. Anthony's overlaps with the primary service area of the Bayfront/Children's program. Therefore, these facilities are competing for the same open heart surgery patients. Patients referred to Plant by Mease physicians for open heart surgery account for approximately 30% of Plant's current total caseload, and if these patients are lost, the financial impact on Plant would be approximately $4.5 to $5 million in lost revenues. The same surgical group that does 90% of the surgeries at Plant is expected to do open heart surgeries at Mease, if the Mease CON is approved. The viability of the Bayfront/Children's program might be endangered, financially and programatically, if the St. Anthony's application is approved. From July 1987, through June 1988, 39% of the adult open heart surgical procedures performed at Bayfront/Children's were referred from St. Anthony's cathing cardiologists. A substantial number of these patients can be expected to be lost if the St. Anthony's program is approved, and this can reasonably be expected to significantly decrease utilization of the Bayfront/Children's program, with resulting loss in revenues. Bayfront reasonably estimates a resulting loss of $400,000 in its net income. It was also shown that Bayfront is already incurring a net loss in income from its open heart surgery program, which would only be exacerbated by the loss of a substantial number of patients to St. Anthony's. Comparision of Applicants While St. Anthony's does have an existing inpatient cardiac catheterization program, Mease does not. The Mease outpatient cardiac cath lab only opened in April, 1989, and therefore, its experience to date with outpatient cardiac catheterization is minimal. Mease proposes to do angioplasties in its outpatient cardiac cath lab, which is specifically prohibited by Departmental Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)2b, and is an unacceptable medical practice. Thus, while St. Anthony's patients would be able to receive complete and continuous care at its facility, Mease patients would still have to be transferred to another hospital for inpatient cardiac caths and angioplasties. There is already an approved open heart surgery program in the northern part of District V which will be located at Bayonet Point, and this new program will address the outmigration circumstance which has been occuring from Pasco County to Hillsborough County, upon which Mease has based its "not normal" argument in support of its application. Although population growth is greater in northern Pinellas than in south Pinellas, the total population of south Pinellas remains larger, and thus, there remains a larger population base for open heart surgery in south Pinellas than in north Pinellas. There is only one open heart surgery program in south Pinellas (Bayfront/Children's) while there are two existing programs in north Pinellas (Largo and Plant). Mease has only 5 operating rooms, while St. Anthony's has 12, and total beds at St. Anthony's exceed beds at Mease by 434 to 278. Of the two applications at issue on this proceeding, St. Anthony's is the superior application for an additional open heart surgery program in District V, if one were to be approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order which denies the application of Mease for CON 5679, and of St. Anthony's for CON 5678. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Mease: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 5-6. Adopted in Finding 1. 7-8. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected in Finding 31, and otherwise as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected in Findings 34, 35 and otherwise as immaterial. Adopted in Finding 24. Rejected in Findings 31, 46. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 15-16. Rejected in Finding 43, and otherwise as immaterial. 17-18. Adopted in Finding 1, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 7, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 11, 49. rejected as immaterial and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding 40. 24-33. Rejected in Finding 38, and otherwise as immaterial and not based on competent substantial evidence. 34-35. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 36. Adopted in Findings 49, 50. 37-38. Rejected in Findings 21, 26. 39-43. Rejected in Finding 17, and otherwise as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 38. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 46-48. Rejected in Finding 32, and otherwise as irrelevant. 49. Rejected in Finding 30. 50-51. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 45, 47. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 46. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 40. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 7, 30 and otherwise as speculative. 59-62. Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. 63-64. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 30. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 51. Adopted in Findings 15, 17. Rejected in Finding 44, and otherwise as immaterial. Rejected in Finding 31. 74-80. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Findings 12, 19. 81-85. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding 20 and otherwise Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding 50, and otherwise as irrelevant. 88-89. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected in Findings 7, 30, and otherwise as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected in Findings 7, 30, and otherwise as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 27, 49. Rejected in Findings 1, 29, and otherwise as immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 24, but otherwise Rejected in Findings 1, 29. Rejected in Findings 38, 41. 99-100. Rejected in Finding 46, and otherwise as immaterial. Rejected in Finding 43. Rejected in Finding 45. Rejected in Finding 46. 104-105 Rejected in Findings 37, 38, 41. 106-107 Rejected in Findings 34-36. Rejected in Finding 38. Adopted, in part, in Finding 12. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by St. Anthony's: Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 12, 24. Adopted in Finding 12. 4-6. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Findings 8, 9. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Findings 20, 44. 10-13. Adopted in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 14-15. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 31. Adopted in Finding 7. 18-20. Adopted in Finding 40, but otherwise Rejected as 21-22. Adopted in Findings 7, 20. Adopted in Finding 2. Rejected in Finding 11. Rejected in Finding 11, and otherwise as immaterial. 26-27. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding 11, and otherwise Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Findings 4, 5. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 40. Rejected in Finding 20. Rejected in Finding 18, and otherwise as irrelevant. 34-36. Rejected in Findings 11, 20 and otherwise as irrelevant. 37-42. Rejected in Findings 28, 30, 31 and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. 43-47. Rejected in Finding 28. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Findings 18, 20. Rejected in Finding 18. Rejected in Findings 18, 20. Adopted in Finding 40. Adopted in Finding 20. Rejected in Findings 13, 14, 16. Rejected in Findings 16, 27, 30, 31. Rejected as immaterial, unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings 14, 30. Rejected in Findings 17, 18, 20. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected in Findings 27, 37, 40, 41. Rejected in Findings 11, 20 and otherwise as irrelevant and immaterial. 64-66. Rejected in Finding 17, and otherwise as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 67-68. Adopted in Finding 24, but Rejected in Finding 27. Rejected in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 36. 71-80. Adopted in Finding 44, but Rejected in Findings 43, 45 and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. 81-85. Adopted in Finding 36, but Rejected in Findings 34, 35. 86. Adopted in Finding 7, but otherwise Rejected as unclear. 87-90. Rejected in Findings 17, 47-49, 51. Rejected in Findings 27, 51. Rejected in Findings 34, 35, 48. Adopted in Findings 1, 52. 94-99. Adopted in Finding 52, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by the Department: Adopted in Findings 12, 24. Adopted in Findings 8, 9. 3-6. Adopted in Finding 2. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected in Finding 31, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 5, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 31. 12-15. Adopted in Finding 4, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 28. Rejected in Finding 43. 18-19. Adopted in Finding 28. Adopted in Findings 7, 20, 52, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 19. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 3, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 7, 30. Adopted in Finding 45. Adopted in Finding 50. Adopted in Finding 20, but otherwise Rejected as unnessary. Adopted in Findings 13, 30, 35. Adopted in Finding 40. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 21, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 18. 37-38. Adopted in Finding 20. 39. Adopted in Findings 34, 35. 40-41. Adopted in Finding 30. 42. Adopted in Findings 45, 47-51. 43-44. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Plant: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 16, 17. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Findings 7, 30. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 17. 11-12. Adopted in Finding 19. 13-14. Adotped in Findings 19, 20. 15-16. Adopted in Finding 1, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18-19. Adopted in Findings 7, 30. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 35, 47, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 25, 27 but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 34. Adopted in Findings 37, 38. 25-26. Adopted in Finding 46, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 27. Rejected in Finding 42. 28-30. Adopted in Findings 45, 50. Ruling on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Bayfront/Children's: Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 5. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 31, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as immaterial and cumulative. Adopted in Findings 4, 49. 10-13. Adopted in Finding 4, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 14-17. Adopted in Finding 28, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 18-19. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 20-28. Adopted in Findings 39, 44, but otherwise Rejected in Finding 43 and as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 7, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Findings 11, 49, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 7, 30, 40. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 18. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding 21, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Findings 49, 51. 39-40. Adopted in Finding 18. 41-44. Adopted in Finding 20, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 30, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 34, 35, 47, 48. Adopted in Finding 51. 49-51. Adopted in Findings 30, 31. Adopted in Findings 34, 35, 47, 48. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected as cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Ivan Wood, Esquire 1221 Lamar, Suite 1400 Four Houston Center Houston, TX 77010-3015 John H. Parker, Esquire 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, GA 30303 Guyte McCord, Esquire P. O. Box 82 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Cynthia Tunnicliff, Esquire P. O. Drawer 190 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire P. O. Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Darrell White, Esquire P. O. Box 2174 Tallahassee, FL 32316-2174 S. Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On September 14, 1977, respondent received petitioner's (BMA) application for approval of a capital expenditure proposal to establish a new twenty-station chronic renal dialysis facility in Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner is a subsidiary of National Medical Care, Inc., which is the largest provider of chronic dialysis services, operating some sixty facilities nationwide. BMA currently operates two facilities in the Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency (FGHSA) region -- a twenty-five station facility in Tampa and a twenty station facility in St. Petersburg. BMA also operates facilities in Sarasota, Gainesville and Orlando, Florida. The present application proposes to spend $470,000.00 for leasehold improvements and $140,000.00 for equipment for a total capital expenditure of $610,000.00. The proposed facility is designed to provide outpatient hemodialysis treatments to medically stable, ambulatory patients suffering from end state renal disease (ESRD). Such patients suffer negligible kidney functions and require either regular chronic dialysis treatment or transplantation. Those patients who undergo hemodialysis generally have three treatments per week, each treatment lasting from four to six hours. By letter dated December 12, 1977, the respondent's administrator notified petitioner that its capital expenditure proposal was not favorably considered for two reasons, both relating to the need for such services within the applicable service area. The first reason cited by the respondent was the finding by the FGHSA that only five additional stations would be needed in the year 1978. Due to the fact that the FGHSA failed to provide respondent with its recommendation within sixty days, respondent was required, pursuant to F.S. Section 381.494(5)(e), to deem that the proposal was recommended for approval by the FGHSA. The second reason for disapproval listed by the respondent was its own determination that a surplus of eleven stations would exist in the service area of 1978. This figure of eleven was amended at the hearing to four. Subsequent to the time that petitioner's application was considered at the local and state levels, respondent approved the application of Kidneycare of Florida, Inc. for the establishment of a ten station chronic renal dialysis facility in Clearwater, Florida. This action occurred on February 15, 1978, after an administrative hearing was held in which petitioner BMA was an intervenor. That case (Case No. 77-2203) is presently on appeal in the District Court of Appeal, Second District. Apparently, the BMA and the Kidneycare applications were submitted to and considered by the local and state reviewing authorities during the same period of time. The generally accepted formula for arriving at a projected need for additional dialysis stations is not in dispute. The starting point is the actual number of persons who are ESRD patients within the service area. To this number is added the number of patients expected to develop ESRD during the planning period. This sum is then reduced by the number of successful kidney transplants expected to occur and by the number of patients expected to die within the planning period. For planning purposes, veteran administration patients and dialysis machines are not to be included in the projections. In order to arrive at a valid project patient population figure for the planning period, it should be appropriate to add the number of transient patients or winter visitors to the area and subtract the number of patients trained for home dialysis. To arrive at the number of stations (machines) required to serve the project patient population at the end of the planning period, the projected patient pool is divided by the station utilization factor (a ratio of number of patients per station). The number of existing stations in the area is then subtracted from this figure, thus yielding the number of additional stations needed. Thus the ideal formula reads as follows: current patient pool + new patients successful transplants mortality factor home trainees + winter visitors V.A. patients = projected patient pool divided by station utilization factor number of existing non V.A. stations + additional stations needed This formula necessarily employs certain conjectural components and the dispute in this proceeding concerns the derivation and propriety of the statistics used to supply these conjectural components. It appears from the testimony and documentary evidence that the respondent relied exclusively on the data supplied by the FGHSA, with the exception of the station utilization factor. Therefore, it is presumed that the figures utilized by the FGHSA in its analysis were also utilized by respondent. In arriving at the projected patient pool, the petitioner and the HSA were in agreement with the number of new patients and the number of successful transplants. They were not in agreement with the projected morality figure or with the projected number of veterans administration patients. The HSA utilized the actual morality figure (21.8 percent) for the 1975-76 year. The petitioner utilized the figure of 15 percent. The actual morality rate for the 1976-77 year was 14.1 percent. Had the HSA had this more recent statistic available to it at the time, it would have utilized it. A more appropriate method would have been to average the two figures. This would have increased the number of deaths projected by the petitioner and decreased the number projected by the HSA. The evidence with respect to the patient cap at the V.A. hospital was based upon hearsay and thus is not sufficient to refute the HSA's projections in that area. Neither the HSA nor the petitioner took into account the number of transient patients or the number of existing patients who would undergo home dialysis training within the planning period. Each of these factors was deemed too speculative or conjectural for a meaningful computation of projected needs. Testimony was adduced to the effect that the intervenor Kidneycare had received a nine-year grant to establish home dialysis training in the subject service area, and that once this program was underway, it was expected that from 30 to 50 patients would be trained in home dialysis. The utilization factor per station or machine was also in dispute. In making their projections, both the petitioner and the HSA used a factor of 3.2. This result is obtained by assuming that each machine has a capacity for dialyzing two patients per day, and that each patient must be dialyzed three times per week. Assuming a capacity rate of 80 percent, the utilization factor is 3.2 patients per station. Using a capacity rate of 90 percent, the utilization factor is 3.6 patients per station. The respondent utilized the 3.6 factor in projecting future need. This 3.6 utilization standard has consistently been used by respondent in its review of other free-standing chronic renal dialysis facilities, and petitioner has failed to demonstrate that such a standard is unreasonable. The remaining area of the formula in dispute is the number of existing non-V.A. stations in the area to be served. The parties agreed that as of the end of 1977, there were 73 chronic renal dialysis stations in existence or authorized in the four county are covered by the FGHSA. The dispute arose over the actual utilization by Tampa General Hospital of its existing 14 stations. The assistant hospital administrator at Tampa General Hospital testified that it is the future intent of said hospital to reduce the number of stations available for stable chronic patients in order to make room for more unstable chronic and acute patients. This "future intent" is still in the recommendation stage and the testimony regarding this intent was not specific as to the actual number of stations to be withdrawn. The testimony established that a reasonable planning period for chronic renal dialysis equipment is one year. If one considers the one year period to commence at the time that the proposed facility can be operational, the testimony indicates that the one year period would run from the end of 1978 through the end of 1979. In applying the facts discussed above to the acceptable formula, it is found that the patient pool projected by the HSA must be increased by utilizing a lower mortality rate (18 percent in lieu of 21.8 percent) and that the petitioner's projected patient pool must be decreased by utilizing a higher number of deaths and a higher number of V.A. patients. The resulting figures must also be offset by applying a station utilization factor of 3.6 in lieu of 3.2 and by adding to the number of existing stations the ten stations for which the intervenor Kidneycare recently received approval from respondent. Applying these adjustments to the figures projected by the respondent, the projected patient pool for non-V.A. patients for the end of 1978 approximates 294, and the figure for the end of 1979 is somewhere close to 326. A utilization factor of 3.6 patients per station indicates an approximate need for 82 stations by the end of 1978 and 90 stations by the end of 1979.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent's denial based upon the ground of lack of demonstrated need for additional dialysis stations in the service area be reversed. It is further recommended that, a need having been shown for an additional seven stations in the planning period, petitioner be permitted to submit a revised or amended application within twenty days for approval of a seven station facility. Respondent should then act upon said revised application within fifteen days from receipt of the same. Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Art Forehand, Administrator Office of Community Medical Facilities 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold W. Mullis, Jr. Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye and O'Neill Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 33601 Eric J. Haugdahl Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John H. French, Jr. 630 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
