Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent nursing home violated Florida statutes and Department rules (and should be subject to a civil penalty) as alleged by the Department for (1) failing to provide adequate health care to an injured patient, and (2) failing to meet nursing staffing requirements.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, including the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and posthearing filings by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent Nursing Home, the Apalachicola Valley Nursing Center, is a nursing care facility located immediately west of Blountstown, Florida. It is licensed by the Department, and has been in operation since June, 1975. (Testimony of Margaret Brock) Injury to and Standard of Care Provided Myrtle White On July 4, 1979, Dora M. Keifer was the licensed practical nurse on duty during the Nursing Home's night shift. At approximately 1:30 a.m., nurse Keifer heard a noise coming from the nearby room of an elderly patient, Myrtle White. The nurse immediately investigated, and found Myrtle White lying on the floor, and against the wall. Nurse Keifer then visually examined Mrs. White's head and extremities for bruises, discolorations, swelling, lacerations, and other signs of possible fractures. Finding only a slight abrasion on her elbow, nurse Keifer then manually examined the patient's leg and hip for signs of a bone fracture or associated pain. The patient responded by complaining of pain on her right side from her knee to her hip. However, no swelling of that area could be detected; nor were there any other physical symptoms of a bone fracture which were detectable by visual or manual examination. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) After completing the examination, nurse Keifer, with the assistance of four aides, placed Mrs. White on a blanket and carefully lifted her directly onto her bed, placing her on her back. This is a lifting procedure which minimizes sudden movement and is recommended for use with patients who are suspected of suffering from bone fractures. Nurse Keifer then raised the bed side rails to prevent the patient from falling off the bed, and checked the patient's vital signs. Except for slightly elevated blood pressure, the patient's vital signs were within normal limits. Nurse Keifer, then pushed the bed to within 10 feet of her nursing station to ensure that the patient would-be constantly observed during the remainder of her shift. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White) Except on the two occasions when she made her routine rounds, nurse Keifer kept Mrs. White under constant personal observation until her shift ended at 7:00 a.m. on July 4, 1979. When she made her rounds, nurse Keifer advised her aides to keep Mrs. White under constant observation. During the remainder of her shift, nurse Keifer periodically reexamined Mrs. White. Physical symptoms of a fracture, or other injury resulting from the patient's fall, continued to be absent. At 4:30 a.m., nurse Keifer checked the patient's urine sample and detected no blood or other unusual signs. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) At the time of her accident on July 4, 1979, Mrs. White, an 88-year-old woman, was suffering from deafness, senility, disorientation, poor eyesight and arthritis. She had previously fractured her right hip, and a prosthetic device had been inserted. Her ailments caused her to frequently suffer, and complain of pain in the area of her right hip, for which her doctor (Dr. Manuel E. Lopez) had prescribed, by standing (continuing) order, a pain medication known as Phenophen No. 4. The standing order authorized the nursing staff to administer this pain medication to the patient, without further authorization from a physician, four times daily, and on an "as needed" basis to relieve Mrs. White's pain. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Mr. Manuel Lopez, Margaret Brock) Previous to and at the time of Mrs. White's accident, nurse Keifer was aware of Mrs. White's ailments, and frequent complaints of discomfort, as well as the standing order of Dr. Lopez which authorized the administering of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White on an "as needed" basis to relieve pain. In addition, nurse Keifer, by background and training was qualified to examine, make judgments concerning, and render care to patients requiring emergency medical treatment. For several years, she had served as a part-time nurse on the night shift at the Nursing Home, and had served for 6 years in the emergency room and obstetric ward at Calhoun County Hospital. At the hospital, she had engaged in the detection and treatment of traumatic injuries and broken bones on a daily basis, and was familiar with the proper nursing and medical techniques used in caring for such injuries. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White) Nurse Keifer had been instructed by local physicians (including Dr. Lopez) practicing at the Nursing Home that they should not be telephoned during the late evening and early morning hours unless, in the nurse's judgment, the patient required emergency care. Because Blountstown suffers a severe shortage of physicians, the judgment of licensed nurses necessarily assumes on increasingly important role in providing adequate medical care. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White, Margaret Brook, Dr. Manuel Lopez) Between 1:30 a.m. (the time of Mrs. Trite's accident) and 7:00 a.m., on July 4, 1979, nurse Keifer administered Phenophen No. 4 two times to Mrs. White for the purpose of relieving pain. The initial dose was given Mrs. White shortly after she had complained of pain and been moved near nurse Keifer's duty station for observation. The drug appeared to alleviate Mrs. White's discomfort. Three or four hours later, after Mrs. White again complained of pain, a second dose was administered. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) Nurse Keifer administered the two doses of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White during the early morning hours of July 4, 1979, without contacting, or seeking the further authorization of a physician. Having detected no symptoms of a bone fracture, or other injury to Mrs. White resulting from her fall, nurse Keifer concluded that administration of the medication to relieve pain was authorized by Dr. Lopez's standing order, and justified under the circumstances. She further made a judgment that Mrs. White was not suffering from an injury which justified emergency treatment, and the immediate contacting of a physician. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. Manuel Lopez, Dr. E. B. White) At 5:30 a.m. on July 4, 1979, nurse Keifer telephoned Calhoun County Hospital and left a message requesting Dr. Lopez to come to the Nursing Home and examine Mrs. White as soon as he completed his rounds at the hospital. Nurse Keifer was aware, at the time, that Dr. Lopez began his daily hospital rounds at 6:00 a.m. Later that morning, at the direction of Dr. Lopez, Mrs. White was taken to the hospital for x-rays which revealed that Mrs. White had fractured her right hip. She was returned to the Nursing Home that day, and transferred to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for several days. No surgical repairs were ever made to the hip fracture, however, and Mrs. White was subsequently returned to the Nursing Home, for bed-side care. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. Lopez, Dr. E. B. White) It was nurse Keifer's professional judgment, based upon the facts known to her at that time, that Mrs. White's fall, and physical condition neither required emergency medical treatment nor justified the immediate contacting of a physician. Nurse Keifer further concluded that the administration of Phenophen No. 4 to relieve Mrs. White's pain, without further authorization of a physician, was necessary and authorized by the standing order of Dr. Lopez. These professional nursing judgments and actions were reasonable, justified by the facts, consistent with established health care standards applied in the Blountstown area, and did not endanger the life, or create a substantial probability of harm to Mrs. White. Although the Department's Medical Facilities Program Supervisor, Howard Chastain, testified that nurse Keifer's failure to immediately notify a physician concerning Mrs. White's fall presented an imminent danger to the patient, it is concluded that the contrary testimony of two experienced medical doctors constitutes the weight of the evidence on this issue. As to the meaning of Dr. Lopez's standing order con cerning administration of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White, the Department's witnesses on this matter, James L. Myrah and Christine Denson, conceded that they would net disagree with Dr. Lopez if the doctor testified that nurse Keifer's action was consistent with the standing order. Dr. Lopez, subsequently, so testified. (Testimony of Dr. M. Lopez, Dr. E. B. White, James L. Myrah) Shortage of One Nurse on Night Shift During the period of June 1 through June 30, 1979, and July 1, through July 21, 1979, for a total of fifty-one (51) nights, the Nursing Home employed only one licensed nurse on the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. night shift. (Testimony of Margaret Brook, J. L. Myrah) During this same 51-day time period, the number of patients at the Nursing Home fluctuated between 70 and 80 patients. (Testimony of Margaret Brook, J. L. Myrah, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) The Nursing Home is managed by a licensed nursing home administrator, and provides a full range of health and related services to patients requiring skilled or extensive nursing home care. Most of the patients require nursing services on a 24-hour basis and are seriously incapacitated, mentally or physically. (Testimony of Margaret Brook) The Administrator of the Nursing Home was aware that Department rules required the employment of two licensed nurses on the night shift during June and July, 1979. She made numerous unsuccessful efforts to recruit, locate, and employ an additional nurse for the night shift. Her failure to hire the additional nurse required by Department rules was not a willful act of misfeasance or nonfeasance on her part--but was due to a statewide nursing shortage which is particularly severe in rural northwest Florida. Other nursing homes have experienced similar difficulty in recruiting and hiring the requisite number of licensed nurses. The Nursing Home received no economic benefit from its failure to employ the additional night nurse during the time in question because the cost of such an employee is fully reimbursed by the State. On approximately March 1, 1980, the Nursing Home located, and has since employed, the additional licensed nurse required by Department rules for the night shift. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Margaret Brook) Due to the widespread shortage of qualified nursing personnel, the Department ordinarily brings enforcement actions against nursing homes for noncompliance with the minimum nursing staff requirements only if the noncompliance is adversely affecting patient care. (Testimony of James L. Myrah, Margaret Brock) The shortage of one licensed nurse on the night shift during the time in question did not adversely affect the level of patient care provided by the Nursing Home. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Margaret Brock) The parties have submitted proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. To the extent that those findings and conclusions are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause, unsupported by the evidence, or law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department's Administrative Complaint, and the charges against Respondent contained therein, be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Dempsey & Slaughter, P.A. Suite 610 - Eola Office Center 605 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact 1-2. Rejected as a statement of the issues and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 8 and 9. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 9. Accepted. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 6 - 9. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 17. Irrelevant. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 13-14. Irrelevant. Cumulative. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. Irrelevant. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 22. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 14. Irrelevant. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 4 and 5. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman 2700 Blairstone Rd. Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire 307 W. Tharpe Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Beason, Esquire Suite 100 118 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the applications for a CON to construct either a 60 or 120-bed nursing home in Brevard County, Florida, submitted by Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., be denied. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 84-1976; 85-1310; 85-1506 The following constitutes my specific findings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Findings Of Fact NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY In response to a 144 nursing home bed need for southeast Duval County, Florida, Subdistrict 3, HRS Service District IV, several applicants filed nursing home bed certificate of need applications for the review cycle triggered by a December 5, 1990 deadline, including; CVI for a 60-bed addition to an existing 60-bed facility authorized by Certificate of Need No. 5602; Atrium for an 84-bed facility; Marriott for a 30-bed facility; Health Quest for a 41-bed renovation and conversion of assisted-living facility beds, or 24-bed addition to the existing nursing home. Two other applicants, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America for a 120-bed facility and Health Care Properties of St. Augustine for a 60-bed facility, did not pursue administrative appeals of their applications. HRS found all of the applications to be complete and all proposals were comparatively reviewed on their merits, with the exception of the MCRI 24-bed proposal which HRS found was untimely. The Department noticed its intent to approve the applications filed by CVI and Atrium. MRCI and HQR are Petitioners contesting the HRS intent because their applications were denied. HQR also claimed standing as an alleged substantially affected existing facility; however, HQR did not present any evidence in support of its standing on these grounds. THE HRS REVIEW HRS required the applicants to submit their proposals on an application form designated "HRS Form 1455, Oct.`88". [CVI Ex. 8; Tr. 2461. This application form is not a rule. [E.D. Tr. 1618]. A work group consisting of HRS and nursing home industry representatives developed the application form and HRS review procedures. [S.G., Q. 14; CVI Ex. 10; ANH Ex. 8]. Criteria at Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, form the basis for 13 goals of the HRS review process. (Id. S.G. pp. 4-15, Q. 14-39; ANH Ex. 8, p. 4). The goals are as follows: The first goal promotes the establishment of facilities to provide services when and where needed, intended to implement Sections 381.705(l) (a), (b), (d), (e), (j), (l), (2)(a), (b), (d) and (e) The second goal promotes special resident programs for special population groups, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (c), (f), (j), (l), (2) (a), (b) and The third goal promotes the establishment of continuing care-type communities, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (j), (2)(a), (b) and (d). The fourth goal promotes use of professionals in a variety of disciplines to meet resident needs, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b),(c), (f), (g), (h), (j), (1) and (n). The fifth goal promotes the establishment of well-designed, comfortable facilities, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (c), (m) and (2)(c). The sixth goal promotes residents' rights and residents' quality of life, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (c), (f), (j), (l) and (2)(b). The seventh goal promotes a full range of social services for nursing home residents, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (c), (f), (j), (l) and (2)(b) and (d). The eighth goal promotes provision of services to Medicaid eligible residents, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(a), (h), (n) and (2) (e) The ninth goal promotes the establishment of nursing homes which do not intend to secure significant profits at the expense of resid ent care programs and facility design, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (e), (h), (i), (l), (2)(a), (c) and (e) The tenth goal promotes nursing home locations which achieve a geographic distribution of nursing home beds, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (j), (2) (a), (b) and (d). The eleventh goal promotes proper projection of construction costs, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (e), (i) , (l), (m) , (2)(a) and (c) The twelfth goal promotes the establishment of nursing homes which have a record of implementing superior resident care programs and providing superior quality of care, intended to implement Sections 38 1.705(1) (b), (c), (f), (h), (j), (l), (n) and (2) (b); and The thirteenth goal promotes nursing home charges consistent with industry trends and Medicaid charges which are within Medicaid upper limits, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (e), (h), (i), (l), (m), (2)(a) and (e) The working group identified the goals as representing desirable outcomes under the statute to be attained by successful applicants if specific objectives are achieved. Eight objectives, each relating to one or more of the goals are then utilized, with each operationally defined by several items of information. Scoring points are divided among the various items of information solicited under each objective. [SAG. p. 3, Q. 14, p. 17, 18, Q. 45; A.G. Tr. 1330]. The scoring system is not a rule; HRS utilizes it on a case-by-case basis to aid in decision-making. [A.G. Tr. 1273, 1274; S.G. Q. 43, 45, 46]. An application was measured by assessing the responses provided in the application against the point system. [ANH Ex. 8, p. 4; S.G. Q. 43, 45, 46]. The scoring system is a means to accomplish an evaluation of information--the process of forming, qualifying, verifying, and establishing judgments. Applicants are asked to specify concrete procedures or steps that, when implemented, are likely to result in a clear and predictable outcome. [S.G. Q. 44; A.G. Tr. 1320, 1321]. Thus, both operational features and the implementation process for those features are sought. All of the foregoing evaluation procedures, including the goals, objectives, review protocols and scoring system were disclosed to the applicants prior to application preparation and filing. [S.G. Q. 14; CVI Ex. 10; ANH Ex. 8; J.B. Q. 24]. Two HRS review consultants, a primary and a secondary reviewer, assigned a number to each application item which represented that consultant's assessment of how well the applicant's response addressed the particular item. [S.G. Q. 42, 43, 45; ANH Ex. 8, p. 4]. The ultimate score was calculated by a combination of manual and computer scoring which assigned the points available for each item number. [ANH Ex. 8 p. 4; S.G. Q. 45]. The scores assigned by each of the two consultants were then averaged. [ANH Ex. 8, p. 4; S.G. Q. 45]. A statistical reliability analysis of the consultants' assessments was then conducted before further evaluation proceeded. The work group also established protocols for evaluating the information provided by applicants. [S.G. Q. 14, 45]. The protocols utilized by the HRS provide a methodology which results in predictability, uniformity and commonality of judgment in the review of each application insofar as that is possible with subjective judgments of facts [S.G. Q. 42, 43, 45, 46]. Upon completion of the scoring, a final assessment was conducted by HRS managers who evaluated the overall presentation of information in the application available to make a judgment--the application of functional aspects with program components, whether the integration of the elements was internally consistent, and the likelihood that the proposal will have the success predicted by the applicant. [S.G. Q. 43, 46]. These elements serve as verification of the reviewer's actions and reflect the decision-making that occurs when the preliminary decision is made. Under the HRS evaluation system, there is no particular "passing" score. [S.G. Q. 45, 46]. The scores attained were utilized as an aid to evaluating the applications. [A.G. Tr. 1273, 1274]. The goal is to attain the highest possible percentage score possible based upon a potential base score of 1500 points. A successful applicant should demonstrate a consistently high number on each of the eight rated objectives. Reviewer judgment dictates the score; the score does not dictate the judgment. A display of the scores will quickly reveal weak points and inconsistencies in the application which assist HRS in exercising its decision- making discretion in weighing and balancing the statutory criteria. [A.G. Tr. 1273, 1274]. HRS prepared a "State Agency Action Report" which explained the evaluation, summarized the HRS findings, provided the scoring results, and stated HRS' intent to approve the CVI and ANH applications. [ANH Ex. 8]. 22. The scoring results Primary were: Secondary Average Percent of Reviewer Reviewer Score Maximum Atrium 1196.9 1274.33 1235.61 82.37 CVI 1175.28 1178.77 1177.03 78.47 Health Care & Retirement Corp. 1113.92 1185.4 1149.66 76.64 Health Care 1119.25 Properties of St . Augustine Marriott 1110.58 1150.90 1143.67 1135.08 1127.12 75.64 75.14 Health Quest (41 beds) 1079.46 1109.05 1094.26 72.95 Health Quest 1079.46 (24 beds) 1109.05 1094.26 72.95 The staff consultant with primary review responsibility exercised her professional judgment in reviewing the applications. [A.G. Tr. p. 1272]. /1 There was no evidence that approval of any of the four applicants would have an adverse impact on the costs of providing health services, especially in light of the numeric need and the high occupancy rates within the subdistrict. There were no alternatives within the subdistrict for the providing the type of care required except construction of additional beds or renovation of existing beds of a similar type. Both of these alternatives were presented by the various applicants. THE CVI APPLICATION CVI is a not-for-profit Florida corporation. [CVI Ex. 3, iiia, iiic; J.B. Q. 28; CVI Ex. 8]. It is a local service unit of the National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a Missouri not-for-profit corporation. The NBA was founded in 1887, and is one of the general administrative units of the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The NBA provides care at numerous facilities to older adults, children and persons with developmental disabilities. [Id.; L.W. Q. 14]. Through local service units, (not including the CVI project), the NBA currently operates 13 nursing homes in 8 states. [Id.] CVI is developing a 65-acre adult retirement community on a site adjacent to the Mayo Clinic Jacksonville in southeast Duval County. [Id.]. Construction has been completed on all individual residential components of Phase I. [P.R. Tr. 200, 205, 206; K.V. Tr. 53; J.B. Tr. 311, 312; J.B. Q. 19]. The 60 bed addition will be part of Phase 11. [CVI Ex 3, PT 1, p. iiia; J.B. Q. 28]. Phase I consists of independent living apartments, an adult congregate living facility ("ACLF"), a 60-bed skilled nursing facility specifically designed for and dedicated to the care of persons afflicted with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia, and a core service building which contains administrative and other support facilities- [P.R. Tr. 200, 205, 206; K.V. Tr. 53; J.B. Tr. 311, 312; J.B. Q 19; CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. 50a, supp. after p. 72a]. These elements, as required, have already been granted CON's. Phase I also included a maintenance building which in turn includes a laundry to serve the campus. [Id.; J.B. Q. 78, 79; CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. 40a]. The Alzheimer's facility was authorized pursuant to Certificate of Need No. 5602 issued to CVI in 1989. [CVI Ex. 9; J.B. Q. 18]. The Alzheimer's facility consists of a 60-bed unit connected to the core service building. The 60 beds proposed by CVI herein will be located in a new nursing unit a.ii so to be /2 connected to the core service center. [Id.; P.R.Q. 12, 13, 14; P.R. Tr. 188, 189]. The Alzheimer's unit will also serve as a research center. [CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. 71a, 71b; T.W. Q. 46, 47; K.V. Q. 17, 18]. All residents will participate in low-risk research such as diagnostic assessments, tracking the degenerative process through the collection of clinical data, behavioral observation and modification, activity-based therapy, and the use of environmental cues. [Id.; T.W. Q. 13]. Ultimately, dietary and drug therapies will also be the subject of research. [T.W. Q. 13]. The Mayo Clinic Jacksonville has a special Alzheimer's disease research team which will actively participate in the CVI research. [Id.]. CVI will be the only applicant licensed by HRS to operate the Alzheimer's unit. [F.D. Tr. 1565, 1566]. The Alzheimer's unit constitutes the nursing facility to which the proposed 60 nursing unit beds will be added.. [Id.]. CVI PROPOSED NURSING UNIT PROGRAM/QUALITY OF CARE CVI seeks a CON for a 60-bed nursing home addition to the ACLF mentioned above. The majority of the residents for the proposed nursing unit will come from the adult community developed by CVI which will be occupied by residents from within the total district. However, it is not anticipated that the adult community will be a direct source for nursing home residents for at least five years after the nursing unit is opened. [J.B. Q. 52, 103]. The CVI nursing unit will provide nursing care of a more generalized nature compared to the Alzheimer's unit. [J.B. Q. 26; K.V. Q. 28; CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. iiia]. Consistent with CVI's plan for a continuum of care, the proposed nursing unit beds will also serve residents initially admitted to the Alzheimer's unit but whose disease has progressed to the point where the medical diagnosis becomes primary and, therefore, skilled nursing care becomes the primary need for that resident. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, iiia; J.B. Q. 26; CVI Ex. 3, PT II, pp. 46a-46c; K.V. Q. 26, 27, 28]. However, utilizing existing Alzheimer's unit resources, these former Alzheimer's unit residents will still receive specialized care and participate in research; CVI Ex. 3, PT II, pp. 71a, 71b; T.W. Q. 46, 47]. CVI defines a "program" as those services designed to correct a resident's problem or condition. [CVII Ex. 3, PT I, p. 46a-46c; K.V. Q. 26, 27, 28]. The CVI nursing unit will offer three different specialized programs: (a) Alzheimer's care offering specific therapies for residents with Alzheimer's disease or related dementias; (b) a medically complex program offering restorative, therapeutic care for residents with acute, medically complex conditions; and (c) an inter-generational enrichment program for the purpose of stimulating nursing residents by daily interaction with children in a structured therapeutic activity. [Id.] Given the experience of the NBA at other local service units, CVI can reasonably be expected to provide excellent quality of care through the support and resources of NBA. [CVI Ex. 3, PT ii, pp. 24a-24c; T.W. Q. 29, 30; K.V. Q. 54]. CVI PROPOSED NURSING UNIT DESIGN SUPPORT FEATURES The nursing unit will comprise 18,720 square feet of new construction, with 28 semiprivate rooms, 3 private rooms, and one isolation room. [CVI Ex. 3, iiia; P.R. Q. 14-16]. The nursing unit will include an activity room, a day room/lounge with an outside activity deck, a nourishment station, and three garden recreation areas. [Id.]. The quality of life and care of the CVI nursing unit resident will be enhanced by resources available in the adjacent core service building which include a kitchen, a large, dividable dining area, activity rooms, physical and occupational therapy areas, beauty and barber shops, administration areas offices, medical treatment rooms, and a visitor lounge. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. iiia; J.B. Q. 28]. Construction of the core service building was completed as part of the construction for the Alzheimer's unit. [P.R. Tr. 205-208]. When HRS reviewed the feasibility of the certificate of need application for the Alzheimer's unit, it also reviewed plans for the core service building. [P.R. 196-203, 207, 208; HQR Ex. 44; J.B. Tr. 255, 256]. The Alzheimer's unit was approved as a 60-bed alternative to a 120-bed nursing home proposed in CVI's earlier application for Certificate of Need No. 5602. [Id.]. Approval of the 60-bed Alzheimer's unit did not change the design nor reduce the total space planned far the core service building. [Id.]. The CVI nursing unit addition will not require the conversion, through renovation or new constructions of any area within the core service building. [P.R. pp. 200-206; J.B. Tr. 311, 312]. After the Alzheimer's unit project construction was underway, HRS allocated 7741 square feet of the core service building to represent the amount of core service area space under HRS nursing home jurisdiction. [P.R. Tr. 196, 199; HQR Ex. 42]. It is unrebutted that this allocated space will be sufficient to support both the proposed nursing unit beds and the Alzheimer's unit. [J.B. Tr. 311, 312; P.R. Tr. 196-203, 205, 206]. The allocated core space includes an allocation for the main dining room. Use of this main dining area is optional for residents of the Alzheimer's unit and the proposed nursing unit, since each unit has its own adequate dining facilities. [P.R. Tr. 188-191, 229; K.V. pp. 59, 60]. CVI will provide child day care for employees, and these children will participate inn the inter-generational enrichment program. [CVI Ex. 3,PT II, pp. 46a, 60a, 60b; K.V. 27, 28, 33, 34]. Ultimately, the child day care center will be located within a new apartment building, but will be temporarily housed in the core service building. [K.V. Tr. 52, 58]. CVI will also eventually construct a chapel to be located on the campus. [CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. 66b; K.V. Q. 43, 44]. Until then, the nursing home residents will be able to utilize a chapel area located in one of the lounge areas in the existing apartment building. [K.V. Tr. p. 56]. CVI's semiprivate rooms are specially designed to provide a physical separation, through the use of a dividing wall, that approaches the privacy of a single room with the economizes of a semiprivate room, while still allowing each resident to have the very important contact with another person. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. iiia, Appendix 11(4B); P.R. Q. 14-16; P.R. Tr. 182-186]. Each bed will overlook an individual adjacent window. [Id.]. CVI PROJECT COSTS CVI reasonably projects that the nursing unit will involve a total project cost of $3,286,258 - ($301,175 land, $2,174,108 (including $79,880 fixed equipment) building construction, $231,525 moveable equipment, and $571,450 intangible asset and deferred) [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, 24-27c; J.B. Q. 37-39, 41; P.R. Q. 8; T.W. Q. 19-21]. CVI's capital budget also includes the possible development of additional ACLF units on a second floor of the nursing unit building as part of Phase II. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 28, 28a; J.B. Q. 42; J.B. Tr. 303, 304]. However, the CVI nursing unit construction cost was conservatively projected on the basis that the nursing unit would, like the Alzheimer's unit, be a one-story building. [P.R. Tr. 193-195]. It thereby accounts for all construction, including the roof, necessary to build the 18,720 square foot nursing unit. [Id.]. CVI's projected construction costs for the proposed nursing unit are reasonable and conservative. [CVI Ex. 3, PT 1, p. 27a; J.B. Q. 38, 39, 40; P.R. Q. 6; P.R. Tr. 210-212; CVI Ex. 34]. In the application, they were premised upon the Alzheimer's unit costs as known at the time the application was submitted. [Id.]. The reasonableness of the proposed nursing unit construction cost projections was again verified by the time of hearing in August, 1991. [J.B. Q. 41]. For construction (labor, materials, overhead, construction management, and profit) CVI projected a cost of $1,825,144, or $97.50 per square foot [CVI Ex. 3 PT 1, p. 27a; J.B. Q. 38, 39, 40; P.R. Q. 6; P.R. Tr. 210-212; CVI Ex. 34]. CVI certified to HRS that the final construction cost for the Alzheimer's unit under Certificate of Need No. 5602, including fixed equipment, was $76.33 per square foot. [CVI Ex. 34]. Adding the construction management fee, the final cost was $81.30 per square foot. [Id.]. If CVI's fixed equipment costs of $79,880 were added to the $1,825,144 projected construction cost for CVI's nursing unit, the result would be $101.74 per square foot. If the comparable Alzheimer's unit cost of $81.30 per square foot was conservatively inflated for a two year period (to allow adequate construction commencement after final agency action, see CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. 57; P.R. 1. 25, 26) the result of $89.63 per square foot again reveals the reasonableness of CVI's projected construction costs. The CVI proposed nursing unit will occupy approximately 3 acres of the total 65 acre campus. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. iiia, 27a; J.B. Q. 28,38, 39, 46]. CVI reasonably allocated, pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles, a portion of the land's fair market value and land improvement costs to the proposed nursing unit 60-bed project. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. 27a; J.B. Q. 38, 39; J.B. Tr. 294-296]. CVI's ABILITY TO FINANCE THE PROJECT CVI has the ability to finance the nursing unit project. [ANH Ex. 8, p. 22]. Phase I, including: the Alzheimer's unit, of the CVI campus was financed through a $21,960,000 tax exempt bond issue through the Jacksonville Health Facilities Authority. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. 28a, 1990 Audited: Financial Statement, p. 10; CVI Ex. 8; R.B. Tr. 241, 242]. CVI intends to secure the same type of financing for the proposed nursing unit. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 30, 30a; J.B. Q. 44-46; CVI Ex. 3, Appendix 5(2.c.1); L.W. Q. 8-10; R.B. Q. 5-13; R.B. Tr. 241,: 242]. The Jacksonville Health Facilities Authority provided the tax exempt bond issue through the authority of Chapter 159, Part II, Florida Statutes. [CVI Ex. 8, p. 1]. Thus, pursuant to the provisions of the statute, CVI Phase I project in its entirety (which includes the core service building and the ACLF) necessarily was found to be financially feasible. See Section 159.29, Florida Statutes. CVI will be primarily responsible for repayment of the bond proceeds but the NBA will guarantee the bond issue, as it did for Phase I. [Id.; M.G. Q. 26]. The NBA has significant financial strength. In 1988, it had total assets of $145,493,840. [CVI Ex. 8; L.W. Q. 16]. In 1989, the total grew to $168,507,027. [Id.]. In 1988, it realized a net income (revenue over expenditures) of $5,670,754. [Id.]. In 1989, the income increased to $11,563,778. [Id.] The NBA has secured third party financing for its local service units on numerous other occasions. [L.W. Q. 7; R.B. pp. 241, 242]. The most recent occasion involved tax exempt bond financing immediately prior to the hearing, ore July 31, 1991. [L.W. Q. 7]. The investment banking firm which has worked on several tax exempt bond financing projects with the NBA, and which handled the financing for Phase I of CVI, has reviewed the financing proposal for the CVI nursing unit and has found it to be reasonable and achievable. [R.B. Q. 1-13]. Raising charitable funds has been a regular activity of the NBA and its local service units. [L.W. Q. 11, 13]. To date, CVI has raised $4,000,000. [Id.]. As of June 30, 1991, $1,327,589 in cash from donations was still available for the proposed nursing unit. [Id.; J.B.Q. 44-46]. The CVI application revealed $24 million in assets consisting primarily of bond issue proceeds. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 28-28(b); J.B. Q. 42, 43]. CVI STAFF AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS The staff proposed for CVI's nursing unit significantly exceeds minimum requirements, and would meet the criteria in Florida for a superior rating. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 36, 37, 37a, 38, 39; K.V. Tr. 31, 32, 39, 40; K.V. Q. 49-53; T.W. Q. 23-26; J.B. Q. 54-63]. The superior rating indicates a higher level, and higher quality, of care. [Id.]. Because of the nursing intensity required for Alzheimer's and related dementia patients, the Alzheimer's units staff nursing to patient ratio will be 1:5 or 1:6. [K.V. Tr. 63, 66]. The CVI nursing unit will have a 1:8. The typical ratio for nursing homes in the Jacksonville, Florida area is 1:10. [K.V. Tr. p. 66]. The CVI application presented reasonable levels of anticipated salaries and fringe benefits. [CVI Ex 3, PT I, pp. 36, 37, 37a, 38, 39; K.V. Tr. 31, 32, 39, 40; K.V. Q. 49-53; T.W. Q. 23-26; J.B. Q. 54-63]. CVI accounted for employees, such as the administrator and director of nursing, who were full-time and on a fixed salary. (Id.]. CVI also accounted for those staff who are to be paid on the basis of an hourly wage, such as nurses, calculated according to the number of work hours expected (based on full-time equivalent factors). [Id.]. Under this approach, the CVI salary projections account for vacation, overtime, and sick leave. [Id.; K.V. Tr. 45, CVI did not directly reflect revenues nor expenses attendant to the activities of therapists, pharmacists, dentists, podiatrists, a medical director, for other such consultants because they would serve as independent contractors. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 40a, 46b; J.B. Q. 66, Instead, CVI indirectly accounted for the independent contractors by utilizing a "net methodology" pursuant to which the anticipated consulting fees are included within a base rate for private pay residents along with a markup. [Id., Tr. 312-314, 339, 340]. The markup covers the cost to provide the contractual services to Medicaid or Medicare reimbursed residents. [Id.]. In this regard, CV followed the customary accounting approach taken by a not-for-profit nursing home whereby the facility does not attempt to profit from the provision of such contractual services. [Id.] FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF CVI'S NURSING; UNIT By the end of the second year of proposed nursing unit operations, it is reasonably anticipated that the 120-bed CVI nursing home will realize a net income of at least $275,300 at 95 percent occupancy. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 35 35a, 47-49a (Schedule 18); J.B. Q. 77-81; J.B. Tr. 274, 275]. By the second year of operation, CVI's revenues per patient day will be $99.25, compared to $116.16 for HQR's 24 bed proposal, $117.45 for HQR's 41 bed proposal, $118.15 for Atrium's proposal, and $126.03 for MRCI's proposal. [Comparison of Schedule 18 of applications]. The nursing unit is feasible on an immediate and long-term basis. [J.B. Q. 27]. CVI did not rely upon any non-nursing home revenues to demonstrate feasibility for the nursing unit. [Id.; J.B. Tr. p. 305]. CVI demonstrated nursing home feasibility as a stand-alone project. [Id.] Schedule 18 of the application contains space for the applicant to enter non-nursing home revenues and costs, such as those items associated with the operation of a co-located ACLF. Under HRS policy, the applicant has the option as to whether or not to provide these projections. [E.D. Tr. 1551-1559]. CVI proposes a 35 percent Medicaid utilization condition for the nursing unit which, with a 50 percent rate in the Alzheimer unit, results in a 42.5 percent Medicaid rate for the 120 bed facility. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p.iv, p. 46a; H.B. Q. 31, 33, 73-75; A.G. Tr. 1260, 1261, 1320]. Of the completing applicants, only CVI showed all it beds will be Medicaid certified. [J.B. Tr. 263, 265]. It is the financial feasibility of the specific certificate of need being reviewed which is assessed by HRS. [Id.]. HRS does not review the financial feasibility of any other operations of the applicant which are not part of the nursing home certificate of need application. [Id.]. VALIDITY OF CVI'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The completeness deadline for applications was January 18, 1991. However, the completeness determination for CVI was delayed by approximately one month because, initially, HRS withdrew the CVI application from review. HRS' action was based upon an audited financial statement of CVI covering the first 10 months of 1990. HRS acted upon an apparent non-rule policy that a "combined" audited financial statement would not be `accepted, and the conclusion that the 1990 10-month CVI audit was a "combined" statement. No evidence was adduced at hearing to demonstrate what HRS specifically defined to be a "combined" statement, or specifically why the Department initially felt the 10-month 1990 audit was not an audited financial statement of Cypress Village, Inc. Upon reconsideration, the HRS reinstated the CVI application, specifically finding that another audited financial statement, covering the full 1989. The purpose of an audit is to fairly present, in all material respects, an entity's financial position, results of operations, and cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). [M.G. Q. 11; M.F. Tr. p. 1813]. This conclusion may be expressed only when the auditor has formed such an opinion on the basis of an audit performed in accordance with general accepted accounting principles which govern auditing standards. [Id.] The certified public accountant has a duty to exercise independent professional judgment with due professional care in preparing the audit and preparing the report. [Id.; M.F., Tr. p. 1811; M.G. Q. 35]. Within the accounting profession, because independent judgment is to be utilized, reasonable persons can disagree on a professional basis as to whether, how, and why certain items should or should not be included in, or appear in, audited financial statements under GAAP for any particular entity. [M.F. Tr. 1918]. The CVI auditors found that `failure to account for all assets, regardless of legal title, exclusively utilized by CVI for its economic benefit would violate the completeness requirement. [M.G. Q. 16, 17, 33]. [M.G.Q. 26]. If CVI's auditors had not reflected the assets to which that liability applies, notwithstanding titled ownership, the audited statements would not have been complete and would not have fairly represented the financial position of CVI. [Id.]. Both CVI audited financial statements meet the test of fairly presenting CVI's financial position results of its operations, and cash flows in conformity with GAAP. [M.G. Q. 1-39]. The CVI auditors exercised independent professional judgment with due care. [Id.; M.G. 34, 36]. Even if reasonable persons disagreed with the results, the application's requirements were met and HRS had information presented to it upon which to base its decision. The balance sheet and income statements contained in both the 1989 and 1990 CVI audited financial statements are based upon the "fund balance" accounting approach. [CVI Ex. 3, p. 9, 1990 audit; M.G. Q. 28, 30; Burcham Q. 11]. Fund balance accounting is unique to not-for- profit and governmental entities. [M.G. Q. 31]. The CVI audit balance sheets and income statements represent the combination of funds from two sources, both directly related to CVI operations and both of which have a material influence upon CVI's financial position, cash flows, and operational results. [M.G. Q. 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36]. The 1990 statement is only different from the 1989 audit in terms of the form of presentation and because the passage of time resulted in updated financial information being available to reflect the more mature status of CVI in its development activities. [M.G. Tr. 1536; CVI Ex. 3 1989 & 1990 audits]. The characterization of the audited financial statement as a "combined statement" has no significance from an accounting standpoint because "combined statement" is not a term of art in accounting and has no precise meaning. [Id.; M.F. Tr. 1825, 1826]. To the extent the CVI statements may be deemed "combined", they do portray CVI as a distinct legal entity and do not distort the financial ability of the applicant [M.G.Q. 1-39; M.G.Q. 16, 27-29]. To the extent that CVI's 1990 audited financial statements make a specific reference to "combined financial statements", this reference is not a term of art and does not effect the validity of the audited financial statement. [M.G.Q. 27; Burcham Tr. 330, 331]. The financial statements account for the assets and liabilities shared with the NBA as required by GAAP. [Id.; and M.F. Tr. 1333-1334]. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountant's Technical Division concurs in the type of presentation utilized by CVI's auditors. [I.B.Q. 17]. The Technical Division was asked to comment on an audit for another NBA local which utilized the fund balance presentation. [Burcham Q. 5- 18]. The Division concurred that NBA's assets dedicated to that service unit's retirement program (similar to CVI's) should be included on the audit given the unit's debt and other obligations and economic benefit derived from those assets. [Id.; M.F. Tr. 1744, 1745]. VALIDITY OF CVI'S LETTER OF INTENT NOTICE OF PUBLICATION CVI timely published notice of its letter of intent in the Jacksonville Times Union. The contents of the publication are set forth in Rule 10-5.008(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Due to an error which was solely the fault of the newspaper, the newspaper left a zero off the total project costs so that the publication actually said "$30,000.00" instead of $3,000,000. [CVI Ex. 4]. Prior to the application completeness deadline, CVI provided an affidavit to the HRS which revealed that the error was not due to any fault of CVI. [CVI Ex. 4; A.G. Tr. 1266, 1267; E.D. Tr. 1569-1571]. Consistent with its existing policy, HRS found that since the publication error was not the fault of or within the control of the applicant, CVI had satisfied the legal requirements for publication. [Id.; A.G. Tr. 1269-1270]. The rationale for the HRS policy was that it would not be fair to punish an applicant for the `mistake of the newspaper as long as the applicant fulfilled its responsibility to demonstrate that it had no part in creating the error. [Id.]. At the time of the CVI application, this policy had been consistently applied by HRS for numerous other applicants who were found to be in compliance with the law as long as the publication error was not their fault. [Id.]. CONFORMITY WITH THE LOCAL HEALTH PLAN All four applicants conformed generally to the applicable local health plan. The applications of CVI and Atrium were determined by HRS to meet the elements of the local plan better than did the applications of Health Quest and MRCI. Atrium and CVI were the only applicants which provided specialized programs for Alzheimer's patients, a preference for applicants in the local health plan. [Atrium/Nelson PF, pp. 20- 28; Atrium Ex. 8, p. 10-11; HRS/Granger PF, pp. 6-8; ANH Ex 16; A.G. Tr. 1323]. Atrium and CVI had the lowest costs per bed of the applicants. [See p. 249 below]. MCRI failed to address the current District Health Plan (1990-91) and instead used the 1989-90 plan. [Atrium/Nelson PF, p.9]. MRCI proposes to serve the lowest percentage of Medicaid patients in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide experience of nursing homes. Health Quest's existing facility, already at 120 beds, would be substantially over optimal size at 161 beds, if its proposed project is approved. Furthermore, Health Quest was not in compliance with regard to special programs and commitment to serve hard-to-place patients. [Atrium/Nelson PF, pp. 9-20; Atrium Ex. 8; HRS/Granger PF, pp.: 9-10]. There was no evidence that approval of any of the four applicants would have an adverse impact on the costs of providing health services, especially in light of the numeric need and high occupancy rates of the subdistrict. ATRIUM'S APPLICATION The proposed Atrium 84-bed nursing home will be constructed in close proximity to The Atrium Retirement Community of Jacksonville, an existing 176 unit retirement and assisted- living community. The Atrium will be a new facility constructed and developed by owners new to construction and operation of health care facilities. The applicant is a "shell" corporation with assets of $50,000.00 owned by Jack and William Deinetree, two brothers, who have also provided financial data and letters from their bank indicating their financial ability and intent to complete this project. The applicant filed an audited financial statement as required by statute although it revealed a shell corporation waiting CON approval for the infusion of dollars by the shareholders, Jack and William Demetree. HRS does not limit an applicant's documentation in demonstrating how it will be able to finance its project, if approved. Atrium's letter of intent was clearly indicated as such within its application. Atrium's application was deemed complete. [Vol. 15, pp. 1616-17; Atrium Ex. 2, p.123; Atrium Ex. 5]. Personal financial statements of the Demetrees, prepared by their longtime CPA, were also included in Atrium's application. [Atrium/Schramm PF, pp. 10-11]. The Demetrees' financial statements were "compiled" statements. [Vol. 16, p. 1678]. A CPA will not even prepare a compiled statement unless he has personal knowledge of the individual involved and his business operations. [Vol. 16, p. 1678]. `The financial statements of the Demetrees were provided as supplementary material. There is no statutory or rule requirement that they be in a certain form. [Vol. 16, p. 1694] After assessing their financial net worth, DHRS concluded that the Demetrees have more than sufficient liquid assets to make the equity contribution required in Atrium's application. It is a matter of the general business philosophy of the Demetrees that they put equity into all their development projects. [Atrium/Schramm PF, p. 11]. The nursing home application form does not require audited financial statements of stockholders in order to support their ability to make equity contributions. Neither the application Form 1455A, October 1988, nor the instructions thereto, dictate such a requirement. [Atrium Ex. 2, p. 24; Healthy Quest Ex. 9, p. 1-6; MRCI/Beiseigel PF, p. 6; Vol. 1, p. 75; Vol. 5, p. 444]. The ability of the Demetrees to obtain construction and permanent financing, as well as contribute substantial equity and operating capital was demonstrated by competent, substantial evidence. The $100,000 note payable to owners that appears in Schedule 15 of Atrium's application will be a line of credit, used for working capital during the first year of operation, before the cash flow picks up. It is fairly customary in the industry to provide such financing during the initial year or so of operations. (Vol. 6, p. 569; Vol. 16, p. 1682). The Atrium will have the resources available to complete the proposed project if the Demetrees provide the financing. Because the Atrium is a shell corporation in which the Demetrees own all the stock, it is logically assumed that they will provide the financing to the extent they are able. [Vol. 16, p. 1682; p. 1716; p. 1723; HRS/Granger PF, p. 13]. Their ability to finance the project is discussed above, and no evidence was introduced to show they could not finance the project. As a shell corporation, the Atrium currently has no other capital projects or expenditures under development or in the planning stage. Because it has very little capital and is totally dependent upon the infusion of capital by the Demetrees, existence of other project and expenditures is absolutely irrelevant. [Atrium/Schramm PF, pp. 5, 7]. Recent borrowings in amounts of from 3 to 8 million dollars by companies in which the Demetrees are major owners indicate their ability to obtain capital at rates from prime plus one-half to prime plus one. [Vol. 16, pp. 1680-1]. In its application, Atrium provided a letter of interest from First Union National Bank to finance the project, if approved. The Demetrees have a long-standing relationship with the bank, which has financed numerous large scale developments for the Demetrees through construction loans, working capital lines and permanent financing. The Demetrees have a 40-year, unblemished lender-borrower relationship with First Union (formerly Atlantic National Bank); there was no competent substantial testimony to the contrary. [Atrium/Schramm PF, pp. 8-9; Vol. 6, p. 549; Atrium Ex. 2, App.; Vol. 16, pp. 1679-81; Vol. 5, p. 445]. The Atrium's proposed plan is designed to develop innovative quality of life enhancements to minimize the institutional setting characteristic of some nursing homes. The plan utilizes a staggered semiprivate room design that increases residents' privacy and allows each resident to have a window to the exterior. The facility will-meet social needs of the residents, as well as their need for privacy. It is supported by a resident room design as well as a variety of activity and support spaces. (Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 3; Atrium Ex. 8, p. 18) The Atrium's proposed design is both appropriate and reasonable in light of state and local construction standards for a freestanding nursing home. (Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 3-7) The projected construction costs are based on Vasant Bhide's experience with designing and working on at least five (5) nursing home projects in the North Florida area in the past two years. According to Bhide, the proposed project cost estimates (construction costs, fees and equipment) are reasonable, and include almost $200,000 in contingency funds. Bhide's representations are disputed by other equally knowledgeable and experienced builders and architects whose costs estimates on similar facilities exceed Bhide's estimates. (Vol. 7, p. 644; Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 4; Atrium Ex. 3, p. 49; Atrium/Downs PF, p. 6-7) The Atrium's project costs compare favorably with HRS experience, and the actual costs may be lower due to the impact of the current recession. (Vol. 5, P. 434). (Vol. 7, p.644; Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 4-7; Atrium Ex. 3, p. 4-7) The total project cost of Atrium, which is just under $4 million, is deemed reasonable. (Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 29; Atrium/Downs PF, p. 6; Vol. 6, p.570, 572; Vol. 6, p. 552; Vol. 16, p. 1699-1703). The Atrium's projected bed utilization for the first two years is both reasonable and appropriate. (Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 6; Atrium/Downs PF, p. 4) The Atrium's proposed patient charges and expenses are reasonable. (Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 29, 31; Atrium/Mitchell PF, p. 4-6) Although acknowledging he had seen Medicare rates as high as $270 per patient day, Mark Fall challenged the Medicare rates projected by Atrium. (Vol. 18, p. 1888) If Mr. Fall's opinion were credited, Atrium's net income in year two would still exceed $260,000. (Atrium Ex. 4, Sch. 18) reasonable and conservative, based on actual recent financing of other Demetree projects. (Atrium/Schramm PF, p.12) The Atrium's assumptions on Schedule 11, especially regarding fringe benefits, were shown to be reasonable. The total dollar amount of salaries and wages and benefits for Schedule 11 were compared to other historical operations, inflated forward, and found to be well within the reasonable range by Joseph Mitchell, Atrium's expert in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement and nursing home accounting. (Vol. 6, p. 563-565) The Atrium's proforma assumptions, using fringe benefits of 22 percent, were reasonable. (Vol. 6, p. 565) The Atrium's projected Medicare per diem revenues are reasonable considering this is a start up facility. One cannot compare a start up facility's Medicare rates with those of a long-standing facility, as Medicare imposes a limitation on Medicare rates after the first three (3) years of operation. (Vol. 6, p. 568) Atrium's proposed project is feasible in both the short and long term. Mr. Mitchell tested the reasonableness of the proforma assumptions based on his experience working with 125 to 150 nursing homes on an operational basis. (Atrium/Mitchell PF, p. 9; Vol. 6, p. 578) The Atrium's projected debt schedule is reasonable and conservative based upon recent financing of projects by the Demetrees. (Atrium/Schramm PF, p. 12.) The Atrium's design meets all codes, including building and life safety, energy code, handicap accessibility code, etc. (Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 6) HRS' architects ranked Atrium's plans first among the applicants in this hearing. (Atrium Ex. 8, p. 17-19; HRS/Granger PF, p. 14) The Atrium's application notes a willingness to take AIDS patients and will be bringing on-line 84 beds in a high occupancy subdistrict, which will promote better geographic accessibility. [Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 31]. The Atrium proposes to commit to 61% Medicaid, the most of any applicant. This commitment is attainable in light of the actual experience in the subdistrict (62.1% average) and the overall state average (60.6%). [Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 8- 9]. The proposed operations and quality assurance program submitted by Atrium meet or exceed Florida regulatory standards. [Atrium/Fitzpatrick PF, p.5, 14; Atrium/Downs PF, pp. 4-6; HRS/Granger PF, p. 11]. The Atrium's proposed staffing levels are reasonable and meet or exceed Florida standards. [Atrium/Fitzpatrick PF, p. 7; Health Quest Ex. 11]. The Atrium will develop and implement a training/staff development/internship program, to include students residing in Duval County. [Atrium Ex. 4, p. 70 A-C]. The Atrium will also be associated with an existing 176-unit retirement community known as The Atrium Retirement Community of Jacksonville, through their common ownership. The experience gained, in the five years of operating The Atrium Retirement Community of Jacksonville will be beneficial to the Atrium nursing home project, especially in the areas of housing for elderly residents, security, housekeeping, dietary and nutritional services, activities and counseling. (Atrium Ex. 2, p. 24B) Atrium will have established linkages with its sister retirement community and thereby offer a continuum of care. [Atrium Ex. 4, p. 46 A-c; 58A]. Atrium will have a good recruitment and career ladder programs. The Atrium's description of its patient assessment and care plan, utilization review program, quality assurance program, operations and dietary programs were comprehensive and explicit. The Atrium described very good activities programs, family involvement, mental conditions of residents, restoration/normalization programs and quality of life enhancement programs. [Atrium Ex. 8, p. 15; HRS/Granger PF, pp. 11-12]. Overall, the presentation was consistent and thorough and stated the services to be offered by the applicant. [Atrium Ex. 8, p. 15; HRS/Granger PF, pp. 11-12]. However, Atrium has never built or operated a nursing home. The Atrium's inexperience is demonstrated by its failure to properly plan for the cleaning of soiled laundry. The Atrium indicated it may send out the patients' laundry or use the laundry of a nearby retirement community. (T. 171, 549; Atrium Exhibit 4) As additional evidence of its inexperience in operating nursing homes, the Atrium proposes to use a non- wheelchair accessible van for transportation of it's residents, pulling a U-Haul with the wheelchairs. (Atrium Exhibit 4) When the matter was raised at hearing, its representative indicated that Atrium would rent a wheelchair accessible van, and private medical providers might be called on to transport Medicare and Medicaid residents to doctors' appointments, therapy sessions, and related activities. [Atrium Ex. 4, p. 61A; Atrium/Downs PF, p. 9]. Atrium intends to draw upon the management skills of the American Retirement Corporation (ARC) of Nashville, Tennessee. ARC is a national management services company which operates 21 retirement communities in 14 states. Most of the programmatic features set forth in Atrium's application are already utilized successfully at ARC facilities around the country. (Atrium Ex. 2, p. 24 A-B) For more than 10 years, ARC has employed its standard operating methods at a nursing home located at the Burcham Hills Retirement Community in East Lansing, Michigan. (Atrium Exhibit 13, p. 2; T. 520) ARC has been found to be in violation of several nursing home standards at its facility at Burcham Hills, Michigan, including serious failures to provide appropriate care to residents. (Health Quest Exhibit 26, pp. 3-7) The Senior Vice President of Operations for ARC plans to manage Atrium's nursing home using ARC's "`standard operating methods," to describe the programs that would be offered. (Downs PT, pp. 5-12) He asserted that ARC's lack of experience in managing a nursing facility of this size, type, and location is irrelevant because, among other reasons, "a patient is a patient." (T. 618) The Atrium, through its proposed management contract with American Retirement Corporation (ARC), will attempt to provide quality care to its patients. [Atrium/Fitzpatrick PF, p. 3]. MCRI'S APPLICATION FOR CON The MRCI CON is for a 30-bed nursing home. MRCI filed a proper letter of intent and audited financial statement for this CON. (T. 1608, 1609, 1611, 1613). MRCI also filed a CON for a 24 bed nursing home which HRS rejected as incomplete and untimely. Because the completeness issue of the 24 bed CON was undecided, MRCI presented evidence that included the feasibility, etc., of the 24 bed CON. In summary, there were no significant differences between the two CONs, and both were equally feasible. MRCI has developed a prototype facility called "Brighton Gardens". An MRCI Brighton Gardens facility typically includes 30 nursing home beds and 120 ACLF `beds. (Walter PT, p. 5). The concept anticipates carrying for the elderly from their need for an ACLF through nursing home care with minimum disruptions due to changes in environment. MRCI's research has indicated that as people get older, changes become more difficult and residents do not want to transfer back and forth between facilities. (T. 909) MRCI's project minimizes transfer trauma. The more unfamiliar the situation the more serious the transfer trauma. Transfer trauma manifests itself by despair, isolation, a change in a person's behavior and the way they deal with ordinary situations. Some states require transfer trauma plans before a resident is moved out of a facility. (T. 910, 911) At a Brighton Gardens facility, when a resident moves from the ACLF to the nursing home, friends in the ACLF can visit the nursing home on a regular basis. This is particularly beneficial for spouses to be able to visit back and forth without the need for transportation. (T. 907, 908) All of the beds are contained within the same building, although the nursing home is a self-contained unit with its own separate entrance for privacy and ease of access by residents, staff and visitors. (Walter PT, pp. 5, 6). Marriott and Marriott Retirement Communities, Inc. currently own and operate ten retirement centers and manage two other. (Evans PT, p. 4) MRCI operates two Brighton Gardens in Arizona and one in Virginia Beach and one in Houston, Texas. (Evans PT, p. 6) Five retirements communities are currently under construction and are all scheduled to open within 18 months (Evans PT, p. 4). MRCI already operates one facility in Florida which is a full service retirement community and has a superior rating. (Walter PT, p. 18) MRCI has demonstrated that it has the ability to provide superior care at its Brighton Garden facility. MRCI has demonstrated that it can provide the quality and types of programs equal to or exceeding any of the other applicants. MRCI has demonstrated that it can improve the quality of care in existing institutions and successfully operate nursing homes. For example, MRCI began managing a property in Canton, Ohio in June, 1988, when occupancy was less than 50%. When it discontinued management in early 1991, occupancy was approximately 90%. The net loss in income for the property had been reduced substantially from $2.3 million in 1988 to $900,000 in 1990. Reduction in cash loss was even more significant. (T. 874-875) MRCI managed property known as Towne Center, beginning in June, 1988, and discontinued management in early 1991. When MRCI began managing the property occupancy was approximately 55%. Occupancy had increased to over 90% by the time MRCI discontinued management. Efforts to discredit Marriott's management were unsuccessful and rebutted by its representatives. The design of MRCI's proposed project lends itself to quality of care because residents will not be expected to transfer from one entity to another as their needs change and because the small size of the unit allows for more individualized care. (Evans PT, pp. 28, 29; T. 1315) MRCI's proposal provides sufficient staff to provide top quality care. (Evans PT, p. 6) MRCI is proposing to provide 3.0 nursing hours per patient day for the 30-bed project. This does not include direct nursing hours which could be provided by the director of nursing. If you include those hours, direct nursing hours increased to 3.21 nursing hours per patient day. For the 24-bed project, if you include direct nursing hours provided by the director of nursing, 3.25 nursing hours per nursing hours per patient day will be provided. (T. 922-923, 954) There will be a full time administrator on the property of Brighton Gardens of Jacksonville. (T. 872) The administrator will be responsible, for the entire property. (T. 872) MRCI's proposed staffing exceeds the regulations of the State of Florida. In fact, MRCI proposes to provide four licensed nurses five days per week. By regulation, MRCI is required to provide only three licensed nurses. (Evans PT, p. 7) MRCI has an excellent recruitment plan and has designed a variety of enhancement programs for its employees. Some of these programs include a profit sharing program, the employee stock ownership plan, and a benefit trade system. MRCI offers an employee credit union, employee discounts at Marriott Hotels, continuing education, as well as additional training for employees to advance in their areas. MRCI has a working family life program, offers family life-counseling programs and has a guaranteed right to fair treatment policy within the company. MRCI recruitment efforts have been very successful. (Evans PT, p. 10) MRCI has developed a superb quality assurance program which exceeds the federal OBRA requirements and exceeds state requirements for quality assurance committees. (Evans PT, pp. 11, 12, 13-19) The wage assumptions and salary assumptions of both MRCI applications are reasonable projections. (Huber PT, p. 11) The staffing assumptions in both Schedules 11 are reasonable assumptions. The proposed Medicaid rate is reasonable and consistent with the Medicaid requirement in Florida. (Huber PT, p. 13) MRCI has demonstrated that its proposed 30-bed project is a financially feasible project. (Huber PT, p. 6) The proposed capital expenditure is $1,901,507 and first year operating expenses are projected-to be $1,065,108. MRCI has demonstrated that its Jacksonville Brighton Gardens project will be profitable in Year 2 of operation. This is true for the 30-bed application and for the 24-bed application. (Huber PT, pp. 14, 15) The ACLF revenues are a reasonable estimate of revenues for the Duval project. (Huber PT, p. 17) MRCI's land cost is based upon an option contract it entered into in 1989. The land cost for the project is reasonable and based upon a reasonable allocation of cost to the nursing home. (T. 1237, 1238, 12 41) MRCI intends to develop the entire Brighton Gardens of Jacksonville, which includes the ACLF and the nursing home. (T. 800) In conjunction with this type of facility, a nursing home this size is a viable alternative to "optimal sized" facilities because the small complement of beds is offset as part of the larger facility. The data provided attest to the financial feasibility of such a concept. MIRCI does not intend to build a stand-alone 30-bed nursing home. They will only be built in conjunction with the ACLF. (T. 861) The costs of construction for the MRCI proposals are reasonable and are allocated appropriately between the nursing facility and the ACLF. (McPhail PT, p. 20, 21, 22) MRCI allocated the costs of construction of the 30-bed project between the nursing home portions and the ACLF portions. This allocation was performed by determining the cost of the entire Brighton Gardens and conducting an allocation of those costs directly related to the nursing home portion of the building, including construction costs, fixed and movable equipment. Shared area costs, such as those associated with the kitchen, laundry, circulation, beauty-barber, and administrative areas, were allocated on a proportional basis. The kitchen was allocated on a proportion of meals served to the nursing center residents. The construction, site development costs and equipment costs of other shared areas were estimated by function, and these costs were then allocated on the basis of a square footage ratio of the nursing center to the ACLF portion of the building. (McPhail PT, pp. 20, 21) MRCI has three other Brighton Gardens projects which have been constructed. Those projects have been constructed at a cost within 1% of the original cost assumptions prepared at Marriott. (McPhail PT, p. 9) The Brighton Gardens design and schematic plans are consistent with the requirements contained in Chapter 10D-29 and local building codes for the 30-bed project and the 24-bed project. (McDowell PT, p. 5) Marriott has developed a bi-axial room which is one of the best semiprivate rooms available. The residents are situated so that they each have a privacy curtain and each resident still has a window. Semiprivate rooms are more affordable than a private room. Private rooms often lead to a resident feeling isolated, thereby leading to depression. (T. 915, 916, 1012) MRCI's design provides certain advantages for residents of both the ACLF and the nursing components. The bi- axial semiprivate rooms are quite large; there is significant amount of storage space; all resident's bathrooms are handicapped accessible. Residents will be able to take advantage of some of the ACLF common spaces at will, and MRCI's project will have a courtyard which will allow residents to do some secure wandering. The buildings are residential in nature, both in the exterior and interior architecture. (McDowell PT, p. 7) MRCI anticipated that the duration of construction for the Brighton Gardens of Jacksonville will be 12 months. This is a reasonable estimate. (McPhail PT, p. 22) The Brighton Gardens project in Southeast Duval County will be located on an 11 acre parcel on San Jose Boulevard which has ready access to public transportation and is convenient to the elderly population in the service area. (Walter PT, p. 19). MRCI will accept the following conditions on its certificate of need: MRCI will make at least 30% of its patient days available to Medicaid eligible patients, will donate 20 prepared meals per day to a local Meals-on-Wheels program for distribution to elderly residents and will provide respite care at both the nursing home and ACLF levels of care. MRCI will implement its special Homeward Bound Program. (Walter PT, pp. 16, 17, 30; Evans PT, pp. 22, 23,). MRCI has a history of providing nursing care services to Medicaid eligible residents. For example, although MRCI's Calusa Harbour facility carries no Medicaid, condition, approximately 31% of its community patient days were provided to Medicaid residents in 1990. (Walter PT, p. 18). MRCI will provide' services to ACLF residents requiring AIDS care or Alzheimer's care. (Walter PT, p. 19, T 915). MRCI filed an audited financial statement as required by the statute. Nationwide, Marriott has designated approximately $90 million for the development of retirement projects for 1991 and has designated $70 to $80 million for 1992. (T. 1020). Marriott has the resources to fund Brighton Gardens. [Handlon, p. 2]. Schedules 2A and 2B of MRCI's CON application contain a list of other planned capital projects of MRCI. This list of projects changes on a regular basis as projects are either added or rejected from the development process. This list includes projects in the very preliminary stages of planning. (Handlon PT, p. 3). No project has been dropped from Schedule 2 for financial feasibility problem's. (T. 1246). Typically, projects are deleted because of difficulty obtaining suitable property or problems with zoning or other regulatory hurdles. (T. 1253). Furthermore, certain projects listed on the capital project list in Schedule 2 identify expenditures which will occur as late as, or later than, 1998. (T. 798). An omission by MCI of approximately $7 million relating to a Boynton Beach project will have no effect on Marriott's ability to finance these projects. The amount omitted is inconsequential when considering Marriott's total development plans. Furthermore, MRCI has included projects on Schedule 2 which will be financed beyond the' next five years, well after the proposed project is operational and has demonstrated financial feasibility. (Handlon PT, p. 3; T. 1040, 1042). No MRCI or Marriott retirement housing project under construction has been slowed down or stopped for economic reasons. (T. 893). No retirement housing project which has been presented to the Executive Committee of Marriott has been denied or delayed. No project will be delayed once a CON has been issued or if another government timetable requires construction by a particular time. (T. 1223). MRCI is a subsidiary of Marriott Corporation, and the board of MRCI filed a proper letter of intent. Marriott has proven that it is committed to constructing, licensing and operating the project at issue iii this proceeding. MRCI operates five facilities that have had deficiency-free surveys under the new Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act ("OBRA") guidelines. It is unusual to have no deficiencies found by the survey-team. Under the OBRA guidelines there are 710 elements in the program and surveyors evaluate compliance with the regulations by looking at each item. For each of these facilities, surveyors found that all 710 elements were in compliance with the guidelines and there were no deficiencies. (T. 905, 906). HQR'S APPLICATION Health Quest Realty II, Ltd. ("HQR II") is an Indiana limited partnership, first created prior to March 30, 1987 and authorized to transact business in the State of Florida on July 11, 1991. (HQR II Exhibit 7). HQR II is the authorized licensee of Regents Park of Jacksonville, a 120-bed community nursing home located in Duval County, Florida. HQR II has been the licensee of this facility since it first opened in 1986. HQR II's CON proposes to convert a portion of Regents Woods of Jacksonville, and existing Adult Congregate Living Facility, and thereby add nursing beds to an existing and co-located 120-bed nursing facility licensed as Regents Park of Jacksonville by HQR II. Alternatively, HQR II's CON proposed a 24 beds addition to Regents Park of Jacksonville. The 41-bed addition proposed by HQR II would involve 16,025 gross square feet at an estimated total project cost of approximately $2.6 million. The 24-bed partial request would involve 10,405 gross square feet at an estimated total project cost of $1.76 million. (HQR II App.) Health Quest Management Corporation IV ("HQMC IV") is an Indiana corporation, which filed, on October 3, 1984, a notice of doing business in Jacksonville as Regents Park in compliance with the fictitious name law. On February 12, 1986, HQR II filed a notice under Florida's "fictitious name" law, Section 865.09, Florida Statutes, in the public records of Duval County, Florida, giving notice of doing business as "Regents Park" in Jacksonville. CVI 33 (exhibit indicates document recorded at Duval County Official Records Vol. 6084, Pg. 1948). According to filings in the official records of Duval County, Florida, on September 25, 1987, the persons having an interest in HQR II were Lawrence H. Garatoni, holding a 90% interest, and Judith A. Garatoni,, holding a 10% interest. HQ 41 (exhibit indicates document recorded at Duval County Public Records Vol. 6402, Pg. 1466). An affidavit was filed in the official records of Duval County, Florida, that identified Lawrence H. Garatoni as owning a 190% interest in HQR IV, an Indiana corporation. HQ 40 (exhibit indicates document recorded at Duval County Official Records: Vol. 5860, Pg. 1904). Regents Park of Jacksonville actually is owned by Health Quest Realty XXII, another Indiana general partnership ("HQR XXII") (Krisher 7). The construction of Regents Park was financed by industrial revenue bonds issued by the City of Jacksonville on November 1, 1984. CVI 210. HQR XXII leased the property to HQR IV, which operates the facility. As part of the bond transaction, HQR XXII gave the City of Jacksonville a collateral assignment of its rights as lessor in its lease of the property to HQMC IV. All the Health Quest entities are controlled by one man, Lawrence Garatoni. Mr. Garatoni is the sole general partner of HQR II and owns 90% in that partnership, T. 1908 (Fall); HQ 41. Mr. Garatoni also owns 90% of the stock of HQMC IV, HQ 40, and owns 95% of HQR XXII partnership. T. 1780 (Fall). CVI 32, p. 7. The original CON for Regents Park was issued to HQR II. T. 1381. When Regents Park was first licensed in February of 1986, the license was issued to HQR II. T. 1382 (Krisher). In the process of obtaining renewal of the license for Regents Park in January of 1987 Mr. Krisher realized that the licensee, HQR II, in facet held no interest in the facility; HQR XXII was the owner of the property and HQMC IV the lessee/operator. Mr. Krisher brought this to the attention of Bruce Henderson of the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification ("OLC"). In an attempt to rectify the problem, HQR XXII entered an agreement to retain HQR II, the licensee to provide management services for the facility operated by HQR IV. CVI 23; T. 1382. This agreement was not rescinded. HRS advised that it would not issue a license to HQR II based on HQR II being a management agent because only the owner or lessee of a nursing home was eligible to be licensed. T. 1383. HQR II then approached HRS about obtaining approval for HQR IV to be the licensee of tie facility. HRS indicated to Mr. Krisher that to have the license issued to HQR IV would require a change of ownership. T. 1383. Mr. Garatoni did not want to go through a "change of ownership" since a new licensee could not retain the superior license, which Regents Park had received in December of 1986. T. 1384 (Krisher). In order to enable HQR II to obtain renewal of the license, HQR IV assigned its leasehold to HQR II. T. 1383. However, all profits and losses of Regents Park were recorded in the books of HQR IV because Mr. Garatoni did not wish to change the internal accounting structure of the Jacksonville operation. CVI 32, Wright deposition, p. 25. Conversely, there is only one set of books and records for HQR II, and they related only to the facility located in Merrillville, Indiana. T. 1861 (Fall). Disclosure of all material transactions and circumstances affecting the entity being audited is a key requirement (i.e., "completeness") in order to properly present an audited financial statement under GAAP. (Vol. 14, p. 1534; Vol. 17, p. 1840; Vol. 18, p. 1920). Since the Regents Park began operation in 1986, HQR IV has had and continues to have full operational and financial responsibility for the nursing home. (CVI Ex. 22; Vol. 13, p. 1394; Vol. 14, p. 1455; Vol. 18, p. 1883-4). HQR IV took the benefit of all profits and the risk of all losses from the operation of a nursing home licensed to HQR II and owned by Health Quest Realty XXII. (CVI Ex. 21a, 21b, 21c; Vol. 13, p. 1384, 1407-11; Vol. 14, p. 1430) HQR II claims these circumstances relieved its auditors from any responsibility to even mention, much less adequately disclose, financial data or other disclosure information pertaining to Regents Park. (Vol. 17, p. 1830-1). Neither the 1988 nor 1989 audited financial statements submitted by HQR II with its CON fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position, cash flow and results of operations of Regents Park of Jacksonville under GAAP. To the contrary, both financial statements were the result of a "special audit" of property located in Merrillville, Indiana, which is owned by HQR II and leased to a third party for a retirement community. (HQR II App,.; Vol. 17 p. 1824; Vol. 13, p. 1404-5) Although an audit of the applicant and licensee, HQR II, was presented, the operation of the nursing home upon which determinations of financial feasibility would be based never occurred. When each audit was conducted, HQR II's auditors had no knowledge of the Jacksonville operation. (Vol. 14, p. 1445-46; Vol. 18, p. 1877). The purpose of requiring audited financial statements is to provide HRS with reasonable assurances that an appropriate audit, with all necessary field work, was conducted. (Vol. 15, p. 1563; Vol. 15, p. 1619-22). HQR II did not provide financial statements which reasonably represented and presented the financial status of the applicant because HQR II did not tell the auditors about its Jacksonville operations. If complete field work and independent evaluation by the auditors had been performed, the auditors would have discovered the relationship between Health Quest Realty XXII, HQR II and HQR IV. In considering disclosure of related party transactions, the auditors would have had to reconcile the relationships between the various entities, and present a accurate picture of the finances of the applicant. The Health Quest nursing home has not made a profit in its five years of existence. (Vol. 17, p. 1798, 1799; Vol. 14, p. 1444, 1445) For example, in 1989 it suffered a net loss of $114,000. (Vol. 17, p. 1)98) In 1990, it suffered a net loss of $107,000. (Id.) Health Quest's past history of consistent losses was not disclosed anywhere in its application. (Vol. 14, p. 1444, 1445) Such information is relevant to the financial feasibility of a CON, and is revealed in a proper audited financial statement. (Vol. 12, p. 1324, 1325; Vol. 15, p. 1560- 61) Health Quest projects a profit for its bed addition alternatives. (Health Quest App. Sch. 18) Given the past history of losses, Health Quest did not provide any explanation as to how a profit should now be expected. (Health Quest App.) Health Quest is a foreign limited partnership which did not register to conducts business in the State of Florida until July 11, 1991. (Health Quest Ex. 7) Its petitions for formal administrative proceedings were filed in March and April of this year. Some scores in HRS' s system are objective, i.e., based on specific facts. Other scores in HRS's system are subjective, i.e., based on the reviewer's opinion. On the objective items, Health Quest received 480.3 points, 80% of the possible 602; Atrium received 47911 (80%). MRCI 397.3,7 (66%), and CVI 374.55 (62%). At. 8. On the subjective items, Health Quest received 442.94 points, 68%, of the possible 654; Atrium received 575.61 (88%); MRCI 566.7:5 (87%); and CVI 621.47 (95%). At. 8. Health Quest finished highest among the applicants on the items scored objectively add lowest among the applicants (by a gap of 19% of the maximum s1core available) on the items scored subjectively. Health Quest's is the only nursing home in Duval County that has had a "superior" licensure rating since 1986. Krisher 8. Only about a third of Florida's nursing homes have superior licenses. Brockish 4; HQ 2. Health Quest's facility is considered excellent by local physicians, hospital discharge planners, and home health agencies. HQ 38. The chairman of the District IV Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council described Regent's Park as having a "solid reputation," and as having been identified by the University of Northern Florida as "a model facility and primary site for its newly developed Administrator-in-training program."' 6513, PT 2, Item 3M (1/14/91 letter). A high level of staffing, measured by the ratio of full-time equivalent ("FTE") staff to patients, generally correlates to high quality care. T. 40, 42 (Vroman). Health Quest's existing total direct care staffing pattern, at 3.49 hours per patient day, exceeds the levels proposed by the other applicants. Health Quest's proposed staffing, measured by licensed staff (i.e., RNs & LPNs) or by total direct care staff (i.e., including nursing aides), is higher than that of any other applicant except MRCI's 24-bed proposal. HQ 11. Health Quest provides a broader range of services than most nursing homes, including subacute care such as intravenous antibiotics, respiratory care and tracheostomy care. T. 757, 59 (Janesky). Regents Park provides more physical therapy ("PT") than most nursing homes. Provision of PT is related to Medicare utilization because Medicare residents are the primary recipients of PT in nursing homes. 6513, PT 2, Only one other facility in Duval County provides the type of subacute care which Regents Park provides, and that facility is not an applicant for beds in this cycle, [T. 775 (Janesky), H31] although CVI states that it too will serve high acuity patients. Vroman 6-7. Although the CON application form asks for a description of "specialized programs," HRS has not defined "specialized program" in the application instructions. T. 394 (Gordon-Girvin). HRS gave Health Quest no credit for providing subacute care because subacute care was not considered a "specialized program" although HRS had considered subacute care a specialized program in the past. T. 1286-87 (Granger). The Office of Licensure and Certification, which licenses and monitors nursing homes, recognizes 11 categories of "special care." Regents Park provides all of them. Although Health Quest referred to this in `,its application, HRS gave Health Quest zero points in this category. At. 8 (Ex. B, p. 22). HRS gives the same weight to its consideration of a proposal to provide a particular service and type of care that it gives to actually providing the service or care. The application evaluation process does not differentiate between the promise to perform by a entity which has never engaged in the nursing home business and actual performance by an existing provider with an excellent track record. T. 1295 (Granger). The success of Regents Park in restoring residents to health is objectively demonstrated by the high ratio of patients discharged from Regents Park rather than remaining as residents until death. As reflected in HCCCB reports for 7/89- 6/90, Regents Park discharged 179 patients, i.e., 1.49 times its licensed beds, which was more than twice the rate for all other District IV facilities. 6513, PT 2, p. 43E Health Quest's actual resident care cost per resident day is the highest in the Southeast Duval County, which is considered a favorable factor under State Health Plan Preference #12. Nursing care cost for resident day for Regents Park for fiscal year 1989, per HCCCB reports, at $30.64 was higher than that for any of the other nine Southeast Duval County facilities reporting. 6513, PT 2, p. 45F. Similarly, Regents Park's dietary cost per patient day, at $8.69, exceeded any of the other nine facilities. 6513, PT 2, p. 48C. Health Quest proposes that all but four of its new beds are to be in private rooms. There would be two rooms, each with two beds, sharing an entrance to the hallway but otherwise private. T. 1155. CVI, MRCI and Atrium each plan to provide four to twelve beds in private rooms. HQ 10. Health Quest agreed to condition an approval on the following: The proposed site would be 7130 Southside Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. A minimum of 50% of patient days will be devoted to Medicaid patients for the proposed new unit. The facility will continue to use only certified nursing aides ("CNA's"). (Health Quest App.) The conditions, above, to which Health Quest committed are largely redundant. As an existing provider, Health Quest is limited to expansion at its existing site, 7130 Southside Boulevard, and it must use trained personnel. Health Quest listed as special care restraint reduction, and weight maintenance. HRS found that the these programs constitute services which every nursing home must provide, or should provide, as standard care. (Atrium Ex. 8, p. 17; Vol. 8, p. 753-63) Health Quest did not characterize its services to Alzheimer's residents as a special program within its application. (Vol. 12, p. 1288) The care for Alzheimer's patients becomes a special program when it is offered in a discrete unit or when some other unique feature is present, such as a facility design, which specifically takes into account and benefits the needs of residents with Alzheimer's. (Vol. 12, p. 1319, 1323) Health Quest's application did not present any such unique features. Health Quest's willingness to accept hard-to-place patients is reflected its practice of accepting Medicaid residents requiring skilled rather than intermediate care. Per 1989 HCCCB data, the proportion of Medicaid patients receiving skilled care at Regents Park (31.5%) was more than twice the average (11.6%) for other reporting Southeast Duval County facilities. 6513, PT 2, p. 45F. However, the percentage of Medicaid utilization to which Health Quest is committed is ambiguous because its application states: It should be noted that Medicaid residents are to be placed in the facility according to the wishes of the residents themselves, their attending physicians, and the staff. The Agreement on page 6 should not be misconstrued as evidencing an intention to operate the new unit at 50% Medicaid occupancy [sic]. (Health Quest App., Sch. 17, Footnote #16) The reference to "page 6" is the application page wherein the applicant can expressly agree to a particular Medicaid utilization condition. Given its proposal to convert ACLF space, the remoteness of the proposed Health Quest unit from its existing skilled nursing facility will not lend itself to optimal efficiency in utilizing existing nursing home support areas. (Atrium Ex. 8, p. 19) Almost all of the proposed Health Quest beds will be located in private rooms. (Vol. 9, p. 915) The isolation of the elderly in a private room can cause problems with depression. (Id.) Health Quest was deficient in describing how it would measure the outcomes for its programs. (Atrium Ex. 8, p. 21) Health Quest description of its residential quality assurance program was weak. [ANH Ex. 8, pp. 16, 17]. Health Quest was the only applicant proposing renovation rather than new construction. The instructions to the CON application form state: If currently owned land is going to be converted from some other use to be used for this project, the land's original cost plus past improvements made must be included. If the purchase price of the land was previously approved in CON review by this department, it must be excluded when calculating the application fee. * * * The same treatment applies to donated and converted buildings (including partial bed conversion) as apply to donated and converted land, except that cost less accumulated depreciation must be used. Health Quest followed the instructions and included the depreciated cost of the existing ACLF area to be converted to nursing beds. 6513, 6513-P, Sch. 1. HRS in its cost comparisons used the "total cost" figures given by the applicants. Using those figures, the cost per bed were as follows: CON Total Cost Cost Per Bed HQ 41-bed $2,608,646 $63,625 HQ 24-bed $1,765,482 $73,562 CVI $3,286,258 $54,771 Atrium $3,944,324 $46,956 MRCI 30-bed $1,891,507 $63,050 See State Agency Action Report, At. 8, pp. 2-3.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED, in the absence of reconsideration by the Department, that: The application of Health Quest be denied for failure to file a properly audited financial statement and establish its financial feasibility; The CON of Cypress Village be approved for 60 beds; The CON of Atrium be approved for 84 beds; and The beds sought by MRCI should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 11 day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11 day of February, 1992.
The Issue Whether HRS should grant Heartland's application for a certificate of need to build a 120-bed nursing home in Dade County?
Findings Of Fact HRS' Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor in the Office of Community Medical Facilities, Ms. Elizabeth Dudek, testified that HRS proposes to deny Heartland's application for certificate of need based on "only those criteria that had to do with need." (T.160) The parties agree that no other criteria are at issue. No Bed Need HRS's Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, specifies a formula to "determine if there is a projected need for new or additional community nursing home beds three years into the future." Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The rule formula begins with two population cohorts, 65 to 74 and 75 and older, "projected . . . three years into the future," Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, and generates a "final subdistrict allocation." From this "final subdistrict allocation," all existing nursing home beds and 90 per cent of approved nursing home beds not yet in service are subtracted, in order to determine net bed need for the subdistrict. For 1987, Dade County needs no new nursing home beds; there will be a surplus of 1,720 nursing home beds in Dade County in 1987. (T.136) After stipulating to a need for an additional 240 beds in 1988, HRS granted two certificates of need authorizing a total of 240 additional nursing home beds. Petitioner's Exhibits 15- 18. The evidence does not establish a need for more than 240 nursing home beds in Dade County in 1988, see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19. HRS released a "semiannual nursing home census and bed need allocation report" on December 3, 1985, in which it used the rule formula to generate an "allocated beds" figure of 7767 for Dade County for January 1989 for use in the January 1986 review cycle. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. The report identified 5846 licensed beds and 1930 approved beds, and asserted a need for 184 "net beds." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. But, based on the most current projections available at the time of hearing, there will be a surplus of 1,536 nursing home beds in Dade County in 1989. (T.148) No Poverty Adjustment The same numbers for existing and approved nursing home beds were used, in calculating the 1987, 1988, and 1989 projections. Before these numbers were used to reduce the nursing home bed allocation for Dade County, and so produce net bed need figures, they were used to rule out the need for a poverty adjustment. If there are less than 27 existing or approved nursing home beds per 1,000 persons over 65 in the district and if the "district poverty rate" exceeds the "state poverty rate," according to the most recent census, the rule prescribes a different methodology, called a poverty adjustment, for determining a final subdistrict allocation. The "poverty adjustment" methodology depends on the size of present, not future, elderly populations. Dade and Monroe Counties comprise the pertinent HRS district. The current population of the district over age 65 is 302,008 and there are 6,271 licensed nursing home beds in the district, all in service as far as the evidence shows. An additional 2,110 nursing home beds approved for the district are not yet in service. The bed need projections for 1987, 1988 and 1989 do not reflect a poverty adjustment, since the number of nursing home beds already existing or approved in Dade and Monroe Counties, exceeds 27 per 1,000 persons over 65 living in the two counties. Even though the district poverty rate exceeds the average poverty rate statewide, the poverty adjustment does not come into play. If the number of approved nursing home beds were reduced by 240, however, the district's ratio of beds to persons over 65 would fall below 27. Petitioner's Exhibit 29 (corrected). In fact, a reduction in approved beds of 225 would bring the number of approved or existing beds below 27 per 1,000 persons 65 or over. (2,11O-225<(27x302.005)-6271). A diminution of less than 225 beds would reduce the surplus, but would not render the poverty adjustment applicable or otherwise result in a need for any additional beds in 1987, 1985 or 1989. But, if the number of approved nursing home beds were reduced by at least 225, the poverty adjustment would apply. Any reduction in approved beds means fewer approved beds to be multiplied by .9 and subtracted from the final subdistrict allocation. Because only 90 per cent of approved beds not yet in existence are subtracted, a diminution in approved beds of 225 would result in a net bed need greater than 225, a need well in excess of the 120 beds which Heartland seeks in this proceeding. Approved Beds Questioned The number of approved nursing home beds (not yet in service) used for all of these calculations includes 150 beds authorized by certificate of need No. 3426 issued to St. Francis Health Services, Inc. (St. Francis), 90 beds authorized by certificate of need No. 3427 issued to Hialeah Convalescent Centers, Inc. (Hialeah), 150 beds authorized by certificate of need No. 2555 issued to Catholic Community Services, Inc. (Catholic), see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20, and 50 beds authorized by certificate of need No 2553 issued to U.S. Care Corporation for the Anna E. Anderson Health Center (Anderson). Petitioner's Exhibit 12. HRS issued the latter two certificates of need despite rule calculations showing no numerical need, because Anderson and Catholic proposed facilities for underserved segments of the Dade County population, including residents of Liberty City. Prior Policy Misapplied In the next batch after the one in which Heartland applied for certificate of need No. 3289, St. Francis and Hialeah applied for nursing home certificates of need in Dade County. When Heartland filed its original application for certificate of need, HRS adhered, although imperfectly, to a policy sometimes called "first in time, first in right." A witness described the policy: [T]he Department would give priority consideration to litigants who had filed the earliest application [i]f need was identified . . . [and the earliest applicant] met the applicable criteria. . . . [T]here was [no] consideration given to the planning horizon that the applicant applied for . . . (T.101) Under this policy, which was ostensibly in effect at HRS at all pertinent times through December 26, 1985, (T.l02), applicants who filed in earlier batches had priority over applicants who filed in later batches, and HRS looked to a receding three year horizon; if HRS identified sufficient need "three years into the future," Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, at any time while an application remained pending, HRS granted the certificate of need, if no other applicant had priority. Now, however, in order to "implement . . . what was seen as being the provisions of Gulf Court," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 15, HRS staff considers bed need for each review cycle or "batch" at a single, constant, temporal point, viz., three years later than the deadline for filing nursing home certificate of need applications in that batch. A rule along these lines was proposed, but HRS has now withdrawn the proposed rule, in the face of multiple challenges to the rule. See, e.g., Forum Group, Inc., et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, No. 56-1677R. (DOAH, July 10, 1986) Initially, HRS proposed to deny St. Francis and Hialeah's applications for certificates of need, just as it proposed to deny Heartland's earlier application. Like Heartland before them, St. Francis and Hialeah each filed petitions for formal administrative proceedings, which were transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings, Hialeah Convalescent Centers, Inc. vs. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, No. 85-0556 and St. Francis Hospital, Inc., et al. vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, No. 85-0574, where the formal proceedings were consolidated. After HRS, St. Francis and Hialeah stipulated that 240 additional nursing home beds were needed in Dade County, the Hearing Officer entered an order in the consolidated proceeding, Cases Nos. 85-0556 and 85-0574, on October 21, 1985, remanding the consolidated proceeding to HRS. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 15 through 18. Even though St. Francis and Hialeah applied in a batching cycle subsequent to the one in which Heartland filed, and even though HRS did not issue a certificate of need to Heartland, HRS issued a 150-bed certificate of need to St. Francis on November 14, 1985, No. 3426, and a 90-bed certificate of need to Hialeah on December 9, 1985, No. 3427, apparently in the mistaken belief that St. Francis and Hialeah had applied for certificates of need before the cycle in which Heartland filed its application. HRS took no action on HCR's petition to intervene and motion to stay dated November 27, 1985. Subsequent Filings In 1985 Heartland filed a second application for a certificate of need for nursing home beds in Dade County, No. 4215, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25, in a batch subsequent to the one in which Hialeah and St. Francis filed. Heartland filed separate petitions for formal administrative proceeding addressed to the certificates of need issued to Hialeah and St. Francis, petitions which are dated March 17, 1986. The petition in which Heartland challenged issuance of the certificate of need to Hialeah, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, occasioned an order styled Notice and Order entered by HRS on April 14, 1986. In this "Notice and Order" HRS denied Heartland's request for comparative review of the present application with Hialeah's application for certificate of need, citing Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 453 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (reh. den. 1986), for the proposition that the "first in line policy was repudiated." In the same "Notice and Order," however, HRS ruled that Heartland had a right too comparative review with Hialeah as regards Heartland's later application "if, as alleged by HCR (Heartland) the beds were awarded in Con 3427 from the fixed pool addressed by HCR in CON 4215." Healthcare and Retirement Corp. of America d/b/a Heartland of Dade, vs. Health and Rehabilitative Services and Hialeah Convalescent Centers, Inc., No. 86-1354. An order to the same effect was entered on Heartland's petition challenging issuance of certificate of need No. 3426 to St. Francis. Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America d/b/a Heartland of Dade vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and St. Francis' Health Services, Inc., et al No. 86- 1702 (HRS, May 9, 1986).
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS deny Heartland's application for certificate of need, No. 3289, without prejudice to comparative consideration of the same together with St. Francis' and Hialeah's applications, Nos. 3426 and 3427, in the event comparative review is ordered in other proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43 and 44 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4 has been adopted, in substance, except for "numeric." Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 7 have not been adopted. The application came in evidence, but petitioner was never authorized to file an updated application for a new batch at hearing; for one thing, petitioner did not show it had filed a letter of intent beforehand. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 8 is immaterial. All parties have proceeded on the assumption that Rule 10-5.14, Florida Administrative Code remains in force. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 9 relates to 1989 and is treated in paragraph 5 of the findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 10 merely recites a witness' testimony. See paragraph 5 of the findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 14 is treated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 through 19 pertain to DOAH Case Nos. 85-0556, et al. To the extent material, they have been adopted, in substance. See paragraphs 14, 17, 18 and 19 of the findings of fact. Procedural wrongs, if any, done petitioner in DOAH Case Nos. 85-0556, et al., cannot be redressed in a collateral formal administrative proceeding like this one. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 21 has been adopted to this extent: consistent application of the "first in time, first in right" policy would have required approval of the application. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 22 is largely legal argument. The transcript cite does not support the one factual assertion. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 25 has been adopted in substance except for the filing date. The petition is dated March 17, 1986, but the record does not show when it was filed. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27 is incorrect because superseded. See Paragraph 23 of the findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 25 through 31 and 35 accurately recite Heartland's witnesses' testimony but this view has been rejected as being against the greater weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 36 recites a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for application of the poverty adjustment. The district poverty rate must also exceed the statewide average rate. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 40 has not been adopted because it was not established by the weight of the evidenced. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 41 and 42 pertain to other formal administrative proceedings, Case Nos. 86-1354 and 86-1702. To the extent material, they have been adopted in substance. See paragraphs 20-23 of the findings of fact. Procedural wrongs done petitioner, if any, in Case Nos. 86- 1354 and 86-1702 cannot be redressed in collateral formal proceedings. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 11, 12 the first sentence of No. 13, and No. 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact 5 and 10 recite HRS policy as articulated in the recently withdrawn rule proposed on batching. See paragraph 16 of the findings of fact. The semiannual nursing home report for January 1986 does address the 1959 horizon. The second sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 relates to Case Nos. 85-0556, and 85-0574. The precise state of the record in those cases is immaterial to the present case. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore,Esq. Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 B. Elaine New, Esquire R. Bruce McKibben, Esq. 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (the “Department”), was “substantially justified” under section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes,1 in initiating the underlying action against the nursing home administrator license of Petitioner, Sebrina Cameron, N.H.A. (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Cameron”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department, through the Board, is the entity authorized by statute to issue licenses to nursing home administrators and to impose discipline on those licenses when warranted. § 468.1685(4), Fla. Stat. Ms. Cameron is a licensed nursing home administrator, having been issued license number NH 4950. Case No. 20-3025PL was initiated by the Department, a “state agency” for purposes of section 57.111(3)(f). Ms. Cameron qualifies as a “small business party” as defined in section 57.111(3)(d). Because the Administrative Complaint underlying Case No. 20- 3025PL was ultimately dismissed by the Board, Ms. Cameron is a “prevailing small business party” under section 57.111(3)(c)1. The sole issue presented in this bifurcated proceeding is whether the Department was substantially justified in bringing the Administrative Complaint against Petitioner’s nursing home administrator license. Section 57.111(3)(e) states that a proceeding is “substantially justified” if “it had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state agency.” On May 4, 2020, the Department presented its investigation and recommendation in Department Case No. 2020-12066 to the Panel, which decides whether there is a sufficient legal and factual basis for the Department to move forward with formal charges in license discipline cases. The Panel reviewed the following materials (hereinafter “Panel Materials”): a draft of the proposed Administrative Complaint; a copy of the Department’s Order of Emergency Suspension of License; Petitioner’s detailed response to the allegations; a 980-page Supplemental Investigative Report dated April 23, 2020; and a 196-page Final Investigative Report dated April 22, 2020. The Panel found probable cause and authorized the filing of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron. The investigation and subsequent Administrative Complaint related to an outbreak of COVID-19 involving several residents at Cross Landings Health and Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home in Monticello. The outbreak commenced on or about April 5, 2020, when a resident at Cross Landings tested positive for COVID-19. By April 14, 2020, 11 additional residents had tested positive. On April 9, 2020, a team of four registered nurses (“RN Team”), contracted by the Department’s Division of Emergency Management, arrived at Cross Landings with the stated assignment of assessing the facility’s infection control procedures and providing education and training on hygiene practices, infection control, isolation procedures, and the proper use of personal protective equipment (“PPE”). The RN Team was also tasked with identifying and recommending actions to be taken to control the spread of COVID-19 infections. The RN Team worked at Cross Landings until April 14, 2020. The record indicates that the RN Team’s dealings with the staff of Cross Landings was contentious, particularly with regard to the facility’s owner, administrators, and senior nursing staff, who regarded the team’s behavior as high-handed, intrusive, and not consistent with its supposed mission of helping Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak. From the RN Team’s point of view, Cross Landings’ leadership was uncooperative when not outright obstructive. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Cross Landings had two licensed nursing home administrators on site responding to the outbreak. The administrator of record was Mark Daniels. However, Mr. Daniels submitted his resignation to Cross Landings on April 7, 2020. During the team’s stay, Ms. Cameron was also at the facility in her role as regional administrator for the parent company of Cross Landings, to ensure continuity of care for the residents and to help on the administrative side. Petitioner argues that the title “regional administrator” was an honorific bestowed upon her by the parent company in recognition of her years of service to the organization. The title carried no additional powers or duties. Petitioner states that Ms. Cameron had no supervisory authority over Mr. Daniels, who was at all relevant times the administrator of record at Cross Landings. At the time of the investigation, the Department was unaware that the title “regional administrator” carried no actual authority. The Department understood the title to mean that Ms. Cameron was senior to Mr. Daniels and exercised some level of administrative authority at Cross Landings. It appeared to the RN Team that Ms. Cameron was a figure of authority at Cross Landings and that she was treated as such by the staff of the facility. The RN Team created daily reports detailing its observations at Cross Landings for April 9 through 11, 13, and 14, 2020. During its subsequent investigation, the Department interviewed the members of the RN Team regarding their observations at Cross Landings. The daily reports and the interviews were part of the investigative file that was before the Panel when it deliberated probable cause in Ms. Cameron’s case. The RN Team reported widespread failure in Cross Landings’ infection prevention and control measures, including the improper use of PPE by staff, inadequate hygiene procedures, the failure to properly isolate COVID-19 suspected or positive residents, the failure to timely notify staff members of COVID-19 positive residents, and the failure to properly screen individuals entering the facility, including Ms. Cameron.2 The RN Team also reported an overall failure to deliver adequate resident care, including residents who were soiled with feces or urine, 2 The RN Team’s reportage was disputed by Cross Landings and would have been subject to challenge by Ms. Cameron at any subsequent hearing. The RN Team’s reportage is relayed in this Final Order not as fact but as information that was available to the Panel in its deliberations. residents who did not have bed sheets, residents who were not receiving adequate wound care, and residents with undated and soiled surgical dressings. The RN Team reported being “shocked and horrified” by the conditions at Cross Landings. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron instructed Cross Landings’ staff to not listen to the RN Team’s recommendations and that Ms. Cameron called the RN Team “nothing but trouble.” Ms. Cameron and her fellow senior employees believed, not without reason, that the main purpose of the RN Team was not to help Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak, but to compile a record for the purpose of disciplinary action against the facility and its administrators. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Director of Nursing Mary Lewis actively obstructed the RN Team’s efforts to improve conditions at the facility. The RN Team reported that the trio became increasingly hostile to the RN Team. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. Lewis stated that they were following orders from the facility’s owner, Karl Cross. On or about April 14, 2020, the Department issued Quarantine/ Isolation Orders directing that 13 of Cross Landings’ 42 residents be relocated to another facility due to Cross Landings’ insufficient infection control practices and the resultant spread of COVID-19 within the facility. On or about April 15, 2020, the Department issued additional Orders requiring the remaining Cross Landings’ residents to undergo COVID-19 testing. Petitioner’s Motion does not dispute the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint as to her actions at Cross Landings between April 9 and 14, 2020. Petitioner’s case rests on the legal argument that the Department cannot take disciplinary action against Ms. Cameron’s nursing home administrator license under the facts alleged because Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings. The Motion states: Here, the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron was not substantially justified because Mark Daniels—and NOT Sebrina Cameron—was the designated administrator of Cross Landings at all times referenced in the Amended Complaint. Ms. Cameron was at all relevant times, and continues to be, the administrator of a completely different facility, Crosswinds Health and Rehabilitation Center (“Crosswinds”). These facts were known to the [Department]. The identity of the actual administrator was readily available to [the Department] and was easily determined through a simple review of readily available state records. Petitioner relies on a rule of the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) regulating the licensure, administration, and fiscal management of nursing homes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 4.103(4) provides: Administration. The licensee of each nursing home must have full legal authority and responsibility for the operation of the facility. The licensee of each facility must designate one person, who is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators under Chapter 468, Part II, F.S., as the Administrator who oversees the day to day administration and operation of the facility.[3] Each nursing home must be organized according to a written table of organization. (emphasis added). 3 This portion of the rule implements section 400.141(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that a licensed nursing home facility shall “[b]e under the administrative direction and charge of a licensed administrator.” Section 400.021(1) defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The Motion notes that the Administrative Complaint acknowledges that Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings by repeatedly referring to her as the “regional administrator” of the facility. The Motion goes on to argue as follows: There are no rules, codes, statutes, or any other authoritative sources that recognize the existence of or define the responsibilities of a “regional administrator.” Ms. Cameron was given the honorific title as recognition of her years of quality service, but the title did not come with any legislatively recognized responsibilities, official responsibilities, authority, or monetary incentives for any time she chose to spend helping out at Cross Landings during the once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. To be clear, Ms. Cameron was not required by contract, duties, law, or regulation to step foot in Cross Landings and put herself at risk during a deadly pandemic. Despite this, the [Department] elected to proceed against her license through [sections] 468.1755(1)(h) and (k). Count I of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(h), by engaging in fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration, which is defined as follows by section 468.1655(4): “Practice of nursing home administration” means any service requiring nursing home administration education, training, or experience and the application of such to the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling of the total management of a nursing home. A person shall be construed to practice or to offer to practice nursing home administration who: Practices any of the above services. Holds himself or herself out as able to perform, or does perform, any form of nursing home administration by written or verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, or card; or in any other way represents himself or herself to be, or implies that he or she is, a nursing home administrator. The Department argues that the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration does not limit its regulatory reach to the designated administrator of a nursing home, but reaches a person who holds herself out as able to perform or who does perform nursing home administration. The Department states that an AHCA rule regarding the overall operation of nursing home facilities does not govern the Department’s regulation of an individual licensee. The Department contends that Ms. Cameron’s undisputed actions at Cross Landings met the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration and that it was reasonable for the Panel to find probable cause based on those actions. The Department points out that Ms. Cameron used her title of regional administrator to order supplies on behalf of Cross Landings, including PPE and sanitizing products. Ms. Cameron verbally directed Cross Landings’ staff members. In one instance noted by the RN Team, a newly hired Cross Landings certified nursing assistant (“CNA”) was given a painter’s mask that was too large for her face. The RN Team instructed her to replace it with a smaller mask. The CNA told the RN Team that Ms. Cameron had given her the mask and that she had been given no training on COVID-19 procedures or PPE. Ms. Cameron subsequently refused to give the CNA a smaller mask and instead offered her a used N95 mask from the trunk of her car. When the CNA refused to put on the used mask, she was forced to resign from her position. Ms. Cameron represented Cross Landings in dealing with the Department regarding the placement of a resident who was suspected to have COVID-19. Ms. Cameron met with the RN Team on behalf of Cross Landings. The Department notes that Ms. Cameron held herself out as able to perform nursing home administration and/or represented or implied that she was a nursing home administrator at Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron was physically present at Cross Landings in her role as regional administrator. She employed the title “regional administrator” to some effect and used the administrator’s office while at Cross Landings. She was privy to communications between Mr. Cross and AHCA regarding the RN Team and COVID-19 infection control procedures at Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record, Ms. Cameron held herself out and was treated as having actual administrative authority at Cross Landings during the COVID-19 outbreak and the RN Team’s visit in April 2020. There was a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner engaged in the practice of nursing home administration at Cross Landings as defined in section 468.1655(4)(a) and/or (b), due to her performance of nursing home administrator services and/or by her holding herself out to be a nursing home administrator. Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(k), by repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility in which she is the administrator. Chapter 468, enacted to ensure that every nursing home administrator practicing in Florida meets the minimum requirements for safe practice, defines a nursing home administrator as, “a person who is licensed to engage in the practice of nursing home administration in this state under the authority of this part.” § 468.1655(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). As noted above, section 400.021 defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The stated purpose of chapter 400, part II, is to provide for the development, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for the health, care, and treatment of persons in nursing homes and the maintenance and operation of such institutions in a manner that will ensure safe, adequate, and appropriate care, treatment, and health of persons in such facilities. § 400.011, Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Cameron was a licensed nursing home administrator pursuant to chapter 468 and used the title of regional administrator. The title “regional administrator” is not defined by statute but in context carries an ordinary meaning that the individual is the administrator supervising more than one nursing home in a geographic area. Ms. Cameron stated that she was at Cross Landings to ensure continuity of care after Mr. Daniels tendered his resignation. It was not illogical for the Department to conclude that “continuity of care” meant that Ms. Cameron was sent to Cross Landings to perform the duties of administrator as Mr. Daniels prepared for his departure. Ensuring “continuity of care” would certainly require control over the various components of a nursing home to provide health care and activities of daily living, including the management of nursing and housekeeping staff, oversight of meal services, and the facilitation of social and recreational activities. Such oversight or control is tantamount to the general administrative charge of the facility. Ms. Cameron would not have been able to ensure continuity of care if she did not have de facto general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron’s general administrative charge over the facility was evidenced by her actions at Cross Landings, including ordering supplies, distributing supplies to staff members, directing staff members, communicating on behalf of the facility, meeting with the RN Team in the place of Mr. Daniels, and using the administrator’s office as her own. Ms. Cameron’s licensure as a nursing home administrator, her use of the title regional administrator, her stated purpose for being present at Cross Landings, and her actions at Cross Landings provide sufficient grounds for a reasonable person to believe that she had the general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record and did not have sole administrative charge of the facility, Ms. Cameron presented herself as the person in charge and was treated as such by Cross Landings’ staff. Based on the foregoing, at the time this proceeding was initiated, the Department had a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner was the administrator at Cross Landings as defined in sections 468.1655(3) and 400.021(1), and was subject to discipline for repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility. During the probable cause hearing on May 4, 2020, the Panel discussed and considered whether Ms. Cameron was subject to discipline for her actions at Cross Landings. Members of the Panel raised questions about her status as the administrator of Cross Landings. The Department informed the Panel that Mr. Daniels was the administrator of record for Cross Landings. The Panel discussed what duties and obligations a licensed administrator other than the administrator of record would have in this specific scenario. The Panel considered that Ms. Cameron was the regional administrator for the parent company, that she was acting in an administrative capacity on the ground at Cross Landings, and that she therefore had some degree of responsibility. The Panel concluded that Ms. Cameron was operating in the capacity of administrator by being the regional administrator on site. The chair of the Panel reasonably concluded that a regional administrator would be in a position to exercise control over Mr. Daniels and that Mr. Daniels was reporting to Ms. Cameron. It is found that the information before the Panel was sufficient to support the Panel’s decision. The Department was substantially justified in finding probable cause and deciding to pursue an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron.
Findings Of Fact The parties' stipulation The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Forum and Amedex timely filed their respective letters of intent and applications with the Department and the District Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. The Department ultimately deemed the applications complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the applications. Forum and Amedex each timely filed a petition requesting a formal hearing on the denial of their application. With regard to the Forum application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Forum's project financially unfeasible, that the project is not the best use of Forum's resources, and that Forum fails to meet the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Forum's 60-bed proposal. With regard to the Amedex application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Amedex's project financially unfeasible, and that the project is not the best use of Amedex's resources. The Department further contends that Amedex has not demonstrated that it can provide quality of care, that it has not demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the short or long term, that it has not provided long range plans and that, even assuming minimal need, the size of Amedex' proposed project will cause difficulty in meeting projected utilization needs based on Broward County's past utilization rates. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Amedex' 240-bed proposal. As between the applicants, they agree that a comparative review is appropriate to determine the best applicant. Further, they agree for purposes of this proceeding that the other meets all statutory and rule criteria, at least minimally, except the following: need beyond 60 beds, ability to provide quality of care, and availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation. The parties have further agreed that there are no special circumstances existent in this case upon which a certificate of need is being sought. The Amedex Proposal In July 1986 Amedex filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a 240-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. The total project cost is projected to be $9,040,228. At hearing, Amedex failed to offer any competent proof to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposed project, that it could provide quality care, or that it had available the necessary funds for project accomplishment and operation. 1/ While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Amedex's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health services would be a more appropriate use of the resources. The Forum Proposal In July 1986, Forum also filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. Forum's application sought leave to construct a 60-bed facility. The estimated cost for construction of Forum's proposed nursing home is $2,39,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Forum's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resources. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops, and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Broward County that would consist of 120 apartments for independent living, a 30-bed adult congregate living facility, and the proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home. Forum has packaged its centers to provide these three levels of service to meet the desires of retired persons they hope to attract to their retirement community. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum would offer a wide range of services for its residents including: 24-hour skilled and intermediate nursing care, physical therapy services, and other restorative services. Additionally, Forum proposes to offer, as needed, subacute services such as: intravenous care, continuous bladder irrigation, oxygen therapy, nastrogastric tube feeding, ventilator care, insulin treatment, sterile dressing changes, and sterile care of tracheotomies. Forum also proposes to offer in the future, if need is identified and if any necessary agreements can be reached, respite care, adult day care, meals on wheels and hospice care. Forum proposes to seek medicare and medicaid certification, and will dedicate 25 of its beds to medicaid patients. Forum has a history of providing quality care at its existing facilities, and will provide quality care at the proposed facility. Forum has demonstrated the immediate and long term financial feasibility of its proposed project. Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. Due to the excellent growth potential in Broward County for retirement living centers, Forum should be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible. However, in view of the lack of numeric need for such facility as discussed infra, Forum's success will be to the detriment of existing and approved facilities. Numeric need The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2, Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology ... the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i... The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case, establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2 a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict (in this case the district and subdistrict are the same--Broward County) in the horizon year. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA," the estimated bed rate for the population age-group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA = LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB) is calculated based on the number of licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986, and that there were 3,226 licensed beds in the district on that date. 2/ The parties do not, however, agree as to the date on which POPC and POPD should be derived. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Forum contends that the appropriate date to establish the "current population" for POPC and POPD is January 1, 1986. The Department contends that the appropriate date is the date of application. In the opinion of David Warner, which opinion is credited, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that date, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of the Department. Between December 1984 and December 1986, the Department routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. That three and one half year spread was adopted by the Department for the same reasons expressed by Dr. Warner. In the batching cycle of January 1987, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2b to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + (6 x 110,217) BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + 661,302) BA = 3,226 / 820,180 BA = .0039332 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB," the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0039332 BB = .0235992 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A," the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. The parties concur that POPA and POPB are, respectively, 165,533 and 128,250 for the horizon year. Accordingly, application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a produces the following calculation: A = (165,533 x .0039332) + (128,250 x .0235992) A = 651.07439 + 3,026.5974 A = 3,677.67 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA," the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds" (gross bed need in this case. 3/ This calculation is defined by subparagraph 2d as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept. Accordingly, the parties agree that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d, but, rather is defined by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In Broward County (District X) LB and LBD are the same since the county has not been divided into subdistricts. Application of the foregoing methodology to the facts of this case produces a gross need in July 1989 of 3,453 beds, computed as follows: 4/ SA = 3,677.67 x (3226/3226) x (.845/.9) SA = 3,677.67 x 1 x .938888 SA = 3452.92 The net need calculation The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net reed from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed need allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for certificate of need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental sub- district from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. Notably, former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 comports with the new rule in all material respects. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts, through application of "policy," that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 for calculating LB and LBD), and the number of approved beds as of December 1, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). Forum would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no proof to expose and elucidate its policy choice. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and Forum for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. 5/ The inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph 2i, as well as former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's policy choice concerning the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational since it could result in some nursing home beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed in June 1, 1986, but licensed before the supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report (SAAR), they would not be counted in either inventory. Since the purpose of subparagraph 2i is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures, to the greatest extent possible, that the horizon population will not be over or underserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated by reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds, from previous batching cycles, existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing, there were 3,226 licensed beds and 695 approved beds in the district/subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a surplus of 399 community nursing home beds in the district for the June 1989 planning horizon. Consistency with State and local health plans The parties have stipulated that both proposals are consistent with the State and local health plans except for Forum's facial failure to comply with the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. Pertinent to this issue, the local health plan provides: In addition to controlling capacity in order to discourage the construction of unneeded beds, the certificate of need program addresses cost containment by encouraging efficiencies in operation as a criteria to certificate of need approval. A number of operational models have historically proven to be positive influences on efficiency. Licensure laws, for instance, require nursing home staffing patterns to be structured in minimum modules of 30 bed configurations. As a result, the construction of nursing homes with beds totalling numbers not divisible by 30, has the capability of encouraging over staffing. Similarly, experience has shown that freestanding nursing homes constructed at less than 120 beds also are less cost efficient compared to larger facilities. Likewise, since construction and corresponding debt service retirement is greater for freestanding facilities than for new construction on existing facilities, expansion and conversion as an alternative to new construction frequently acts to reduce costs. The basis for the 120-bed minimum size for a "freestanding" facility in the local health plan is to insure efficiency and economy of scale. The 60- bed project proposed by Forum is not "freestanding" but is an integral part of a retirement center which also includes 120 independent living units and a 30-bed adult congregate living facility. Under the circumstances, the economies and efficiencies contemplated by the local health plan will be achieved, and Forum's proposal is consistent with such plan. The local health plan also provides, as a recommendation, that: ... applications for certificates of need to construct additional nursing home beds should be approved so as to support the State policy of 27 beds/1000 population over age 65 in Broward County. Considering the population over age 65 at the applicants' planning horizon, as well as the number of licensed and approved beds in the district, calculates a 14.36 beds/1000 population over age 65 for July 1989. Accordingly, the applicants' proposal is consistent with state and local health plans regarding bed to population ratio. Comparative Review As between the competing applicants, the proof demonstrates that Forum is the superior applicant, and that were the award of a certificate of need appropriate in this case that its application would be the one of choice. Under no circumstance does the proof support an award to Amedex, since it failed to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, failed to demonstrate that it would provide quality care, and failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient resources for project accomplishment and operation. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications of Amedex and Forum, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1987), or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. In the case of Amedex, the lack of need in the district, as well as its failure to demonstrate compliance with relevant criteria as discussed in paragraph 46, demonstrates that, on balance, its application should be denied. In the case of Forum, its application meets all relevant statutory and rule criteria except need. Need is the key criteria in the instant case. Forum's failure to satisfy that criterion by proof of numeric need or special circumstances is dispositive of its application for licensure, and such failure is not outweighed by any other, or combination of any other, criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the applications for certificate of need filed by Amedex and Forum be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The Department hereby adopts the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer but with the significant modification set out and explained in PDCF's Exception (1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue to petitioner Holmes Health Care, Inc., a Certificate of Need for 60 additional community nursing home beds in an addition, to be constructed, to its 60-bed facility now under construction, with permission to use the existing Bonifay Nursing Home facility under the CON until the 60-bed addition is constructed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The OAKLAND Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1984.
