Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mease Health Care, Inc. (Mease), is a private, not-for- profit acute care community hospital in Dunedin, Florida. It is located in District V, a health planning district established by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Intervenors, Morton F. Plant Hospital, Inc. (Plant) and Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. (Bayfront), are acute care hospitals also located within District V. Mease has pending in Case Nos. 89-1652 and 89-4888 a challenge to HRS's fixed need pool determination for new cardiac catherization services and an application for a certificate of need (CON) authorizing it to establish a new inpatient cardiac catherization program in Dunedin, Florida. In the instant case, Mease has challenged an HRS policy as being an illicit rule. Respondent is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Health Facility and Services Development Act. For the purpose of assisting it in administering the act, HRS has promulgated Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), Florida administrative Code (1989), which pertains to inpatient cardiac catherization services and defines the requirements for the establishment of such services. Paragraph 8.c. of the rule contains the formula used for calculating fixed need pools for new inpatient cardiac catherization programs. The formula is: NN PCCPV - ACCPV - APP, where NN is the annual net program volume need, PCCPV is the projected adult cardiac catherization program volume, ACCPV is the actual adult cardiac catherization volume, and APP is the projected program volume for approved programs. This formula was applied by HRS to the September 1988 batching cycle, which was the first batching cycle after the rule became effective. For that cycle, HRS calculated NN to be -53 for District V. NN was therefore less than 300. Paragraph 8.d. of the rule provides the following relevant instructions on how the formula should be applied to batching cycles subsequent to September 1988: If NN is less than 300 in the first batching cycle after the rule becomes effective, the ACCPV value which is subtracted from the PCCPV will be the same value as ACCPV in the first batching cycle until the projected net need in a future batching cycle reaches a program volume of 300 or more. . . For the March and September 1989 batching cycles, which were the two batching cycles immediately subsequent to the first batching cycle after the rule became effective, HRS did not keep the ACCPV value constant, "or the same . . . as in the first batching cycle", even though NN was "less than 300 in the first batching cycle." Put another way, in all batching cycles after September 1988 HRS has recalculated ACCPV even though in the first batching cycle NN was a negative number and therefore was less than 300. HRS's affidavit confirms that this is the manner in which ACCPV has been calculated in all cases since the adoption of the rule. Since the policy has been consistently used in the above manner in all cases, creates rights and requires compliance, and is not apparent from a literal reading of the rule, the policy necessarily constitutes a rule. There is no dispute that the policy has not been formally adopted as a rule.
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine?
Findings Of Fact At the times relevant to the inquiry Petitioner was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician within the state of Florida, having been issued license No. ME0045474, effective December 28, 1984. Respondent's last known address is 1401 Centerville Road, Suite 202, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. Respondent is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. The board certification is by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Respondent is a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Respondent received his undergraduate degree from Florida State University and his medical degree from Howard University. His training at Howard University included a four- year residency program from 1982 to 1986. Respondent holds staff privileges at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital (TMH) in Tallahassee, Florida. Patient A.G. Patient A.G. began treatment with Respondent in 1998 and continues as Respondent's patient. A.G. is an Hispanic female who is not proficient in English. When seen by Respondent in his office she has been accompanied by an interpreter that would allow Respondent to discuss details of her health care in English for translation into Spanish for the patient's benefit. Respondent's understanding of Spanish is limited to education in high school and a year at the university. He has the ability to describe some matters that are pertinent to gynecologic practice or obstetric practice and in particular as it relates to telling patients, for example "how to push and when not to push." The record does not reveal that Respondent has the ability to discuss A.G.'s overall health care in Spanish, her language. A.G.'s husband, T.Q., who accompanied her at relevant times principally spoke Spanish and not English. He is somewhat proficient in English. On June 16, 1999, A.G. had an office appointment with Respondent. At that time A.G. had undergone gallbladder surgery but her pelvic pain persisted. In consultation on that day it was decided that A.G. would undergo diagnostic laparoscopy to explore the reason for her chronic pelvic pain. Through the discussion the patient was told that biopsies of the pelvic anatomy might be performed during the procedure and that any problems that could be addressed through laparoscopy would be addressed as Respondent felt comfortable in carrying out that correction. Otherwise, Respondent said that he would "take pictures" and "get out of the case" with the decision to offer further treatment left for another time. Patient A.G. had been referred to Respondent for her persistent pelvic pain following an examination on April 27, 1999, that had been made by Margaret Cantor, a Nurse/Mid-Wife and Registered Nurse. She conducted a pelvic examination of the patient that date. The examination included the use of speculum to examine the cervix and vagina in the interest of looking for abnormalities, lesions, growths, and discolorations. No cervical lesions were found in this examination. A pap smear taken at the time revealed normal results with some inflammation. Diagnostic laparoscopy is a surgical procedure involving an incision in the abdominal wall through which a scope is inserted to visualize the abdominal cavity. Typically the workup for performing a diagnostic laparoscopy would include use of ultrasound, pelvic examination, and a pap smear. Possible complications in this procedure include vascular injury, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection, and bleeding. Preliminary to the diagnostic laparoscopy it is the custom and practice in the medical community to perform a vaginal examination with the use of a speculum. On July 1, 1999, patient A.G. was seen by the Respondent in his office for her pre-operative check. On this occasion A.G. was unaccompanied by a translator. Nonetheless, Respondent was able to perform a brief physical and obtain a history with the assistance of A.G.'s husband. Respondent listened to the patient's heart and lungs and performed a bi- manual examination in which one or two fingers were inserted in the vagina and with a hand on the abdomen compression was performed on the pelvic viscera, uterus, tubes, and ovaries and the lower section of the pelvis. Nothing significant was observed in the patient since last seen. On July 1, 1999, an employee in Respondent's office witnessed patient A.G. sign a consent form allowing the diagnostic laparoscopy. The consent form makes no reference to the agreement for Respondent to perform a loop electrocautery excision procedure, referred to by abbreviations as a "LEEP" conization biopsy procedure or a LEEP cone. No evidence of such consent is contained in patient A.G.'s medical records maintained at Respondent's office. The diagnostic laparoscopy was to be performed at TMH. On July 1, 1999, Patricia Charbonneau, a clinical nurse at the hospital, reviewed a consent form with patient A.G. concerning the diagnostic laparoscopy for the purposes of that facility. Nurse Charbonneau was aware of the scheduling of the diagnostic laparoscopy by reference to the history and physical prepared by the Respondent. This conference involved the discussion of potential risks and complications of the laparoscopy. No discussion was conducted concerning possible risks and complications of a LEEP conization biopsy. The consent form from TMH pertaining to patient A.G. and the diagnostic laparoscopy stated "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure, I request and authorize my physician to proceed." Nurse Charbonneau was left with the impression that the patient understood the explanation concerning the upcoming procedure and gave her consent. Ms. Charbonneau was assisted in this communication by A.G.'s husband. No discussion was held concerning the performance of a LEEP cone biopsy, in that the permit from Respondent made no mention of that procedure. Ms. Charbonneau took steps for an interpreter to be available the next morning when the surgery was to be performed given the nature of the surgery, the use of anesthesia and the desire to have "everything" reviewed again. A LEEP conization is a form of biopsy performed either in an office or hospital setting with anesthesia. The cervix is examined with the assistance of a speculum. Lugol solution is placed on the cervix to identify any abnormal cells and an excesion is made by shaving a small piece of the cervix for examination. The workup for LEEP conization includes a pap smear and a colposcopy. The performance of LEEP conization presents potential risks and complications related to infection, endometrious, bleeding, cervical stenosis, and cervical incompetence. On July 2, 1999, patient A.G. came to the TMH outpatient surgery center for her scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy to be performed by Respondent. She was the fourth patient on a schedule of surgeries to be performed by Respondent on that date. Respondent was conversant with the sequence of surgeries to be performed. Patient A.G. was placed in a holding area in the outpatient surgery center to prepare her for her surgery and to await transport to the operating room. Sometime before moving the patient to the operating room Respondent saw the patient in the holding area. Respondent addressed patient A.G. by saying hello and asking her how she was doing. This was not a visit intended to educate the patient and was not involved with any other medical purpose. At the time the patient's husband was with her during this brief encounter which was intended to confirm that the patient was there for the surgery as had been previously arranged. Several hours may have passed between the time Respondent saw patient A.G. in the holding area and when he next encountered the patient in the operating room. Respondent also saw patient N.C. in an adjacent cubicle to where patient A.G. was located while the patients were awaiting their surgery. Patient N.C. was the third patient on the schedule, there for the performance of a LEEP conization biopsy. Respondent followed his surgical schedule for the first two patients in the intended sequence. Some delay was occasioned by a problem experienced in the surgery performed on the second patient. Valerie Anne Lazzell, M.D., is an anesthesiologist licensed to practice in Florida. She is employed by Anesthesiology Associates of Tallahassee, Florida. It was intended that she provide anesthesia during Respondent's performance of the diagnostic laparoscopy for patient A.G. It was anticipated that the patient be subjected to general anesthesia which involves a rapid loss of consciousness and blocks the sensory, mental and motor functions of the patient. A general anesthesia can be provided by using an endotracheal tube, with a mask or with an LMA. This is as distinguished from the use of a neurolept employed in most instances when performing LEEP conization biopsies. In that setting the patient is generally anesic, not really aware, and has analgesia "on board." The use of a neurolept promotes a pain-free state of immobility and an insensitivity to pain and is usually accomplished by use of IV medications. From the record, it appears that Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., with Anesthesiology Associates was scheduled to provide anesthesia by neurolept for the third patient N.C. who was scheduled for LEEP conization biopsy. Patient A.G. at the time in question was 4'9" tall and weighed 103 pounds. Patient N.C., an African-American woman was 5'2" tall and weighed 242 pounds. Their skin tone was similar in color. Dr. Lazzell saw patient A.G. before the patient was taken for surgery. In this examination the doctor filled out the patient's airway, listened to her heart and lungs, and considered the patient's ASA classification which was one of good health. Dr. Lazzell considered the plan for anesthesia with an endotracheal tube. She gained the assistance of a Dr. Becker who was fluent in Spanish in explaining the use of anesthesia to the patient. Dr. Lazzell sought Dr. Becker's assistance when the hospital did not make an interpreter available. Dr. Lazzell discussed the possible risks and complications of use of this form of anesthesia and a consent form was signed and dated. While this assessment was being made A.G.'s husband was in attendance. It was Dr. Lazzell's expectation that the patient A.G. would next be seen as scheduled when the nurse anesthetist called Dr. Lazzell to the operating room to intubate patient A.G. in association with the provision of anesthesia for the diagnostic laparoscopy. Jean Mauch, C.R.N.A., when performing her duties in the operating room setting at TMH outpatient surgery center was expected to induce anesthesia, maintain the anesthesia, monitor vital signs, treat untoward events during surgery and maintain fluids in the patient while under the supervision of the physician, in this instance, Dr. Lazzell. Nurse Mauch was principally responsible for providing the anesthesia for the third procedure on patient N.C., the LEEP conization biopsy. This included preparation in the operating room of medications and other related tools and supplies. The third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy for N.C., was referred to on a typed surgical schedule in the preoperative desk in the outpatient surgery center. Having checked the schedule Nurse Mauch obtained the chart for N.C. and went to the cubical, not of N.C. but A.G. When Nurse Mauch arrived at A.G.'s cubical, Jamie Martin, R.N., the pre-op nurse and Dale Dunsmore, R.N., the circulating nurse, were there. Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch arrived at the cubicle where patient A.G. was located at about the same time. When arriving at the cubicle for patient A.G., Nurse Mauch had in mind that the process was one in which she was getting ready for the surgery to be performed on patient N.C. While in the cubical Nurse Mauch introduced herself to the person she believed to be the patient N.C., at which time Nurse Dunsmore said that the patient only speaks Spanish. Nurse Mauch recalls that a translator was not available for assisting in any communication with patient A.G. Realizing that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband for identification, the reference to the fact that the patient only spoke Spanish did not cause Nurse Mauch any concern. Nurse Mauch never heard Nurse Dunsmore orally refer to patient A.G. by name. Nurse Mauch continued with her presentation by commenting that she was the nurse anesthetist who was going to put the patient to sleep. Patient A.G. nodded her head in response to Nurse Mauch's physical gesture that the patient was going to be put to sleep. Beyond that point Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore took patient A.G. to the operating room ostensibly as the third patient on the schedule for provision of a LEEP conization biopsy wherein Nurse Mauch would provide the necessary anesthesia. The chart for N.C. was brought to the operating room. Before the patient was removed from the cubicle Nurse Martin provided pre-op medication to patient A.G., phenergan robinul. The fact that Nurse Martin was giving preoperative medication and that Nurse Dunsmore was checking the armband on what turned out to be patient A.G. led Nurse Mauch to believe that patient A.G. was patient N.C. the third scheduled patient, according to Nurse Mauch. As Nurse Mauch recalls, when the Respondent entered the operating room where the third scheduled procedure was to be performed he checked the chart for patient N.C. Respondent went out and washed his hands, returned and started the procedure. At the end of the procedure Nurse Mauch recalls Respondent commenting that the next patient speaks only Spanish, to which Nurse Mauch said, "No, this patient," meaning the patient who had been subjected to the procedure is the one who speaks Spanish. Respondent replied "I must be mixed up." Nurse Mauch recalls Dr. Lazzell arriving at the door of the operating room with patient A.G.'s chart. Dr. Lazzell looked surprised to find the circumstances. Nurse Mauch told Dr. Lazzell that this is the neurolept, the case involving the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Lazzell commented that "No it isn't." Nurse Mauch heard Dr. Lazzell ask Respondent, "What procedure did you do?" Respondent replied "LEEP conization." Dr. Lazzell said "No, this was supposed to be the diagnostic laparoscopy." Nurse Mauch observed Respondent leave the room and return. Patient A.G. was re-preped and the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be provided was performed with the patient being intubated by the use of an endotracheal tube. Nurse Martin in her capacity as pre-op nurse was responsible for receiving patients and getting the patients ready for administering medications that were prescribed and getting IVs and things started on the patients prior to the patients being sent to the operating room. She recalls performing pre- operative duties on the patient A.G. Nurse Martin was familiar with the schedule of patients, the sequence. She understood that patient A.G. was the fourth patient in the schedule and provided the pre-anesthetic to patient A.G. in preparation for the operation. This involved the use of phenergan. Nurse Martin made no mistake in identifying patient A.G. when providing care. Nurse Martin heard Nurse Dunsmore identify patient A.G. in Nurse Martin's presence and agreed with that identification. Nurse Martin had seen the patient A.G. before the occasion at which Nurse Mauch and Nurse Dunsmore were there with the patient in Nurse Martin's presence and the patient A.G. was taken to the operating room. Nurse Martin had reviewed patient A.G.'s chart earlier in caring forward responsibilities for preparing the patient for the operation. Nurse Dunsmore identified her duties as circulating nurse at TMH outpatient surgery center as being related to setting up rooms for surgeries, transporting patients from pre-op holding areas, identifying patients, verifying surgeries, verifying allergies, and so forth. Ordinarily Nurse Dunsmore in performing her duties would read the chart of the patient scheduled for a procedure to make certain that all permits were signed. She would then go to where the patient was being held, introduce herself to the patient and ask for identification, verifying the surgery that is scheduled for the patient, and perform other related assignments. In performing her duties Nurse Dunsmore would accompany the patient with the anesthesiologist to the operating room. The method of identification in effect at the time in question would be to compare an addressograph card which accompanied the patient's chart with the information on an identification bracelet worn by the patient. Nurse Dunsmore verified that the operating room for the third procedure was set up for a LEEP conization biopsy. After the second procedure on the schedule, Nurse Dunsmore recalls that she went to patient A.G.'s room. However Nurse Dunsmore had handed Nurse Mauch patient N.C.'s chart. Nurse Mauch carried the chart to patient A.G.'s cubicle. The two nurses essentially entered the cubicle together. Nurse Martin and patient A.G.'s husband were already there. Nurse Martin left the cubicle shortly thereafter. Nurse Dunsmore introduced herself to the patient and reached for the patient's identification bracelet and read it out loud. The patient smiled and nodded in response. In turn the patient's husband smiled and nodded in response. Patient A.G. was then taken to the operating room by Nurse Dunsmore and Nurse Mauch. The patient was sedated by Nurse Mauch and positioned for provision of the LEEP conization biopsy. Nurse Dunsmore observed the Respondent enter the operating room and look at the chart which was in relation to patient N.C., not patient A.G. Nurse Dunsmore saw Respondent leave the operating room to scrub. Nurse Dunsmore was in attendance when the procedure was performed. Nurse Dunsmore recalls Dr. Lazzell entering the operating room at the end of the procedure with the chart belonging to patient A.G. and the realization by those in attendance that the chart in the operating room was for N.C., whom they understood to be undergoing the procedure when in fact the patient undergoing the procedure was A.G. Diane Jordan was a surgical technician assigned to assist in the third procedure, the LEEP conization biopsy. She recalls the patient being put to sleep by Nurse Mauch and the patient being prepared for the procedure. The patient was covered by draping towels across the upper portion of the thighs. A blanket was placed over the patient's torso. The patient was placed in the lithotomy position allowing observation of the patient's buttocks, vulva, vagina and external pelvic organs. The patient had a mask on her face and a surgical hat to cover her hair. All of these arrangements had been made before Respondent entered the operating room. Ms. Jordan recalls that the chart in the room was for N.C., the patient anticipated to undergo the LEEP conization biopsy. Ms. Jordan did not realize that the patient in reality was patient A.G. Ms. Jordan recalls that the Respondent when entering the room asked is this "such and such" in relation to a LEEP conization biopsy and that Nurse Dunsmore replied in the affirmative. Ms. Jordan remembers Respondent looking at the chart for N.C. and signing it. Ms. Jordan was in attendance while the procedure was performed. Ms. Jordan heard Respondent mention something about a lesion before he started. Ms. Jordan provided medication to be injected during the LEEP conization. Ms. Jordan identified the fact that a specimen was obtained which was given to her and provided to the nurse to send to pathology for evaluation. When Respondent entered the room for what he anticipated to be the third procedure what he asked specifically was "Is this Ms. C our case for the LEEP?" referring to the LEEP conization to be performed on patient N.C. That is when Nurse Dunsmore responded in the affirmative. After inquiring about the identification of the patient in association with the nature of the procedure Respondent expected to perform and in receiving an affirmative response, Respondent took no further steps to personally confirm the identity of the patient. Respondent opened the chart that was patient N.C.'s chart. Respondent took a drawing from his pocket that a Dr. Thompson had made of patient N.C.'s cervix when he had treated the patient. The drawing was in association with a colposcopy. Respondent intended to compare that drawing with what was observed in the patient during the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy in locating the suspected pathology. In proceeding with what he considered to be the third scheduled procedure for N.C., Respondent placed the speculum, applied the tenaculum and observed what looked to be a lesion that roughly approximated what he anticipated it would be based upon the drawing from Dr. Thompson. Respondent applied Lugol's solution and proceeded with the LEEP conization biopsy. Having applied the solution there was an indication of some pathology in roughly the position as the drawing had depicted. Respondent obtained the sample from the cervix. The size of the specimen was less than the diameter of a dime with a depth or thickness of about two dimes. The performance of the LEEP conization biopsy took less than five minutes. As Respondent finished Dr. Lazzell came to the operating room and informed Respondent that this was not the patient the he thought he was treating. Having been told by Dr. Lazzell that there was a misidentification, Respondent for the first time while engaged with the patient in the operating room proceeded to the front of the table and looked at the patient while the patient was being unmasked. By doing so Respondent discovered that indeed the patient had been misidentified and that he had actually performed surgery on patient A.G., not patient N.C. Respondent left the operating room and informed patient A.G.'s husband of the problem. Respondent returned to the operating room. The patient was provided anesthesia by Dr. Lazzell and the diagnostic laparoscopy that was scheduled was performed. Notwithstanding that it was never intended that Respondent perform a biopsy on patient A.G. from the cervix, Respondent expresses the opinion that if the physician encounters a visible lesion some form of biopsy is in order. Respondent expresses the opinion that in performing procedures such as a diagnostic laparoscopy greater latitude is afforded in terms of what the physician can do when he or she discovers "What's amiss with the patient." This in Respondent's view is because the patient is going into the procedure with the understanding that there may be an unanticipated problem and if the unexpected problem can be addressed, it should be taken care of. Of course this assumes that the biopsy that was performed on patient A.G. was in association with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy, when in fact the biopsy was the product of happenstance, in that, Respondent when addressing what he considered to be the condition in the patient N.C., by chance observed a similar condition in the patient A.G. Respondent concedes that prior to patient A.G.'s arrival at the outpatient surgical center that LEEP conization was not an indicated procedure for that patient. The biopsy that was performed was with the misapprehension as to the patient whose needs were being addressed, not merely an unanticipated circumstance in a patient whose identity was established when Respondent performed the biopsy. This was not an additional surgical procedure that came about in connection with the scheduled diagnostic laparoscopy; it was perceived by Respondent as the intended surgery being performed on a different patient when the case began. As a consequence it is the planned- for diagnostic laparoscopy which became the additional procedure. Nonetheless, Respondent tries to explain his result by expressing the opinion that other unexpected and unplanned-for procedures may be undertaken in the instance "Within the realm of the comfort level of the physician and the patient ahead of time; where they know each other, other things can be done as well." Respondent believes that the ability to proceed with the biopsy on patient A.G. while thinking that he was responding to the case involving patient N.C. is implicit and is promoted by "A feeling of trust that we had developed at the point in time." This refers to the point in time at which the other surgery, the diagnostic laparoscopy was being discussed with the patient A.G. The type of pathology that was encountered by Respondent with patient A.G. that led to the biopsy was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. That is what Respondent observed and collected for evaluation. The laboratory confirmation of the specimen was performed by Dr. Woodard Burgert, a board-certified anatomic and clinical pathologist. In his assessment Dr. Burgert observed that the cone biopsy in question was compatible with condyloma with warty atypia. There was no significant dysplasia. Expert Opinions Dr. Edward Zelnick is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who practices in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Hollywood Medical Center and Memorial Regional Hospital. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. In the instance where pathology is found in examining the cervix, Dr. Zelnick believes that action should be taken in addressing that pathology, but only in the instance where the pathology has been discussed with the patient and the appropriate alternative treatment has been discussed. Absent an emergency it is necessary to provide the patient the alternative to surgery and identify the risk of surgery. Absent life-threatening circumstances, a biopsy such as that performed on patient A.G. should not be performed without the patient's consent, which had not been given. Dr. Zelnick further describes the instance in which a biopsy in a case such as this would be in order, would be in relation to an instance in which it appeared that the circumstance was an immediate threat to the health of the patient that needed to be addressed. None of the exigent circumstances existed in this case. Therefore, Dr. Zelnick expresses the opinion that the performance of the biopsy by Respondent did not meet the expected standard of care. Based upon his familiarity with the form of consent in this case which states, "If any unforeseen condition arises and additional surgery is deemed medically necessary during my procedure I request and authorize my physician to proceed," Dr. Zelnick believes that the physician's responsibility there is to respond during the course of the surgery, if medically necessary, to such matters as repairing of a blood vessel that has been cut or damage to an internal organ or bowel. None of those circumstances were associated with the biopsy performed on the patient A.G.. While Dr. Zelnick delegates patient identification to surgical staff or nursing staff, he believes that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification to make certain that the right operation is performed on the proper patient resides with the surgeon. To do less is to practice below the standard of care universally accepted and a matter of common sense. According to Dr. Zelnick, Respondent did not meet that standard when performing the biopsy on patient A.G. who was misidentified. Whatever rules and procedures may be in place setting standards for identification in a hospital, Dr. Zelnick does not believe those standards abrogate the duty of the physician to properly identify the patient. What is expected of a physician is 100 percent certainty as to who the proper patient is and to assure that the proper procedure is carried out on the proper patient. The method of arriving at that determination is not significant, in Dr. Zelnick's view. Dr. Roberto Fojo is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist licensed to practice medicine in Florida. He has hospital privileges at Jackson Memorial and North Shore Medical Center in South Florida, and he is affiliated with the University of Miami, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecology. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He does not view a diagnostic laparoscopy as being intended to discover and diagnose cervical lesions, where, as here, the lesion is on the surface of the cervix and vagina. A diagnostic laparoscopy is not intended to promote an examination of the cervix, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo is familiar with the consent form executed by patient A.G., the language previously described. He has seen that language before or something similar to it and considers it part of the standard surgical consent in connection with a diagnostic laparoscopy that was intended in this case. The consent is designed to allow the surgeon to address matters such as puncture of the bowel or a problem with a major artery or veins or scar tissue or adhesions. This consent would not include addressing lesions on the cervix. A LEEP conization procedure is not an accepted procedure to perform in the patient undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy unless the LEEP conization had already been discussed and there was a problem with the cervix that the patient knew about. There, in Dr. Fojo's perception, the patient would be undergoing what he refers to as dual procedure. Dr. Fojo does not believe that surgery should be performed on a patient absent the patient's consent as being part of the original procedure or in an emergency. The LEEP conization biopsy by Respondent was not related to the consent that had been provided nor pertaining to an emergency. In this sense, Dr. Fojo expresses the opinion that Respondent failed to meet the standard for medical practice when performing the LEEP conization biopsy on Patient A.G. Dr. Fojo believes that a surgeon should ascertain without any doubt that the patient in the room is a patient that he or she should be performing surgery on, the appropriate surgical procedure. This need for identification is an independent responsibility of the physician and may not be delegated. It requires 100 percent accuracy, according to Dr. Fojo. Dr. Fojo holds to the opinion that the physician is responsible for the identification regardless of his or her efforts that may have been compromised by others in attempting to properly identify the patient and perform the indicated procedure. He believes this to be common medical practice. Respondent was not within the standard of care in performing the LEEP conization procedure on patient A.G. under Dr. Fojo's assessment. Dr. Michelle McCallanahan is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida and practices in Jacksonville, Florida. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. The consent form executed by patient A.G. is not unfamiliar to Dr. McCallanahan. Her perception of this consent language is that it relates to complications that occur during the course of the diagnostic laparoscopy that were not foreseen and constitute an emergency requiring an immediate procedure to correct the condition. Examples are vascular injuries to vessels, bowel injury, bladder injury, infection and bleeding. By contrast, lesions on the cervix do not constitute an example of an unforeseen circumstance. Dr. McCallanahan expresses the opinion that an appropriate workup for LEEP conization was not done for the patient A.G. Nonetheless, there are some circumstances in which it would not be violative of the standard of care to perform LEEP conization without conducting a workup. That circumstance would be in the instance where the lesion that was observed was highly suggestive of cervical cancer, according to Dr. McCallanahan. The case that Respondent was presented with did not constitute such a condition. Ordinarily, the standard of care contemplates the discussion of possible risks or complications associated with LEEP conization procedures before performing them. According to Dr. McCallanahan it would be appropriate to perform a surgical procedure without discussion of the risks and possible complications in an emergency when the patient was unconscious and could not give consent in advance. Those are not the facts here. While Dr. McCallanahan relies upon the assistance of other persons within the surgical and nursing staff, she expresses the opinion that the ultimate responsibility for patient identification prior to the performance of surgery resides with the physician. She believes that it is below the standard of care to not correctly identify the patient before the procedure is done and perform an improper procedure or non- consenting procedure on that patient, as was the case here. Dr. Jana Bures-Forstheoefel is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who is licensed in Florida. She practices in Tallahassee, Florida, and has privileges at TMH and performs surgeries in the outpatient surgery center. She is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon her own experience. She is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. She believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying patient A.G. before performing surgery on the patient. The method used by Respondent to identify the patient was common to the practice of other physicians who performed surgeries in that setting, according to Dr. Forstheoefel. In the event that Dr. Forstheoefel was performing a diagnostic laparoscopy and observed a cervical lesion she would evaluate the condition to include the performance of a biopsy, the most common method for cervical biopsy being a LEEP conization. Notwithstanding the lack of specific consent by the patient for Respondent to perform the LEEP conization, Dr. Forstheoefel holds to the opinion that it was correct to biopsy, given what was observed in the patient. The prospect that a physician would be 100 percent accurate in identifying a patient undergoing surgery is not humanly possible and is a standard that should not be imposed upon a physician in Dr. Forstheoefel's opinion. She considers that the matter of proper identification preoperatively is a team effort. One person should not be solely responsible for all things in making certain of the patient's safety and assuring that the right thing is done. Dr. Kenneth John McAlpine is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for that patient. He believes that Respondent met the standard of care in identifying the patient A.G. before performing the surgery and in performing the LEEP conization on that patient. Although Dr. McAlpine has not experienced a situation in which he observed a reason to do a LEEP conization in a diagnostic laparoscopy case, where consent for LEEP conization had not been given ahead of time, he does not question the decision to address the condition observed, such as in the case at issue. From his point of view, it was acceptable to do a LEEP conization biopsy to address the lesion. Although no prior indication existed before the lesion was observed during the procedure Dr. McAlpine would not want to ignore the lesion. Dr. McAlpine believes that the process that Respondent undertook in identifying the patient A.G. before surgery was consistent with practices in effect at the hospital, this included reliance on staff in the operating room. Dr. McAlpine does not believe that it is necessary for a physician to be 100 percent accurate in the identification as a person ultimately in charge. No matter as to the facts, he sees the issue of the identification being a multi-disciplinary approach among health care providers. Dr. David O'Bryan practices obstetrics and gynecology. He is licensed in Florida. At times relevant he performed surgeries at TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. The method employed by Respondent in identifying the patient was consistent with the practice used in the immediate medical community at the time, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the Respondent performed the appropriate surgery on Patient A.G. For Dr. O'Bryan, what is more important in addressing the patient's needs is the apparent pathology, not the consent that may have been provided by the patient in advance of the procedure. It would be negligent not to address the lesion on the cervix in his view. The pathology present determines the response even without a consent for the procedure. Dr. O'Bryan did not consider that the pathology constituted an issue of life or death. The fact that the LEEP conization biopsy was not planned was less significant than the need to address the pathology. It does not matter if the patient were A.G. or N.C. or some other patient, Dr. O'Bryan believes that it was appropriate to perform the biopsy. Dr. O'Bryan believes that the surgeon bears a great deal of responsibility in patient identification, but the ultimate responsibility for identification does not reside with the physician or any other operating room staff member in Dr. O'Bryan's assessment. Dr. O'Bryan does not conceive that there can be any greater comfort in the identification than in the instance where the "operating room crew" tells the physician who it is and the physician has a chart in his hands which indicates that it is the same patient as the operating staff has identified and the pathology that was found is consistent with what had been anticipated according to the patient chart and the staff identification. Nothing in medicine involves the imposition of a 100 percent standard of care to include properly identifying the patient preoperatively, according to Dr. O'Bryan. Dr. Roberto Morales is a board-certified obstetrician in gynecology licensed to practice in Florida. At times relevant, he performed surgery at the TMH outpatient surgery center. He is familiar with the type procedures involved in Patient A.G.'s care based upon his own experience. He is sufficiently familiar with the facts in this case to render an opinion concerning Respondent's level of care for the patient. Dr. Morales believes that Respondent met the standard of care for identifying the patient A.G. in that hospital and in other places as well. Dr. Morales believes that the patient was correctly identified by Respondent earlier in the day and that the incorrect patient was brought back to the operating room. Under those circumstances, Respondent did what was appropriate to identify the patient in the performance of the LEEP conization on patient A.G. and was within the standard of care, according to Dr. Morales. Assuming the patient was scheduled for a diagnostic laparoscopy, if during the examination, visualization of the cervix, a lesion was observed, a biopsy would be the typical next step, according to Dr. Morales. The caveat to his opinion in the ability to perform that biopsy would depend upon the patient that was being taken care of and the sense that the physician had about the patient's expectations of what should be done and not done. It is assumed that Dr. Morales believed that the level of relationship between Respondent and Patient A.G. would allow the performance of the LEEP conization biopsy. Dr. Morales believes that the attempt to be 100 percent accurate in the identification of patients preoperatively is an aspirational goal, not a requirement. For him all persons concerned have the responsibility for taking care of the patient. Having considered the opinions expressed by the experts, the ultimate facts to be determined must be based upon the realization that Respondent proceeded to perform the LEEP conization biopsy on patient A.G. without advance written consent, that Respondent believed that he was confronting the case of patient N.C., and that the performance of the LEEP conization on Patient A.G. was not in its timing and justification part of the diagnostic laparoscopy scheduled to be performed on Patient A.G. The earlier effort by Respondent to identify his patient in the holding area was sufficient for that stage of the process. Respondent acted in the customary manner in relying upon his knowledge that Patient N.C. was to be the third patient based upon the schedule. It was not unexpected that Respondent would rely upon the surgical staff in orally confirming the patient identity and the procedure to be performed when entering the operating room for the scheduled third procedure. This identification was further confirmed by the presence of the chart for Patient N.C. Respondent's failure to take further steps to physically identify the patient by looking at her arm bracelet, by looking at her face, or in some other manner recognizing the mistake that had been made by others in readying Patient A.G., and not Patient N.C. for surgery could be forgiven if there were no consequences, but there were. Although Respondent should not be the absolute guarantor in the identification of the patient, what he did in the operating room was not enough, when the result is that Respondent performed the LEEP conization that was not consented to in advance, and performed believing that the patient was N.C., the patient for whom the procedure was intended, and was not in response to an emergency regardless of patient identity. As a result, Respondent failed to meet the standard of care for reasonably prudent similar physicians under acceptable similar conditions and circumstances in his actions. In mitigation, the outcome was not harmful to the patient. Moreover, other health care professionals were in great measure responsible for the failure to properly identify the patient.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine and costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Kim Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 David W. Moye, Esquire Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The initial application for a CON to operate an adult cardiac catheterization laboratory by Metropolitan General Hospital was denied by DHRS in the State Agency Action Report dated June 28, 1983 (Exhibit 2). This denial was based upon a projected use of 2,704 cardiac catheterization procedures in 1985 and four cardiac catheterization facilities in operation in District V, the service area which comprises Pinellas and Pasco Counties. The need methodology rule provides that an additional cardiac catheterization laboratory will not be approved if it reduces the average volume of procedures per lab performed in the district below 600 adult procedures based on the projected need in the service area. With a projected need of 2,704, an additional cardiac catheterization lab would reduce the average below the 600 figure. The four hospitals which have approved cardiac catheterization facilities in this district are: All Children's, Medical Center, Morton F. Plant, and St. Anthony's. All Children's is a pediatric hospital adjacent to Bayfront Medical Center Hospital. All Children's is authorized a pediatric cath lab in which adult patients are treated. Most of these patients come from Bayfront and the cardiac cath procedures are done on an out-patient basis. The number of cardiac cath procedures being performed at All Children's Hospital has increased every year since 1980 and the increase has been due primarily to the increase in the number of adult cardiac cath procedures performed. Adult procedures at this lab outnumber children's cardiac cath procedures by approximately three to one. In 1983, 536 adult cardiac cath procedures were performed at All Children' s Hospital. St. Anthony's Hospital has a cardiac cath lab in which 301, 327, and 300 adult cardiac caths were performed in the years 1981, 1982, and 1983, respectively. In Medical Center Hospital's cardiac cath unit more than 900 cardiac caths were performed in 1984 and the number has increased annually since the lab was installed. In disapproving Metropolitan General's application DHRS counted All Children's cardiac cath lab as an adult cardiac cath lab. When it was pointed out that All Children's cardiac cath lab is approved as a pediatric cardiac cath lab and that is the only cardiac cath lab at All Children's Hospital, DHRS recounted the number of existing cardiac cath labs in the district, did not include the cardiac cath lab at All Children's, found that a need for a total of four units exists in this district, and approved the CON for Metropolitan General. Medical Center protested and this hearing followed. Prior to the granting of this CON to Metropolitan General for a cardiac cath lab, correspondence between DHRS and Morton F. Plant Hospital culminated in DHRS advising Morton F. Plant that it could establish a second cardiac cath lab without going through the CON process if the total cost of the project did not exceed $695,285 (Exhibit 20). Pursuant to this "authorization" Morton F. Plant is proceeding to equip and operate a second cardiac cath lab. In awarding the CON to Metropolitan General, this "second" cardiac cath lab at Morton F. Plant was not counted by DHRS. Counting two labs at Morton F. Plant and not counting All Children's lab' leaves four adult cardiac cath labs in the district. DHRS' witnesses testified that an inspection of the facility at All Children's Hospital revealed only one cardiac cath lab. Because this hospital is a pediatric hospital, because the cardiac cath lab was "grandfathered in" without having to go through the CON process, and because the hospital administrators stated that priority would be given to children over adults in the cardiac cath lab, DHRS concluded not to count All Children's as having an adult cardiac cath lab. Metropolitan General Hospital is an osteopathic hospital. David Dietrick, D.O., is a cardiologist on the staff of Metropolitan General and of Medical Center. He presently performs 125-150 cardiac cath procedures per year and all are now performed at Medical Center Hospital. If a CON to operate a cardiac cath lab is granted to Metropolitan General, Dietrick will move all of the cardiac cath procedures he now does at Medical Center to Metropolitan General. The procedures performed by Dr. Dietrick at Medical Center represent about four percent of the hospital's 350 million gross revenues per year. Medical Center recently completed renovation of its cardiac cath lab and the installation of the latest state of the art equipment. This lab is located in the vicinity of the radiology department in which equipment is provided to do angiographic procedures. These procedures are similar to cardiac cath procedures but are done in the arms, legs, abdomen, etc., rather than in the heart. Because of the similarity of equipment and procedures and the heavy demand for cardiac cath procedures at Medical Center Hospital, the early appointments in the radiology lab are reserved for cardiac cath procedures and on average one such procedure per day is performed in the radiology lab. A total of 926 cardiac cath procedures were performed at Medical Center in 1984. If the current rate for 1985 of 90 per month continues throughout the year, a total of almost 1,100 cardiac cath procedures will be performed at Medical Center Hospital in calendar 1985.
The Issue The issue presented by the instant case is whether Petitioner's application for a certificate of need to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization services at Pembroke Pines General Hospital should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at hearing and matters officially recognized, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner and its Parent Corporation Petitioner is a for-profit Florida corporation formed on February 1, 1985, by Encino, California-based Nu-Med Hospitals, Inc. (NM), of which it is a wholly-owned subsidiary. NM provides various administrative services to Petitioner. In return for these services, Petitioner pays NM an annual fee. The fee in 1987 was approximately $1.8 million. In 1988, it was about $952,000. NM has also advanced loans to Petitioner. One such loan was in the amount of approximately $31.4 million at an interest rate of 15.6%, the same interest rate that NM had to pay to obtain the money which was the subject of the loan. Although interest rates have declined, the loan has not been refinanced. The failure to refinance has added substantially to Petitioner's costs. Furthermore, there is a significantly greater cash flow from Petitioner to NM than would be the case had the loan been refinanced. The total pre-tax cash flow from Petitioner to NM, including the amount attributable to the "excess interest" of the aforementioned loan, was $7,900,000 (or roughly 40% of NM's equity investment in Petitioner) in fiscal year 1987 and $4,387,000 (or roughly 23% of NM's equity investment in Petitioner) in fiscal year 1988. In addition to providing administrative services and making loans to Petitioner, NM has also invested more than $17 million over the past four years in Petitioner. Petitioner had an after-tax profit of $852,300 in fiscal year 1987. In fiscal year 1988, it had an after-tax loss of $346,600. Preliminary figures reveal that Petitioner suffered an after-tax loss of slightly more than $1 3l0 in fiscal year 1989. Pembroke Pines General Hospital. Petitioner owns and operates Pembroke Pines General Hospital (PPGH). PPGH is an acute- care hospital with a licensed capacity of 301 beds. It is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. The hospital's bed complement includes 24 intensive care beds (12 coronary beds and 12 surgical beds) 2/ and 32 telemetry beds. Its telemetry unit will be expanded to 48 beds in the near future. In July, 1988, PPGH instituted an eleven bed obstetrical unit. Prior to the acquisition of the hospital in 1985, NM conducted a due diligence study to seek information about the hospital and became aware of the extent of the services provided by the hospital. According to 1987 actual data collected by the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB), PPGH earned a 7.1% return on tangible equity and ranked 7th in this category of the 18 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information; PPGH had a cash flow to total debt ratio of .112% and ranked 9th in this category of the 20 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information; and its total margin percent was 2.6% and it ranked 8th in this category of the 20 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information. According to 1988 actual data collected by the HCCB, in terms of gross revenue per adjusted admission, PPGH ranked 8th of the 30 hospitals in HCCB Group 5 and 3rd of the 20 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information; and in terms of net revenue per adjusted revenue, PPGH ranked 7th of the 30 hospitals in HCCB Group 5 and 5th of the 20 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information. PPGH is located in Respondent's District x, the boundaries of which mirror those of Broward County. It is situated in the southwest quadrant of the county on the corner of Sheridan Street and University Drive. In the area surrounding the hospital is a large concentration of physicians' offices, including one housing a five-member group which limits its practice exclusively to cardiology and is the largest such group in Broward County. The group provides total cardiovascular care to its patients, including echocardiography and nuclear, invasive and clinical cardiology services. It has an active patient case load of 5,000 to 6,000. Of the members of the group, only Dr. Joseph Horgan and Dr. Barry Schiff practice invasive cardiology. Their practice is not confined to invasive cardiology, however. They are also clinical cardiologists. Both are board-certified in internal medicine, as well as cardiology. The Horgan-Schiff group accounts for 15 to 35 patients a day at PPGH, which has an active cardiology service, notwithstanding that it does not offer open heart surgery. The group provides on-site coverage at PPGH from 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 or 8:00 P.M. during the weekday. At other hours members of the group are on call and are able to quickly respond to emergencies at the hospital. Approximately 25 to 30 physicians in the area surrounding the hospital refer their patients who need cardiac catheterizations exclusively to the group. PPGH's primary service area, as defined by Petitioner, is bounded on the north by State load 84, on the south by the Broward County/Dade County line, on the east by the Florida Turnpike, and on the west by the eastern boundary of the conservation area. Included in this area are the cities of Pembroke Pines, Miramar, Davie and Cooper City. Most of Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's patients reside in PPGH's primary service area. While PPGH is not the only acute-care hospital that serves the residents of this area, it is the only hospital that is located within the area's geographic boundaries. Intervenor PPGH's primary service area is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Broward Hospital District (SBHD). SBHD is an independent taxing district which encompasses roughly the southern third of Broward County. It was created in 1947 by a special act of the Legislature to provide quality health care services to the residents of the district regardless of their ability to pay. Hollywood Memorial Hospital SBHD operates several facilities in the district, including a 24-hour walk-in medical center in Pembroke Pines, a freestanding ambulatory surgical center, an oncology center and a radiation therapy center. Its flagship, however, is Hollywood Memorial Hospital (Memorial), a public acute-care hospital that has grown from a 100-bed facility to a 737-bed facility offering a wide variety of health care services. Memorial is located six or seven miles east of PPGH outside of PPGH's primary service area. It is the closest hospital to PPGH. Many of the physicians who have privileges at PPGH also have privileges at Memorial. For instance, 13 of the 16 clinical cardiologists on the medical staff of PPGH, including Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff, are also on the medical staff of Memorial. The Horgan-Schiff group is responsible for 10 to 30 patients at Memorial on any given day. Charity Care, Medicaid and Medicare Memorial is the major provider of charity care to residents of the SBHD. In fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989, it provided $16,928,000, $22,728,000, and $22,258,000, respectively, in gross indigent charity care 3/ and $6,153 000, $13,739,000, and $7,587,000, respectively, in net unfunded (by tax revenues) indigent charity care. For fiscal year 199(), Memorial projects that it will provide $24,442,000 in gross indigent charity care, of which $14,211,000 will be funded by tax reVenues. A sizeable portion of the hospital's indigent charity care is funded by its operating revenues. During fiscal year 1989, the hospital earned slightly less than $3 million from its operations. Total revenues over expenses that year, however, exceeded $12 million, more than $8 million of which was attributable to returns on its investments. For fiscal year 1988, the hospital's total revenues over expenses was almost $14 million. In calendar year 1986, PPGH furnished 1.1% of the indigent charity care provided in Broward County. It ranked in the top 50% of hospitals in the county in this regard. Memorial ranked 2nd in the county, providing 22.8% of the county's indigent charity care during the calendar year. In calendar year 1987, PPGH provided $596,295 in indigent charity care. This constituted 1.29% of its gross patient revenues. In comparison, during this same period, Memorial provided $18,248,517, or 9.79% of its gross patient revenues, in indigent charity care. In terms of indigent charity care provided during calendar year 1987 as a percentage of gross patient revenue, PPGH ranked 5th of the 12 hospitals reporting in the county and 118th of the 209 hospitals reporting in the state. Memorial, on the other hand, ranked 3rd in the count, behind two other public hospitals, and 19th in the state In calendar year 1988, PPGH ranked 16th of the 30 hospitals in HCCB Group 5 in this category. Of the 20 hospitals reporting in the county, PPGH ranked 10th and Memorial ranked 2nd. Both Memorial and PPGH participate in the Medicaid program. As participants in the program, they are reimbursed for the services they provide to Medicaid patients, but generally not in the amount private pay patients are charged for the same services. The difference between what they receive from Medicaid and what they would have received from a private pay patient is referred to as a "Medicaid deduction." In calendar year 1988, PPGH's "Medicaid deductions" represented .76% of its gross patient revenues. In this category, it ranked 26th of the 30 hospitals in its HCCB group and 8th of the 20 hospitals in Broward County. Memorial, whose Medicaid deductions were 5.29% of its gross patient revenues, ranked 2nd in the county. Based on PPGH's operating budget for calendar year 1989, it ranks 192nd of the approximately 230 acute-care hospitals in the state in the amount of "Medicaid deductions" as a percentage of gross patient revenues. A further comparative review of calendar year 1989 operating budgets reveals that of the 22 hospitals in its HCCB group in calendar year 1989, PPGH ranks last in Medicaid days as a percentage of total patient days. During the third quarter of calendar year 1988, 1.3% of PPGH's gross patient revenues and 5.4% of Memorial's gross patient revenues were attributable to Medicaid patients. PPGH's 1.3% was the 8th highest and Memorial's 5.4% was the third highest of Broward County's 20 hospitals. Pursuant to a contractual arrangement with Respondent, PPGH provides medical services to patients at South Florida State Hospital, a mental health facility operated by the state. In return for the provision of these services;, PPGH is reimbursed at rates comparable to those that apply to Medicaid patients. South Florida State Hospital patients constitute approximately 2 to 5% of PPGH's Average Daily Census. Unlike Memorial, PPGH does not receive any tax revenues to help defray its expenses. PPGH has offered to serve indigent patients who live in the SBHD if the SBHD will reimburse it the same rate the SBHD reimburses Memorial for such services. The SBHD, however, has refused the offer. In terms of Medicare utilization, 1988 HCCB actual data reflects that PPGH ranked 13th of the 30 hospitals in its group and 11th of the 20 hospitals reporting in Broward County. District X Population and Demographics The Executive Office of the Governor, in a report prepared June 22, 1988, estimated that on January 1, 1988, the adult population (15 years of age and over) of Broward County was 1,001,822, and projected that it would increase to 1,047,900 on January 1, 1991. PPGH's primary service area in southwest Broward County has experienced rapid and sustained population growth in recent years. It is the site of several significant retirement communities, including a Century Village development which is expected to have 17,000 residents at build-out. Nonetheless, the population of this area is younger than that of Broward County as a whole. Approximately, 23% of the total population in southwest Broward County is over 55 years of age. While this is two percentage points higher than the national average, it is considerably lower than the countywide figure. Individuals aged 45 to 74 constitute 33.5% of the County's total population, but only 29.7% of the total population of southwest Broward County. The leading cause of death in Broward County is heart disease, a disease to which individuals become more susceptible as they age. Average Daily Census, Occupancy Rates, and Market Scare Notwithstanding the substantial population growth in Broward County, there is now, and has been since at least 1983, a large number of excess hospital beds in District X. The occupancy rates of Broward County hospitals, excluding PPGH, were as follows for calendar years 1983 through 1988: 1983- 65.4%; 1984- 61.3%; 1985- 57.1%; 1986- 55.5%; 1987- 56.2%; and 1988- 52.6%. PPGH, which had a capacity of 301 licensed beds throughout the period, had even lower occupancy rates. During the period, its Average Daily Census (ADC) and, consequently, its occupancy rate declined each year as follows: 4/ Calendar ADC Occupancy Rate 42.5% 37.9% 37.2% 34.1% 32.9% 30.9% Year 1983 127.9 1984 114 1985 111.8 1986 102.6 1987 98.9 1988 93 Based upon statistics for the first six months of calendar year 1989, however, it appears that the hospital's ADC for the entire calendar year will not further decline, but rather will increase to 100.6. 5/ Calendar Year ADC 1983 570.7 1984 533.7 1985 513.6 1986 538.7 1987 552.6 1988 560.5 During calendar years 1983 through 1988, Memorial's occupancy rates far exceeded those of PPGF, as reflected below: Occupancy Rate 78.6% 72.5% 69.7% 73.1% 75.0% 76.1% Based upon statistics for the first six months of calendar year 1989, it appears that for the entire calendar year Memorial's ADC will be 526.5 and its occupancy rate will be 71.3%. Memorial's occupancy rates have been higher than PPGH's due, at least in part, to the fact that Memorial has been able to offer heavily used specialized services not available at PPGH, including neonatal, rehabilitative, and short-term psychiatric care. Furthermore, while PPGH and Memorial both have pharmacy, 6/ physical therapy, nuclear medicine, and cardiac rehabilitation programs, the regular hours of operation of these programs are longer at Memorial. Based upon their ADCs, PPGH's and Memorial's share of the total Broward County market for calendar years 1983 through 1988 was as follows: 7/ Year PPGH 1983 3.6% 1984 3.1% 1985 3.3% 1986 3.1% 1987 3.0% 1988 2.8% Calendar Memorial 16.2% 14.7% 15.1% 16.2% 16.9% 17.2% January, 1988, through June, 1988, discharge data reveals that during that period PPGH and Memorial were responsible for 19.2% and 61.8%, respectively, of the total number of patients from PPGH's primary service area who were discharged from PPGH and District X hospitals with existing or approved inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Although the ADC for PPGH's total bed complement declined from 1983 to 1988, the number of emergency room visits and emergency room admissions at PPGH increased 18.2% and 31.6%, respectively, during that period. The percentage increases are even greater if only the latter four years of this five-year period are considered. In terms of the average number of critical care beds occupied on a daily basis PPGH has experienced an increase of 28.9% from 1983 to 1988 and an increase of 35.4% from 1984 to 1988. Data reflecting PPGH's performance during the first five and six months of calendar year 1989 indicate that the increase in the number of emergency room visits, emergency room admissions and critical care beds occupied on a daily basis at PPGH has continued. Cardiac Catheterization As accurately described by Respondent in its rules a cardiac catheterization is a medical procedure requiring the passage of a catheter into one or more cardiac chambers of the left and right heart, with or without coronary arteriograms, for the purpose of diagnosing congenital or acquired cardiovascular diseases, or for determining measurement of blood pressure flow. Cardiac catheterization also includes the selective catheterization of the coronary ostia with injection of contrast medium into the coronary arteries. The flow of contrast medium through the coronary arteries may be recorded on x-ray film. The x-ray picture, or angiogram, that is produced can provide information quite helpful to the patient's physician. If it reveals a clot or other blockage restricting the flow of blood to the heart, a balloon-tipped catheter may be used to dilate or open the affected artery. Such a procedure is referred to as a coronary angioplasty. In contrast to cardiac catheterization, which is a diagnostic tool, coronary angioplasty is a therapeutic procedure. A high percentage of patients who receive a coronary angioplasty require open heart surgery immediately following the procedure. Cardiac catheterizations are generally, but not always, elective procedures which need not be performed immediately. There are occasions, however, where a patient is in the throes of a heart attack and requires an emergency coronary angioplasty to restore the flow of blood to the heart to minimize damage to the heart muscle. Under these circumstances, an emergency diagnostic cardiac catheterization, which can be completed in as little as five to six minutes, must also be performed so that the cardiologist will know precisely where in the arterial tree the blockage is located. Respondent permits health care providers to perform such emergency inpatient procedures regardless of whether they possess a certificate of need. Cardiac catheterizations are performed in equipped laboratories and, in the absence of complications, are usually completed within 60 minutes. They may be done on an inpatient or outpatient basis, depending on the condition of the patient. The equipment used is the same, however, whether the procedure is performed on an inpatient or on an outpatient. Recent technological advancements have made it possible to perform more procedures on an outpatient basis than previously. Smaller-sized catheters can now be used. As a result, the entry wound typically heals faster and there are fewer vascular complications. Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff were among the first invasive cardiologists in South Florida to employ these smaller- sized catheters. Physicians performing cardiac catheterizations are assisted by technicians and nurses who have specialized skills and training. These technicians and nurses are, at times, in short supply. Competition amongst hospitals to recruit and retain these support staff members is therefore sometimes keen. The majority of cardiac catheterizations are performed on individuals 45 to 74 years of age. 39 There has been no showing that there are any alternative diagnostic procedures which are preferable to cardiac catheterization. District X Inpatient Cardiac Catheterization Programs Broward County is not divided into cardiac catheterization subdistricts. The following seven facilities in Broward County, each of which is within two hours travel time of 90% of the county's population, provide inpatient cardiac: catheterization services pursuant to certificates of need granted by Respondent: Broward General Hospital; Florida Medical Center; Holy Cross Hospital; Memorial; North Broward Regional Medical Center: North Ridge Hospital; and Plantation General Hospital. Broward General, North Broward, and Plantation General each have one cardiac catheterization laboratory. Memorial also has one laboratory, but has plans to construct another pursuant to a "major renovation certificate of need" granted several years ago. It is unclear, however, as to when construction will begin. North Ridge has two laboratories. Florida Medical and Holy Cross each have two laboratories as well, plus one backup laboratory. The average hospital charge and the average length of stay per inpatient admission to these inpatient cardiac catheterization programs during calendar years 1986 and 1987 and the first nine months of calendar year 1988 were as follows: Calendar Average Average Stay 3.71 days 3.27 days 3.43 days 2.98 days 3.70 days 3.00 days Year Charge 1986 (All $4,365.14 Patients) 4936 (Excluding $3,932.44 Medicaid and Medicare) 1987 (All $4,359.92 Patients) 1987 (Excluding $4,041.80 Medicare and Medicaid) 1988 (All $5,054.17 Patients) 1988 (Excluding $4,393.60 Medicare and Medicaid) Cardiac catheterizations are also performed on an outpatient basis at these seven existing facilities. The number of cardiac catheterizations performed in Broward County increased almost 60% from 1985 to 1987, an increase that can be attributed to the aging of the county's population and the advances in cardiac catheterization technology. During the period from April, 1987, through March, 1988, there was a total of 9,289 cardiac catheterization admissions, both inpatient and outpatient, at these facilities, an amount substantially less than their combined capacity. During the period from July, 1987, through June 1988, they also collectively operated well below their combined capacity, handling a total of 9,236 inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterization admissions Each of the existing laboratories in Broward County can handle at least 1,000 to 1,200 cardiac catheterizations a year during their normal hours of operation with their regular staff. 8/ These laboratories appear to be operating efficiently and to be available to all segments of the county's adult population requiring routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterization services. Furthermore, there is no indication that the quality of care offered at these laboratories is in any way lacking. In addition to these seven existing programs, Respondent has also granted certificates of need authorizing routine/diagnostic inpatient cardiac catheterizations to be performed at two other health care facilities: Imperial Point Hospital and Humana Bennett Hospital. Humana Bennett's primary service area overlaps PPGH's service area. It takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes by car to get to Humana Bennett from PPGH under normal driving conditions. The programs at Imperial Point and Humana Bennett are not yet operational. If their laboratories have hours of operation and staffing levels comparable to those of the laboratories in the county that are currently in operation, these laboratories will also each have the capacity to handle at least 1,000 to 1,200 cardiac catheterizations annually. The same can be said for Memorial's proposed second laboratory. Memorial's Inpatient Cardiac Catheterization Program Since 1981, Memorial's inpatient cardiac catheterization program has been open only to those cardiologists who devote their entire practice to performing cardiac catheterizations. It is closed to cardiologists, like Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff, who are not full-time invasive cardiologists. While it has its disadvantages, closing the program in this manner is a policy decision that, on balance, tends to enhance, rather than compromise, the program's efficiency as well the quality of care received by the program's patients. Other cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County are "closed" like Memorial's laboratory. The majority of the county's cardiac catheterization laboratories, however, including those at Broward General, Florida Medical, North Broward Regional and Plantation General, have laboratories that are open to any qualified invasive cardiologist. In addition, the laboratories at Humana Bennett and Imperial Point will be "open" when they become operational. In 1984, Dr. Horgan applied for privileges at Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory. Following a hearing before the SBHD's Board of Commissioners, final action was taken by the board to deny Dr. Horgan's application. Dr. Horgan appealed the board's decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The board's decision was affirmed by the appellate court. Thereafter, in early 1987, at the request of the administrator of Memorial, Dr. Horgan, as well as his partner Dr. Schiff, discussed with Memorial representatives the possibility of their performing cardiac catheterizations at Memorial. Although approval of such an arrangement was initially given by the hospital, it was later withdrawn after members of the hospital's cardiology department complained about the arrangement. At present, three full-time invasive cardiologists, Dr. Mario Sperber and his partners Dr. Barry Alter and Dr. Michael Mareke have privileges to perform cardiac catheterizations at Memorial. They charge $1-500 for a routine/diagnostic left and right heart catheterization. Included in this charge is a fee of $191 that is passed on to the radiologist who assists in the interpretation of the angiogram. Because it has an open heart surgery program, Memorial is also authorized to perform routine/non-emergency angioplasties. These angioplasties are performed in Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory. The total number of procedures done in this laboratory during fiscal year 1988 was 1,635, seven of which were performed on Medicaid patients and 176 of which were performed on an outpatient basis. The total number of procedures, including angioplasties, done in Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory during fiscal year 1989 increased slightly to 1,650. The number of those procedures performed on an outpatient basis, however, almost doubled. The ratio of routine/diagnostic inpatient cardiac catheterizations to routine/diagnostic outpatient cardiac cathetrizations performed at Memorial has decreased from about 6 to 1 to approximately 4 to A further decrease is likely in view of the technological improvements that have been made. During calendar year 1988, 1,238 routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterizations, 234 angioplasties, and 512 open heart surgeries were performed at Memorial. During the first six months of calendar year 1989, there ware 680 routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterizations, 168 angioplasties, and 241 open heart surgeries done at Memorial. Approximately 23% of the total number of inpatient procedures performed in Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory during the first six months of calendar year 1988 were done on patients who resided in PPGH's primary service area. From fiscal year 1988 to fiscal year 1989, the revenues over direct expenses of Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory increased slightly. PPGH's Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory In addition to the previously mentioned cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County, there is also a 695-square foot cardiac catheterization laboratory located inside the operating room suite at PPGH. Cardiac catheterizations are performed at this laboratory, however, exclusively on an outpatient basis. It is the only such outpatient laboratory in Broward County and it was the first of its kind in South Florida. The laboratory at PPGH is leased to a Florida limited partnership, University Heart Institute, Ltd (Partnership) which operates the outpatient cardiac catheterization program at the hospital. 10/ The leasing of a department of a hospital is not an uncommon practice in Broward County. Petitioner provides the space needed to operate the outpatient cardiac catheterization program at PPGH, as well as other support services, pursuant to a management agreement with the Partnership. In return for the space and services it provides, Petitioner receives a nominal sum of $1.00 a month from the Partnership. The management agreement has a termination provision which permits Petitioner to terminate the agreement if, at any time after the first twelve months, "the Partnership has a negative cash flow over a period of six or more calendar months." Petitioner is a 50% general partner of the Partnership. Accordingly, pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles, Petitioner must reflect: the financial activities of the Partnership on its balance sheet as though they were its own. The other general partner in the venture is University Hospital, Inc., (UHI), a corporation controlled by Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff and their partner, Dr. Dweck. Petitioner and UHI have equal control over the Partnership. There are also about 20 limited partners, all of whom are physicians. The profits and losses of the Partnership are divided as follows: 50% to Petitioner; 25% to UHI; and 25% to the limited partners. During the first year of operation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, the Partnership earned a profit of approximately $100,000. PPGH's cardiac catheterization laboratory began operation on April 29, 1988, after the area of the hospital in which it is located received less than $50,000 worth of renovation work. Two-hundred and forty-eight outpatients received cardiac catheterizations at the laboratory in the first twelve months of its operation. During the thirteenth month of its operation, cardiac catheterizations were done on an additional 22 outpatients. Of the 270 outpatients who received cardiac catheterizations during the first thirteen months of the laboratory's operation, only one was a Medicaid patient. The overwhelming majority of outpatients who have received cardiac catheterizations at PPGH's laboratory have been from southwest Broward County and have been referred to the laboratory by Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff. Dr. Joseph S. Horgan, M.D., P.A., and Dr. Barry H. Schiff, M.D., P.A., are the exclusive providers of cardiac catheterization services at PPGH's laboratory pursuant to a professional services agreement they entered into with the Partnership. Under the agreement, only "physicians that are associated with, employed or otherwise engaged under contract with" these two Florida corporations run by Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff, respectively, may use the laboratory. Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff therefore have the sole authority to determine who may perform cardiac catheterizations at PPGH's laboratory. They also serve as co-medical directors of the laboratory and, in these capacities, are responsible for the development and implementation of all policies pertinent to the operation of the laboratory. To date, only Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff have performed cardiac catheterizations at the laboratory. A third invasive cardiologist, however, will soon join Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff in providing such services at the hospital. The hospital's laboratory will be closed to all other invasive cardiologists. Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff charge $950 for a routine/diagnostic right or left heart catheterization and $1,175 for a routine/diagnostic right and left heart catheterization. These charges are consistent with the provision of the professional services agreement with the Partnership which requires that their fees "be competitive with the usual and customary fees charged in the community for similar services." Under the agreement, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff are entitled to keep the fees they receive for the professional services they render. Most of Drs. Horgan's and Schiff's patients receive a right and left heart catheterization. As a result, they average 1.8 procedures per patient and their average charge per patient is $1,100. Unlike the invasive cardiologists who practice at Memorial's laboratory, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff do not utilize radiologists to assist them in interpreting the angiograms they produce. Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff have proven to be highly competent and skilled invasive cardiologists and they offer high quality care to the outpatients they catheterize at PPGH's laboratory. There have been no moralities at the laboratory and only a few outpatients have experienced complications after being catheterized. Furthermore, approximately 91% of the catheterizations performed at the laboratory reveal some abnormality. This high rate of abnormal catheterizations suggests that Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff are exercising sound judgment in referring outpatients to the laboratory, as opposed to making these referrals without justification. In the professional services agreement with the Partnership, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff have agreed "not to provide outpatient cardiac catheterization and peripheral vascular procedure services within Broward or Dade Counties, Florida for a two (2) year period after the commencement of the term of this Agreement [at any facility other than PPGH] except that [they) shall continue to provide such services at Plantation General Hospital, Florida Medical Center, University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Hospital and Cedars Medical Center of Miami." Most of the cardiac catheterizations that Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff perform are done on an outpatient basis. They do cardiac catheterizations on an inpatient basis only if the patient's medical condition warrants. They perform these inpatient cardiac catheterizations at Florida Medical and Plantation General. Between May 1, 1988, and April 30, 1989, they performed inpatient cardiac catheterizations on about 125 to 150 patients in these two facilities. Florida Medical and Plantation General are each within a half hour driving time of PPGH. Florida Medical offers open heart surgery and routine/non-emergency angioplasty. Plantation General has received preliminary approval from Respondent to provide open heart surgery services. Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's patients receive good care at Florida Medical and Plantation General. In addition to performing these inpatient cardiac catheterizations at Florida Medical and Plantation-General, during the one year period ending April 30, 1989, they also referred approximately 160 patients to Memorial for cardiac catheterization services. If Petitioner had the certificate of need that it is seeking in the instant case, none of these referrals would have been made. When they are performing cardiac: catheterizations at PPGH, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff are assisted by a highly qualified and well-trained support staff consisting of a catheterization technician and three Registered Nurse's, one of whom is the staff director. All four staff members are employees of Petitioner, not the Partnership. Their combined annual salaries total about $119,000. Collectively, they receive approximately another $36,000 from Petitioner in fringe benefits. The Partnership reimburses Petitioner for monies expended “0 compensate these staff members for the work they perform in PPGH's cardiac catheterization laboratory. These staff members, however, do not work full-time in the laboratory. They are also assigned to other-areas of the hospital, most notably the intensive care unit. The majority of cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward and Dade Counties have support staffs similar in size to the support staff assigned to PPGH's laboratory. The equipment in PPGH's cardiac catheterization laboratory was purchased by the Partnership from Dr. Horgan at Dr. Horgan's cost. Dr. Horgan paid approximately $250,000 for the equipment when he purchased it from EWA Industries, Inc., shortly before the opening of the laboratory. A portion of the money Dr. Horgan used to pay for the equipment came from a loan he received from Petitioner. At the time of its original purchase, the equipment was, for the most part, newly reconditioned. The equipment is not "state-of-the-art." It lacks certain features that are available on other equipment, such as digital/computer analysis capability. These features, however, are of relatively insignificant value. Despite lacking these features, the equipment in PPGH's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory is more than adequate, as evidenced by the high quality of Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's angiograms. Furthermore, although the equipment is made of parts manufactured by different manufacturers, obtaining parts for repair is not a major problem. They are readily available from EWA, which is based in Miami. In addition, there are two distributors and service centers located in Broward County from whom replacement parts may be obtained. Although PPGH has the medical and support staff and the equipment, as well as the ancillary services, necessary to provide routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterization services to inpatients at the hospital, it has not been authorized to do so by Respondent. PPGH's inability to offer these inpatient services places it at a competitive disadvantage relative to those facilities in the county that are authorized to provide these services. For instance, it makes it more difficult for PPGH to compete for contracts with health maintenance organizations and other third party payers. More significantly, PPGH's competitors offering inpatient cardiac catheterization services are able to capture patient revenues that would otherwise be received by PPGH if it were able to provide such services. PPGH's situation, however, is not unique. The majority of hospitals in Broward County are not authorized to offer inpatient cardiac catheterization services. Moreover, even though its competitive position would be enhanced if it were able to offer such services, its inability to do so does net threaten its survival as a health care facility in the Broward County market. If an inpatient at PPGH needs a routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterization that, because of the patient's unstable medical condition, cannot be performed on an outpatient basis, the patient must be transferred to another facility that is authorized to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization services. During fiscal year 1988, PPGH transferred 106 such patients to other facilities to receive inpatient cardiac catheterizations. Even if PPGH had been able to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization services to these patients, some of them would have had to have been ultimately transferred to another facility in any event to receive routine/non- emergency angioplasty or open heart surgery. Patients transferred from PPGH to another facility to receive cardiac catheterizations on an inpatient basis are generally transported by ambulance. A round-trip ambulance ride from PPGH typically costs between $500 and $700. In addition to increasing these patients' costs, such transfers may also cause them to experience additional stress. Clearly, in hindsight, it can be said that these transferred patients would have been better off if they had been initially admitted to a facility with inpatient cardiac catheterization capability instead of PPGH. Unfortunately, however, it is often difficult to determine at the time of admission whether a patient will need cardiac catheterization services. Furthermore, there are occasions where a patient arrives at PPGH's emergency room in such a medically unstable condition that he must wait at the hospital until his condition improves before he can be transported to another facility. It is not uncommon for Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's patients who need to be transferred from PPGH to receive an inpatient cardiac catheterization to have to wait two or three days before there is an opening in the cardiac catheterization laboratory schedule at Florida Medical or Plantation General that is convenient to them and their physician. During this time, these patients remain at PPGH, thus increasing the length of their stay there and they undergo expensive diagnostic testing designed to provide information that may be useful in managing these patients until they are able to be transferred and catheterized. While such scheduling problems have been experienced in the past, the situation should improve when the laboratories at Imperial Point and Humana Bennett become operational. Furthermore, there has been no Chowing that the patients who had to wait two or three or more days to be transferred from PPGH to Florida Medical or Plantation General could not have received such services at another existing provided, such as Memorial, had they so desired. Patients of Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff have died at PPGH while waiting to be transferred to another facility to receive an inpatient cardiac catheterization. A significant number of these patients could have survived had they received an emergency cardiac catheterization and angioplasty. Although the necessary equipment and staff were available at PPGH to perform these procedures, these procedures were nonetheless not performed. Because these were emergency situations where the 34 patients' lives were threatened, PPGH's lack of a certificate of need did not preclude Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff from performing these procedures at PPGH. Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Need Approximately five months after the first outpatient cardiac catheterization procedure was performed at PPGH, Petitioner submitted an application for a certificate of need to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization services at the facility. Petitioner proposes to use, in providing these services, the same laboratory, equipment and staff it now uses for its outpatient program. The application estimates that the total cost of the project will be only $10,000, which represents "the legal and consulting fees associated with the Certificate of Need Application." There will be no financing, refinancing, professional services, construction or equipment costs, according to the application. In estimating the total cost of the project, Petitioner does not include the costs that were incurred to commence operation of PPGH's outpatient cardiac catheterization program, notwithstanding that these costs were incurred in contemplation of the filing of the instant application. 11/ The application also contains an estimate of revenues and expenses for the first two years of operation of the proposed project. The estimate includes projected revenues and expenses attributable to both the inpatient and outpatient operations of the laboratory. Petitioner projects in its application that 532 patients (320 inpatients and 212 outpatients) will visit PPGH's cardiac catheterization laboratory the first year it is able to offer inpatient services 12/ and that 592 patients (355 inpatients and 237 outpatients) will visit the laboratory the following year. Given Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's track record 13/ and reputation and the financial interest they have in the successful operation of the laboratory, 14/ it is not unreasonable to believe that they will attract these projected numbers of patients to the laboratory. Moreover, they, along with the third invasive cardiologist who will soon join them, should easily b able to handle such patient case loads at the laboratory during reasonable hours of operation with the laboratory's existing support staff and equipment. In projecting the gross revenues that will be generated by the inpatients who visit the laboratory, Petitioner assumes that these inpatients will be charged an average of $4,935 per patient the first year and $5,176 per patient the second year. These charges are consistent with the average charges of existing providers in the county. With respect to outpatients, Petitioner assumes that they will be charged on the average $2,300 per patient the first year and $2,415 per patient the second year. These charges are consistent with the laboratory's current average charge per outpatient. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner's projections in its application regarding gross revenues are reasonable. Of the patients that will visit the laboratory during the first two years of the inpatient program, Petitioner projects in its application that 2% will be Medicaid recipients and 3% will receive charity or free care. In view of PPGH's past performance in these areas, it appears unlikely that these percentages will be realized.15/ Accordingly, Petitioner's projections in its application regarding the deductions from gross revenues for Medicaid contractual allowances and charity care are unreasonably high. The projections made by Petitioner regarding direct and indirect expenses, in the aggregate, are not unreasonably low, notwithstanding that the application's statement of projected revenues does not make specific reference to certain expense items relating to inpatient care, such as nursing care and food supply costs. If anything, Petitioner has overestimated total expenses.16/ Providing only outpatient services, which generate less net income per patient than do inpatient services, the laboratory at PPGH returned a profit of approximately $100,000 in its first year of operation. The profitability of the laboratory will likely increase, as Petitioner projects, if it is able to offer inpatient, in addition to outpatient, services. In both the short-term and the long-term, Petitioner' proposal to provide such services is financially feasible. As evidenced by the attachments to Petitioner's application, as supplemented in response to Respondent's October 13, 1988, omissions letter, PPGH has transfer agreements with St. Francis Hospital and Florida Medical, both of which are within thirty minutes driving time of PPGH and have open heart surgery capability. Potential Impact of Granting the Application While Petitioner will benefit if its application is granted, the same cannot be said for existing providers of 16 For example, Petitioner allocates the entire salary of each of the four support staff members to the cardiac catheterization laboratory, even though these employees also work in other parts of the hospital. 38 inpatient cardiac catheterization services in Broward County. They will have to contend with another effective competitor seeking a share of the already highly competitive Broward County inpatient cardiac catheterization market. Collectively, the existing facilities will lose inpatient cardiac catheterization patients and net revenues they otherwise would have had if the laboratory at PPGH did not offer inpatient services.17/ Memorial will be among those `facilities suffering the greatest such losses. While it is difficult to predict the precise extent of these losses, they no doubt will be significant and therefore adversely impact Memorial's ability to provide charity care. At the very least, Memorial will lose to PPGH the inpatient cardiac catheterization patients that Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff now refer to Memorial's laboratory and the net revenues these patients generate. As previously mentioned, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff referred 160 patients to Memorial's laboratory during the year ending April 30, 1989.96. Routine/non-emergency angioplasties and open heart surgery will not be performed at PPGH if Petitioner's application is granted. Accordingly, Memorial will not lose to PPGH any patients requiring these services as a result of the granting of the application. Although patients at PPGH who require routine/diagnostic inpatient cardiac catheterization services will not have to be transferred to another facility to receive inpatient cardiac catheterizations if the application is granted, it will still be necessary to transfer patients needing routine/non-emergency angioplasty and open heart surgery. With the advent of an inpatient cardiac catheterization program at PPGH, the hospital will attract, in far greater numbers than it does presently, individuals who require, not only inpatient cardiac catheterization services, but also routine/non emergency angioplasty or open heart surgery and who therefore must be transferred to another facility. Therefore, there likely will be more, rather than fewer, total transfers of patients than there would be if PPGH did not offer inpatient cardiac catheterization services.18/ Although cardiac catheterization support staff are generally difficult to recruit and retain, the granting of the instant application will not make it any more difficult for existing providers in Broward County to attract and keep such staff members inasmuch as Petitioner already has a support staff assigned to its cardiac catheterization laboratory at PPGH and it does not intend to expand its staff if it is given authorization to provide services at the laboratory on an inpatient basis. Regardless of whether Petitioner's application is granted, the adult population of Broward County requiring inpatient cardiac catheterization services will be able to receive such services from existing and approved providers in the county, which have the collective capacity to meet the population's demand for these services. It is more efficient to make greater use of the current collective capacity of these providers than to add to the county's overall capacity to serve cardiac catheterization inpatients. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that PPGH will provide quality of care appreciably different from that offered by any existing or approved inpatient cardiac catheterization provider. Even if Petitioner's application is denied, patients of Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff who live in the area surrounding PPGH will still be able to receive routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterizations from these two invasive cardiologists, albeit at a facility that is slightly further from their homes and Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's offices than is PPGH. If an inpatient cardiac catheterization program is established at PPGH, the program's charges will be comparable to those of its competitors. They will neither be excessive, nor unusually low, in relation to those of other programs. Accordingly, approval of the program will have no significant impact on costs and patient charges. Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.O11(1) Respondent has adopted procedures governing its review of applications, such as Petitioner's, for certificates of need authorizing the establishment of an inpatient cardiac catheterization program. These procedures are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e).41 Respondent published notice in the April 22, 1988, edition of Florida Administrative Weekly of the amendments it proposed to make to the rule as it existed at that time. (The version of the rule that Respondent sought to amend Bill be referred to hereinafter as the "old rule.") These proposed rule amendments were the subject of rule challenge petitions filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The petitions were voluntarily dismissed after the challengers and Respondent negotiated a settlement, pursuant to which Respondent made certain modifications to the proposed amendments to Rule 10- 5011(1)(e). Among the modifications was the addition of the following language relating to the intent of the rule: It is the intent of the department to allocate the projected growth in the number of cardiac catheterization admissions to new providers regardless of the ability of existing providers to absorb the projected need. In addition, the prefatory language of the provision relating to need determination was modified to read as follows: In order to assure patient safety and staff efficiency, to foster competition among providers, and to achieve maximum economic use of existing resources, the following criteria shall be considered in the approval of Certificate of Need applications for new adult cardiac catheterization programs. The minimum annual projected net program volume need for the establishment of a new adult cardiac catheterization program shall be at or exceed 300 admissions for the service planning area. Applicants shall demonstrate that they will be able to reach an annual program volume of 300 admissions within 2 years after the program becomes operational. Notice of these changes and the other modifications that were made to the April 22, 1988, proposed rule amendments was published in the July 29, 1988, edition of Florida Administrative Weekly. Eleven days earlier, these proposed rule amendments, as modified, (hereinafter referred to as the "new rule") had been filed with the Secretary of State. In August 1988, the new rule was challenged on the ground that Respondent had not complied with the procedural requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in making changes to the proposed rule amendments originally published on April 22, 1988.19/ The hearing officer assigned to these cases treated the rule challenge petitions as having been filed pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, rather than Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, notwithstanding that the new rule had been filed with the Secretary of State more than 20 days prior to the filing of any of these petitions. Following a hearing on the matter, the hearing officer, on June 29, 1989, entered a final order holding that "the amendments to paragraph 2 (h), paragraph 3(c) III, and paragraph 6(a) and the amendment regarding the definition of `inpatient visit' are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, because they were adopted without adhering to the proper procedures for adoption delineated in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes." On or about July 27, 1989, Respondent appealed the hearing officer's final order to the First District Court of Appeal. The appeal is still pending. Since August, 1988, Respondent has been applying the new rule in evaluating inpatient cardiac catheterization certificate of need applications. It applied the new rule in making its preliminary determination to deny Petitioner's application, which was in the first batching cycle after the effective date of the new rule.20/ Although the packet of application materials Respondent sent to Petitioner did not contain any express indication that the new rule would be applied in evaluating its application, Petitioner conceded in its completed application that it had "been informed [through other means) by [Respondent) that the [new rule would] likely be used in evaluating this CON application." In view of this advisement, Petitioner addressed in its application the various provisions of the new rule as they related to its application. The State Health Plan Issues relating to cardiac catheterization are discussed in the 1985-1987 State Health Plan. Among such issues is that of minimum case loads. Regarding this issue, the plan contains the following discussion: Up until 1977 the literature showed a consensus on the need for minimum case loads. Since 1977, expert opinion has become more divided on the issue with many provider representatives advocating that the standards now reflected in federal and many state laws are no longer necessary and justifiable. However, a general opinion among the medical profession is that a certain minimum number case load is essential to assure quality results. A number of complications can occur in catheterization programs if all personnel are not experienced and active. Studies may have to be repeated because inadequate data were received. This could result in unnecessary exposure of patients to radiation and hazards caused by the injection of of engaged contrast materials and the manipulation catheters. The established federal and state minimum standards of 300 procedures annually for adult and 150 for pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratories are believed to be adequate to maintain the expertise of the professional team in this highly specialized service. The plan also addresses the "concern surrounding. . . the physical proximity and the relationship between the [cardiac catheterization] diagnostic facility and a cardiovascular surgical program." It notes that the "Inter-society Commission on Heart Disease Resources (ISCHDR) stresses the need for a very close relationship between the two services;" "national health planning guidelines support this emphasis through a recommendation that no new cardiac catheterization unit be opened in any facility not providing open heart surgery;" and the "Florida rule requires that cardiac catheterization laboratories where coronary angioplasty (e.g., plastic surgery upon blood vessels) is performed must be located in health care facilities which also provide open heart surgery." One of the goals of the State Health Plan is to ensure the appropriate availability of cardiac: catheterization services at a reasonable cost. An objective of the plan is to "maintain an average of 600 cardiac catheterization procedures per laboratory in each district through 1990." The project proposed by Petitioner in the instant case conforms with this goal and objective to the extent that the services offered at PPGH will be competitively priced and that it is likely that the laboratory at PPGH will average at least 600 procedures annually. Local Health Plan The 1988 District X Comprehensive Health Plan contains the following analysis and recommendation with respect to the provision of cardiac catheterization services in Broward County: AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY The hospitals offering cardiac catheterization services are well located throughout the County for geographic accessibility. Financial barriers continue to raise questions about accessibility of these services to the poor. QUALITY All of the facilities offering cardiac catheterizations in Broward County are providing in excess of the minimum number of procedures recommended.21/ RECOMMENDATION 1 Applicants for Certificate of Need approval should document either their intention and/or experience in meeting or exceeding the standards promulgated by the appropriate national accreditation body and by HRS. RECOMMENDATION 2 Applicants proposing to initiate or expand cardiac catheterization must make those services available to all segments of the population regardless of the ability to pay. RECOMMENDATION 3 Outpatient cardiac catheterization services should continue to be regulated under the Certificate of Need program. Petitioner has demonstrated that the inpatient cardiac catheterization program it proposes to establish at PPGH will meet or exceed the accreditation standards referred to in Recommendation 1 of the plan. Petitioner's stated policy is to make the services of PPGH available to all segments of the population regardless of their ability to pay. Petitioner's past performance in the area of indigent care suggests, however, that Petitioner may not be firmly committed to implementing this policy. The suggestion is also made in the plan that "[a)11 else being equal applications to establish new cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County in facilities with existing open heart surgical capability will receive priority - when being considered for certificates of need."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a certificate of need to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization program at Pembroke Pines General Hospital. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of January, 1990. Administrative Hearings Parkway 32399-1550 of the Administrative Hearings January, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk Division of this 12th day of
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner, Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital (Englewood), is a 100 bed general acute care hospital located in Englewood, Florida. Englewood is owned and operated by Columbia/HCA Health Care (Columbia), a for-profit corporation. Englewood operates an outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in a mobile unit located in the hospital parking lot. Patients and some physicians have been reluctant to use the mobile unit. Venice Hospital, Inc. (Venice) is a not-for-profit, community owned hospital with 342 beds. Venice operates an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory for invasive cardiac diagnostic procedures. Venice has unsuccessfully applied twice for a certificate of need (CON) to provide open heart surgery. The Sarasota County Public Hospital Board (Sarasota Hospital Board) is a publicly elected, nine member organization, which is responsible for the operation and oversight of Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Memorial). Memorial is a 952 bed hospital with services including inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Memorial is located in Sarasota, Florida. Englewood, Venice, and Memorial are all located in Sarasota County which is in the Agency for Health Care Administration Planning District 8. There are nine other inpatient cardiac catheterization programs in District 8. The existing inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are distributed as follows: Sarasota County (3); Charlotte County (3); Lee County (4); Collier County (1). Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency which administers CON laws in Florida. The Agency published on February 4, 1994, a fixed need pool projection for inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, showing a need for three additional programs in District 8 for the batch in which Englewood's application was reviewed. This calculation counted an earlier application of Englewood as approved. THE PROJECT Englewood proposes to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, placing inside the hospital facility the equipment which is currently located in its mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory. Englewood timely filed the letter of intent, CON application, and response to omissions for CON Number 7663. The Agency originally denied the application because a previous application by Englewood for inpatient cardiac catheterization services had been granted. The previous application proposed to keep the equipment in the mobile unit and build a walkway from the mobile unit to the hospital facility. Englewood withdrew its application for the previous application. The Agency has filed an official notice of changing its position to support Englewood's CON Application Number 7663. NEED FOR THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE LOCAL AND STATE HEALTH PLANS The 1993 Florida State Health Plan provides four allocation preferences relevant to the review of the certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes the establishment of both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services provided that a need for open heart surgery is indicated. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to establish a new cardiac catheterization program if the applicant can demonstrate that patients are currently seeking cardiac catheterization services outside the respective county or HRS district. Preference shall be given to hospitals with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share criteria. Preference shall be given to an applicant who agrees to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has projected that charity and indigent care for cardiac catheterizations at less than 1.0 percent of total revenue. Given Englewood's past history, 1.0 percent of total revenue is a gross overstatement. At the final hearing, Englewood stated that it would not agree to condition the CON on Englewood providing charity and indigent care equal to 1.0 percent of the total revenue. The Agency's 1992 Hospital Financial Data showed that Englewood's reported charity and uncompensated care was approximately .09 percent and .06 percent of total revenues for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, respectively. Englewood has agreed to provide adult cardiac catheterization services to anyone in need without ability to pay; thus, Englewood is entitled to a partial preference for providing services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has not demonstrated that it should receive a preference for the other three factors. The 1993 District 8 Allocation Factors Report addresses the following preferences relevant to the review of certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services. Preference shall be given to applicat- ions for new or expanded cardiac catheterization services that clearly indicate the impact of the proposed services on other health providers offering similar services in the same area. Preference shall be given to applicants which agree to provide services to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has agreed to provide services to all patients without ability to pay and is entitled to a partial preference for the second factor in the district plan. AVAILABILITY, QUALITY OF CARE, EFFICIENCY, APPROPRIATENESS, ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENT OF UTILIZATION, AND ADEQUACY OF LIKE EXISTING HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE SERVICE DISTRICT. Englewood's proposed inpatient cardiac catheterization program would not adversely affect the quality of care provided by the cardiac catheterization programs at Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Venice Hospital. Memorial has a comprehensive cardiac catheterization program. It operates three dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratories. The Memorial laboratories provide diagnostic catheterizations as well as all available therapeutic catheterization techniques. Prior to performing a diagnostic catheterization, cardiologists are able to determine with a high degree of confidence and reliability whether a patient with cardiovascular disease will require, during a particular hospitalization, therapeutic intervention, e.g. angioplasty or open heart surgery. Cardiologists rely on an array of sophisticated non-invasive diagnostic tests in making such determinations. When a cardiologist determines that a patient is not sufficiently ill to require therapeutic intervention, the patient will customarily receive a diagnostic catheterization on an outpatient basis. During the last several years, there has been a shift in Sarasota County from inpatient catheterization to outpatient catheterization. In fact, the Medicare program requires that Medicare patients receive outpatient catheterization, unless a patient's medical condition requires inpatient care. Normally only patients with unstable medical conditions receive inpatient cardiac catheterization. That group of patients is likely to require therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission to resolve their medical problems. Between 80 to 90 percent of patients who receive inpatient cardiac catheterization receive therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission. If an unstable patient presents at a facility which lacks the capability to perform therapeutic intervention, it is in the best medical practice to stabilize the patient and then transfer the patient to a facility which can perform both the diagnostic catheterization and the therapeutic intervention. If the unstable patient requires intervention in the form of angioplasty, it is in the patient's best interest to receive both the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during a single visit to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The provision of both procedures in one visit enhances comfort, safety, and efficiency. It is Memorial's practice to provide both types of services in one visit to the catheterization laboratory when possible. Adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are available within a maximum automobile travel time of one hour, under average travel conditions, for at least 90 percent of District 8's population. The Sarasota Hospital Board's policy is to provide cardiac catheterization services at Memorial to all residents without regard to their ability to pay. In its most recently completed fiscal year at the time of the final hearing, the Sarasota Hospital Board provided $268,000 of charity care and $720,000 of Medicaid care, related to cardiac catheterization patients. In its application, Englewood stated: "There is no evidence to indicate that the efficiency, appropriateness and adequacy of adult inpatient cardiac catheterizations services in District VIII are less than adequate." Each of the seven hospitals in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, with the exception of Englewood, operate an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. There is excess capacity at the existing cardiac laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. A single cardiac catheterization laboratory can safely perform approximately 1500 cases annually. Three of the existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties operate a volume between 300-400 cases annually: Fawcett, St. Joseph's, and Doctors'. Fawcett is owned and operated by Columbia. Venice operates the existing laboratory closest to Englewood. Venice's catheterization laboratory has the capacity to perform 1,500 procedures annually. Over the last five years, the number of cases has grown from 500 to approximately 800, where it has leveled off, leaving almost half the laboratory's capacity unused. Venice's catheterization laboratory is available and accessible to Englewood residents. The catheterization laboratory at Venice has been serving Englewood patients and will continue to do so. Venice currently serves a significant share of the market in three of the six zip codes identified by Englewood as its service area. There is adequate capacity at the existing laboratories in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties to treat the existing volume of cardiac catheterization patients, as well as the volume that Englewood proposes to serve. Patients in the Englewood area will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient cardiac catheterization services in the absence of Englewood's proposed program. Under these circumstances it is more appropriate and less expensive to the health care system as a whole to fully utilize existing catheterization laboratories. ABILITY OF APPLICANT TO PROVIDE QUALITY CARE AND APPLICANT'S RECORD OF PROVIDING QUALITY OF CARE Englewood has a record of providing appropriate quality of care to its patients. Englewood is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. Englewood submitted a written protocol for transfer of emergency patients to a hospital providing open heart surgery within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions as part of its application. Englewood's cardiac catheterization program policies and procedures manual is appropriate. The equipment which Englewood proposes for its inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory was purchased from Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center in Fort Myers, Florida, where it had been used successfully for approximately one year. The equipment is currently being used in Englewood's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. The equipment uses analog imaging, and includes video playback to allow instant review. Digital imaging is newer technology than analog imaging and allows the image of the cardiac areas to be magnified, processed and measured while the physician is performing the catheterization. Regardless whether analog or digital imaging is used the physician will rely on a 35mm film which is made during the catheterization procedure to make the diagnosis. The digital imaging equipment is more expensive than the analog imaging equipment. Although, digital imaging is nice to have, it is not necessary to provide quality cardiac catheterization services. Englewood has plans to move the outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory from the mobile unit to inside the hospital facilities. As of the date of the final hearing, Englewood had not begun construction of this project to relocate the outpatient laboratory. The cost of renovating space for the cardiac catheterization laboratory and moving the equipment inside is estimated to be $400,000. Two or three people are required to assist the physician perform an inpatient cardiac catheterization. One person circulates, moving outside the sterile area surrounding the procedure table to get medications, log information and generally oversee and monitor the patient's condition. The staff should include cardiovascular technicians, who may be but do not have to be nurses. Englewood proposes the following staffing and salary: FTE'S YEAR 1 HOURLY RATE SALARIES FTE'S YEAR 2 HOURLY RATE SALARIES RNS 3.0 19.92 118,061 5.0 19.68 204,672 Nurse Manager 1.0 0 1.0 0 Cath Lab Tech 2.0 14.43 60,029 2.0 15.01 62,442 Subtotal 6.0 178,090 8.0 267,114 Lab Director 1.0 0 1.0 0 Subtotal 1.0 0 1.0 0 Unit Secretary 0.5 7.96 8,278 1.0 8.28 17,222 Subtotal 0.5 8,278 1.0 TOTAL 7.5 186,368 10.0 284,336 The radiology technician's job is to assist with quality assurance, help maintain and oversee the equipment, and monitor safety. The radiology technician does not have to be present in the laboratory during procedures. Englewood already employs a radiology technician in its radiology department. This technician has had training for cardiac catheterization laboratory duties. Dr. DeGuia currently performs the duties of a medical director and will continue to do so if the inpatient laboratory is established. The nurse manager who is currently employed as the nursing manager for the intensive care, progressive care and outpatient will be utilized in the inpatient laboratory as well. The staff will be cross trained in each position's functions. Englewood will have the assistance of Fawcett Memorial Hospital and Southwest Heart Institute in staffing and training when needed. Englewood's proposed staffing will provide an adequate number of properly trained personnel. The salaries Englewood proposes to pay its staff are reasonable and competitive. UTILIZATION In its application, Englewood projects that the first year of operation of the inpatient laboratory, there will be a total of 236 cardiac catheterizations performed consisting of 132.9 inpatients and 103.1 outpatients. In the second year of operation, Englewood projects the total cardiac catheterizations to be 345 with 194.3 being inpatient and 150.7 being outpatient. Englewood has included six specific zip code in its service area. Based on Englewood's experience with MDC 05 diagnoses1, Englewood's expert witness Scott Hopes opined that Englewood's market share for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services would be as follows: ZIPCODE MARKET SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 33981 43.8 percent 34223 50 percent 34224 65.2 percent 34287 6.4 percent 34293 2.0 percent In order to project inpatient utilization of the Englewood laboratory, it is appropriate to rely upon the historical pool of patients in the Englewood service area who have received inpatient catheterization during a hospital admission, without receiving angioplasty or open heart surgery during that admission. Englewood proposes to serve primarily "low risk" inpatients who are not expected to require intervention during that hospital admission. For the period July 1991 through June 1992, there were 490 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients residing in Englewood's service area. For the period July 1992 through June 1993, there were 479 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients in the same service area. In its application, Englewood applied an aggregate market share to the total number of inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on the residents of the proposed service area. This method distorts the projected number of inpatient procedures which could be performed by Englewood because of the variability of the market shares in each zip code. Based on the method employed in Englewood's application, Englewood would have performed 145 and 160 inpatient cardiac catheterizations in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 periods, respectively. When one applies the actual market share by zip code to the actual number of procedures performed on patients from each zip code, a more accurate projection based on historical data can be made as shown in the chart below. ZIP CODE MARKET SHARE 1991-1992 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 1992-1993 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 21 11 18 10 33981 43.8 percent 35 15 29 12 34223 50.0 percent 68 34 72 36 34224 65.2 percent 42 27 34 22 34287 6.4 percent 145 9 146 9 34293 2.0 percent 179 4 180 4 100 93 Englewood performed 50 outpatient cardiac catheterizations in 1994. This low utilization is based on the physical location of the outpatient facility in the hospital parking lot and the lack of marketing. Fifty procedures is not a representative number of the outpatient procedures which Englewood could expect if the laboratory was located inside the hospital and the program was marketed effectively. The application states that in 1992 the percentage of inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures of the total cardiac catheterizations performed in hospitals with an inpatient program in District 8 was 56.33 percent.2 Thus based on Englewood's market share by zip code, the total amount of cardiac catheterizations which Englewood could have expected in 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 would have been 177 and 165, respectively. In its application, Englewood uses three different methodologies to project the number of cardiac catheterizations Englewood could expect during its first and second year of operation. Method 1 (pgs. 28 and 32 of the Response to Omissions) subtracts the amount of catheterizations Englewood would have expected in 1991-1992 from the amount it would have expected in 1992-1993 and increases the projection each year by this amount to project the number of catheterizations for the first two years of operation. Using Method 1 would result in a decrease in the number of cardiac catheterizations each year because the number of cardiac catheterizations declined by 12 procedures from 1991-1992 to 1992-1993. Method 2 (pgs. 30 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) employs an annual increase of 8 percent. This increase is the lowest annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 208 procedures for 1996 and 224 procedures for 1997. Method 3 (pgs. 31 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) uses a 12.78 percent annual increase based on the average annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 237 procedures for 1996 and 267 procedures for 1997. Using any of the three methods to project the number of procedures to be performed in the second year, Englewood will not perform a minimum of 300 catheterization procedures by the end of the second year of operation of the inpatient laboratory. The Intermedic Health Center is a large multi-specialty group with a five cardiologist heart group based in Port Charlotte. Intermedic has offices in Englewood. The heart group was to begin regular office schedules in Englewood in February, 1994. The group plans to recruit one or two additional physicians to staff the office. At the time of final hearing the physicians of Intermedic's heart group performed cardiac catheterizations at hospitals other than Petitioner's because some of the cases were inpatient and some of their outpatients were uncomfortable with a portable laboratory. For 1995, Intermedic projected 90 to 100 cases; thereby resulting in some increase in business with Englewood relating to cardiac catheterizations. The population in the Englewood service area consists of a large number of residents who are 65 or older. This segment of the population is more likely to have a high demand for cardiac catheterization than a younger segment of the population. The 65 or older category is a fast growing part of the population in the Englewood service area. IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROGRAM Englewood has the financial ability to fund the construction of the project. The pro forma statement contained in the CON application is flawed. Englewood has double counted a profit layer that it is already enjoying from inpatients that it transfers to an inpatient catheterization provider. Englewood does not account for the contribution margin attaching to Englewood's inpatient portion of their care before transfer. In projecting its revenues from outpatient utilization, Englewood has included in its figures outpatient catheterizations it would perform whether or not its application is approved rather than basing their pro forma on the incremental difference attributable to approval of an inpatient program. The projected revenues contained in the pro forma are suspect. First, the proposed procedure charges shown on the outpatient service revenues page of Englewood's application are high. It is unusual to find outpatient procedure charges that are higher than the inpatient procedure charges. In Table 7 in the application, Englewood asserts that patient days for Medicaid and private pay will net the highest revenues per patient day. Typically those two payor sources are at the bottom of the list of revenue producers than the top. Englewood's pro forma understates revenue deductions by assuming Medicaid and private pay reimbursement that is unrealistic and by failing to take into account anticipated growth in managed care. Englewood's financial expert agreed that managed care will see significant growth over the next five years. Because the pro forma overstates net revenue, it understates revenue deductions. Englewood has understated expenses. The marginal cost per case is understated, relocation expenses are understated, and the nurse manager's time is not allocated to the expense side of the pro forma. The State Agency Action Report also calls into question the adequacy of the expenses in Englewood's pro forma.3 Based on the flawed pro forma, Englewood has not demonstrated that the project is financially feasible. OTHER STATUTORY CRITERIA The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including consideration of the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction are reasonable. The proposed design of Englewood's inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory is reasonable and appropriate. Englewood submitted the list of capital projects required by Section 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1993); the audited financial statements required by Section 408.037(3), Florida Statutes (1993); and the resolution required by Section 408.037(4), Florida Statutes (1993). I. STANDING OF VENICE AND MEMORIAL If Englewood were to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, both Venice and Memorial would have patients diverted from their programs to Englewood's. Based on the projections contained in Englewood's application, Venice would lose 82 catheterization procedures in the second year of operation of Englewood's proposed program, resulting in a net profit lose of $234,000. Although Englewood's application projections are inaccurate, the application does contemplate that Venice would lose procedures as a result of the implementation of Englewood's proposed program. In order for Englewood to reach its projected volume of procedures, approximately 40 to 50 procedures would have to be redirected annually from Memorial to Englewood. There is also a strong potential that Memorial would lose angioplasty and open heart surgery cases as well. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center (SWFRMC), in Fort Myers, is owned by Columbia. It is a tertiary cardiovascular referral center for other Columbia hospitals in Southwest Florida. The development of an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at Englewood would assist in the development of referral patterns from the Englewood area to SWFRMC for angioplasty and open heart surgery. It would be in Columbia's interest to encourage utilization of SWFRMC's cardiovascular services by patients residing in the Southwest Florida area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the application of Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital's for Certificate of Need 7663 to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1995.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether Deering Hospital's application for a certificate of need to operate an inpatient cardiac catheterization program should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Deering Hospital, formerly known as Coral Reef Hospital, is located at 9333 Southwest 152nd Street, Miami, Florida, in HRS District 11, Dade County. Deering Hospital has a total of 260 beds: 170 medical/surgical, 54 adult psychiatric, 16 adolescent and child psychiatric and 20 substance abuse beds. It is an acute care hospital. Deering's primary geographic service area is north to the town of Kendall, west to the Everglades, east to Biscayne Bay and south to 232nd Street. The secondary service area is south to the Florida Keys. Deering's primary service is defined by 62 percent of its admissions, its secondary service area by 17 percent, and all other areas, including North Monroe County, comprise 21 percent of all its admissions. Competitors in Deering's primary and secondary service areas include Kendall Regional Medical Center, Baptist Hospital, South Miami Hospital, and South Miami-Homestead Hospital, which was previously called James Archer Smith Hospital. These hospitals have shared a service area as long as they all have existed. South Miami-Homestead Hospital does not have a cardiac catheterization laboratory. Deering is within 30 minutes travel time of three full service cardiac catheterization programs located in facilities with open heart surgery, including two of the challengers to its application. On June 18, 1990 South Dade Health Care Group, Ltd., was formed in order to acquire Coral Reef Hospital. South Dade Health Care Group, Ltd., at the time of the application was and is currently licensed by HRS to operate Deering Hospital. Columbia Hospital Corporation of South Dade ("Columbia') is the general partner of South Dade Health Care Group, Ltd. Columbia, acting on behalf of South Dade Health Care Group, Ltd., acquired Coral Reef on September 26, 1990. Coral Reef changed its name to Deering Hospital on April 2, 1991. Deering's CON application in this batch cycle was submitted on March 25, 1991. The June 18, 1990, audited balance sheet for South Dade Health Care Group, Inc., was prepared for a development stage enterprise and is an audit of costs to start up the hospital after the acquisition by Columbia. The December 31, 1990, audit covers a 97 day period from September 26, 1990, (date of acquisition) to December 31, 1990, and included development and organizational costs. Since the applicant/entity/licensee did not exist before June 18, 1990, and the hospital was not acquired by that entity before September 26, 1992, there are no other financial statements that could have been prepared before the Deering application was submitted on March 25, 1991. South Dade Health Care, Group, Ltd., submitted a timely and valid letter of intent and a timely application for Certificate of Need ("CON") 6664 to provide in the July 1993 planning horizon inpatient cardiac catheterization services at Deering Hospital. South Dade Health Care Group, Ltd., and Columbia have authorized Deering Hospital's participation in this case. The capital projects list in the application is complete. When Deering was purchased by Columbia in 1990, Deering had a special procedure room that was apparently equipped and had the capacity to provide diagnostic coronary catheterizations as well as peripheral (i.e., the extremities) vascular diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Although outpatient catheterizations had been performed in the special procedure room in the past, none were being done when Columbia acquired the hospital in September 1990. In late 1990, following evaluation of the equipment, Deering recruited an experienced CCRN cardiac catheterization laboratory nurse, hired a qualified CV tech, and began offering outpatient cardiac catheterization services. The decision to begin outpatient cardiac catheterization services was based in part on the idea that there would be no capital costs since the equipment to perform the procedures already existed. In December of 1990, the existing outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory did about nine procedures and experienced some equipment failures. As a result of the equipment failures, Deering temporarily stopped doing outpatient cardiac catheterization, but was able to continue doing special procedures (vascular and arterial catheterizations, not coronary) in the room. After exploring various possibilities, Deering entered into a lease to obtain new equipment for its existing outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory and signed a renewal lease to continue the lease of the equipment that was already in the outpatient laboratory. In January of 1992 the hospital resumed doing outpatient cardiac catheterization procedures and ten outpatient cardiac catheterizations have been performed in the room since January 31, 1992. From 1985 through April of 1991 the Deering outpatient cardiac catheterization program has done a total of twenty-nine outpatient procedures. The lab was closed temporarily to outpatient cardiac catheterization procedures from March 1991 through January 1992 in order to bring in new equipment. The hospital has been diligent and persistent, from the date Deering was acquired by Columbia to the present, in its efforts to maintain and enhance its outpatient cardiac catheterization program. Currently, however, if a Deering inpatient needs a cardiac catheterization, that patient must be taken past an active outpatient catheterization laboratory at Deering, only to be transferred to another hospital with an inpatient cardiac catheterization certificate of need. In health planning, it is generally desirable to use existing facilities and equipment to do additional procedures. By its application in this case, Deering proposes to use its existing outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory to perform inpatient cardiac catheterization. For calendar year 1991, about 50 cardiac catheterization inpatients were transferred from Deering to other hospitals. Patients requiring inpatient cardiac catheterization or open heart are transferred from Deering to South Miami Hospital, Baptist Hospital, or Kendall Regional Medical Center. At Deering the spatial relationships between the existing outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory and related services such as telemetry and intensive care appear to be adequate. Deering has 16 telemetry beds and they can be easily increased if needed. An uncomplicated inpatient cardiac catheterization typically results in one day in telemetry. Deering has ample capacity for over 300 additional telemetry patient days. At Deering the intensive care unit and the coronary care unit are collectively referred to as the critical care service (CCS). Deering has 14 CCS beds where a patient can be directly connected to a cardiovascular monitor allowing monitoring of any clinical changes. The current CCS average daily census is ten (10). Deering's application is not by or on behalf of an HMO. No evidence was presented to show that HMO's in District 11 have unmet cardiac catheterization needs or that Deering's application would fulfill any needs of HMO's. To the contrary, HMO's have a tendency to prefer cardiac catheterization services at facilities with open heart surgery. Typically an uncomplicated diagnostic cardiac catheterization does not require a CCS stay. Even if 50 percent of Deering's cardiac catheterization inpatients required CCS during their stay, Deering has the capacity to accommodate the 150 additional CCS patients annually. The physical space which comprises the existing outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory is clinically adequate in its current configuration to facilitate communication during the procedure and time savings. The dark room, computer room and procedure room are all adjunct. There are no medical or clinical reasons why the space is not adequate. According to the medical director, who has extensive experience at other hospitals and who has performed outpatient cardiac catheterizations in Deering's procedure room, Deering's procedure room is more than adequate for performing inpatient cardiac catheterization. If the inpatient certificate of need is granted, the procedure room where outpatient catheterizations are currently performed will continue to be a mixed used room, i.e., peripheral angioplasties and coronary catheterizations will be scheduled in the same room. Deering Hospital is JCAHO accredited. It received a three year accreditation in 1991. The laboratory currently used for outpatient procedures was surveyed by JCAHO as a special procedure room. Deering has never been cited in any JCAHO or HRS licensure survey for any inadequacy in life, safety, or fire codes in the outpatient cardiac catheterization special procedure room. Deering currently has all of the equipment, staff and ancillary services described in, and required by, the applicable rule. Deering has two physicians on staff that serve and are compensated as co-directors of the existing outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. Dr. Palomo is co-medical director of the existing outpatient cardiac catheterization program and will be co-medical director of the inpatient program if the program is approved. Dr. Palomo is Board certified in internal medicine and Board certified in cardiovascular diseases. He was previously an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami and ran the cardiac catheterization lab at the Veteran's hospital in Miami. Last year Dr. Palomo performed 300 cardiac catheterizations in the Miami area. Dr. Palomo has cardiology staff privileges at six Miami hospitals, including two of the challengers to this application, Baptist Hospital and South Miami Hospital. He lives ten minutes from Deering Hospital and his office is located eight minutes from Deering. There is no industry standard for credentialing cardiac catheterization laboratory nurses, but it is generally agreed that all cardiac catheterization personnel should be ACLS trained. All Deering nurses who are cross-trained for the cardiac catheterization laboratory are ACLS certified. Deering has also cross-trained an ECHOvascular technician into the scrub roll in the laboratory. All current cardiac catheterization laboratory staff and all cross-trained cardiac catheterization laboratory staff are already full time Deering employees. Current staff can accommodate the projected volume of inpatient cardiac catheterizations and the current rate of peripheral and outpatient catheterizations. If awarded the service, Deering would be able to implement the service the day of the award. The current staff is adequate regardless of whether they are performing an inpatient, outpatient, or peripheral procedure. The staffing of the inpatient lab would be the same as the current outpatient laboratory; i.e., a physician, RN and a CVT. There would not be any need to add staff if the number of procedures increased between 300 and 1,000 annually. Accordingly, Deering does not intend to recruit additional professional personnel from the local market. The capacity of Deering's existing laboratory, when used for inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, can conservatively be calculated as follows: 1 hour from arrival at the procedure room to departure from the procedure room, times an 8 hour day, times a 5 day week, times 52 weeks a year equals 2,080 case theoretical capacity. One-half that theoretical capacity is four cases a day or 1,040 cases a year. A cardiac catheterization laboratory can typically do between 1,000 and 1,500 cases per year. Four cases per day (1,040 cases per year) is a reasonable number to express the capacity of Deering's existing laboratory to accommodate inpatient procedures with current space, equipment and staff. The existing inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories in District 11 have similar capacities. With additional staffing, Deering or any of the existing laboratories might have even greater capacities. If granted inpatient cardiac catheterization services, Deering would not do coronary angioplasties because it does not have open heart surgery in the same facility. Deering maintains transfer agreements with other facilities for services that Deering does not provide. Deering has developed an adequate protocol outlining how an open heart or angioplasty backup patient would be transferred. Deering has established medically appropriate criteria for granting and maintaining privileges in its outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory that would be suitable for the proposed inpatient cardiac catheterization program. Deering has developed adequate and appropriate forms to manage its patient care in the outpatient program which would be suitable for the inpatient program. Deering has developed clinically adequate and appropriate protocols for temporary pacemaking, recording hemodynamic data, and insuring the emergency availability of staff in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Deering has a policy and procedures statement to orient new employees to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Generally, there is no alternative to cardiac catheterization when catheterization is medically indicated. However, there are alternatives to Deering's application, such as allowing existing providers to achieve efficient levels of utilization. Deering is not proposing joint, shared, or cooperative health care services. Deering is not proposing to provide services for research or teaching purposes. Deering does not propose to provide a substantial portion of its services to individuals not residing in the service district. Indeed, inpatient cardiac catheterization services are readily available in adjoining service areas. Deering is not proposing any new construction in its application. Deering is not proposing to add nursing home beds. No service reductions will occur as a result of this proposal. Financial feasibility of a project means the project can be accomplished within the financial resources of the overall institution. Short- term financial feasibility means the applicant can cover the start-up project costs. Long-term financial feasibility means the project will generate a surplus of operating revenue over operating expenses within two years. The proposed project would most likely be financially feasible in the short and long-term, even though (for reasons addressed below) it is unlikely to achieve the results projected in the pro formas. This is because Deering is already operating an outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory and would have very little additional expense if it began performing inpatient cardiac catheterizations using the existing staff and the existing equipment. If the project were to be approved, the hospital as a whole would probably have a positive cash flow in the first and second year, because with a mere four or five inpatient procedures it would recover the additional costs associated with converting the existing outpatient lab to an inpatient lab. A contribution margin is the difference between the variable expenses and variable revenues on a per unit basis or in the aggregate. For additional inpatient cardiac catheterization services on a per case basis, Deering projects a positive contribution margin of $2,500 per procedure. This is similar to the contribution margins of other hospitals performing inpatient cardiac catheterizations in Deering's service area. Break-even analysis determines how many procedures must be done before incremental fixed costs are covered. Since incremental fixed costs are $10,000, after only 4 or 5 inpatient procedures the service would break-even. For a number of reasons mentioned below, it is very unlikely that Deering would be able to achieve its projected utilization levels. Specifically, it is unlikely that Deering would be able to achieve a utilization level of 300 admissions per year by the end of its second year of operation. The analysis on which Deering bases its much higher utilization projections appears to be flawed in several respects and is also contrary to reasonable expectations based on the average historical performance of diagnostic-only cardiac catheterization programs in District 11. In an effort to demonstrate that Deering would perform in excess of 300 procedures per year, Deering's health planning expert, undertook the following analysis: The number of MDC-5 (circulatory diagnoses) at Deering in 1990 was approximately 750. It was assumed, from data in the Winslow report and the Dade County actual data that one third of the MDC-5 admissions would receive a cardiac catheterization. Multiplying 750 times one third results in 250 admissions at Deering who would receive a catheterization, or approximately 20 per month. Because some people would refuse to have a catheterization, or would undergo it at another facility, it was assumed that 17 patients per month, or approximately 195 per year, would be cathed at Deering in the first year of operations. It was assumed that the growth at Deering between year one and year two of operations at Deering would be equal to the projected growth in catheterizations in Dade County between July, 1989 and January, 1994. It was assumed that all of the cases projected above would be inpatients. Based on this analysis, it was projected that Deering would be able to do in excess of 300 cases per year starting in its second year of operations. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that this methodology suffers from a number of flaws. The "one third" factor applied in step 2, above, is erroneous and was incorrectly applied even if correct. The Winslow paper provides no support for the proposition that one third of all MDC-5 admissions will require catheterization. The actual statistic from Dade County is that all inpatient catheterizations, including those done in anticipation of open heart surgery and for angioplasty, constitute 21 percent of the number of MDC-5 admissions. Of the catheterizations done in Dade County, 9 percent (1,382 catheterizations out of a total of 16,155) were performed in conjunction with open heart surgery and 16 percent (2,700 of 16,155) were angioplasties. Because Deering will be unable to do either open heart surgery or angioplasty, a full 25 percent of the catheterization case load is unavailable there. Applying the 21 percent factor (percent of actual inpatient catheterizations to MDC-5 admissions) would result in 158 potential catheterizations. Dropping out 25 percent of those (the percent requiring open heart surgery and angioplasty) results in 118 potential cases. Using then the 85 percent figure (to reflect those who refuse to be catheterized or must go elsewhere because of managed care agreements, etc.) leaves approximately 100 inpatient cases in the first year, or roughly half of what Deering projects. There is no persuasive support for the idea advanced by Deering that its growth between year one and year two of operations would be the same rate of growth that all Dade County providers experienced between 1989 and 1994. To the contrary, such an experience is most unlikely. First, the projected rate of growth assumes that Dade County's use rate will continue at the same rate. This is optimistic. Second, it assumes that Deering will reflect the growth in the number of cardiac catheterizations in Dade County even though it is only providing diagnostic catheterizations (i.e. no angioplasties or catheterizations during open heart surgery). Finally, it assumes that Deering's rate in providing cardiac catheterizations will be the same as four and one half years experience in Dade County. If the actual annual rate of increase in Dade County were applied to Deering's own projected first year utilization, it would still only be likely to do 230 cases in the second year. The actual number of patients transferred from Deering for inpatient catheterizations plus its actual number of outpatient procedures provides a more accurate guide to the number of cases Deering could be expected to do. Based upon these figures, Deering might be expected to do between 70 and 150 cases the first year and less than 200 the second. One assumption made by Deering to support its utilization projections was that there would be a growth in the utilization of cardiovascular services at Deering. The historical use pattern at Deering fails to reveal any trend that would suggest such an increase. According to data reported to the HCCCB, there was an overall decline in the number of intensive care days at Deering between 1985 and 1991. Similarly, emergency room visits have also declined during the same period. Emergency room admissions account for 60 percent of all admissions to Deering. As a result, the total number of patient days at Deering has declined from 47,089 in 1985 to 40,975 in 1991. Thus, although Deering is projecting a large increase in utilization to project satisfactory utilization of its proposed laboratory, the historical record does not support that record. According to Deering, indicators of cardiac volume include the following services: EKGs; echocardiograms; holter monitors; treadmills; pulmonary function tests; thallium exams; and, coagulation studies. According to data presented by Deering, none of those "cardiac volume indicators" showed an increase in utilization between 1988 and 1990. In its financial analysis, Deering assumed that all of the 195 procedures in the first year and all 360 in the second year would be inpatient procedures. In Dade County for the 12 months ending September 30, 1991, 39 percent of all catheterizations were done on an outpatient basis (6,240 outpatient procedures out of 16,165 total cases). That percentage would be even higher at facilities that are unable to provide open heart surgery. (For example, currently 80 percent of the cardiac catheterization procedures at Doctors' Hospital are outpatient procedures.) In all of Florida approximately 50 percent of all cardiac catheterizations are inpatient. The trend in Dade County, in Florida, and nationally is that the number, and percentage, of outpatient procedures is increasing. The significance of this fact as it relates to Deering's financial projections is that Deering did not make any adjustment in its utilization projections to account for outpatient utilization and projected the pro formas by assuming that income associated with each case would be the income associated with a full inpatient admission. Thus, the pro forma projections are overstated to the extent that the projected procedures will actually be performed on an outpatient basis. At least 35 percent of Deering's procedures are likely to be on an outpatient basis with the trend indicating that outpatient utilization will actually be much higher. In projecting the average length of stay to be attributed to each inpatient catheterization at Deering, it was assumed that it would be the same length of stay as the District 11 average. The District 11 average includes the average inpatient stay associated with open heart surgery, which is much longer than for a routine diagnostic catheterization. Thus, Deering has overstated its projected average length of stay. In addition, the average length of stay for inpatient catheterizations has been dropping. This compounds the extent to which the number of inpatient days associated with catheterizations has been overstated in Deering's pro formas. One assumption in Deering's financial analysis is that patient days at Deering would increase at the same rate as the population increase in Dade County. This assumption finds no support in the evidence presented at hearing. In fact, it was demonstrated that the actual number of patient days have been declining at Deering since 1985. In 1985, Deering has 47,089 patient days; in 1991 it had 40,975 patient days, a drop of 13 percent. This drop occurred even though Dade County has had continuous steady growth. The financial assumption that Deering's inpatient days will grow at the same rate as the population as a whole is found to be unsupported. One reality check of Deering's projection that it will perform in excess of 300 procedures in its second year of operations is to measure its proposed "capture rate" against that of the other hospitals it will be competing against. In 1990 there were a total of 491 cardiac catheterizations performed on patients who reside in Deering's primary service area. Of these, Baptist, which is a full service provider, was able to capture only 203 cases, or 41 percent. If Deering, with one catheterization lab which is also used to do peripheral procedures, were to capture 300 procedures from its primary service area, this would represent in excess of 60 percent of the procedures from that area, or one and one half times better than Baptist is able to do with a full service catheterization facility, three dedicated catheterization laboratories, four full catheterization teams, and angioplasty and open heart capabilities. It is most unlikely that Deering can achieve such a projection. Deering proposes to provide a diagnostic-only program. Of the 13 cardiac catheterization programs in Dade County, nine are traditional and four are diagnostic-only. The diagnostic-only laboratories in District 11 have historically operated at significantly lower volumes than the laboratories in facilities with open heart surgery. During calendar year 1991 the four diagnostic-only providers performed the following number of procedures: Doctors' Hospital 301 Humana Hospital-Biscayne 55 Palmetto General Hospital 432 Parkway Regional Med. Center 262 TOTAL 1050 The total of 1050 procedures constitutes an average of 262.5 procedures for each of the four existing providers. If this pool of 1050 procedures were to be divided five ways to accommodate a new provider, there would be an average of 210 procedures per diagnostic-only provider. It would require an increase of almost 50 percent in the number of procedures being done by diagnostic-only laboratories for five such laboratories to be performing an average of 300 procedures per year. This is yet another reason for which it is most unlikely that Deering would achieve the utilization levels it projects. There appears to have been little physician acceptance of the outpatient catheterization laboratory at Deering. From 1985 through the date of hearing, Deering only performed 29 cardiac catheterizations. Dr. Palomo is the medical director of the Deering cardiac catheterization laboratory. One of his duties as medical director is "promoting" the laboratory. In 1992, through June 16, Dr. Palomo performed only two or three cardiac catheterizations at Deering; in calendar year 1991, he did four to six cardiac catheterizations at Deering. Dr. Palomo does approximately 300 catheterizations per year. It is unlikely that Deering will perform over 300 catheterization cases per year when its own medical director is doing less than 2 percent of his cases there. South Miami is an acute care hospital located in Dade County. South Miami has a open cardiac catheterization program which means any physician within the community can apply for privileges, and, if granted, perform cardiac catheterizations at South Miami. Until recently, it was a closed program. Baptist is a large, full service acute care hospital located in South Miami, Dade County, District 11. Baptist provides a full array of cardiac services at its Miami Vascular Institute. These include cardiac catheterization, open heart surgery, and angioplasty. Baptist is within the primary service area of Deering. It is approximately eight minutes drive from Deering. Deering currently transfers its cases needing inpatient catheterizations to other hospitals, including Baptist. If Deering were to be approved, and if it were able to perform 360 cases in its second year of operations as it projects, it would most likely be performing something in the neighborhood of 150 cases that otherwise would have been done at Baptist. 3/ This was calculated as follows: There were a total of 491 catheteriza- tions performed in 1990 on patients residing in Deering's primary service area. Of those 491 cases, Baptist performed the catheterizations for 203 patients. If Deering were to perform 360 inpatient catheterizations in its second year of operations, it is projected that Baptist would lose cases in the same relation as its current market penetration, i.e. 41 percent. This equates to 149 cases. This methodology presents a reasonable projection of the number of cases that Baptist would be likely to lose if Deering's application for inpatient cardiac catheterization were approved and Deering were able to achieve its projected utilization levels. Baptist has a contribution margin of approximately $2,560 per cardiac catheterization. This figure is the average revenue per case less the variable costs per case. Using the methodology described above, it is projected that the net annual loss at Baptist, if Deering were approved, would be in the neighborhood of $380,000.00. If Deering were to achieve its projected utilization levels, it is likely that it would also be performing a substantial number of cases that otherwise would have gone to South Miami Hospital or one of the other nearby existing providers. Doctors' Hospital is a 255-bed acute care hospital located in Coral Gables, Dade County, Florida. Doctors' has had a cardiac catheterization program since December of 1986, and is authorized to perform diagnostic catheterization on both inpatients and outpatients. With its current staffing compliment, the Doctors' cardiac catheterization laboratory could comfortably perform four catheterizations per day or between 800 and 900 per year. Doctors' performs cardiac catheterization on all patients regardless of ability to pay. Since 1988, the Doctors' cardiac catheterization laboratory has experienced declining utilization. The following chart represents the utilization of Doctors' cardiac catheterization laboratory since 1988: TOTAL INPATIENT AND CALENDAR YEAR OUTPATIENT CARDIAC CATHS 1988 484 1989 400 1990 380 1991 295 1992 240 (estimated) The Doctors' inpatient cardiac catheterization program is at a crossroads. The current volume is well below the minimum quality threshold which is acceptable for cardiac catheterization laboratories. In its early years of operation, the Doctors' cardiac catheterization laboratory generated a profit. Such is no longer the case. Several factors have resulted in the declining utilization of Doctors' cardiac catheterization laboratory. One of the factors is that more of the existing laboratories have become open staff versus closed staff. Doctors' laboratory has always had an open staff policy. At the time that Doctors' established its cardiac catheterization laboratory, it was one of only two that had an open staff policy. Another factor in the decline of utilization at Doctors' has been a shift from inpatient to outpatient cardiac catheterization. Therefore, the opening of outpatient-only cardiac catheterization laboratories, including the one at Deering, has resulted in a reduction in the number of outpatient cardiac catheterization procedures done at Doctors'. Doctors' does not offer angioplasty or open heart surgery. Doctors' diagnostic-only cardiac catheterization capability has contributed to its declining utilization since Doctors' is unable to compete with full service hospitals for cardiac catheterization patients that require the services of a full service hospital. Another factor which has resulted in the decline in utilization at the Doctors' cardiac catheterization laboratory is a change in HMO service patterns to facilities that can provide full-service cardiology services, including cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, and open heart surgery. The primary reason Doctors' Hospital catheterization laboratory is now losing money is its decrease in utilization. As utilization of a cardiac catheterization laboratory declines, the per unit cost of providing a catheterization increases. Based upon the current market share of inpatient cardiac catheterization patients in District 11, and assuming Deering would be able to achieve its projected year two utilization of 360 new inpatient cardiac catheterization patients, a small number of those patients probably would have otherwise gone to Doctors' Hospital. Because of the declining utilization at the Doctors' cardiac catheterization laboratory, and the fact that its program is not co-located with open heart surgery, the loss of even a small number of patients may be significant to the future viability of the cardiac catheterization program at Doctors' Hospital. If the Deering inpatient program were to be approved, both the Deering and Doctors' programs would likely be low volume programs operating at utilization levels well below the minimum for maintaining quality standards and well below the minimum for economic efficiency. There are 13 providers of inpatient cardiac catheterization services in Dade County which operate a total of 24 catheterization laboratories. These providers are geographically well dispersed in the population centers of the county. The existing inpatient cardiac catheterization providers in District 11 are available, provide high quality care, are appropriate, and are accessible. In District 11 there is an ample excess capacity to provide additional inpatient cardiac catheterizations at existing facilities. The existing catheterization laboratories are not producing sufficient numbers of cases to be operating efficiently. The practical capacity of a typical catheterization laboratory is somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 cases per year. Given that there are 24 existing catheterization laboratories and four more expected to come on line soon, the existing providers are operating at approximately half of their capacity. These programs have not reached a level of optimal efficiency in terms of operations. Optimal efficiency for health planning purposes should be measured at a level of approximately 80 or 85 percent of capacity. The economic efficiency of the existing providers of inpatient cardiac catheterization would be enhanced if new entries into the market were precluded until existing providers were operating at approximately 80 or 85 percent of their practical capacity. It is well accepted in health planning that a catheterization laboratory must perform at least 300 cases per year in order to maintain proficiency and quality. There appears to be a relative correlation between the number of cases performed in a laboratory and the skill of the staff. In District 11, HMO's and PPO's have shifted their service patterns to facilities that can provide full cardiac services including angioplasty and open heart surgery. The shift in use patterns has had a significant effect on cardiac catheterization laboratories unable to provide angioplasty and open heart surgery. This effect would likely be felt at Deering Hospital if its inpatient lab were approved and supports the conclusion that Deering, as a provider of diagnostic catheterizations only, would be unlikely to achieve its utilization projections. Cardiac catheterization services are highly competitive in District As such, the approval of Deering's application will have little beneficial improvement by way of increased competition. Additionally, the trend in District 11 is for third party payers to contract for the provision of cardiac services at full service providers. As such, Deering would be unable to effectively compete with the nine full service providers of which three, Baptist, South Miami, and Kendall, are in Deering's primary service area. There is no evidence that any patient has had, or is likely to have, problems accessing inpatient catheterization services if this proposal is not approved. The geographic access standard contained in the applicable rule is met by the existing providers. Additionally, none of the programs or doctors have been unable to schedule catheterizations because of heavy utilization at any District 11 catheterization provider. Accordingly, patients are not likely to experience any difficulty in accessing inpatient cardiac catheterization services if Deering's application is denied. Currently and historically, cardiac catheterization has been regulated by HRS as an inpatient institutional health service, not a tertiary service. On February 8, 1991, HRS published official notice of the need for one more inpatient cardiac catheterization program in District 11 for the 1993 planning horizon, calculated in accordance with the methodology in the applicable rule. The fixed need pool in this case was never challenged by Petitioners. The projected number of procedures by population in the planning horizon using the methodology in Joint Exhibit 1 and actual data collected by HRS show that there are enough procedures in the marketplace for Deering to perform 300 in the second year of operation and for the protestants in this case to maintain their annual current volumes. However, major portions of that rule- based methodology have been found to be invalid in the Final Order issued this same day in the related rule challenge cases.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying the subject certificate of need application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1994, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 1st day of April, 1994.
