Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
Findings Of Fact CON APPLICATIONS HCR-CON No.7530 HCR is a publicly owned, for-profit corporation which operates approximately 25 nursing homes in Florida. HCR filed an application, CON No. 7530, to construct a 98-bed freestanding nursing home. HCR proposes to locate the nursing home in the northwest part of Orange County, Florida. HCR proposes that the entire 98-bed facility will be dedicated to the care of patients with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias. The total cost of the HCR project is $7,132,000 for 47,750 square feet, or $472,776 per bed. The HCR proposal is modeled after an HCR 120-bed nursing home facility in Boynton Beach, Florida. The Boynton Beach facility is entirely dedicated to the treatment of patients with Alzheimer's Disease or related dementias. The proposed HCR facility in Orange County would be identical to the Boynton Beach facility less one patient wing. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, as well as HCR's existing Orange County nursing home facility, have superior licensure ratings. HCR's Boynton Beach facility received accreditation with commendation from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHCO), a national accreditation body which has established standards to measure the quality of care in dementia care units. Dementia is a complex of symptoms that can be caused by many different underlying diseases. Alzheimer's disease is one cause of dementia. Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia. Significant research is being conducted into the cause and treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Dementia is defined as a decline in intellectual function; global cognitive impairment, that is memory impairment and at least one of the following: impairment of abstract thinking; impairment of judgment; impairment of other complex capabilities such as language use, ability to perform complex physical tasks, ability to recognize objects or people, or to construct objects; and, personality change. The Reisberg Cognitive Rating Scale (RCS) classifies the stages of Alzheimer's disease from 1 to 7, with a rating of 7 being most severe. The rating scale is based on 10 axes: concentration, recent memory, past memory, orientation, functioning and self-care, speech, motor functioning, mood and behavior, practice of an art or skill, and calculation ability. The Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) for Age-Associated Cognitive decline and Alzheimer's Disease also defines seven stages of deterioration ranging from no cognitive decline to very severe cognitive decline. Persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease generally cannot survive without assistance upon reaching early dementia or level five on both the RCS and GDS. Approximately 50-58 percent of persons currently residing in community nursing homes suffer from some form of dementia. There is a need for community nursing home beds for persons suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease in Orange County. It is particularly difficult to place in nursing homes in Orange County, persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease (levels 5-7) who also have displayed a history of disruptive behavior patterns. Persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease have specific needs for care and treatment in nursing homes. Alzheimer's victims tend to wander and should have areas set aside for secured walking. The movement of Alzheimer's victims should also be carefully monitored. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, which is the prototype for HCR's proposed Orange County facility, has specific design features to accommodate the needs of patients suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease. HCR proposes a pod design of five residential pod units each with a central living area, also called the atrium area. The resident rooms open to the central living area. Each pod has an enclosed courtyard. Access to the courtyards is controlled. The two nursing stations are centrally located in each wing of the facility. Each central living area, or atrium, is visible from one or the other of the nursing stations. HCR provides specific staff training in the care and treatment of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. A unit or a facility dedicated to the treatment of dementia patients may reduce the need for psychotropic medication of the patients. On a long-term basis, there may be some staff burnout in a facility or unit dedicated solely to the care and treatment of victims of Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. HCR proposes that its CON be conditioned upon locating in northwest Orange County, providing at least 30 percent of its patient days to Medicaid eligible persons, providing respite care, and dedicating all 98 beds to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. HCR currently meets its Medicaid commitment in the Boynton Beach facility. LIFE CARE CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P LIFE CARE is a for-profit corporation which owns and operates two nursing homes in Florida. LIFE CARE also operates three other nursing homes in Florida. As of September 1993, LIFE CARE had a net worth of approximately $50 million. LIFE CARE proposes to construct a freestanding 98-bed nursing home (CON No. 7534) in southwest Orange County, at a total cost of $5,988,000. The LIFE CARE 98-bed facility proposal includes a 20-bed unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a 20-bed subacute unit, an adult day care center, mental health services, and services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. LIFE CARE also made a partial request (CON No. 7534P) for a 60-bed facility which would be constructed at the same site and would include the same features. For economic reasons, patients are being released from acute care hospital settings at earlier stages of recovery and there is a need for subacute nursing home services in Orange County. The incidence of AIDS/HIV is increasing and there is a need for nursing home services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The 20-bed unit proposed by LIFE CARE for the care and treatment of Alzheimer's patients will be a distinct part of the facility, separate from other residents. The Alzheimer's unit has its own dining area and activity area, a centrally located bathing facility, and a secured courtyard for wandering space. The 20-bed LIFE CARE subacute unit will also be separate. The subacute unit will have two ventilator areas and be contiguous to a therapy area. The LIFE CARE design includes outdoor courtyards, a library, gift shop, and ice cream parlor. Pursuant to Sections 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, one of the required elements of a CON application is the listing of capital projects, which is presented in Schedule 2 of the CON application. The Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in these proceedings is identical to the Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in the December 1993 batching cycle for LIFE CARE'S proposed Clay County Project, CON No. 7501. It has been held that Schedule 2 of the LIFE CARE Clay County Project CON application No. 7501 met minimum CON application content requirements. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, 20 F.L.W. 1435 (Fla. 1st DCA June 12, 1995). During November of 1993, a LIFE CARE nursing home located in Altamonte Springs was downgraded from a superior to a conditional licensure rating due to a deficiency related to outdated medication. The conditional rating given to the facility was in effect for approximately fifty days. The facility was then given a standard rating, and upon the annual survey in the fall of 1994, the facility has been recommended for a superior rating. All other LIFE CARE facilities have superior ratings. LIFE CARE proposes to condition its CON application upon providing Medicaid participation of 65 percent in the 98-bed facility, and 43 percent in the 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST CON No. 7528 ADVENTIST is a not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care related enterprises. ADVENTIST is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Health Care Corporation, which owns and operates hospitals and health care facilities throughout the United States. ADVENTIST has operated health care facilities in Orange County since the early 1900s when Florida Hospital was founded. ADVENTIST is the largest hospital system in Orange County, with more than 1,400 beds located on five campuses. ADVENTIST proposes to add 38 beds to an existing freestanding 80-bed community nursing home, Sunbelt Living Center-East Orlando (SLC), which is directly adjacent to Florida Hospital's East Orlando campus. The ADVENTIST proposal would include a 20-bed subacute unit and also an 18-bed skilled nursing unit. This addition to SLC would be accomplished by constructing two new wings to the existing facility. The projected cost of the ADVENTIST addition is $1,386,500, or approximately $36,000 per bed. SLC is an 80-bed skilled nursing facility which opened in January of 1993. SLC has a superior licensure rating. SLC provides nursing home service to a variety of residents, including persons with AIDS/HIV, as well as persons with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. SLC does not have a distinct Alzheimer's unit, but is equipped with security features to accommodate Alzheimer's patients. SLC staff is trained in the care and treatment of all its residents, including those with dementia. SLC reached an occupancy rate of 96 percent-97 percent capacity in its first ten months of operation. The SLC design is based on a residential model. The intent of the design is to create a residential community, and to encourage the interaction among the residents, and also between the residents and staff. The residential wings contain twelve rooms with private and semiprivate accommodations. Each room has its own toilet facilities. The support facilities, food service, therapy areas, administrative offices, visitor and welcoming areas, are located in the center of the facility. The residential wings are clustered on each side of the facility. The facility also features outdoor courtyards and walkways adjacent to the residential wings. ADVENTIST proposes to condition its CON application on providing a Medicaid commitment of 65 percent of total patient days in the non-subacute wing of the 38-bed expansion. The ADVENTIST proposal also features an AIDS program and respite care. ADVENTIST currently meets it Medicaid commitment at SLC. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. There is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. In the 20-bed subacute unit ADVENTIST proposes that each room will include wall-mounted suction and gases to accommodate ventilator dependent patients, which will enable ADVENTIST to provide more intensive subacute care. RHA/PRINCETON CON No.7538 RHA is the owner and operator of Princeton Hospital, located on the west side of Orlando. Princeton Hospital is situated on 32 acres bordering Lake Lawne. Princeton Hospital has 150 beds, including 24 psychiatric beds, a multipurpose intensive care unit, a 13-bed progressive care unit, a nursery, pediatric services, women's services, an obstetrical unit and an inpatient cardiac catheterization lab. The psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital treats a wide range of mental disorders, including those afflicting the elderly population. The hospital also operates a senior psychiatric partial hospitalization program which serves geriatric patients, including persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Princeton Hospital currently provides care and treatment to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. Princeton Hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. On August 1, 1994, subsequent to the filing of CON application No. 7538, Princeton Hospital entered into a wide-ranging affiliation agreement with the University of Florida, College of Medicine and Shands Hospital. The agreement provides for extensive reciprocal training and educational programs between Princeton Hospital and the College of Medicine, as well as Shands Hospital. The agreement also provides for priority transfer of patients between Princeton and Shands hospitals. RHA proposes to include its nursing home facility within the scope of the affiliation agreement. The nursing home staff would benefit from the training and educational opportunities, and the nursing home patients would have access to priority reciprocity with the College of Medicine and Shands Hospital as provided for in the agreement. During fiscal years 1993 and 1994 Princeton Hospital had a Medicaid patient ratio of approximately 40 percent. Princeton Hospital also provides indigent care. RHA proposes to construct a freestanding 60-bed Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility on the campus of Princeton Hospital at a cost of $4,991,961 for 43,741 square feet, or $83,199 per bed. The services that are proposed include subacute care, a 15-bed unit for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, long term care, and two pediatric beds. Respite care will also be provided. RHA proposes that its subacute care unit would provide step-down care for patients referred from acute care hospital settings. RHA also proposes to provide rehabilitative therapies to serve patients suffering from fractured hips and joint replacements as well as other patients needing more intensive physical therapy. Cardiac and respiratory patients will also be served in the subacute unit. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. RHA's proposed 15-bed Alzheimer's unit will be a distinct and secured part of the facility. The unit will have its own enclosed courtyard and activities area. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in Orange County. RHA also proposes a program dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This program will provide long-term care, and will include psychiatric, as well as subacute services. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The RHA proposal includes two pediatric nursing home beds. It is not uncommon to provide pediatric nursing home beds in a small unit within a nursing home facility. These beds will provide subacute care to pediatric patients referred from acute care hospital settings. It is anticipated that the pediatric unit will serve patients with respiratory problems and other multiple system failures. RHA has experienced difficulty in placing pediatric patients discharged from Princeton Hospital. The RHA facility is designed in a series of modules. There are four patient wings located around a single nursing station. The Alzheimer's wing is distinct and secured. The pediatric beds are located in a single semiprivate room close to the nursing station. The subacute unit includes six beds with wall-mounted medical gases and vacuums. Each residential room has approximately 272 net square feet, and features its own handicapped toilet and bathing facilities. The facility includes a chapel, convenience store, laundry, ice cream shop, and beauty shop, designed in a mall concept. The corridors are ten feet in width instead of the standard eight feet. The intent of the design concept is to encourage social interaction. As designed, the location of the soiled utility room in the facility does not comply with applicable Florida code regulations; however, a proposed minor change in the design will move the soiled utility room approximately twenty feet to bring the facility into compliance with Florida code regulations. ALLOCATION FACTORS Relationship to District and State Health Plans Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes District Health Plan Allocation Factor 1 of the District Health Plan provides a priority for an applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center. This preference will continue to be given applicants until a total of 120 beds is obtained. HCR is the only applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center; however, in January of 1993, Sunbelt Living Center, a 120-bed community nursing home opened in Apopka, Florida, which is located in the northwest Orange County population center. Accordingly, the total bed number for this preference has been obtained, and this district allocation factor is inapplicable to these proceedings. Allocation Factor 2 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for applicants developing specific services for newborn and/or pediatric patients. RHA is the only applicant proposing specific services which include a unit for the care and treatment of pediatric patients. Accordingly, RHA is the only applicant which meets this allocation factor. Allocation Factor 3 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for an applicant proposing to develop a specific specialty service (or services), such as a unit for medically complex patients, a unit dealing with psychiatric disorders as a primary diagnosis, or services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This preference is also provided to an applicant which commits to working with, or in conjunction with, an existing provider of a specialty service, such as hospices, or mental health providers. RHA is the applicant which best meets this allocation factor. The RHA proposal provides for specialty services for medically complex patients, provides for services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV, and RHA specifically commits to working with mental health providers, including working with the psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE also propose to provide specialty services to medically complex patients in subacute units; however, the ADVENTIST facility is better equipped in this regard and is designed with piped in medical gases, vacuum, and expanded electrical capacity will have the capability to provide more extensive services. LIFE CARE also proposes to treat persons suffering from AIDS/HIV and persons with mental disorders. The LIFE CARE proposal, however, is not as specific in this regard as that of RHA. HCR proposes to provide specialty services to persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, and is in general compliance with this allocation factor. State Health Plan Allocation Factors Each applicant meets the first State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to locate in areas within the subdistrict with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate in Orange County exceeds 90 percent. RHA and LIFE CARE meet the second State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to serve Medicaid patients in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of nursing homes. In Orange County the average is 65 percent for Medicaid service. ADVENTIST meets this preference with regard to its non-subacute unit. HCR which proposes a 30 percent Medicaid service does not meet this preference. The third State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Each applicant generally complies with this allocation factor and offers specialty services; however, RHA with its broader spectrum of specialty services, including services to AIDS/HIV residents, Alzheimer's residents, and its specific commitment to working with residents suffering from psychiatric disorders best meets this preference. The fourth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents including, but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this preference. RHA and ADVENTIST have a history of providing quality health care service to the community. RHA and ADVENTIST have extensive ongoing relationships with acute care hospitals. HCR and LIFE CARE have also established relationships which will address providing a continuum of care, but not to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. The fifth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. Each applicant proposes facilities designed to provide resident comfort and quality care. Each design has comfortable resident rooms, spacious activities areas, recreation areas, courtyards, landscaping, therapy rooms, and staff lounge areas. Each applicant meets this preference. The sixth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing innovative therapeutic programs which have proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functioning level and which emphasize restorative care. Each of the applicants' proposals feature specific elements of innovative therapeutic programs. HCR has received an award for its innovative design of the Boynton Beach Alzheimer's unit. RHA offers a multi-discipline approach with a psychiatric program. ADVENTIST offers an intensive subacute care unit, and LIFE CARE offer a well-balanced approach with intensive staff training. The seventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. In this respect, HCR projects Medicaid charges of $96.20 per patient day in Year 1, and $93.32 in Year 2. LIFE CARE projects Medicaid charges of $104.74 per patient day in Year 1, and $106.20 in Year 2. ADVENTIST projects Medicaid charges of $106.00 per patient day in Year 1, and $111.30 in Year 2. RHA projects Medicaid charges of $107.02 per patient day in Year 1, and $109.24 in Year 2. While HCR projects the lowest Medicaid per diem charges and appears to best meet this allocation factor, all applicants have agreed to a specified Medicaid utilization rate, and will accept the appropriate Medicaid reimbursement levels. The eighth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant with a history of providing superior resident care in Florida or other states. HCR has maintained superior licensure ratings, and its prototype Boynton Beach facility currently is rated superior. LIFE CARE in 1993 experienced a conditional rating for its Altamonte Springs facility; however, the facility, upon evaluation in the fall of 1994, is now recommended for a superior licensure rating. RHA does not currently operate nursing homes; however, RHA has a history of providing quality care in its Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST is the only applicant proposing to add nursing home beds to an existing facility that currently has a superior licensure rating, and in this respect, ADVENTIST best meets this allocation factor. The ninth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing staff levels which exceed minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents shall be given preference. All applicants meet this factor; however a comparison of the nursing staffing patterns of the applicants reflects that HCR (45.40 nursing FTE) and LIFE CARE (45.30 nursing FTE) have a higher than the minimum required ratio of nursing staff to residents for their proposed 98-bed facilities. RHA has proposed 35.30 nursing FTE for its 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST proposes a total 62.40 nursing FTE for its facility after the proposed 38-bed addition. The tenth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreational activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals shall include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All the applicants offer a wide range of social, spiritual, nutritional, and recreational services. RHA, however, also proposes specific utilization of mental health care professionals, and a specific affiliation with the psychiatric care professionals from Princeton Hospital, and best meets this factor. The eleventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who ensures the residents' rights and privacy, and who implements a well-designed quality assurance and discharge planning program. Each applicant has documented specific plans for quality assurance and ensuring the residents' rights and privacy are protected. Accordingly, each applicant meets this factor. The final State Health Plan allocation factor provides for a preference to an applicant proposing lower administrative costs, and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. HCR has the lowest projected administrative and overhead costs ($18.28 per patient day as of Year 2), and best meets this allocation factor. Statutory Review Criteria, Section 408.035(1), F.S. Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, inadequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. HCR, LIFE CARE, and RHA each proposes a unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (HCR 98-bed facility, LIFE CARE 20-bed unit, and RHA 15-bed unit). ADVENTIST, while currently providing care for Alzheimer's patients at SLC, does not propose a distinct Alzheimer's unit in its 38-bed addition. There are currently at least five nursing homes in the service district, and two others in close proximity, which feature dedicated Alzheimer's units, with a total of at least 345 nursing home beds serving Alzheimer's patients. There is a high utilization rate of Alzheimer's nursing home beds in the district. While there is an established need for more beds to serve Alzheimer's patients, particularly Alzheimer's patients with a history of disruptive behavior, there are additional needs in the service district to provide care and treatment for subacute patients, and for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. It is difficult to quantify the need for subacute nursing home beds due to the differing professional definitions of what constitutes subacute care; however, acute care hospitals in Orange County are, for cost-effective reasons, now releasing patients on an earlier basis, and there is an established need for nursing home beds to accommodate persons released from acute care hospitals. There is a high utilization rate of subacute beds in the district. There has also been an increase in the incidence of AIDS/HIV patients, and in the need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in the service district. Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Each applicant has the ability to provide quality of care, and each applicant has a history of providing quality of care. The distinguishing factors in this regard are that LIFE CARE is the only applicant that has experienced a downgrading of a nursing home facility from a superior to a conditional licensure rating, and ADVENTIST is the only applicant that proposes to add nursing home beds to a facility that currently has a superior licensure rating. In comparison, ADVENTIST best meets this factor, and LIFE CARE least meets this factor. Section 408.035(1)(e): Probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. ADVENTIST and RHA both have specific proposals to work with, and share services with acute care hospitals. Both are in close proximity to acute care hospitals which will expedite sharing of medical resources. RHA will also share dietary services with Princeton Hospital. The freestanding facilities proposed by HCR and LIFE CARE do not have this advantage. Section 408.035(1)(f): The need in the service district for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. This factor is inapplicable to the proposals. No specific need was established as to special services and equipment not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. There are dedicated Alzheimer's units and dementia services for persons in adjoining areas. Section 408.035(1)(g): The need for research and educational facilities, including but not limited to, institutional training programs and community training programs for health care practitioners. RHA has an extensive proposal for the participation and training of health care practitioners in conjunction with Princeton Hospital and best meets this criterion. RHA's affiliation with the University of Florida College of Medicine, Shands Hospital, and the Brain Institute at the University of Florida enhances this proposal. ADVENTIST shares a similar educational and training relationship with Florida Hospital, and with Florida Hospital's registered nurse baccalaureate degree program through Southern College. LIFE CARE proposes to establish relationships with local community colleges and education centers to sponsor nursing programs. Section 408.035(1)(h): The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures for project accomplishment As stipulated, each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant also has substantial personnel and management resources available for project accomplishment. Section 408.035(1)(i): The immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. LIFE CARE, ADVENTIST and RHA meet this criterion, and reasonably project positive cash flows by the second year of operation. RHA a not-for- profit corporation, projects a net loss of $114,000 in Year 1 of operation, and an excess of revenues over expenses of $53,000 in Year 2 of operation. LIFE CARE projects a net loss of $440,496 in Year 1 and a net gain of $145,085 in Year 2 for the 98-bed facility, and a net loss of $259,971 in Year 1 and a net gain of $54,920 in Year 2 for the 60-bed facility. HCR projects an after-tax profit of $25,000 in Year 2; however, in order to attain a level of profitability HCR must meet its projected 65 percent private pay utilization. This is a very high private payor mix, and there is a significant question as to whether this payor mix is attainable in the subdistrict; however, as proposed, HCR meets this factor. Sections 408.035(1)(k)(l) and (m): Impact of the project on cost of health services; cost effective- ness; construction costs. ADVENTIST proposes the most cost-effective project by adding beds to an existing facility (SLC). The addition of 38 beds to SLC will promote and maximize the overall efficiency of the facility which was originally designed with core support features to accommodate 120 residents. The proposed 38-bed addition to SLC will also lower the costs per patient day of the entire facility. The ADVENTIST proposal adds nursing home beds at the lowest per bed cost ($36,000 per bed) of all applicants. Similarly, RHA is located on the campus of an existing acute care hospital owned by the applicant and, unlike HCR and LIFE CARE, projects no actual cash expenditure for land acquisition. Each applicant has proposed a reasonable design of its proposed facility and reasonable construction costs, and taken into consideration applicable costs and methods of energy provision and conservation. Each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant has also proposed a very high quality of care facility that will foster competition and promote quality assurance and cost- effectiveness. Each applicant meets this criterion. Section 408.035(1)(n): The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. RHA, ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE have proposed providing health care services to Medicaid patients at rates at, or in excess of, the district average. HCR proposes the lowest Medicaid service rate at 30 percent. RHA also has a strong record of providing Medicaid services and service to the medically indigent at Princeton Hospital. All applicants except HCR meet this factor. Section 408.035(1)(o): The applicant's past and proposed provision of services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals best meet this criterion. Both the RHA and the ADVENTIST proposals are closely associated with existing hospitals, and emphasize a continuum of care from the acute hospital setting to a nursing home facility. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals promote the interaction of health care professionals in a multilevel health care system. The HCR and LIFE CARE proposals do not reflect such an extensive interconnection with other aspects of the health care system, and do not promote a continuum of care to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. Section 408.035(2)(b): Whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those being proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. The evidence reflects that the existing inpatient facilities in, or adjacent to, the district which offer subacute and AIDS services, as well as services dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are operating at, or near, capacity, and are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: RHA's application for CON No. 7538 be APPROVED. ADVENTIST'S application for CON No. 7528 be APPROVED. HCR's application for CON No. 7530 be DENIED. LIFE CARE'S applications for CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX HCR's Proposed Findings 1-5. Accepted in substance. 6. Rejected, insofar as quantification of need for subacute services, while not readily ascertainable, was demonstrated by other applicants.demonstrated need existed in district 7-8. Accepted in substance. 9. See Number 6. 10-14. Accepted in substance, but disposed of by ruling in Clay County case. 15-27. Accepted in substance. 28-36. Rejected insofar as quantification of need for subacute services is not readily accessible; however, need for such services was established. Accepted, except that need for 120 beds has been met. Accepted, except that RHA proposes specific pediatric services and is entitled to preference. Accepted in substance, except last sentence is rejected. Accepted. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST meets preference as to the non- subacute unit. 42-43. Accepted in substance. 44-45. Rejected. Accepted in substance. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST and RHA also meet this factor, and ADVENTIST is adding beds to an existing superior-rated facility. 48-50. Accepted in part, other applicants meet these factors. 51-65. Accepted in substance; however other services are also needed in the district. 66-67. Rejected. 68-73. Accepted in substance. 74-76. Accepted; however other services are also needed in the district. 77. Rejected. 78-86. Accepted in substance. 87-94. Accepted only to the extent that the HCR proposal meets the minimum requirements to demonstrate financial feasibility. 95-103. Accepted in substance; however each applicant's proposal also meets this factor. 104-112. Accepted in substance. 113. Rejected. 114. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. 115-116. Accepted only as to RHA design features. 117-122. Rejected. 123-127. Accepted in substance. 128-131. Rejected. LIFE CARE's Proposed Findings 1-3. Accepted in substance. 4. Accepted, except that district plan includes consideration of pediatric population. 5-7. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. See Finding No. 4. Rejected to the extent that it is not uncommon for pediatric care to be provided in a nursing home setting. 10-38. Accepted in substance. 39-40. Rejected to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST have competitive staff salaries and have experienced no difficulty in hiring qualified staff. 41-57. Accepted in substance. 58-59. Rejected. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. Rejected. 62-65. Accepted in substance. 66-69. Disposed of by Clay County case. Accepted; however ADVENTIST meets this factor in the non-subacute unit. Accepted in substance. ADVENTIST's Proposed Findings 1-4. Accepted in substance. 5. Accepted only to the extent that HCR does not propose a specific subacute care unit. 6-13. Accepted in substance. Rejected to the extent that HCR's proposal meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. Accepted. 16-17. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. 20-21. Accepted in substance. 22-26. Disposed of by Clay County case. 27-29. Accepted in substance 30-31. Rejected. 32-35. Accepted in substance. 36. Rejected; see No. 19. 37-106. Accepted in substance. 107. Accepted; see No. 19. RHA's Proposed Findings 1-21. Accepted in substance. 22. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. 23-54. Accepted in substance. 55. Accepted to the extent that there are at least seven nursing homes with dedicated Alzheimer's units in or near the service area. 56-92. Accepted in substance. 93-96. Accepted; however HCR meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 97-102. Accepted; however LIFE CARE meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 103. Rejected. 104-122. Accepted in substance. 123. Rejected. 124-135. Accepted in substance. 136. Rejected to the extent that all applicants have met the design criterion. 137-140. Accepted in substance. 141. Rejected. 142-145. Accepted in substance. 146. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen K. Boone, Esquire BOONE, BOONE & BOONE, P.A. Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida. 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire PENNINGTON & HABEN, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire MACFARLANE, AUSLEY, FERGUSON & MCMULLEN, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Dean Bunton, Esquire Senior Attorney, AHCA Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire MATEER, HARBERT & BATES, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 James M. Barclay, Esquire COBB, C0LE & BELL 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about January 7, 1981, HCM was issued CON No. 1616, authorizing construction of a 78-bed nursing home facility to be located in Lee County, Florida. HCM has commenced construction of this project on a 120-bed frame. Subsequently, HCM applied to HRS for a CON for an additional 42 nursing home beds to be added to the above-described project. By letter dated April 28, 1983, HRS informed HCM of its intent to deny HCM's application for the additional 42 nursing home beds on the grounds that the proposed project was not consistent with the nursing home bed need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Lee County has been established as a specific subdistrict of HRS District VIII for determination of nursing home bed need. Rule 10-5.11(21)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The record in this cause establishes a percentage of 8.61 of elderly living in poverty in Lee County, as compared to a percentage of 12.70 statewide. There exists a statewide bed need of 27 community nursing home beds per 1,000 population age 65 years and older. Finally, a population of 65,703 is projected for Lee County in 1986. When these factors are combined in accordance with the need methodology formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), a need of 1,203 community nursing home beds is established for Lee County in 1986. When this same calculation is made districtwide, using a projected 1986 population for District VIII of 201,392 age 65 and older, a need for 3,686 community nursing home beds results. At the time of final hearing in this cause, there were 748 existing licensed community nursing home beds in Lee County, and an additional 222 such beds which had previously been approved by HRS. When the total of 970 existing and approved beds are subtracted from the 1986 projected bed need in Lee County, a net bed need of 233 beds results for 1986. At the time of final hearing in this cause, there were 3,335 existing licensed community nursing home beds in District VIII, and an additional 1,337 which had been approved. The total of 4,512 existing and approved community nursing home beds in District VIII exceeds the need in District VIII according to the requirements of Rule 10-5.11(21) by 824 beds. Where, as here, the evidence establishes that a subdistrict indicates a need for additional bed capacity, but the district as a whole shows no additional need, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(f)2, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a current utilization threshold of 90 percent or higher in the subdistrict. In this case, the evidence establishes that the appropriate current utilization rate for Lee County is 91.5 percent. In addition, Rule 10-5.11(21)(h)2, Florida Administrative Code, requires a prospective base rate of utilization of 80 percent when the need methodology indicates a subdistrict need and the lack of need in the district as a whole. The evidence in this cause establishes an average Lee County patient census of 684, and 970 currently licensed and approved community nursing home beds which must be factored together with HCM's request for an additional 42 beds. When the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(g) is applied to this data, the prospective utilization rate is 67.6 percent, which fails to meet the threshold 80 percent requirement contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(h)2. HCM apparently does not contest the results of the application of the bed need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), but instead argues that the results of the formulae should not be applied to its application because of the existence of exceptional circumstances in Lee County. In this regard, HCM adduced testimony attempting to establish an historical imbalance between the number of community nursing home beds located in Lee and Sarasota Counties, purportedly necessitating the placement of Lee County residents receiving Medicaid or assistance from the Veterans Administration 70 to 100 miles from their families, or continuing hospitalization of those patients in a more costly acute care facility. It is specifically concluded, that the record in this cause fails to contain any competent, credible evidence to establish that Medicaid and VA recipients in Lee County have been so historically underserved as to merit the granting of the 42 additional nursing home beds requested by HCM. Further, even if this were not the case, HCM has failed to establish that the 222 additional community nursing home beds approved for Lee County will not adequately serve the interests of Medicaid and VA recipients in Lee County in 1986. Rule 10-5.11(21) purports on its face to account for the needs of the elderly over 65 years of age living in poverty, and this record contains no showing that the rule in any way underestimates that need.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Stacey Health Care Centers, Inc., is licensed to operate Riverside Care Center, located at 899 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Florida, as a nursing home in compliance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. On July 9, 1986, James A. Bavetta, assistant area supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, made a visit of Riverside's facility and determined that Ralph Stacey, Jr., the administrator of record, was acting in the capacity of administrator for two facilities, the subject facility and another facility in Kentucky, without having a qualified assistant administrator to act in his absence. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ralph L. Stacey Jr., is a licensed nursing home administrator in the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. He has been licensed in Kentucky and Florida since 1974. At the time of Mr. Bavetta's visit and inspection during July, 1986, Ralph Stacey, Jr., was in Cincinnati, Ohio preparing the payroll for Stacey Health Care Centers. During this time period, Ralph Stacey, Jr., served as the administrator for the subject facility, Riverside Care Center, and another facility in Kentucky and did not have a qualified assistant administrator employed to act in his absence. However, once Mr. Bavetta issued his recommendation for sanctions, Petitioner, as part of its plan of correction, has employed a licensed administrator who is presently on staff and serves as Riverside's assistant administrator during the administrator's absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn it is RECOMMENDED: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) upon Stacey Health Care Centers- Inc., d/b/a Riverside Care Center, which amount shall be payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of Respondent's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3410 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard -Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing, the parties filed a Pretrial Stipulation which essentially sets forth the following facts contained in paragraphs 1 through 9: The Intervenors Beverly Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter "Beverly"), and Provincial House of Florida (hereafter "Provincial House"), filed their applications for certificates of need on March 18, 1981, and January 28, 1981, respectively. At the time Beverly and Provincial House filed their applications for 120-bed nursing home facilities, they were batched together with Health Care Management, Inc. (hereafter "Health Care"). Shortly thereafter, Health Care was granted a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility and Beverly's and Provincial House's applications were denied on July 8, 1981, and June 3, 1981, respectively. Beverly and Provincial House timely filed petitions with the Division of Administrative Hearings contesting the denial of their respective applications. By Stipulation dated December 29, 1981, Beverly and Provincial House were granted certificates of need which gave each the right to construct a 96- bed nursing home facility. This Stipulation was later amended on February 21, 1982, to authorize construction of two 72-bed nursing homes in Lee County, Florida. Based upon the new 1982 Health Systems Plan for Lee County, an additional 143 beds were determined to be needed for Lee County for the year 1985. Neither Beverly nor Provincial House resubmitted their applications when the new bed need was established. Rather, as part of the settlement in Provincial House, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 81-1793, and Beverly Enterprises v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 81-2037, the certificates of need were granted based upon receipt of ". . . updated population figures which demonstrated additional need for nursing home beds in the County." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. At the time the Department entered into the Stipulation with Beverly and Provincial House, it did not consider Gulf Court's then pending application. The sole reason the certificate of need was denied to Gulf Court Nursing Center on March 30, 1982, was that there were no longer beds available and there was no need as a direct result of granting the two certificates of need to Beverly and Provincial House. Since Gulf Court's application was never simultaneously reviewed or considered by the Department with either Beverly or Provincial House's applications, a comparative hearing was not held in this case. Gulf Court, Beverly and Provincial House all meet the criteria for issuance of a certificate as set forth in Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent Department routinely awards certificates of need on a first-come, first-serve basis to applicants denied certificates due to a lack of need in a previous cycle, who file Chapter 120 appeals, without reviewing pending applications filed in the current cycle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that, under the circumstances presented in this case, Gulf Court is entitled to a comparative and competitive review with Provincial House and Beverly Enterprises, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Dent, Jr., Esquire DENT PFLUGNER ROSIER AND HENDRICKS 2 North Tuttle Avenue Sarasota, Florida 33577 Steven Huss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 G. Boone, Esquire Susan Lee Stockham, Esquire 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 32484 Alicia Jacobs, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In April, 1984, the Petitioner, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, applied for a certificate of need for 120 community nursing home beds in Palm Beach County, Florida. In July, 1984, the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) gave notice of initial intention to deny the application. HRS Exhibit 5. The instant proceedings are the result of the request of the Petitioner for a formal administrative hearing from that denial. On January 22, 1986, the parties jointly moved for a continuance of the final hearing in this case then scheduled to commence on February 3, 1986, and in paragraphs 3 through 6, represented that the purpose of the requested continuance was to allow the Petitioner to gather data as to two alleged underserved groups: patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and sub-acute care patients. The Petitioner asserted that such data would support an amended, updated application for certificate of need to be filed by the Petitioner for the purpose of showing need pursuant to the special exception allowed in the rules. In paragraph 8 of the motion, HRS agreed to give serious consideration to the updated application and supporting documents. The motion was granted by order dated February 3, 1986, and at the request of both parties, the final hearing was reset for April 3, 1986. The parties have agreed that all statutory and rule criteria have been satisfied by the Petitioner in this case except for the issue of need as determined by rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, and that question is the sole issue in this case. T. 5; Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner's initial application did not mention the intention to provide special services for victims of Alzheimer's disease, and the Petitioner did not amend or update its application with HRS in that respect, except to the extent that it presented such testimony in the formal administrative hearing. T. 104. The application is not in evidence. The initial review of Petitioner's application by HRS did not consider special services to Alzheimer's patients. T. 117; HRS Exhibit 5. HRS has adopted rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, to determine need for additional community nursing home beds. Using a planning horizon of 1987, which is 3 years after the date of application, the rule calculates a net surplus of 511 community nursing home beds for Palm Beach County. Even using the 1989 planning horizon, there is still a net zero bed need using the rule formula for Palm Beach County. T. 100; HRS Exhibit 2; T. 97 and 102. Alzheimer's disease is a degenerative process of the brain characterized primarily by loss of memory and impairment of a variety of routine functions. T. 160-161. Diagnosis of the disease is difficult since there are related degenerative mental disorders. Moreover, positive diagnosis typically requires examination of brain tissue, and the process of obtaining brain tissue is intrusive. T. 162-163. For these reasons, the diagnosis is typically of "senile dementia of the Alzheimer-type," or Alzheimer's disease or related disorders. T. 163. The cause of the condition is not known, although research into possible surgical techniques to ameliorate the effects is being conducted in the Jupiter, Florida, area. T. 73. Alzheimer's disease primarily afflicts elderly persons, although some younger persons may also be victims. T. 163. Person suffering from Alzheimer's disease typically have memory loss, communicative problems, aphasia, trouble understanding, confusion, disorientation, inability to recognize care givers, waking at night, interrupting the care giver's sleep, wandering, mealtime problems, inappropriate sexual activity, incontinence, and social disfunctions. T. 184. Such persons exhibit negative behavior such as resistence to care, demanding, aggression, anger, emotional outbursts due to inability to perform routine tasks, and delusions. Id. Four stages of progressive degeneration are expected with Alzheimer's disease. The first is forgetfulness and loss of ability to perform complex tasks which formerly could be performed. In the second stage, communication problems occur and also loss of memory as to the names of common objects. Wandering and becoming lost also may occur. Stage three is characterized by physical deterioration such as loss of weight, incontinence, and loss of control of other bodily functions. In the fourth stage, a patient will become unable to communicate at all, and may become comatose and bedridden. The course of the disease is from 12 to 16 years or longer and can involve many of the problems described above. T. 217-218. A family member is usually the person first required to provide care for an Alzheimer's victim. T. 165. The responsibilities caused by such care, and the manner in which the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease are exhibited, cause the family care-giver to feel trapped, fatigued, depressed, angry, resentful, and frustrated. T. 167. At times, the family care-giver is elderly and can suffer health problems from the responsibility. T. 82-83. The burden upon the family member can be alleviated by day care, which involves care only during the day, and respite care, which can involve overnight care for several days. T. 167, 147-148. Day care and respite care can also serve the function of establishing a relationship with staff and collection of data and records, both of which become useful for the time when the patient's disease progresses to the point that continuous inpatient care is required. T. 83, 220-223. Alzheimer's patients in a nursing home need special care directed toward their particular disability described above. Of primary concern is that the nursing home be structured to provide an environment that minimizes confusion and compensates for the disabilities of the Alzheimer's disease victim. Separation from other elderly residents, who are not cognitively impaired, is important to prevent confusion of the Alzheimer's patient and to protect the other residents from disruptive intrusions. The physical facility should be constructed and furnished so as to minimize confusion and stimulation. Colors should be subdued, flooring should not mute the sound of footsteps, patterns should not be used, and common appliances should have distinguishing shapes and be clearly identified or labeled. Spaces for quiet and for wandering should be provided. Features to compensate for forgetfulness, such as lights which automatically turn on when a door is opened, should be provided. T. 219- 227, 57-58, 63-64, 81. Staffing must be trained to recognize and help alleviate problems that arise from behavior caused by Alzheimer's disease. T. 74-75, 234- 235, 80, 83-84. Finally, since Alzheimer's disease patients become upset with change due to recognition and memory impairment, continuity of care (staffing and physical surroundings) becomes important. T. 221, 223, 78, 82-83. Alzheimer's disease victims who need inpatient care also need all of the normal forms of skilled nursing care that other elderly persons need. This may occur over a course of years, or may be the results of a sudden injury, such as a broken hip. T. 220-223, 147-148, 79. As discussed above, it is important to be able to provide such care in the same facility since continuity of care is so important, and transfers to new surroundings are disruptive. Any current holder of a certificate of need for community nursing home beds in Palm Beach County may, if it wishes, provide special services to persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease. T. 122. Existing nursing homes in Palm Beach County accept Alzheimer's disease victims, but none provide special services for these patients except perhaps Darcy Hall, which provides adult day care. T. 143, 76, 82, 168-169, 171, 200-201, 210-211. Existing adult congregate living centers and adult day care centers in Palm Beach County similarly do not have special services or programs for victims of Alzheimer's disease. T. 145. Existing nursing homes could provide such services to Alzheimer's patients, though approval of HRS by expedited review to change substructure might be required, but none has done so. T. 154. Alzheimer's patients are often inappropriately restrained, or mixed with non-Alzheimer's disease patients. T. 77. Dr. Eugene Loeser is a physician, board certified in neurology, and is in private practice in Jupiter, Florida. T. 157-158. Dr. Loeser created a list of questions to ask physicians in Palm Beach County to explore the need for special nursing home programs for Alzheimer's disease patients, and that list of questions is HRS Exhibit 8. T. 169, 186-189. Using these questions Dr. Loeser conducted a survey of 36 physicians in Palm Beach County, which included 8 family practitioners, 10 internists, 14 neurologists, 2 neurosurgeons, and 2 psychiatrists. T. 170. There are approximately 1,000 physicians in Palm Beach County, T. 31, and Dr. Loeser admitted that his survey was only of a small percentage. T. 170. Dr. Loeser did not attempt to make the survey statistically valid. T. 178. The physicians contacted were selected from the telephone book from Jupiter in the north to Lake Worth in the south. T. 171, 183. Dr. Loeser attempted to contact representatives of several specialities. T. 181. The specialities were selected as those likely to see Alzheimer's patients. T. 170. Of the 36 physicians contacted, 35 had seen patients having Alzheimer's disease. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Of these, 27 physicians had "difficulty in finding appropriate placement" for these patients in terms of supervision, care and treatment. Petitioner's Exhibit 5; HRS Exhibit 8. The same number of physicians felt that facilities with appropriate programs for placement of Alzheimer's disease or similar disorder patients were not presently available in Palm Beach County. Id. From the responses, Dr. Loeser estimated that these physicians had seen somewhat more than 600 patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease or related disorders in the last year. T. 171. Dr. Loeser personally estimated that he typically had difficulty finding a treatment and care facility for about 10 Alzheimer's disease patients annually. T. 185. He then estimated from responses received that the physicians surveyed were unable to find an appropriate program for about 135 patients annually. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Dr. Loeser further estimated that among his own patients, about one or two per week needed some form of day care, T. 185, and from the responses of the physicians in the survey, estimated that such physicians annually had 150 patients needing day care. T. 175. Determination of placement problems for Alzheimer's disease patients from actual patient records or placement orders from physicians would be difficult because these records are confidential. Consent from the patient would be needed, and consent from an Alzheimer patient would be difficult due to the nature of the mental impairment caused by the disease. T. 173. The survey conducted by Dr. Loeser was not unreasonable for failure to contact more physicians. The survey accurately reflects a group of Alzheimer's disease patients treated by the physicians contacted, and does not purport to account for Alzheimer's disease patients treated by other physicians. Thus, the need identified by Dr. Loeser's survey, while underinclusive of total need, is reasonably accurate for the need identified. Palm Beach County currently has at least an estimated 16,597 persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease, and this number is expected to be 18,172 by 1988. T. 24. HRS itself estimates that the number of Alzheimer's victims in Palm Beach County in 1986 to be 27,200. Petitioner's Exhibit 6. It is further estimated that approximately 80 percent of such patients will require some sort of custodial care in the future. T. 76. Based upon the foregoing statistics, as well as the fact that existing Palm Beach County nursing homes do not provide special services or care for Alzheimer's disease patients, there is a need for the Alzheimer facility proposed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner proposes to establish a 120 bed nursing home in Palm Beach County designed and staffed to provide care and treatment to meet the special needs of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. T. 45. The Petitioner, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, is willing to have any certificate of need issued in this case to be conditioned upon it building, developing, and operating the proposed nursing home limited as it has proposed in this formal administrative hearing. T. 48-49. Thus, findings of fact 18 through 21 which follow relate to the manner in which the Petitioner proposes that a certificate of need may be conditioned and limited. The proposed physical design of the nursing facility is set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit 1. T. 49. The cost is estimated to be $3.7 million. T. The design includes a courtyard to allow patients to wander safely. T. 41. It also includes a shaded porch, an outdoor patio, and a lounge off the patio. Id. Security from wandering is proposed to be provided by a "Wanderguard" system of wristbands and sensing devices that sound an alarm as a patient passes an exit point. Id. Additionally, the proposed facility would have a therapeutic residential kitchen for patients still able to use a residential kitchen. Id. One room would be set aside as a quiet room. T. 42. It is contemplated that such a room will minimize the need for calming drugs. T. 224. Also to be provided are separate dining areas, areas for therapy, and separate nursing wings and sub-acute care wings. T. 42-43. Alzheimer patients would be separated from non-Alzheimer patients, fixtures would have shapes, colors, and labels to facilitate identification; wall and floor coverings would not use patterns, and the flooring would be vinyl or tile instead of carpet. T. 42, 225-228. The proposed plan of the facility contemplates that there be space for all stages of care for Alzheimer's patients: day care, respite care, nursing care, and sub-acute care. Petitioner's Exhibit 1; T. 221-222, 39-40, 56. The Petitioner also proposes to provide individual treatment plans, to include physical therapy, occupational therapy, social work, and recreational therapy. T. 230-231. Support groups for family members of the patient will be provided. T. 233. The Petitioner states that the staff for the proposed facility must be appropriately trained to know Alzheimer's disease and the special needs of these patients. T. 234. Ongoing education for staff is viewed as being imperative. Id. The Petitioner recognizes the need to provide greater staffing for peak periods. T. 235. Monthly in-service training will be provided by the parent corporation. T. 236. Moreover, the parent corporation, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, will develop and implement a program of staff training specifically for Alzheimer's disease. T. 237. Staff for the proposed facility will be adequately trained to properly deal with the problems of Alzheimer's patients. For a 24 hour period, a staff to patient ratio of 1 to 2.5 will be provided. T. 238. This ratio includes only nursing staff, aides, and activities and occupational rehabilitation staff. Id. The Petitioner proposes to designate and commit its entire facility to Alzheimer's patients. T. 60. But from a fiscal point of view, the Petitioner proposes to not deny admission to persons not having Alzheimer's disease. T. 66-68. At least 60 beds will be dedicated to patients with Alzheimer's disease, and these are expected to fill with persons in stages two and three of the disease. T. 67-68. When these patients reach more advanced stages of their disease, it is expected that they will be treated in the other 60 bed section, which is skilled nursing and sub-acute care. T. 68; Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Thus, the Petitioner expects ultimately to fill its entire facility with Alzheimer's disease patients consistent with its dedication and purpose. The facility proposed by the Petitioner would meet the unique needs of Alzheimer's disease patients and their families, and would be the only facility in Palm Beach County to provide a wide spectrum of care for Alzheimer's disease patients. Petitioner's proposal is consistent with priorities IV, V 3 and 4, and VI, Long Term Care section, District IX Health Plan (1985). T. 150-152. On March 6, 1986, the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sent a memorandum to "all attorneys" construing and implementing the decision in the Gulf Court case, Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 10 F.L.W. 1983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). On the next day, Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator, Community Medical Facilities, Officer of Health Planning and Development, sent the memorandum to his staff and told them to use the opinion as a guideline for the initial review of a CON application settlement and preparation for hearings. HRS Exhibit 6. HRS recognizes that there are three ways that an applicant for a certificate of need for nursing home beds can show need even though the rule shows a zero bed need. The third way is for "equivalent assessments" to be submitted by "attending physician." T. 113; HRS Exhibit 4, rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)10, F.A.C. HRS staff construes rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, F.A.C., as requiring that each attending physician of each Alzheimer's patient document that his or her patient is in need of specialized services and that the patient is without access to those special services. T. 124. The issuance of certificate of need 4194 to the Joseph L. Morse Geriatric Center was issued pursuant to the special circumstances exception of rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, F.A.C., since the rule did not show bed need. T. 127. There was nothing in the application in that case to show that elderly Jewish persons were denied access to existing nursing home facilities in Palm Beach County. Id. See also T. 130. There was, however, evidence that a large group of elderly Jewish persons were not being provided kosher dietary services at existing nursing homes. T. 129, 134. This evidence was not presented by attending physicians, however. T. 136. The certificate of need 4194 to the Joseph L. Morse Geriatric Center was also approved using priority VI, long term care section, District 9 local health plan, which provides in the second sentence for consideration of "ethnic- type services including special dietary requirements . . . ." HRS Exhibit 7; T. 134. Due to changes in federal funding, patients needing sub-acute care (less than hospital care, but more than an ordinary nursing home) do not qualify for cost reimbursement. T. 85-88. It appears that about one-half of all nursing home admissions in Palm Beach County are for three months or less. This may be a pool of persons needing sub-acute care. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Long Term Care Section, page 4; T. 27-28. There was other general testimony that there was a "need for sub-acute care in Palm Beach County, T. 88, 146, and the local health plan, priority V 4, page 31, supports the grant of a certificate of need to an applicant that will provide such care. Petitioner Exhibit 3. There is also a need for sub-acute care in the final stages of Alzheimer's disease to provide continuity of care. T. 221. See also finding of fact 10. No one has petitioned to intervene in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.494(8)(c), Florida Statutes, issue a certificate of need to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of American, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, for 120 community nursing home beds limited and conditioned upon all such beds being dedicated only to the provision of such services and facilities for victims of Alzheimer's disease as described by the Petitioner in this case and set forth in findings of fact 18 through 21 of this order, with 30 of such beds established for sub-acute care needs of Alzheimer's disease patients. It is further recommended that the certificate of need not contain approval for general community nursing home beds, but be limited to Alzheimer's disease patients. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3337 Pursuant to section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., the following are specific rulings upon all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties which have been rejected in this Recommended Order. Findings of Fact Proposed by the PETITIONER: 7. Sentences 3 and 4 have been rejected because the evidence was not sufficiently complete to describe nursing homes in Florida in general, and because the issue in this case is the need in Palm Beach County, thus making these proposed facts not relevant. 10. Sentence 3 is rejected since the testimony did not clearly show that therapeutic kitchens "should be available." 13. Sentences 9 and 10 are rejected because the evidence did not categorically show that it "would not be possible" to use actual physician orders, or that "physicians do not typically arrange their records so that orders of that kind could be extracted from their records." Similarly sentence 12 is rejected for lack of categorical evidence to prove impossibility. 17. Evidence that the entire facility is "completely fenced and enclosed" cannot be located in the record, and thus sentence 7 is rejected. The bulk of the discussion in proposed finding of fact 20 has been rejected because it is argument or conclusions of law. Those portions of this proposed finding which propose a finding that the Respondent's interpretation of rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, is wrong or unreasonable are rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Most of the factual statements were adopted. Findings of Fact Proposed by the RESPONDENT: All proposed findings of fact by the Respondent have been adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire Laramore & Clark, P.A. 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Petitioner's nursing home sufficient to support the change in its licensure status to a conditional rating.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Glen Oaks, is a licensed nursing facility located in Clearwater Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The Agency is the licensing agency in the State of Florida responsible for regulating nursing facilities under Part II of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On February 2 and 3, 1998, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at Glen Oaks in a matter unrelated to the issue that is the subject of this proceeding. As a result of that investigation, the Agency determined that the allegations in the underlying complaint were unfounded. While the Agency surveyor was at Glen Oaks investigating the complaint, she also performed a focused review at the facility. The focused review involved a matter unrelated to the complaint and came to the Agency surveyor's attention while she was touring the facility. During a tour of the facility, Claire R. Hoagland, R.N., the Agency surveyor, accompanied by Marlice Nix, R.N., an employee of Glen Oaks, entered the room of Resident No. 8. Once they were in the room, the resident complained to her primary care charge nurse, Marlice Nix, of soreness in the buttocks area. The charge nurse and the Agency surveyor, with the permission of the residence, looked at and noted redness on the resident's buttocks. This redness appeared to be excoriation associated with incontinence, rather than with any stages of pressure sores. In addition to the redness on the resident's buttocks, the surveyor and Ms. Nix identified an 0.5 centimeter linear shaped open area, equivalent in size to a pinpoint, measuring 0.1 centimeter in width with a zero depth located in the Resident No. 8's gluteal fold. Surveyor Hoagland believed that the red pinpoint size area on Resident No. 8 was a Stage II pressure sore. Upon review of the clinical record of Resident No. 8, Ms. Hoagland found no documentation that the facility had assessed the skin integrity of Resident No. 8 since December 20, 1997. Ms. Hoagland then spoke to the facility's administrator and its Director of Nursing. According to the administrator and Director of Nursing, the facility performed skin assessments on Resident No. 8, but had not documented all of the assessments. However, at the time of the Agency's visit to Glen Oaks, Resident No. 8's most recent annual "Minimum Data Set" (MDS), dated June 1997, documented the absence of any pressure sores. An MDS is a comprehensive assessment tool. During the April 1998, complaint investigation, the Agency surveyor learned that there were times when Resident No. 8 refused to be changed. For example, occasionally, when Resident No. 8 was watching her favorite television show, she asked not to be disturbed. The surveyor viewed this as "non-compliance" by Resident No. 8 and cited the facility because the resident's care plan did not specifically provide that staff would turn, re-position, or change the resident when her favorite television program was not on. Following the complaint investigation, the Agency cited Glen Oaks with an alleged failure to comply with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA) regulatory requirements set forth at 42 C.F.R., Section 483.25 (c)(1). This requirement is also referred to on the Form 2567 as Federal Tag F-314 (the deficiency). According to that OBRA provision, the facility must ensure: (1) that a resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless they were unavoidable; and (2) that a resident with pressure sores receives the necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new sores from developing. The Agency alleged that Glen Oaks failed to comply with the above-cited OBRA provision in that (1) the facility did not document and/or perform weekly skin assessments on Resident No. 8, and that (2) Resident No. 8's care plan did not address her non-compliant behavior. Based on the facility's alleged deficiencies, it was the Agency's position that Resident No. 8 had developed a pressure sore that was avoidable. During the exit interview, the Agency Surveyor informed Glen Oaks that the deficiency would be classified as a Class III deficiency and would not affect Glen Oaks' superior licensure status. However, the Agency notified Glen Oaks on February 13, 1998, through the telephone call of its employee, Pat Silar, that its deficiency classification would be changed from a Class III to a Class II, resulting in a conditional rating for its nursing home license. By letter dated February 16, 1998, the Agency issued a Form 2567 setting forth the alleged deficiency; the findings supporting the deficiency; assessing the scope and severity of the deficiency at G; and classifying the deficiency as a Class II deficiency. In making her determination, Surveyor Hoagland used the surveyors' guidelines contained in the State Operating Manual (SOM). Appendix P of the SOM, entitled "Guidance to Surveyors," is the federal interpretative guideline to state surveyors regarding the OBRA regulations. Moreover, Surveyor Hoagland relied on the interpretive guidelines of F-314, including the booklet, Pressure Ulcers in Adults: Prediction and Prevention. There are two components to determining whether the development of an open area constitutes non-compliance with the OBRA requirement. First, the open area must, in fact, be a pressure sore. Second, if a pressure sore exists, the Agency must next determine if the development of the pressure sore was unavoidable. The SOM guideline corresponding to the OBRA Requirement governing pressure sores defines a pressure sore as an "ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer." The SOM defines a Stage II pressure ulcer or sore as "a partial thickness loss of skin layers either dermis or epidermis that presents clinically as an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater." Based on the definition in the SOM, a pressure sore is located over a bony prominence where the area would be subject to pressure. The pinpoint-size open area on Resident No. 8 was not located over a bony prominence, but rather in the gluteal fold. Also, the area was not the deep, dark, dusty red, with a purple center, that is associated with a Stage I or II pressure sore. Moreover, a Stage II pressure sore does not typically resolve in ten days as was the case with the area in Resident No. 8's gluteal fold. Due to the factors noted in paragraph 16 above, it is found that the pinpoint-size open area in Resident No. 8's gluteal fold was not a pressure sore. Even if it is assumed that the mark was a pressure sore, the Agency must next determine whether the pressure sore was unavoidable. In assessing whether a pressure sore was unavoidable, surveyors are to apply the "probes" set forth in the SOM. These probes are: Did the facility identify the resident as being at risk for pressure sores? Did the facility provide aggressive/appropriate preventative measures and care specific to addressing the resident's unique factors (e.g., if serum albumin is below 3.4 mg per dl, provide additional protein in daily snacks)? Was the preventative care plan implemented consistently? In the instant case, the answer to the first "probe" is yes. Resident No. 8 was admitted to Glen Oaks on March 4, 1994. At the time of admission, the resident had a Stage IV pressure sore which had healed by January, 1995, without surgical intervention. However, due to her medical history, Resident No. 8 was identified on the Resident Assessment Protocol as being at risk for the development of pressure sores. Because Resident No. 8 was identified as being at risk for developing pressure sores, the second "probe" requires that the Agency determine whether the facility provided aggressive appropriate preventative measures and care to the resident. Routine preventative care is defined by the SOM as turning and proper positioning; application of pressure reduction or relief devices; providing good skin care (i.e., keeping the skin clean, instituting measures to reduce excessive moisture); providing clean and dry bed linens; and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration if possible. Resident No. 8's care plans dated June 1997, September 1997, and December 1997, were based on a comprehensive assessment of the resident; addressed the potential for alterations in skin integrity; and, provided for appropriate aggressive preventative measures and care. These preventative measures and care included turning and re-positioning at least every two hours; providing pressure relief mattress in both the Resident's bed and wheelchair; application of good skin care, including application of Vaseline care cream as a moisture barrier; and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration, including the addition of the protein supplement Promod, and daily supplemental protein snacks and vitamins. These preventative skin care measures were also consistently implemented and effected the expedient healing of Resident No. 8's Stage IV pressure sore, present upon her admission to Glen Oaks in 1994. Furthermore, the consistent implementation of the prescribed preventative skin care measures prevented the development of any pressure sores for the period between January 1995 and February 1998, inclusive. The third probe requires a determination of whether the preventative care plan was implemented consistently. Here, Glen Oaks consistently implemented the preventative care plan measures listed in Resident No. 8's care plan. Thus, the third probe is answered in the affirmative. In the instant case, each of the inquiries or probes listed in paragraph 18 above is answered in the affirmative. Glen Oaks identified Resident No. 8 as being at risk for pressure sores; provided aggressive/appropriate preventative measures and care specific to address the residents unique risk factors; and, implemented the preventative care plan consistently. Accordingly, the development of the pinpoint-size open area in Resident No. 8's gluteal fold was unavoidable. Neither the applicable OBRA regulations governing pressure sores nor the SOM interpretative guidelines require weekly skin assessments for residents at risk for developing pressure sores. Thus, the failure to document all skin assessments does not constitute non-compliance with the OBRA requirements. Notwithstanding the Agency's findings to the contrary, Glen Oaks consistently implemented the care plan developed for Resident No. 8. However, Resident No. 8's care plan did not require a weekly skin assessment. Rather, the care plan required only that the Resident's skin be assessed for changes and that any changes be reported to the charge nurse/physician. Skin assessments were performed on Resident No. 8 more frequently than weekly. They were performed on Resident No. 8 several times a day during brief changes and twice a week during whirlpool baths performed by Charge Nurse Nix. However, because Resident No. 8's care plan did not so require, the benign assessments were not routinely documented. Typically, only changes or abnormal findings in a Resident's skin condition were documented in the resident's clinical records. Although the benign findings relative to skin assessments were not routinely recorded, the January 1998 Monthly Nursing Assessment for Resident No. 8 documented that the skin was intact; however, that report also noted the red area on the buttocks referred to in paragraph 4 above. On the other hand, two health care providers, charged with caring for Resident No. 8, observed no abnormal findings with regard to the resident's skin on January 30 and February 1, 1998. In the latter instances, the nursing staff did not record their findings that Resident No. 8's skin was intact. The Agency acknowledged that if skin assessments were performed on Resident No. 8 every day, there was no problem with the care provided. A care plan should address compliance only when a resident's non-compliance is frequent and becomes a habitual problem. Resident No. 8's non-compliance was not a habitual problem, and did not occur on a daily basis. Rather, Resident No. 8 was only "occasionally" non-compliant with regard to brief changes, turning and repositioning. In most cases, Resident No. 8's non-compliance required only that the charge nurse or Director of Nursing speak with the patient before the resident would comply. Occasionally, when Resident No. 8 was watching television, she refused to comply with the turning and re-positioning schedule and requested that the nursing staff come back when the television program was over. In these situations, the nurse complied with the resident's request, but would return soon thereafter to turn and re-position the resident. Resident No. 8's conduct cannot be deemed to be non- compliant and, therefore, there was no need to have the issue of non-compliance addressed in Resident 8's care plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rescinding the conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Rebekah N. Plowman, Esquire Long, Aldridge and Norman, LLP 303 Peachtree Street, Suite 5300 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) lawfully assigned conditional licensure status to Harbour Health Center for the period June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004; whether, based upon clear and convincing evidence, Harbour Health Center violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 483.25, as alleged by AHCA; and, if so, the amount of any fine based upon the determination of the scope and severity of the violation, as required by Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based upon stipulations, deposition, oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and the entire record of the proceeding, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, AHCA was the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and the assignment of a licensure status pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2004). AHCA is charged with the responsibility of evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, AHCA is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, which states that "[n]ursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 C.F.R. §483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference." The facility is a licensed nursing facility located in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under Subsection 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2004), are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is, also, determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and which is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. To assist in identifying and interpreting deficient practices, surveyors use Guides for Information Analysis Deficiency Determination/Categorization Maps and Matrices. On, or about, June 14 through 17, 2004, AHCA conducted an annual recertification survey of the facility. As to federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged, as a result of this survey, that the facility was not in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25 (Tag F309) for failing to provide necessary care and services for three of 21 sampled residents to attain or maintain their respective highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. As to the state requirements of Subsections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2004), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that the facility had failed to comply with state requirements and, under the Florida classification system, classified the Federal Tag F309 non-compliance as a state Class II deficiency. Should the facility be found to have committed any of the alleged deficient practices, the period of the conditional licensure status would extend from June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004. Resident 8 Resident 8's attending physician ordered a protective device to protect the uninjured left ankle and lower leg from injury caused by abrasive contact with the casted right ankle and leg. Resident 8 repeatedly kicked off the protective device, leaving her uninjured ankle and leg exposed. A 2.5 cm abrasion was noted on the unprotected ankle. The surveyors noted finding the protective device in Resident 8's bed but removed from her ankle and leg. Resident 8 was an active patient and had unsupervised visits with her husband who resided in the same facility but who did not suffer from dementia. No direct evidence was received on the cause of the abrasion noted on Resident 8's ankle. Given Resident 8's demonstrated propensity to kick off the protective device, the facility should have utilized a method of affixing the protective device, which would have defeated Resident 8's inclination to remove it. The facility's failure to ensure that Resident 8 could not remove a protective device hardly rises to the level of a failure to maintain a standard of care which compromises the resident's ability to maintain or reach her highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being. The failure to ensure that the protective device could not be removed would result in no more than minimal discomfort. Resident 10 Resident 10 has terminal diagnoses which include end- stage coronary artery disease and progressive dementia and receives hospice services from a local Hospice and its staff. In the Hospice nurse's notes for Resident 10, on her weekly visit, on May 17, 2004, was the observation that the right eye has drainage consistent with a cold. On May 26, 2004, the same Hospice nurse saw Resident 10 and noted that the cold was gone. No eye drainage was noted. No eye drainage was noted between that date and June 2, 2004. On June 3, 2004, eye drainage was noted and, on June 4, 2004, a culture of the drainage was ordered. On June 7, 2004, the lab report was received and showed that Resident 10 had a bacterial eye infection with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bacteria. On June 8, 2004, the attending physician, Dr. Brinson, referred the matter to a physician specializing in infectious disease, and Resident 10 was placed in contact isolation. The infectious disease specialist to whom Resident 10 was initially referred was not available, and, as a result, no treatment was undertaken until a second specialist prescribed Bactrim on June 14, 2004. From June 8, 2004, until June 14, 2004, Resident 10 did not demonstrate any outward manifestations of the diagnosed eye infection. A June 9, 2004, quarterly pain assessment failed to note any discomfort, eye drainage or discoloration. In addition to noting that neither infectious control specialist had seen Resident 10, the nurses notes for this period note an absence of symptoms of eye infection. Colonized MRSA is not uncommon in nursing homes. A significant percentage of nursing home employees test positive for MRSA. The lab results for Resident 10 noted "NO WBC'S SEEN," indicating that the infection was colonized or inactive. By placing Resident 10 in contact isolation on June 8, 2004, risk of the spread of the infection was reduced, in fact, no other reports of eye infection were noted during the relevant period. According to Dr. Brinson, Resident 10's attending physician, not treating Resident 10 for MRSA would have been appropriate. The infectious disease specialist, however, treated her with a bacterial static antibiotic. That is, an antibiotic which inhibits further growth, not a bactericide, which actively destroys bacteria. Had this been an active infectious process, a more aggressive treatment regimen would have been appropriate. Ann Sarantos, who testified as an expert witness in nursing, opined that there was a lack of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice and that the delay in treatment of Resident 10's MRSA presented an unacceptable risk to Resident 10 and the entire resident population. Hospice's Lynn Ann Lima, a registered nurse, testified with specificity as to the level of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice. She indicated a high level of communication and treatment coordination. Dr. Brinson, who, in addition to being Resident 10's attending physician, was the facility's medical director, opined that Resident 10 was treated appropriately. He pointed out that Resident 10 was a terminally-ill patient, not in acute pain or distress, and that no harm was done to her. The testimony of Hospice Nurse Lima and Dr. Brinson is more credible. Resident 16 Resident 16 was readmitted from the hospital to the facility on May 24, 2004, with a terminal diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was receiving Hospice care. Roxanol, a morphine pain medication, had been prescribed for Resident 16 for pain on a pro re nata (p.r.n.), or as necessary, basis, based on the judgment of the registered nurse or attending physician. Roxanol was given to Resident 16 in May and on June 1 and 2, 2004. The observations of the surveyor took place on June 17, 2004. On June 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 16 underwent wound care treatment which required the removal of her sweater, transfer from sitting upright in a chair to the bed, and being placed on the left side for treatment. During the transfer and sweater removal, Resident 16 made noises which were variously described as "oohs and aahs" or "ows," depending on the particular witness. The noises were described as typical noises for Resident 16 or evidences of pain, depending on the observer. Nursing staff familiar with Resident 16 described that she would demonstrate pain by fidgeting with a blanket or stuffed animal, or that a tear would come to her eye, and that she would not necessarily have cried out. According to facility employees, Resident 16 did not demonstrate any of her typical behaviors indicating pain on this occasion, and she had never required pain medication for the wound cleansing procedure before. An order for pain medication available "p.r.n.," requires a formalized pain assessment by a registered nurse prior to administration. While pain assessments had been done on previous occasions, no formal pain assessment was done during the wound cleansing procedure. A pain assessment was to be performed in the late afternoon of the same day; however, Resident 16 was sleeping comfortably. The testimony on whether or not inquiry was made during the wound cleansing treatment as to whether Resident 16 was "in pain," "okay," or "comfortable," differs. Resident 16 did not receive any pain medication of any sort during the period of time she was observed by the surveyor. AHCA determined that Resident 16 had not received the requisite pain management, and, as a result, Resident 16’s pain went untreated, resulting in harm characterized as a State Class II deficiency. AHCA's determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In the context that the surveyor considered what she interpreted as Resident 16's apparent pain, deference should have been given to the caregivers who regularly administered to Resident 16 and were familiar with her observable indications of pain. Their interpretation of Resident 16's conduct and their explanation for not undertaking a formal pain assessment are logical and are credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding: The facility's failure to secure the protective device to Resident 8's lower leg is not a Class II deficiency, but a Class III deficiency. The facility's care and treatment of Residents 10 and 16 did not fall below the requisite standard. The imposition of a conditional license for the period of June 17 to June 29, 2004, is unwarranted. The facility should have its standard licensure status restored for this period. No administrative fine should be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 3rd day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Eric Bredemeyer, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application to divide the beds authorized by CON 2696 and combine a portion of those beds with an existing facility should be granted expedited review?
Findings Of Fact Health Quest owns and operates a 107-bed nursing home at 7130 Southside Boulevard in Jacksonville, located within Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. Location of CON 2696 In July of 1983, Health Quest filed the application for CON 2696. Such application sought approval for a 120-bed nursing home in Duval County, which at that time constituted a separate planning subdistrict. The application for CON 2696 was denied and Health Quest filed a 120.57 petition contesting such denial; the petition was referred to DOAH and designated as Case No. 84-0031. Case No. 84-0031 was thereafter consolidated with the cases involving the other CON applications filed in July of 1983 for Duval County. The other applications were: (1) an application by Beverly Enterprises ("Beverly"), seeking a 12-bed addition (CON 2748) to its previously-approved 108-bed facility; (2) an application by Beverly for a new 120-bed facility (CON 2732); (3) an application by Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. ("FCC") for a 120-bed facility (CON 2969). The cases were consolidated under Case No. 83-3746. On January 9, 1985, Case No. 83-3746 was settled by the execution of a stipulation between the applicant-petitioners and HRS. By the terms of the stipulation, CON 2748 was issued in full and each of the other applications was partially approved: CON 2696 was approved for a 105-bed facility, CON 2969 was approved for a 106-bed facility, and CON 2732 was approved for a 100-bed facility. The CONs were issued in accordance with the stipulation. CON 2696 was issued on January 31, 1985. On March 7, 1985, a 120.57 petition objecting to the issuance of CONS 2696, 2969, 2732 and 2748 was filed by Methodist Regional Hospital System, Inc., d/b/a Methodist Manor Nursing Home ("Methodist"). The petition, which demanded that Methodist's own application be reviewed comparatively with the July 1983 applications, was referred by HRS to DOAH and designated as Case No. 85-0824. On April 9, 1985, HRS amended Fla. Admin. Code Rule 10-17.016 to provide for new subdistricting of HRS District IV. Duval County, by the new rule (which is still in place) was divided into three subdistricts, with adjoining counties included in each subdistrict. Methodist's petition was initially dismissed by HRS in accordance with a Hearing Officer's recommendation; however, such dismissal was reversed by the First District Court of appeals, which remanded the case for further hearing pursuant to an opinion dated September 24, 1986. Methodist Reg. Hos. System v. State, 497 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). After Case 85-0824 was remanded, Hearing Officer Charles C. Adams entered an Order dated February 20, 1987, directing the applicants to file an indication within 30 days of their choice of "planning horizon" and planning subdistrict. On March 16, 1987, Health Quest filed a notice in Case No. 85-0824 stating that it wished to proceed in Subdistrict 2 with a July 1986 planning horizon. On March 20, 1987, Methodist filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its petition in Case No. 85-0824. On June 8, 1987, HRS issued a Final Order in Case No. 85-0824. The Final Order in Case No. 85-0824 states, in part, that: Petitioner's petition for formal administrative proceeding is hereby DISMISSED. The following Certificates of Need ("CON") issued by the Department thereby become final action of the Department: CON No. 2732 to Beverly Enterprises for a 100 bed nursing home facility in Subdistrict 1 of Duval County; CON No. 2696 to Health Quest Management Corporation for a 105 bed nursing home facility in Subdistrict 2 of Duval County; CON No. 2969 to Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for a 106 bed nursing home facility in Duval County. The Final Order in Case No. 85-0824 was not appealed. After HRS issued CON 2696 on January 31, 1985, Health Quest applied for and received three CONs to add beds to CON 2696: CON 4133 for 15 beds, CON 4674 for 30 beds and CON 5494 for 30 beds. The stated purpose of these additions was for Health Quest to build a 180-bed facility in Southwest Duval County. Southwest Duval County is part of Subdistrict 2 of HRS District IV. By application for CON 5653, filed on July 18, 1988, Health Quest sought expedited review from HRS for approval to divide the 180 beds received in CON 2696 (105 beds), CON 4133 (15 beds), CON 4674 (30 beds) and 5498 (30 beds), which were to have been constructed as a 180-bed facility in Subdistrict 2. Health Quest requested that it be allowed to transfer 60 beds to Careage II Healthcare Center, to be added to the 60 beds authorized by Careage's CON 4675. Approval of the application would result in two 120-bed nursing home facilities being developed in Subdistrict 2. By CON 5657, issued November 16, 1988, HRS approved the transfer of CONs 4674 (30 beds) and 5498 (30 beds) from Health Quest to Careage. By letter dated August 25, 1988, Health Quest advised HRS that it was amending its application for CON 5653. Instead of building a 120-bed facility in Subdistrict 2 with the remaining 120 beds, Health Quest now wanted to add 13 beds without any new construction to Health Quest's existing facility in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV, in Duval County, and add 60 beds by constructing a 60-bed addition to the same existing facility. By letter dated September 6, 1988, HRS returned the application for CON 5653, stating that the proposal by Health Quest was not subject to expedited review. In every CON application to add beds to, or divide beds from, the beds approved in CON 2696, Health Quest stated that the project was to be built in Southwest Duval County in Subdistrict 2, with the exception of the amended application at issue in this case. At the time Duval County was divided into three subdistricts (see Finding of Fact 8), HRS had to determine, for inventory purposes, in what subdistrict beds which had previously been approved for all of Duval County were located, For existing nursing homes, the beds were allocated based on the facility's address. For beds which had been approved but the facility had not been built, HRS looked at final orders and at declarations by the applicant made either as part of an administrative hearing process or in letters indicating where the facility would be located. The inventories are used to calculate the fixed need pools and to make the determination of whether additional beds are needed in each subdistrict. Since the final order was issued in Case No. 85-0824, HRS has considered the beds approved by CON 2696 to be located in Subdistrict 2 for purposes of its inventory and need projections, based on the pleadings filed by Health Quest in Case No. 85-0824 (see Finding of Fact 11) and on the Final Order issued in Case No. 85-0824 (See Finding of Fact 14). The 1988 Amendments to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. On September 29, 1987, Health Quest filed with HRS an application seeking expedited review for a proposal to divide CON 3278, authorizing a 180- bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County, into two components. One component was to be a 120-bed freestanding facility and another component was to be a 60-bed addition to an existing 53-bed nursing home operated by Health Quest. HRS denied the application for expedited review based on its interpretation of Section 381.706(1)(e), Florida Statutes. HRS interpreted that section to mean that the addition of beds to an existing facility could only be accomplished through batched, comparative review and not through expedited review. In response to HRS's denial, Health Quest filed a petition for an Administrative Hearing and decided to pursue legislation which would make it clear that Health Quest could do what HRS was refusing to approve. Health Quest hired a legislative lobbyist and Mr. Kevin Krisher, Health Quest's Vice President for Planning, wrote statutory language which, in his opinion, would allow Health Quest to accomplish what it wanted. HRS initially opposed the proposed legislation. However, when it became clear that the proposed legislation would become law, HRS contacted Health Quest to propose modifications to the proposed statutory language. After a negotiating session on May 30, 1988, Health Quest and HRS agreed on the language changes proposed by HRS. The changes proposed by HRS dealt with the language which is now codified in Section 381.705(3), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). On May 31, 1988, Health Quest and HRS entered into a written agreement regarding the effect of the proposed legislation on Health Quest's application to divide CON 3278. The relevant parts of the agreement provide that: RECITALS Health Quest holds CON No. 3278 ("the CON") authorizing a 180-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. Health Quest operates a 53-bed nursing home ("the Facility") adjacent to the Lake Pointe Woods retirement complex in Sarasota. On September 29, 1987, Health Quest filed with HRS an application seeking expedited review for its proposal to divide the CON into a 60-bed component and a 120-bed component. As set forth in the application, the 60-bed component is for an addition to the Facility and the 120-bed component is for a freestanding facility. Since on or before September 4, 1987, it has been the Department's position that such division or consolidation could be accomplished only through batched comparative review. * * * 5. The Florida Legislature is considering the enactment of the Affordable Health Care Assurance Act of 1988 ("the Act"). The Act would amend Section 381.706(2), Florida Statutes, to add subsections (j) and (k), providing for expedited review of applica- tions to divide a single approved facility or to consolidate two or more approved certificates of need into a single facility. The Act would also add Section 381.705(3) to limit the criteria for review of certain applications filed under Section 381.706(2)(j) or 381.706(2)(k) and would add Section 381.710(2)(d) providing for extension of the validity period of CONs for which applications under Section 381.706(2)(j) or 381.706(2)(k) are filed. * * * TERMS HRS acknowledges that an applicant would be entitled, under the Act, to expedited review of applications not only to divide or consolidate CONs but to do both at the same time, e.g., divide 60 beds from CON 3278 and consolidate these beds into the existing beds at the Facility now operated by Health Quest. At such time as the Act becomes law and Health Quest files an application ... Upon approval of the application, Health Quest shall dismiss the DOAH proceeding and the District Court of Appeals proceeding involving the division of CON 3278. The agreement was signed by J. Robert Griffin, HRS's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, and Charles M. Loeser, Health Quest's Vice President and General Counsel. The proposed statutory language was enacted by the legislature in Sections 20-22 of Chapter 88-294, Laws of Florida and is codified in Sections 381.705(3), 381.706(2)(j), (k), and 387.710(d), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). The statutory language contained in paragraphs (j) and (k) of Subsection 381.706(2), Florida Statutes, is language proposed by Health Quest and the language did not change after HRS and Health Quest entered into the agreement of May 31, 1988. After Chapter 88-294, Laws of Florida, was enacted and the provisions of sections 20-22 became effective, HRS approved Health Quest's application to divide CON 3278 and issued CON 5651A for a freestanding 120-bed facility and CON 5651B for a 60-bed addition to an existing facility. Even though HRS approved Health Quest's application to divide CON 3278 and add beds to an existing facility, HRS now interprets the provisions of Section 381.706(2)(j) and (k), Florida Statutes, as not allowing for expedited review of an application to divide a CON and add a portion of the beds to an existing facility. HRS still views the provisions of 381.706(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as mandating full comparative review of any application seeking to add beds to an existing facility. This interpretation is the same interpretation HRS had prior to the passage of Chapter 88-294, Laws of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS issue a Final Order finding that Health Quest's application is not subject to expedited review and that CON 2696 has expired. DONE AND ORDERED this 13 day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-5079 & 88-5846 Rulings on Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. 3. First sentence accepted. Rest of paragraph is argument. 4-19. Accepted. 20-21. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as argument. Accepted. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as cumulative and argument. Also, no competent evidence was presented which establishes why HRS's Final Order placed Beverly's CON in Sub- district 1; therefore, the arguments relating to Beverly's CON are conjecture. Rejected as argument. 27-29. Rejected as argument. Also, the argument that moving the beds from Subdistrict 2 to Subdistrict 3 will have no effect is without merit. Health Quest would be awarded additional beds in Subdistrict 3 without having to compete for them, or, if Health Quest is correct that there is no need in Subdistrict 3, without having to show need for them. The argument that having the beds inventoried in Subdistrict 2 has had no effect because Subdistrict 2 now has too many beds is equally without merit. The question is what effect the inventory had in determining the amount of need in prior years when beds were awarded. 30. Rejected as argument. 31-37. Accepted. 38. Rejected as argument. 44-46. Accepted. 47-49. Subordinate to facts found. 50-59. Rejected as argument. Rulings on HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-22. Accepted. A number of these proposed findings of fact are subordinate to facts found. 23. Irrelevant. 24-26. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as argument. 29-30. Accepted. 31-32. Recitation of testimony. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted that this is HRS's view. Rejected. HRS approved the Health Quest Sarasota CON. 37 . Accepted First sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted that this reflects the testimony of the HRS witness. However, reject that the testimony serves as justification. The issue here is not adding new beds to a subdistrict, but in which facility the beds should be placed. Any time new beds are to be added all applicants can compete. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles M. Loeser, Esquire Health Quest Corporation 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601-1586 Leslie Mendelson, Esquire Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017-C Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On December 18, 1978, the Petitioner, using the name "Upjohn Healthcare Services, Inc." filed its application for certificate of need with the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency, Inc. This application was deemed complete on April 20, 1979. The application as originally filed indicated that healthcare services were to be made available on a 24 hour a day basis, seven days a week, with an admission criteria based on the patient's need for home health care, his ability to make available financial resources and the Petitioner's ability to provide the services required. Services were to be provided from a central location in Pensacola, Florida, which is in Escambia County, Florida; to serve Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. The application was subsequently amended to indicate the willingness of the Petitioner to aid Medicare and Medicaid patients in the named counties. The Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "Upjohn", operating as Upjohn Healthcare Services, Inc., is a subsidiary of the Upjohn company, having forty-Seven certified home health agencies in the United States. The organization has twenty-one offices in the State of Florida and one of those offices is located in Pensacola, Florida. The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to evaluate the applications for certificate of need and to issue such certificates as would be appropriate under the terms of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5, Florida Administrative Cede. This application for certificate of need and that of the companion case of Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool, hereinafter referred to "Personnel Pool", are also considered in accordance with the Health Systems plan for the Florida Panhandle effective December 15, 1978. A copy of that document may be found as the Joint Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The project review committee of the Northwest Florida District recommended to the Northwest Florida Subdistrict Advisory Council that the certificate of need be granted and this action was taken on May 2, 1979. A public hearing was held on May 8, 1979, and on Nay, 17, 1979, the Northwest Florida Subdistrict recommended the disapproval of the project. This disapproval followed a staff report by the staff of the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency which suggested that the certificate of need be denied. The application was then presented to the Regional Council, Florida panhandle Health Systems Agency, Inc., and on May 25, 1979, the Regional Council recommended the approval of the certificate of need to serve Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida, with the proviso that services be offered Medicare and Medicaid patients. On June 29, 1979, the Respondent in the person of Art Forehand, Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, attempted to apprise the Petitioner that the request for a certificate of need had been denied; however, this correspondence was misaddressed and it was not until July 9, 1979, that a letter was forwarded to an official of Petitioner's organization and received by that official. On July 31, 1979, the Petitioner appealed the decision of denial of the certificate of need and the case was later assigned to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration which resulted in the hearing which is the subject of this Recommended Order. (The details of the various items discussed in developing the chronology of this application may be found in the Joint Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence.) In offering its proof to demonstrate the entitlement to a certificate of need, the Petitioner essentially attempted to refute the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services', hereinafter referred to as "Department", letter of notification of denial. That letter gave five reasons for denying the certificate of need, those reasons being: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency 1979 Health Systems Plan policy guide regarding physical location of a home health agency in the area it intends to serve. The proposal is not consistent with standards and criteria established in Chapter 10-5.11(14), Rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Extenuating and mitigating circumstances which may be considered in approving a certificate of need for a new home health agency have not been adequately demonstrated. There are other available and adequate home health care service providers in the proposed service area which could serve as an alternative to the proposed project and prevent unnecessary duplication of resources. Financial feasibility data do not clearly reflect the inclusion of Medicare and Medicaid resources. The initial reason for denial deals with the claim that the Health Systems Plan for the Florida Panhandle, adopted December 15, 1978, does not allow service of three counties from one central office in Pensacola, Florida. The disputed language in that document is found in Chapter IV at page 216, and it states: No home health agency may be issued a license to operate in a Florida county without having applied for and been granted a certificate of need. The Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services considers the recommendation of the Health Systems Agency and established criteria in determining need. Certificates are now issued for a single-county service area, but prior to legislation passed in 1977, an agency could obtain a certificate for several counties. This inconsistency has created considerable confusion in determining need. Although the comment in the document is reluctantly made, it does establish the necessity for the issuance of certificates of need for single-county service areas. This determination is reached, notwithstanding the Petitioner's argument that there is existing precedence for serving more than one county out of a single office. Although there are circumstances in Florida where this approach has been utilized, such service of a multi-county area from a single office would not be allowed on the occasion of the current application. The second reason for denying the certificate of need involves Rule 10- 5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code, which states: (14)(a) A Certificate of Need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit shall not be issued until the daily census of each of the existing home health agencies or subunits providing services within the health service area of the proposed new home health agency or subunit has reached an average of 300 patients for the immediate preceding calendar quarter unless the need for the proposed new home health agency or subunit can be demonstrated by application of the mitigating and extenuating circumstances in rule 10-5.11(14)(b) herein. (b) Mitigating and extenuating circumstances which must be met for the department to issue a certificate of need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit even though the previously described need determination procedure does not clearly indicate need are: Documentation that the population of the proposed service are is being denied access to home health care services in that existing home health agencies or subunits within the proposed service area are unable to provide service to all persons in need of home health care, or Documentation that approval of such proposed new home health agency or subunit would foster cost containment for all providers in the health service area. The Petitioner, in the course of this presentation, took issue with the survey method used by the employee who conducted the staff review of the application. Upjohn claimed that the data gathered on the question of the requirement for a 300 average daily patient census was incomplete and inaccurate. The Petitioner also questioned whether the rule as cited above could be followed in this hearing or should the prior rule which spoke in terms of the daily census of the aggregate of the existing home health agencies or subunits in determining the count of 300 patients be used. The current rule became effective on June 5, 1979, and that rule has application because it was effective at the time of this hearing. Turning again to the question of the formula in deriving the number of patients in the census of the proposed service area, even assuming incompleteness or inaccuracies in the staff evaluation performed by the Health System Agency, the proof offered by the Petitioner in the bearing does not show utilization in excess of the 300-patient census. There are two health agencies now delivering home health care in Escambia County. Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., is one of those agencies and in its last complete reporting quarter prior to the hearing, there is an indicated patient census for April, which was 71; for May it was 77; and for June it was 73, totaling 221 patients, thereby constituting an average census of 74. This statement of census was established through the testimony of Arthur Long, Executive Director of Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. (His organization serves only patients who are enrolled with his service group.) Ms. Marian Humphrey, a public health nursing supervisor for the Escambia County Health Department, established the census in Escambia County for that Health Department as serviced by the Visiting Nurses Association, Inc. Beginning in January, 1979, the census was 101 Medicare patients; 14 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAD-PUS patients; 9 private patients and 71 free patients, the latter category being patients who do not pay for services. In February, 1979, there were 164 Medicare patients; 16 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 7 private patients and 72 free patients. In March, 1979, there were 128 Medicare patients; 9 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients and 11 private patients. In April, 1979, there were 147 Medicare patients; 13 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients and 9 private patients. In May, 1979, there were 165 Medicare patients; 12 Medicaid patients; 3 CHAMPUS patients; 7 private patients and 88 free patients. In June, 1979, there were 148 Medicare patients; 10 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 10 private patients and 61 free patients. In July, 1979, there were 150 Medicare patients; 10 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 10 private patients and 77 free patients. In August, 1979, there were 134 Medicare patients; 11 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 14 private patients and 96 free patients. The above-cited statistics demonstrate that the two current servicing agencies in Escambia County, Florida, in the preceding full quarter of 1979 which would have been April, May and June, considered separately do not exceed the average of 300 patients for that calendar quarter, nor did the statistics show excess of 300 in other reported quarters. By its Exhibit No. 8, the Petitioner presented statistics on the patient census in Okaloosa County and Santa Rosa County. These statistics were gathered by Blue Cross of Florida. The statistics of the Blue Cross survey show the patient Census services rendered by the Okaloosa County Health Department. These statistics only deal with the years 1977 and 1978 and are, therefore, not current. The most recent quarter in the report on Okaloosa County Health Department shows that in the last quarter of 1978, in-October the patient census was 9; November, the patient census was 14, and in December the patient census was 21. There is a provision in the Blue Cross report which deals with the Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc.; however, these findings of fact defer to the testimony of Mr. Long which showed that in 1979, there was a patient census in April of 36; in May, a patient census of 38 and in June, a patient census of 40, for an average census of 38. The Blue Cross report shows that Santa Rosa County Health Department is the only home health care provider in that county. The most recent census reflected in that report is for January, February and March of 1979. In January the patient census was 41, in February the patient census was 35, and in March the patient census was 33. Analyzing this statistical data provided dealing with Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties, although some of the information is not current, it does demonstrate that the census did not exceed the average of 300 patients for the quarters that were reported in either county. In closing out an examination of the discussion of point 2 of the reasons for denial, it is noted that the Blue Cross report deals with the patient census of the Escambia County Health Department but this report is not as current as the presentation by Ms. Humphrey and the Humphrey report is accepted in lieu of the Blue Cross report. Reason 3 for denying the certificate of need talks about the failure of the Petitioner to demonstrate extenuating and mitigating circum stances which would allow a certificate to be issued, notwithstanding the fact that the current service agencies do not exceed the average census of 300 patients for the calendar quarter. Again, that provision of Rule 10-5.11(14)(b), Florida Statutes, states: Mitigating and extenuating circumstances which must be met for the department to issue a certificate of need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit even though the previously described need determination procedure does not clearly indicate need are: Documentation that the population of the proposed service area is being denied access to home health care services in that existing home health agencies or subunits within the proposed service area are unable to provide service to all persons in need of home health care, or Documentation that approval of such proposed new home health agency or subunit would foster cost containment for all providers in the health service area. The first provision under that subsection deals with the inability of the existing health agency to provide services to persons in need of home health care. In examining the question of the ability of the current organizations to provide the necessary health care, Escambia County will be reviewed first. In Escambia County, the Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., requires that their patients be registered with the organization and their office is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. After 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and on the weekends, a registered nurse is on call through the utilization of a "beeper" system. These services only apply to Medicare patients enrolled with the organization. To be enrolled it is necessary for the enrollment to have been achieved through a request by a physician. The Escambia County Health Department is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and serves all classes of patients. There are on- call nurses who work on weekends. The nurses are called by the utilization of the Nurses Directory for Escambia County. The exception to these statements is that two days a year the services of the Escambia County Health Department are not available due to holidays. At night during the week those persons who are patients of the Escambia County Health Department are instructed to arrange for emergency treatment in the Emergency Room or ambulatory care at West Florida Hospital, assuming those patients cannot wait until the following morning for attention. Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., services Okaloosa County from an office in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The exact nature of those services is as set out in the discussion of the services provided to patients in Escambia County. The exact details of other current services offered in Okaloosa County and Santa Rosa County were not presented by the Petitioner. Consequently, it was not possible to determine whether those services are adequate. The only evidence that touched on the issue of adequacy of services was testimony offered by one Ruby Savage, who is a volunteer member of the Regional Board of the Northwest Florida Subdistrict Council and a participant in project reviews. She stated that in her opinion there was a need for 24-hour service in Santa Rosa County. This testimony standing alone was insufficient to identify the need for further home health care services. The Petitioner has asserted that the services spoken of in the preceding paragraphs are not sufficient and examples of the lack of available services, according to the Petitioner, are shown on pages 65 through 68 of the transcript of the hearing. Therein are cited several examples of persons unable to receive necessary care of the type which the Petitioner desires to deliver. These examples are accounts given by Ms. Krumel from information purportedly given to her on the subject of the lack of service. Ms. Krumel in the course of the hearing made further comments to the effect that the individuals involved in the project review felt that the services in the question area were insufficient. Those opinions, while they may be true, are not the quality of evidence needed to sustain the Petitioner's contention that there is a need for further health care service in the area in question. The Petitioner made no further presentation on the question of lack of service and on balance the Petitioner has failed to show lack of service. The Petitioner offered testimony on the possibility of the utilization of population increases in the area as a criterion for increasing home health care services. While this criterion formerly appeared in Rule 10-5.11(14)(b), Florida Administrative Code, under the provisions of extenuating and mitigating circumstances, it is not found in the current statement of that rule and may not be used as a criterion for gaining the certificate of need. In discussing the issue of cost containment as outlined in the above- cited rule, the Petitioner made a general comment that if further services are not provided, patients will be required to receive services at emergency rooms, thereby voiding the possibility of cost containment which could be offered by granting the certificate of need to this Petitioner, who is willing to provide 24-hour home health care services. This statement standing alone is insufficient to show that the granting of the certificate of need to the Petitioner will foster cost containment. Finally, the fifth reason for denying the certificate of need was premised upon the failure of the Petitioner to provide financial feasibility data reflecting the inclusion of Medicare and Medicaid resources. The requirement for such data is found in Rule 10-5.09(5), Florida Administrative Code, which states: (5) Documentation showing that the project is financially feasible and can be accommodated without unreasonable charges for services rendered to include a projection of income and expense on a pro forma basis for the first two years of operation after completion of the project. Petitioner claimed at the hearing that it has failed to include this data because the inclusion of Medicare and Medicaid patients in its proposed services was a last minute item and no one in the evaluation process told them that they had to comply with this provision. At the time of the hearing the data was yet to be provided. Upjohn and Personnel Pool were afforded an opportunity to offer their testimony to establish in what respects they might be superior to the other applicant for a certificate of need, assuming that only one certificate of need was to be granted. The two Petitioners did not wish to make any direct attack on the special qualifications of the collateral Petitioner. Both parties proceeded on the basis of offering their remarks to be available for comparison if the contingency were realized which required that only one certificate of need be issued. It is not necessary to detail the special qualifications of these Petitioners, because no certificate of need will be recommended for issuance in Escambia County, Florida, the location in which Upjohn and Personnel Pool are potential competitors for a sole certificate of need. Nonetheless, the facts offered in support of the special qualifications of Upjohn may be found in the transcript of record, pages 187 through 190. The testimony on Personnel Pool's special qualifications may be found in the transcript of the hearing on pages 228 and 251 through 256.
Recommendation This recommendation is being entered in view of the Facts and Conclusions of Law in this case and those Facts and Conclusions of Law in the companion case, D.O.A.H. No. 79-1748, Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Upon consideration of the Facts herein and the Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Upjohn Healthcare Home Health Agency be denied its request for a certificate of need to serve Escambia, Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida. It is further recommended that the agency in entering its final order do so by a process of simultaneous review of this Recommended Order and the Recommended Order entered in D.O.A.H. Case No. 79- 1748, Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and that final orders be entered on the same date with copies to be served on the representatives of each applicant in this case and in the companion case mentioned above. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vivian Krumel, R.N. Mr. Art Forchand, Administrator Service Director Office of Community Medical Facil. Upjohn Healthcare Services Department of Health and 15 West Strong Street Rehabilitative Services Old Townhouse Square 1323 Winewood Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John Owens Mr. Joe Dowless Zone Manager, West Florida Office of Licensure and Cert. Upjohn Health Care Services Department of Health and 3118 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Rehabilitative Services Clearwater, Florida 33519 Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles T. Collette, Esquire Departnt of Health and Mr. Herbert E. Straughn Rehabilitative Services Office of Cozmunity Medical Facil. 1323 Winewood Boulevard Department of Health and Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sherrill E. Phelps Governmental Affairs Representative Personnel Pool of America, Inc. 303 Southeast 17th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Thomas S. Siler Owner/Administrator Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. 1800 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
