Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is in all respects qualified to provide the services for which this certificate of need is sought. Pinellas and Pasco counties comprise one health service district which is subdivided into two subdistricts. Pinellas County is one of these subdistricts. Pinellas County has been further broken down into a northern subdistrict and a southern subdistrict. Petitioner presented two witnesses who opined that, because Pinellas County had a large percentage of its population over the age of 75, an additional 120-bed nursing facility was needed. These witnesses further opined that the introduction of diagnostic related groups for payment purposes by Medicare would cause hospitals to discharge patients earlier and thereby further increase the need for nursing home beds. No facts to support these opinions were presented. Applying the bed need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, and projecting the population to 1986, there will be a need for 5,229 nursing home beds in District V and a need for 3,869 beds in the subdistrict of Pinellas County. There are presently, both licensed and approved, 8,114 nursing home beds districtwide and 6,819 beds in the subdistrict of Pinellas County. Petitioner's witness testified there are presently 6,630 approved nursing home beds in Pinellas County, of which 5,906 are now licensed. Regardless of which of these figures is accurate, there is a surplus of nearly 3,000 nursing home beds districtwide and a similar surplus in Pinellas County. Occupancy rates of nursing homes in Pinellas County based upon utilization from July to December, 1983, was 93.2 percent. In Pasco County the occupancy rate for the same period was 87.3 percent. Accordingly, neither the district nor the subdistrict reached the 95 percent occupancy rate needed to justify additional beds in a subdistrict.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. By application dated April 15, 1983, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., (hereinafter "Beverly" or "Petitioner") applied to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for the issuance of a certificate of need for the construction of a new 120-bed nursing home in Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. The application was deemed by HRS to be complete effective September 15, 1983. (Pet. Ex. 1) By letter dated December 5, 1983, HRS advised Beverly that its application was denied. (Pet. Ex. 2) The letter included the following reasons for denial: The proposed project is not consistent with Chapter 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, nursing home bed need methodology. With a six month occupancy of 58.2 percent in the subdistrict of Collier County, the utilization threshold of 90 percent developed from the application of Chapter 10-5.11(e), (f), and (h), Florida Administrative Code, is not satisfied and no further bed need is demonstrated for this subdistrict. There are 97 approved but unlicensed beds in the subdistrict which, when added to the existing licensed bed supply, should effectively maintain the county-wide occupancy at a reasonable level through 1986. Further explication was contained in the State Agency Action Report which accompanied the HRS letter of December 5, 1983. Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.11(21)(a), adopted by HRS, reads as follows: Departmental Goal. The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with the applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (a), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. (Pet. Ex. 3) A step-by-step application of the methodology described in Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b) through (h) to the facts in this case is as follows. Under the formula, bed need is determined by first looking at the poverty level in District VIII and in Collier County (Pet. Ex. 5, Tr.252). The poverty level is computed by comparing the number of elderly living in poverty in the district, which is 8.61, to the number of elderly living in poverty in the State, which is 12.70, resulting in a poverty ratio of .68 (Tr.252). The bed need ratio is computed by multiplying the poverty ratio of .68 times 27 beds per thousand population 65 or older, which results in a bed need ratio of 18.3 beds per thousand residents 65 years or older (Tr.252). When the bed need ratio is applied to the 65 and over population in District VIII, the total bed need is 3,858. The bed need for the subdistrict of Collier County is 514 beds (Tr.252). The number of licensed and approved beds in the district is 4,618 and the number of licensed and approved beds in the subdistrict is 429 (Tr.252). When the need for beds is subtracted from the total number of licensed and approved beds, there is a surplus of 760 beds in District VIII, but a need for 85 beds in the subdistrict of Collier County (Tr.253). When a need for beds exists in the subdistrict but not the district as a whole, subsection (g) of the rule allows new beds to be added only if existing beds are being utilized at a 90 percent or greater occupancy rate (Pet. Ex. 5, Tr.253-255). The current utilization rate for nursing home beds in Collier County is 61.1 percent (Pet. Ex. 7, Tr.255). Since the current utilization rate is less than 90 percent, no additional beds are needed in Collier County (Tr.256). Approval of the Beverly application to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Marco Island would, in the words of the applicable rule, "cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (h) . . . " of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (Pet. Ex. 2, 5, 6, and 7; testimony of expert witnesses Mr. Knight and Ms. Dudek.) HRS is presently considering the adoption of amendments to the nursing home need methodology provisions presently found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.11 (21)(b) through (h). If the present form of the tentative amendments to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) through (h) were to be adopted and become effective soon enough to be applicable to Beverly's application in this case the result would be the same as under the current rule. Approval of Beverly's application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in HRS District VIII to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology of both the existing rule and the tentative amendments to the rule. (Testimony of expert witness Knight.) Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), adopted by HRS, reads as follows: (2) Policies and Priorities. In addition to the statewide criteria against which applications are evaluated, applications from District 8 will be evaluated against the following local criteria: a. * * * b. Nursing home services should be available within at least one hour typical travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of all residents of District 8. (Pet. Ex. 3) HRS District VIII consists of seven counties. The current population estimate of these seven counties is 679,019. According to the most recent census information, the permanent population of Marco Island is 8,605. Four community nursing homes are located in Naples, which is also in Collier County. Typical travel time by automobile from the center of Marco Island to the center of Naples is approximately 30 to 45 minutes, depending on the season of the year. (Tr.59-60, 83, 118, and 151) In arriving at the current utilization rates for purposes of applying the need determination methodology, HRS relied on the latest available quarterly nursing home census reports. (Pet. Ex. 7; Tr.255-256) In compiling the Collier County average occupancy rate for purposes of applying the need determination methodology, HRS counted as existing beds all of the licensed beds of all of the community nursing homes in Collier County, which included 114 beds licensed for Gulf Drive Residence, Inc., and 120 beds for Americana Healthcare Center. (Pet. Fx. 2)
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 in this case DENYING the application of Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., for a certificate of need to construct a new community nursing home in Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of September, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Health Quest Realty II, filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), on an undisclosed date seeking a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Lee County, Florida at a cost of $3,108,000. After reviewing the application, HRS issued its state agency action report on January 27, 1983 in which it stated that a need for additional nursing home beds in Lee County did not exist, and that it accordingly intended to deny the application. The letter of denial accompanying the report summarized the basis for denial in the following manner: The proposed projects are not consistent with Chapter 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, nursing home bed need methodology. A need does not exist to add nursing home beds to Lee County through 1985. There are 347 approved but not constructed beds in the county. The bed need methodology produces an excess of 494 nursing home beds in the county through 1985. In determining need for nursing homes, a three year planning horizon is used. In this case, HRS has projected the needs of the area for the year 1986, or three years after the most current actual available data. Petitioner has a used a three year planning horizon of 1987, or three years after the hearing was held. Since 1983 data has been used and is the most current, 1986 is the more appropriate planning horizon for this proceeding. Lee County lies within HRS District 8 which is made up of six counties in Southwest Florida. The District in turn is made up of several subdistricts, of which Lee county alone constitutes one. HRS has determined the overall nursing home bed need for the District, as well as bed requirements for subdistricts within the district. The actual numbers are obtained by making calculations required by a formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. According to exhibits introduced by HRS, there are currently 3,668 licensed beds and 1,217 approved beds within District 8, for a total of 4,895 beds. The formula produces a district-wide need of 3,685 beds. Therefore, there will be a surplus of 1,210 beds throughout the District in 1986. The same HRS exhibits reflect that there are currently 808 licensed beds and 222 approved beds within Lee County for a total of 1030 beds. Under the formula, a need for 1,202 beds exists. Accordingly, there exists a mathematical need for 172 beds in 1986 under the rule. 1/ However, the rule provides that where a shortage of beds exists within a sub-district, but the district as a whole shows no additional need, beds may be used up to the point at which further additions would cause the prospective utilization rate for the subdistrict (county) to drop below the prospective occupancy rate (80 percent) specified in the rule. After factoring the number of proposed beds into the formula, the countywide prospective occupancy rate drops to 64.3 percent, which is below the 80 percent rate required by the rule. 2/ Petitioner relies upon a number of factors to support the authorization of additional beds in Lee County, Florida. First, it introduced into evidence the District 8 Health Council report issued on June 29, 1983 which concluded there will exist a need for 331 additional nursing home beds in 1986. But it was not disclosed whether this report was ever adopted by HRS. It also introduced the 1981 State Health Plan which reflected a need for 312 more beds on a district-wide basis in 1986. But these calculations must be discounted in view of the outdated source data used in the Plan. Petitioner further relied upon a recent HRS decision finding a need for 552 additional nursing home beds in 1986 in Lee County. However, other than the decision itself, petitioner offered no other independent evidence to support that decision's reasoning and rule interpretation or why it should apply to this proceeding. Finally, petitioner attempted to demonstrate that Lee County has a small number of nursing home beds in relation to its impoverished elderly population. But these factors are already considered by HRS in its formula for determining need, and if used in the manner suggested by petitioner, would constitute a deviation from the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Realty II for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Lee County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1984.
The Issue Which of two competing applications for nursing home beds better meets the statutory and rule criteria to satisfy the numeric need for 79 additional beds in Agency for Health Care Administration District 7, Subdistrict 1, Brevard County.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the single agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws in Florida. AHCA published a numeric need for an additional 79 beds in District 7, Subdistrict 1, for Brevard County for the July 1996 planning horizon. There was no challenge to the numeric need determination. After reviewing the applications of Holmes/VHA Long Term Care Joint Venture ("Holmes/VHA") and National Health Corporation d/b/a NHC of Merritt Island ("NHC"), among others, AHCA published its intent to approve the application of NHC and to deny that of Holmes/VHA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") issued on March 13, 1994, for the July 1996 Planning Horizon, summarizes AHCA's review of the applications and the reasons for its decision. Holmes/VHA timely challenged AHCA's preliminary approval of CON 7527 to NHC and denial of CON 7539 to Holmes/VHA. In a pre-hearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the specific statutory criteria at issue, related to the contents of the letter of intent and application are subsections 408.037(2)(a), (2)(c), (4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties also agreed that the CON review criteria at issue are subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n) and (0), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated to the need for 79 additional community nursing home beds in the subdistrict. At the formal hearing the parties also agreed that quality of care is not at issue and that staffing schedules and proposals to fund or finance both projects are reasonable, thereby removing from consideration subsections 408.035(1)(c) and portions of (1)(h). HOLMES/VHA Holmes/VHA, the applicant for CON 7539, is a Florida general partnership formed between Holmes Regional Enterprises, Inc. ("Holmes Enterprises"), a Florida not-for-profit corporation, in Brevard County, Florida, and Vantage Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a VHA Long Term Care ("VHA"). The partnership, Holmes/VHA, owns and operates an existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Regional Nursing Center ("Holmes Nursing Center") in Melbourne. VHA is a division of Service Master Diversified Health Services of Memphis, Tennessee, which manages 106 facilities in 30 states. Holmes Enterprises operates Holmes Regional Medical Center ("Holmes Regional"), a 528-bed acute care hospital, with open heart surgery and neonatal intensive care services and approval for 30 skilled nursing beds. Sixty of Holmes Regional's licensed beds are located at Palm Bay Community Hospital in Palm Bay, approximately 8 to 15 miles south of Holmes Regional. Although it is a separate municipality, Palm Bay was described as a suburb of and contiguous to Melbourne. The site for the Palm Bay Center, which is across the street from Palm Bay Community Hospital, is in another community known as Mallibar. VHA has entered into similar partnerships with acute care hospitals in Jacksonville, Florida, and Greensboro, North Carolina, to operate nursing homes in those areas. The Service Master organization provides management and support services, including data processing, legal, personnel, dietary, and architectural and design services for nursing homes. Holmes/VHA, the joint venture general partnership, has a management committee of four people, two from the hospital and two from the VHA company. The management committee, functioning like a board of directors, adopted a resolution authorizing Holmes/VHA to file the Con application. When formed, the joint venture obtained an older 60-bed facility, and then constructed a replacement facility. During the construction, it obtained a 60-bed CON from another company and combined beds to build its existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Nursing Center. Holmes Nursing Center is rated superior and offers inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative and restorative services, including a head and spinal cord injury program. The rehabilitative services are directed by Holmes Regional, which is located a block and a half from the nursing home. The original CON for Holmes Nursing Center required that 35 percent of total patient days be provided to Medicaid. The requirement was increased to 45 percent with the 60-bed addition, which Holmes Nursing Center has exceeded. The 120 beds are divided into 20 percent Medicare certified, 50 percent Medicaid certified and 30 percent non-certified or private pay. Holmes Nursing Center also operates a 24-bed subacute unit for persons qualifying under Medicare criteria for skilled nursing care. Patients in the unit receive intensive assessments on each nursing shift and services which include pain, respiratory, and wound management. Holmes Regional Hospice, Inc. ("the hospice") is an affiliate of Holmes Enterprises, for which Holmes Regional holds the CON to take care of hospitalized hospice patients The current hospice census of over 200 patients includes 70 percent cancer, 9 percent AIDS, and 21 percent other terminal illnesses, such as heart disease and Alzheimers. Holmes/VHA applied for a CON to construct the 79-bed Palm Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ("Palm Bay Center") conditioned on the provision of 61 percent of total patient days to Medicaid and the establishment of a 12-bed sub- acute unit, one room for hospice patients, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, and respite care. The total gross square footage is 42,691 square feet. The Holmes Enterprises affiliates propose to provide support services for the Palm Bay Center, as they do for Holmes Nursing Center. The estimated total project cost for the Palm Bay Center is $4,732,790, of which the construction cost is $82,720,000 or $63.71 a square foot. An equity contribution of land valued at $420,000, will be provided by the hospital. Service Master will provide the funds or obtain financing for the project. The assumptions in the pro forma, including the expectation that interest may be due for a commercial loan, are reasonable. AHCA's expert's conclusion that the project is financially feasible is accepted. The financing by Service Master can be structured to avoid being treated as a related party transaction, which would adversely affect Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Holmes/VHA listed as capital projects three other pending CON and an additional $25,000 in annual capitalized routine expenses for furniture, fixtures and equipment attributable to Holmes Regional Nursing Center. The total of the capital projects listed on Schedule 2 of the application is $13,256,701. NHC National HealthCorp, L.P. ("NHC"), the applicant for CON 7527, began operations in 1986, with 14 nursing homes. Currently, NHC owns or manages 96 nursing homes primarily in the southeast United States. It manages 36 nursing homes in Florida, 6 of which are also owned by NHC. NHC proposes to add 60 beds to National Healthcare Center of Merritt Island ("NHC-Merritt Island"), a superior rated, 120-bed community nursing home on a 7 acre site in Merritt Island, Brevard County. NHC-Merritt Island has a 22-bed Alzheimers' unit. NHC's regional office provides support services, including speech, occupational, and physical therapies, nursing, dietary, and administrative services to NHC-Merritt Island. With the addition of 60 beds, NHC intends to provide respite care, a dedicated 20-bed subacute unit, and an additional 16-bed Alzheimers' unit. Without a subacute unit, NHC already has an average census of 9 subacute patients. NHC will triple the size of the therapy space and more than double the size of the building. The projected total capital expenditure is $3,891,850, with construction costs of $2,955,000, or $85.00 a square foot. To accommodate the addition, NHC has entered into a contract to purchase an additional 1.3 acres, adjacent to the current 7 acres, for a cost of $175,000. For the past few years, NHC has experienced 94 to 100 percent occupancy. Fifty-four people are on NHC's waiting list and an additional 16 are on the waiting list for the Alzheimers' unit. The projected annual fill-up rates for NHC's additional beds are supported by the demand for its service and its historical experience, even though the monthly fill-up rates in the application are not adjusted to reflect the specific number of days in each month. Medicaid resident days are 55 percent to 57 percent of the total at present, below the 60.31 percent average in the subdistrict and the current 60 percent CON condition. If the expansion CON is approved, NHC will commit to providing 60.31 percent Medicaid patient days and will increase the number of Medicaid certified beds from 77 to 108. NHC was profitable in 1992 and 1993, by approximately $100,000 and $250,000, respectively, but currently is not profitable, with an approximate deficit of $8,000. The deficit is attributable to (1) a decline in the Medicaid reimbursement rate, which was initially higher due to start up costs, (2) the expiration of a new provider exemption from Medicare cost limits, and (3) the transfer of assets by NHC, in exchange for stock, to a newly formed subsidiary, from which NHC-Merritt Island is now leased. Lease payments are $517,000 a year whether the facility has 120 or 180 beds, and profits are returned to stockholders, including NHC. Using Medicaid rates, calculated by the state, as inflated forward, and Medicare rates in excess of routine cost limits, based on the current experience of NHC-Merritt Island, NHC reasonably projected its costs and profit margin. NHC-Merritt Island has a positive cash flow and its expenses and revenues are at the goal set by NHC. With a total of 180 beds, the projections are reasonable that NHC-Merritt Island will be profitable. As AHCA's expert opined, NHC's proposal is financially feasible. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans The 1991 District 7 health plan has three preferences related to nursing homes, one favoring a section of Orange County, is inapplicable to the Brevard County applications. A second, for applicants proposing pediatric services, is inapplicable because both proposals in this batch are to provide adult services. The third preference favors applicants proposing to establish units providing psychiatric or subacute services, with emphasis on treating medically complex patients and AIDS/HIV positive patients. Holmes/VHA's health planner considers the subacute care and AIDS/HIV services proposed by Holmes/VHA superior to those proposed by NHC. NHC, however, proposes to provide specialized care in designated units for both subacute and Alzheimers's patients. Although Holmes/VHA argues that Alzheimers' care is required in every nursing home and is, therefore, not a specialized program, the physical design of a separate unit for such patients was shown to enhance their comfort. No AIDS/HIV positive patient has been treated at either Holmes Nusing Center or at NHC-Merritt Island. NHC-Merritt Island has accepted AIDS/HIV positive patients who did not come to the facility. The state health plan has twelve allocation factors for use in comparing nursing home applications. Both applicants comply with the factors favoring locations in a subdistrict in which occupancy levels exceed 90 percent, proposals to meet or exceed that average subdistrict Medicaid occupancy of 60.31 percent, proposals with respite care and innovative therapies, multi- disciplinary staffing, for staffing in excess of minimum state requirements, and which document means to protect residents' rights and privacy. Both Holmes/VHA and NHC also meet the preference for proposing charges that do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. NHC asserted, but failed to demonstrate that its therapy services with in-house staff are superior to those provided to Holmes/VHA by contract staff from Holmes Regional. The state health plan factor number 3, for specialized services, is largely duplicative of district health plan preferences. Neither applicant meets the part of one preference for providing adult day care, or the preference for proposing lower than average administrative costs and higher than average resident care costs. The fifth state allocation factor, for maximizing resident comfort and the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes, related to the cost and methods of construction, are at issue. NHC questions the adequacy of three acres for the building proposed by Holmes/VHA and the design of the building. Holmes Regional Nursing Center has 120 beds and approximately the same building area as that proposed for Palm Bay Center. The architects of the building have constructed a 163-bed facility on four acres in Jacksonville, and a 240-bed facility in Memphis, Tennessee on approximately six acres. Homes/VHA expects to construct the building in half the time required for completion of NHC's proposed addition. AHCA's architect noted, however, that Holmes/VHA has no Alzheimers unit and that its subacute area is not separated from the areas used by other patients and their families. Holmes/VHA has showers only in the 13 private rooms. By contrast, NHC has an Alzheimers unit with its own lounge and courtyard and a subacute unit at the end of a wing with a separate waiting room. NHC's rooms are larger, with larger windows. NHC's costs are higher than Holmes/VHA's, but not above the high average cost guidelines for construction used by AHCA. NHC has one nursing station for 60 beds, which meets the state requirement while Holmes/VHA is better equipped with two nurses stations for 79 beds. In general, Holmes/VHA established that its building could be built on 3 acres, and that its interior spaces exceed the requirements to be licensed. NHC established that its building and grounds will be larger, higher quality construction with more non-combustible materials, and better meet the preference for maximizing resident comfort. The preference for superior resident care is met by both Holmes/VHA and NHC-Merritt Island. An NHC facility in Stuart was rated conditional for 80 days of the 36 months, prior to the filing of the application. NHC had just purchased the Stuart facility at the time of the conditional rating, and had, in total, many more months of superior operations. In addition, the parties stipulated to quality of care issues at the hearing. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability, accessibility, efficiency, extent of utilization of like and existing services; alternatives to the applicants' proposals Brevard County is 80 miles long from north to south, 22 miles wide at its widest point, with 62 percent of its population in the southern area of the county. Holmes/VHA contends that its application should be approved based on the greater need for nursing home beds in southern Brevard County. Using ratios of beds in existing or approved nursing homes as compared to the population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, a need is shown for more beds in the southern area, including Palm Bay. In the central area, there are 31.52 beds per 1000 people over 65, as compared to 26.53 in the southern area of Brevard County. For the population over 75, the ratios are 82.53 in the central and 68.47 in the southern area. The over 75 population is also projected to increase by a greater percentage in the southern as contrasted to the central areas of the county. AHCA claims to reject the use of any "sub-subdistrict" analysis of need, other than the test for geographically underserved areas, as defined by Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code. That test which applies to proposed sites more than 20 miles from a nursing home, is not met by Holmes/VHA or NHC. However, AHCA has, in at least one other case, considered geographic accessibility within the planning area in determining which applicant should be approved, without the applicants having to demonstrate that the proposed sites are geographically underserved areas. NHC takes issue with Holmes/VHA's data on bed availability in the southern and central portions of the county. NHC maintains that its central location better serves the entire county. NHC's expert also criticized the methodology used by Holmes/VHA for demonstrating need in the southern area. The comparison of existing beds to population, shows a lack of county-wide parity, but not necessarily need. Other factors related to the need for nursing homes were not presented, such as poverty, migration, mortality and occupancy rates. In addition, NHC's expert questioned Holmes/VHA's experts calculations of bed- to-population ratios. The ratios arguably were skewed by using beds for Wuesthoff Hospital Progressive Care in the central area data, but including the population of the zip code in which Wuesthoff is located in the southern area. Holmes/VHA noted that the majority of the population in the zip code is in the southern area. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid/indigent care Holmes/VHA's expert criticized NHC because two of its facilities, Merritt Island and Stuart, have been below the subdistrict average for Medicaid occupancy. For 3 six month periods during the last 4 years, they also were below their CON Medicaid commitments. One other NHC facility, in Hudson, has been below the subdistrict average, but significantly above its CON condition. NHC claims that it treats its Medicaid condition as a minimum, while Holmes/VHA uses its conditions as an artificial ceiling or maximum. Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(o) - cooperative or shared health care resources; continuum of care Holmes/VHA has established linkages to its various related companies to provide cooperative care and shared resources. Palm Bay Nursing Center would enhance the multi-level care provided by the Holmes Enterprises group and provide another integral step in the continuum, particularly in rehabilitative therapies. NHC, however, as an existing provider, is part of a well-established network of health care providers in the community. NHC has also purchased land to build an adult congregate living facility near or adjacent to NHC-Merritt Island. Subsections 408.039(2)(a), (2)(c) and 408.037(4), and Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code - capital projects list; board resolutions; and impacts on costs AHCA interprets the requirements for the submission of a board resolution to allow an original resolution accompanying the letter of intent to be treated as a part of the complete application. A board resolution with an application, which the statute requires "if applicable," applies to expedited applications for which a letter of intent would not have been received, according to AHCA. NHC submitted an original board resolution with its letter of intent, and a copy of that resolution with its application for CON 7527. The authority of Holmes/VHA's management committee to authorize the construction of a new nursing home, and the authority to operate a nursing home outside the city of Melbourne was questioned. The testimony that the joint venture agreement authorizes the management committee to adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of CON 7539 was not refuted. In addition, the testimony that operations are restricted to the "Melbourne area" as opposed to some more specifically defined geographic area was not refuted. Repeatedly, witnesses described Palm Bay, although a separate municipal corporation, as a suburb of Melbourne. Holmes/VHA claims that NHC failed to disclose certain capital equipment leases from its schedule 2 list of capital projects and failed to evaluate the impact on costs, as required by subsection 408.037, Florida Statutes. In NHC's annual reports, the costs of capital equipment leases were $204,000 in 1991, $43,000 in 1992, and $88,000 in 1993. In fact, the NHC witness who prepared schedule 2 included a total of $21,653,468 for the category "Renovations (Including Furnishings and Equipment) 1994", taken from the capital expenditure budget of each NHC facility. The listing is consistent with the footnote indicating the budget items "are subject to final approval and cash reserves availability." In addition, $100,000 is also listed under "Other Capitalization" for equipment, for which a footnote explains "[a]mount included in an abundance of caution to cover any items unknown at the time of filing." NHC, according to Holmes/VHA, also failed to provide a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services it provides, as required by subsection 408.037(2)(c), Florida Statutes. NHC merely states that the impact is "nominal" and "negligible." NHC satisfied the impact analysis requirement in the notes to schedule 2 and in schedules 11, 13 and 14 of the application. The incremental pro forma analysis of the effect on costs with or without the proposed project, and projected financial ratios and costs, give detail support for the statements in the application. Assuming, arguendo, that Holmes/VHA omitted $50,000 in capital costs from schedule 2, the omission is not material or fatal to consideration of the application on the merits. Holmes/VHA's financial expert testified that $50,000 is less than on-half of one percent of the total project expenditures listed on schedule 2 and is, therefore, immaterial. As AHCA concedes, Holmes/VHA and NHC have the resources to establish their projects and to provide the services described in their applications. On balance, the demand for additional beds, the enhancement of a superior, existing physical plant and the expansion of specialized services at NHC outweigh the community linkages demonstrated by Holmes/VHA and the desirability of county- wide parity in the distribution of nursing homes beds, at this time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency For Health Care Administration issue a Final Order approving CON No. 7527 for the construction of an additional 60 community nursing home beds by National Healthcorp, L.P., conditioned on the provision of 60.31 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2393 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner NHC's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18, except last phrase. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6 and 10. 6-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law. 18-21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. 23-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 31. Rejected in Findings of Fact 6 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. 35-36. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 21-25. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 39. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 20, 23 and 34. 40. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 41. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 44-45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 46-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. 56-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19, 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 68-77. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 84-88. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, and 20. 89-95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, and 20. 96-97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10, 15, and 21. 98-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 16 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 15. 104-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 14. 109-110. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 113-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 18 and 34. 120-123. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 11. 124-130. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. 131. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 132. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 133. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 134-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 24. 138. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 139. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 140. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 24. 141-150. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 151. Rejected as not entirely supported by the record. 152-162. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 163-172. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 28. 173-175. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 176. Rejected conclusion that "NHC better . . ." in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 177. Accepted. Petitioner Holmes/VHA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3.. 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 6-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 31. 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30 and 31. 12. Rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and 32. 13. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law 37-40. 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 31. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 17-21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 22. Accepted, except last sentence, in Findings of Fact 27. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 25. Conclusions cannot be reached in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 26-29. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 30-36. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 33 and 34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18 and 34. Rejected in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Rejected in Findings of Fact 16. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 43-44. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18. 45-48. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 49-51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3-10 and 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 58-59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 63-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted, except conclusion, in Findings of Fact 21 and 28. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 70-71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 72. Accepted as corrected in Findings of Fact 25. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 77-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 81-89. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, 21 and 29. 90-96. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 98. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 99. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 101. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 102. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 103-105. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 106. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 107-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 109. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. 110-112. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. 113-115. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 116-118. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 119-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 138-143. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 24. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Timothy Howard, Esquire John F. Gilroy, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Darrell White, Esquire Charles Stampelos, Esquire MCFARLAIN, WILEY, CASSEDY & JONES, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Tower 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert M. Simmons, Esquire 5050 Poplar Avenue 18th Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38157 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, et al. Monroe-Park Tower, Suite 815 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact The Department hereby adopts the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer but with the significant modification set out and explained in PDCF's Exception (1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue to petitioner Holmes Health Care, Inc., a Certificate of Need for 60 additional community nursing home beds in an addition, to be constructed, to its 60-bed facility now under construction, with permission to use the existing Bonifay Nursing Home facility under the CON until the 60-bed addition is constructed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The OAKLAND Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1984.
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 FMCC's application is to provide a 102-bed long-term care nursing facility in Fort Myers, Florida, while AHC's and HSI's applications are to provide 120-bed long-term nursing care facilities. When each of these applications was presented to the south Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc. (HSA), the application of FMCC was approved and forwarded to Respondent recommending approval and the other two applications were disapproved and so forwarded. The primary reason given by HSA for disapproving HSI's application was lack of firm financing and for disapproving AHC's application was cost of construction. Trained personnel to man the proposed facilities are in short supply in Lee County. Applicants' plans to import personnel, if necessary, from other parts of the country were supported by no evidence to indicate such personnel would be amenable to move to Lee County. All applications were disapproved by Respondent and each applicant requested a hearing which resulted in this consolidated hearing. At present there are 741 existing or approved long-term care nursing home beds in Lee County, Florida. A 120-bed facility at Cape Coral became operative in February, 1979 and a 60-bed addition to Beacon-Donegan Manor nursing home has also been approved. Prior to the opening of the newest 120-bed facility at Cape Coral, the occupancy rate for the other long-term care nursing homes was greater than 90 percent. Due to its recent opening, no evidence was presented as to the occupancy rate in Lee County following the opening of the Cape Coral facility. The population of Lee County in 1978 was 184,841 with 41,984 more than 65 years old, which is less than 23 percent of the population. This is in line with the population forecasts by the University of Florida and validates the estimated 1980 population figures which were used by all parties in submitting their applications. In 1978 Respondent proposed a State Health Plan which included a determination that the long-term care nursing home bed needs were 27 per 1,000 population greater than 65 years old. This determination was unacceptable to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) whose decision is binding on Respondent. In refusing to accept this standard, HEW reaffirmed the requirement that the formula contained in the Hill-Burton Act be utilized in determining certificates of need. Following the Hill-Burton formula results in no additional long-term care nursing home beds needed in Lee County. Modification of the results produced by use of the Hill-Burton formula when extenuating and mitigating circumstances exist is authorized by the Florida Medical Facilities Plan. Accordingly, when use of Hill-Burton formula produces results contrary to obvious facts, such as a showing of no need for additional facilities when occupancy rates are high and long waiting lists for admission exists, these extenuating circumstances are considered and a finding of need is made. The parties stipulated that extenuating circumstances, notably the greater than 90 percent occupancy rate in nursing homes in 1977 and most of 1978 and the existing waiting lists created need for 100 to 120 additional beds. No evidence was presented establishing a need for more than 100-120 additional long-term care nursing home beds in Lee County. In fact, no evidence was presented showing the current occupancy rate, current waiting lists, or any other information not previously submitted to the Health Systems Agency was here presented other than the latest Census Report, which merely confirmed the accuracy of the forecasts. Even if the 27 beds per 1,000 population greater than 65 which was proposed by the South Central Florida Health Systems Agency were used to establish the number of beds needed, their limitation, that no more than 50 percent be added in the two-year planning period, would preclude approving more than one additional nursing home at this time. Absent evidence showing a need for more than one additional nursing home, the only issue remaining is which of the applicants is best qualified to provide the best service at the lowest cost for the stipulated need. HSI submitted proposed construction costs and patient charges in line with those submitted by FMCC. However, although their application states, and the Health Systems Agency apparently accepted, their allegation that an option to lease had been obtained on the property on which the proposed facility was to be erected, testimony at the hearing disclosed that only an oral agreement to lease the property had been obtained by HSI. An oral agreement affecting a long-term lease of real property comes within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable. This fact alone renders all cost estimates submitted by HSI suspect. Further, the financing proposed by HSI to construct the facility shows less than $200,000 equity capital available and a requirement to borrow $1,300,000. One ground noted by the Health Systems Agency for disapproving this application was the inadequacy of their financing. No evidence presented at this hearing contradicted this Health System Agency's finding. AHC operates some 50 nursing homes in 14 states with two nursing homes in the Orlando area. A certificate of need has been obtained for a third nursing home in Jacksonville. Florida Living Care, Inc., the parent corporation of FMCC, manages some 44 nursing homes and owns 25. It has certificates of need for 6 nursing homes in Florida, one of which is completed and in operation, while 3 are under construction. AHC proposes to finance 87 percent of the cost of the 120-bed project, or $2,160,000, in a 40-year loan at 8.5 percent interest. FMCC proposes to finance 80 percent of the cost of a 102-bed project, or $1,000,000, in a 25-year loan at 9.5 percent interest. Although no testimony regarding the current status of mortgage money was presented, it is recognized that interest rates are at historically high levels and that FMCC is more likely to get financing on the terms it proposed than is AHC on the terms the latter proposed. HSI proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $30.16 per patient per day. FMCC proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $30.96 per patient per day. AHC proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $34.40 per patient per day. No significant difference exists in the services proposed by each of the applicants. Savings from combined purchasing can result when numerous facilities are operated. Both AHC and FMCC are in a better position in this regard than is HSI. Additional savings in group food purchasing can result when facilities are within 200 miles of each other. The facilities FMCC's parent corporation is opening in Sebring and Port Charlotte are close enough to Fort Myers to allow group food purchasing for these facilities. AHC's construction costs are approximately 50 percent higher per bed than are the costs submitted by FMCC and HSI. This factor must result in higher charges to amortize these higher construction costs.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Manor-Sarasota Manor Health Care Corporation operates 140 nursing centers throughout the country with nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLF) in Florida. Seven of the nine Florida nursing homes are rated superior and two are standard. Manor-Sarasota is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Health Care Corporation, and currently owns and operates a 120 bed nursing home, with a 120 bed ACLF, at 5511 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida. The facility opened in December, 1983 and currently has a standard license, although for a period in 1986 its license was conditional. Manor-Sarasota is currently licensed as a skilled nursing home providing trach care, nasogastric feedings, wound care, physical, speech and occupational therapy, as well as Clinatron beds for patients with severe decubitus ulcers. On or about January 15, 1987, Manor-Sarasota filed CON application number 5050 for the addition of sixty community nursing home beds at its facility. The proposed additional beds will include a separate 30-bed specialized unit for elderly persons suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Manor Health Care Corporation currently operates 13 to 15 Alzheimer's units within their existing centers. Between 30 percent - 50 percent of Manor-Sarasota's current patients are diagnosed as having Alzheimer's or related disorders. There are no specialized facilities for Alzheimer's patients in Sarasota at the current time. The current facility is a two-story nursing home, and the additional beds would be configured in a two-story addition of thirty-five beds on the first floor and twenty-five beds on the second floor. The thirty-bed Alzheimer's unit would be located on the first floor. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's patients will also be provided. An additional nurse's station would be added to provide 4 nurse's stations for 180 beds. Total project costs are reasonably projected at $1.85 million, with construction costs of $1.26 million, equipment costs of approximately $170,000, professional services of approximately $137,000 and related costs of approximately $253,000. The proposal would add 16,683 gross square feet to the existing 49,454 gross square feet. The total project cost per additional bed would be $30,872, while the construction cost per square foot would be $55.00. The gross square footage per bed would be 278 feet. Manor-Sarasota projects a 40 percent Medicaid and 60 percent private pay utilization for the 60 bed addition, although its Medicaid utilization at the existing facility has only been between 15 percent and 24 percent. Since there is an upward trend in Medicaid utilization, Manor-Sarasota would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition on its CON, if approved. Medicare patients will continue to be served within the existing facility. The project will be funded through 25 percent equity and 75 percent financing. Manor Health Care Corporation will finance the project internally through the sale of assets, and the sale of senior subordinated notes and convertible subordinated debentures, and this financing proposal is reasonable and realistic. In Manor-Sarasota's original application, six 3-bed wards were proposed. As a result of criticism of 3-bed wards in the Department's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) concerning this application as well as other facilities, the applicant modified its proposed design to eliminate all 3-bed wards and to include 24 semiprivate and 12 private rooms. The square footage of the addition was also increased by 21 percent from 13,750 to 16,683 square feet. This modification was presented at hearing and was filed subsequent to the application being deemed complete, and the SAAR being prepared. Competent substantial evidence in support of the original application was not offered, but rather evidence was presented in support of the substantially modified proposal. The applicant's existing 120-bed nursing home has experienced over 90 percent occupancy for the months of November, 1987 to the date of hearing, and also experienced an average occupancy of approximately 86 percent for 1986 and the first ten months of 1987. During the first year of operation, 65 percent occupancy is projected for the 60 new beds which are now being sought, and 95 percent occupancy is projected for the second year of operation. Sarasota Healthcare Sarasota Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership whose general partners are Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Sarasota Healthcare proposes to enter into a management agreement with Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) for the operation and administration of their proposed facility. The Kelletts, as 100 percent owners, comprise the Board of Directors of CSI and also serve as its Chairman and President. CSI operates 21 nursing homes in seven states, and 85 percent of its beds have superior licenses. There are 6 CSI operated nursing homes in Florida, one of which, Pinebrook Place, is located in Sarasota County in the City of Venice. Pinebrook Place is a 120 bed nursing home and has a superior license. Sarasota Healthcare does not own or operate any other nursing homes. A new 120 bed freestanding nursing home is proposed by Sarasota Healthcare in CON application 5025, which was filed with the Department in January, 1987. The project would be located in Sarasota County at a specific site which has not yet been identified. Sarasota Healthcare projects a utilization of 40 percent Medicaid, 5 percent Medicare and 55 percent private pay at its proposed facility, and would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition of this CON, if approved. The proposed facility would offer skilled, intermediate, respite and hospice care; specialized services for Alzheimer's patients; physical, occupational, speech and rehabilitative therapy; counseling; and social services. Alzheimer's patients will not be located in a separate unit but will be intermingled with other patients while receiving specialized services and protections for their disease. Sarasota Healthcare proposes a 120 bed nursing home comprised of 12 private and 54 semiprivate rooms, 37,7000 gross square feet and a total project cost of $3.9 million The proposed size and cost of this facility are reasonable. The cost per bed would be $32,500 and the construction cost per square foot would be $58.00. Total project costs are reasonable and consist of approximately $2.45 million in construction costs, $385,000 in equipment costs, $145,000 for professional services, land acquisition of $600,000 for 3 to 5 acres, and $324,000 in related costs. The gross square footage per bed would be 314 feet. The project will be funded with 25 percent equity funding from the general partners, Stiles and Samuel Kellett, and 75 percent from a commercial bank, assuming a 9.5 percent interest rate with 1 percent discount point. The proposal is reasonable, but is dependent upon the general partners' ability to personally fund 25 percent of the costs of the project through an equity contribution, and on their ability to obtain commercial financing for the remaining project costs. Financial statements of the Kelletts provided in the record of this proceeding are unaudited, and were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Kelletts have 15 CON applications currently pending, and 4 have already been approved. They have a 6 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Health Quest On or about January 15, 1987, Health Quest corporation submitted an application for CON number 5046 on behalf of Regents Park of Lake Pointe Woods for the addition of 58 new beds to its existing 53 sheltered bed nursing home at a projected cost of approximately $1.29 million. The existing sheltered nursing home facility is known as Regents Park of Sarasota which is part of the Lake Point Woods Retirement Center containing a 110 bed ACLF and 212 retirement apartment units. The sheltered nursing home opened in November, 1986, and has achieved 90 percent occupancy since October, 1987. It is licensed under Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, as a continuing care facility. Health Quest owns and operates nine nursing centers in three states, and has received CON approval for 12 additional facilities in three states, including four in Florida. One of these Florida CONs is for 180 new community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Health Quest's existing Regents Park of Sarasota nursing home is located at 7979 South Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. Although it is a sheltered nursing home, only one or two beds are generally occupied by Lake Point Woods residents at any one time. During 1987, only 26 admissions to Regents Park came from Lake Pointe Woods, and most of these admissions were for episodic illnesses of less than 30 days rather than for longer term care. Thus, the vast majority of admissions at Regents Park have been from the community, including admissions directly from home, hospitals and other nursing homes, rather than from the retirement center, Lake Pointe Woods, of which Regents Park is a part. However, since existing beds at Regents Park are sheltered, community patients will not be able to be admitted there beyond November, 1991, the expiration of five years from its opening. During its year and a half of operation, Regents Park has not shown a profit, despite original projections of profitability after only one year. In response to the Department's omissions letter dated February 19, 1987, Health Quest notified the Department, by letter dated March 27, 1987, of its amendment to CON application 5046. Rather than pursuing its request for 58 new community nursing home beds, Health Quest amended the application to seek conversion of the 53 sheltered beds to community beds and to add 7 new community nursing home beds. Since no new space is proposed for construction under the amendment, and since virtually all equipment is already in place, Health Quest projected no cost associated with the amended project. However, there would be some minor costs to equip seven new beds, as well as legal and consulting costs associated with this application and hearing. Currently, the Regents Park nursing home has approximately 31,000 total gross square feet, which would result in 520 gross square feet per bed if its application is approved. On April 10, 1987, the Department published its notice of completeness regarding Health Quest's amended CON application 5046 at Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 13, No. 15, p. 1365. The Department reviewed and evaluated Health Quest's amended application, rather than the original application, in preparing its SAAR on the applications at issue in this case dated June 15, 1987. Despite this notice of completeness, the record shows that Health Quest's conversion proposal was incomplete since no balance sheet, profit and loss statement for precious fiscal years of operation, detailed statement of financial feasibility or pro forma were introduced. Although sheltered beds can be certified to accept Medicaid patients, Health Quest has not sought such certification for any of the 53 existing beds at Regents Park. Health Quest proposes to seek Medicaid certification for 5 beds, and to serve 8 percent Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Health Quest does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special outdoor activities for these patients as well as an Alzheimer's club for patients with this primary diagnosis. Health Quest specializes in caring for patients with hip fractures, and offers a wheelchair mobility and ambulation program, rehabilitation and occupational therapy, bowel and bladder rehabilitation, as well as physical and horticulture therapy. Regents Park has patients on intravenous therapy and who require hyperalimentation and total parenteral nutrition. LPN and nurse's aide students from Sarasota Vo/Tech School receive training at the Regents Park nursing home. HCR In 1986, HCR purchased, and currently owns and operates a 147 bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida, known as Kensington Manor, which holds a standard license. HCR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, a publicly held corporation, and has built over 200 nursing homes in the last 25 years. At the present time, HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds in 19 States. HCR owns and operates a total of 9 nursing homes in Florida, and has about 10 nursing home projects under development which it intends to operate upon completion. On or about January 14, 1987, HCR filed CON application 5049 with the Department. This application seeks approval of 60 new community nursing home beds at Kensington Manor, at a currently projected cost of $1.82 million, which is a reasonable projection. The cost per new bed would be $30,030. HCR proposes to finance to project with a 25 percent equity contribution, and 75 percent internally financed by HCR through its parent company, Owens-Illinois, and this proposal is realistic and reasonable. Throughout 1986, Kensington Manor had an occupancy level of between 85 percent - 95 percent and is currently operating at 95 percent - 96 percent occupancy. HCR reasonably projects 95 percent occupancy for the 60 new beds in the second year of operation. HCR reasonably proposes a patient mix in the new addition of 45 percent Medicaid, 4 percent Medicare and 51 percent private pay. Kensington Manor is currently 75 percent - 80 percent Medicaid, 1 percent Medicare, and the remainder is private pay, but its proposed patient mix for the new addition is realistic because there will be no three-bed wards in the addition, and sub- acute services will be provided, thereby increasing the Medicare percentage. The HCR proposed addition at Kensington Manor provides a distinct 29 bed wing for Alzheimer's patients where a special care program and special staffing can be made available. Additionally, a 12 person Alzheimer's adult day care center will be physically attached to the new addition where a less intense level of care outside the home can be made available to these patients. Respite care and sub-acute care will also be provided. The project will add a 60 bed, single story addition to Kensington Manor, with a special Alzheimer unit consisting of 1 private and 14 semiprivate rooms, an enclosed courtyard and porch. A second dining room will be added, as well as 2 central bathing areas, multipurpose and physical therapy rooms. The addition would total 18,000 gross square feet, or 267 gross square feet per bed in the new addition. Kensington Manor currently has approximately 30,000 gross square feet, with 1 private and 52 semiprivate rooms, and 14 three-bedroom wards. Therefore with the addition, Kensington Manor would have approximately 48,000 gross square feet which would be approximately 223 square feet per bed for the entire facility. Sisters of Bon Secours The Sisters of Bon Secours, a Catholic religious order, are currently responsible for the operation and ownership, through not-for-profit corporations, of a JCAH accredited 272 community bed nursing home in North Miami having a superior license, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, and they also have a CON for an additional nursing home to be located in Collier County. On or about January 15, 1987, Sisters filed CON application 5039 for a new 120 community bed nursing home to be located in Sarasota County, and to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. Sisters is the only applicant involved in this case which is not already providing services in Sarasota County. The proposal calls for the development of a teaching nursing home to be designated as a center for training and research in the study of gerontology and long term care. Affiliations with schools and universities will be developed to allow health care administrators, social workers, medical and nursing students, and practitioners interested in developing a specialization to fulfill their clinical studies and requirements. There will be an emphasis on restorative and rehabilitative care, with 20 percent of the beds being designated for sub-acute care patients who could return home after 30-45 days of therapy and transitional care. Sisters will develop a continuum of care by networking in the community. It is the only applicant that proposes to provide a site for education and research in Sarasota County. The proposed facility is intended to serve the needs of members of the Venice Diocese who reside in Sarasota County, where there is currently no Catholic nursing home. The Venice Diocese is now served by the Sisters' nursing home in Charlotte County, and will also be served by the facility to be located in Collier County, for which a CON has already been issued. However, treatment at these nursing homes, including the proposed Villa Maria of Sarasota County, is not limited to Catholics; the Sisters accept, treat and care for persons in need from all religions backgrounds and denominational affiliations. Total project costs are estimated at $6.64 million, including $3.86 million for construction, approximately $592,000 for equipment, $762,000 to acquire a seven acre site, $237,000 for professional services, $888,000 for financing costs and approximately $300,000 in other related costs. The project would encompass almost 60,000 gross square feet, and would cost approximately $55,300 per bed and $64.50 per square foot. Almost 500 gross square feet would be available per bed, which represents the most square footage per bed of any application under consideration. The proposed facility would have 8 private and 56 semiprivate rooms, with in-room tubs and showers, 3 patient lounges, and a 100 seat dining room. Due to the large size of the proposal, some patient rooms exceed 120 feet from nurse's stations. However, this licensure requirement can easily be met with minor design modifications during the licensure process. Sisters project a 33.3 percent Medicaid, 17.6 - 19.7 percent Medicare, 4 percent indigent and 43 percent - 45 percent private pay utilization for the 120 bed nursing home in its first two years of operation. While Medicaid utilization in Dade County during 1987 rose to 68 percent as a county-wide average, Sisters' Dade County nursing home experienced a drop in Medicaid to 14.6 percent. The high Medicare utilization level which has been projected is consistent with, and based on, the experience of the Sisters at their Dade County nursing home which currently has 21 percent Medicare utilization. However, due to the greater number of hospital referral sources, as well as the larger population and fewer competing nursing homes in Dade County compared with Sarasota County, Medicare utilization projections may be overstated, and actually fall between the 3-4 percent historical utilization in the Sarasota area and Sisters' projection. It will be somewhat above 3-4 percent due to the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home which will attract more Medicare patients. The project will be funded with an equity contribution of 10.6 percent ($635,455) and the remaining 89.4 percent ($6 million) will be funded through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. This financing proposal is realistic and reasonable. The proposed nursing home is intended to offer services to AIDS patients, adult day care, and a meals-on-wheels program. However, it was not established at hearing that such patients would definitely be served, or that space would be available at this facility for these services until the Sisters can determine the actual level of need for these services in Sarasota County, if this CON is approved. Department of HRS On or before January 15, 1987, the Department received the CON applications at issue in this case for additional community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. As it relates to this case, the Department issued its SAAR on June 15, 1987, in which the application of HCR (CON 5049) for a 60 community nursing home bed addition to Kensington Manor was approved, and all other applications in this case were denied. In addition to the HCR application, the Department also supported at hearing the applications of Manor Care (CON 5050) for a 60 bed addition to Manor-Sarasota and Sisters of Bon Secours (CON 5039) for a new 120 bed community bed nursing home to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. The Department opposed the issuance of a CON to the remaining applicants. It is the position of the Department that changes or updates to CON applications made after an application has been deemed complete and reviewed in a SAAR, cannot be considered at hearing if such changes or updates are the result of matters or events within the control of the applicant, and which therefore could have been foreseen and considered at the time the application or responses to omissions were filed. However, matters involving payor mix, salaries and charges could result from changes in demographics and economic factors outside of the applicants' control. In such instances, updates or changes to an application based upon current demographics or economics can, and should be, considered at hearing. The updated pro forma submitted by Sarasota Healthcare at hearing resulted from the applicant's desire to reflect current salaries in the Sarasota County labor market, which have increased dramatically since the original application was submitted. As a result of updating salary expense projections, Medicaid and Medicare rates also had to be updated. Associated projections throughout the pro forma which are dependent upon these reimbursement rates, as well as salary expense projections, also had to be updated. The updated pro forma presented by Sarasota Healthcare results from a factor outside of the control of the applicant, inflation, which could not have been foreseen or predicated with certainty in January, 1987. To ignore actual, current inflation data in Sarasota County is to ignore reality. This update is permissible and has been considered. Manor-Sarasota's application presented at hearing includes changes in its proposed payor mix, charges and salaries, as well as its pro forma. These updates are permissible since they result from changes in demographics and inflation outside of the applicant's control which could not have been foreseen in January 1987. However, a 21 percent increase in square footage and elimination of three-bed wards, with associated changes in proposed staffing, capital costs and equipment, while certainly having a positive effect on quality of care, is nevertheless a matter totally within the control of the applicant. The desireability of these changes could have been foreseen at the time the application was filed, and therefore these substantial changes in design represent impermissible amendments to Manor-Sarasota's application. Stipulations The appropriate planning area for these applications is Sarasota County, and the appropriate planning horizon is January, 1990. Sarasota County is in subdistrict 6 of the Department's service district 8. The parties have stipulated that there is a need for 240 additional community nursing home beds in the January, 1990, planning horizon in Sarasota County, in accordance with the bed need formula in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The parties have agreed that Section 381.705(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (1987), have been met, or are not applicable to this case. This statutory criteria deals with the adequacy and availability of alternative health care facilities and the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. All remaining criteria found at Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), are at issue in this case. Further, the parties stipulate that 1987 amendments to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, relating to the content of applications, are inapplicable in this proceeding since these applications were filed prior to the effective date of said law. Therefore, application content provisions of Section 381.494(4), Florida Statutes, govern. State and Local Health Plans The 1985 Florida State Health Plan, Volume II, Chapter 8, identifies areas of concern relating to the provision of long-term care services in Florida, which traditionally has been synonymous with nursing home care. These concerns include resource supply, cost containment and resource access. The State Health Plan seeks a reduction in the fragmentation of services and encourages development of a continuum of care. These proposals are consistent with, or do not conflict with, the State Health Plan. The 1984 District Eight Local Health Plan for Nursing Home Care is applicable to these applications for community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. The Local Health Plan contains the following pertinent criteria and standards for review of these applications: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. At a minimum community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy h. occupational therapy laboratory i. physical therapy x-ray j. speech therapy dental care k. mental health visual care counseling hearing care l. social services diet therapy m. medical services New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33 1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable service areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up services with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. The specifically stated goal of the Local Health Plan is to develop new community nursing home facilities in which at least 33 1/3 percent of the total beds should be Medicaid. The impact of this long range recommended action is stated as follows: The provision of Medicaid care beds in existing nursing homes would assure continuity of care for nursing home patients, and should improve placement in appropriate levels of care by hospitals, physicians, social services, health departments, and other referral groups. The provision for Medicaid beds would reduce cost to patients, utilizing skilled care beds, who could adequately be served by Medicaid. With the exception of Health Quest's application, all other applicants meet the above stated standards and criteria contained in the Local Health Plan. Health Quest's application does not conform to the Local Health Plan. All applicants in this proceeding have indicated that they will provide therapies and services recommended in the Local Health Plan. All applicants, except Health Quest, indicate a commitment to dedicate at least 33 1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. The new nursing home facilities proposed by Sisters and Sarasota Healthcare would each be for 120 beds, consistent with the Local Health Plan standard that new facilities have at least 60 beds. Health Quest has proposed a 60 bed community nursing home through conversion of 53 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 7 new community beds. As existing providers, Manor-Sarasota, HCR band Health Quest have patient transfer agreements with one or more hospitals, as well as formal discharge planning programs and patient follow-up services, as recommended in the Local Health Plan. The applications for new facilities of Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters indicate they will also comply with these priorities if approval is granted and their facilities are opened. By virtue of its existing service and transfer agreements through the CSI facility in Sarasota County, Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare will be able to obtain these necessary agreements. Based upon Sisters' experience in Dade County at Villa Maria, as well as the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home, Sisters will also be able to obtain such agreements. Data has been provided by the existing nursing homes (Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Health Quest) which documents the history of their participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The other applicants (Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters) have provided Medicaid/Medicare data for other existing facilities with which they are affiliated or upon which their application at issue in this case is based. Based upon this data, Pinebrook Place in Sarasota County, which is owned and operated by Sarasota Healthcare's general partners has not met the Medicaid condition on its CON, and the existing Manor-Sarasota facility has had only 24.8 percent Medicaid utilization in fiscal year 1988: Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services HCR and Manor-Sarasota would increase the availability and adequacy of existing services they are now offering with the 60 bed additions each is seeking. The separate 30-bed specialized unit proposed by Manor-Sarasota and the 29-bed wing proposed by HCR for Alzheimer's patients will clearly increase the availability of specialized services for persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders, as well as their families. HCR will also dedicate 10 beds for sub-acute care, while Manor-Sarasota will offer community outreach, as well as respite care. Sarasota Healthcare, Sisters and Health Quest do not propose special units for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special programs and services for them and their families. It was established that there is a need for additional services and programs to serve nursing home patients with Alzheimer's and related disorders in Sarasota County, as well as a special need for sub-acute, restorative, hospice, respite, and adult day care in the County. It was not established that there is a need for additional Medicare beds in Sarasota County. Sisters have indicated an interest in offering services to patients with AIDS and patients in need of adult day care, for which there is also a need in Sarasota County. In addition, their application will enhance the availability of sub-acute nursing home services, restorative and rehabilitative care, and respite care in Sarasota County. While it would serve patients of all denominations and religious affiliations, it would be the only Catholic nursing home in Sarasota County. The teaching component of the Sisters' application would provide access for students and other health professionals seeking to further their professional training. The Sarasota Healthcare proposal also places special emphasis on increasing the availability of sub-acute services in Sarasota County. Quality of Care The Sisters will seek JCAH accreditation of the proposed facility if their CON is approved, just as their nursing home in North Miami is currently accredited. The proposed affiliation with a college of medicine and nursing school, and the intent to operate this facility as a teaching nursing home will insure quality of care at this nursing home by utilizing state-of-the-art treatment and therapy programs. Florida nursing homes currently owned or operated by each of the applicants or their affiliated corporations have standard or superior licenses which means they meet or exceed State Standards. Licensure status of facilities owned or operated in other states by the applicants, or their affiliated companies, has not been considered since it was not established that licensure standards in other states are similar, or even comparable, to those in Florida. Each applicant has significant experience rendering quality nursing home care, and each has proposed a reasonable and comprehensive quality assurance program which will insure that quality nursing home services will be provided to their residents. The architectural design proposed by each applicant is reasonable and sufficient to allow quality care to be provided at each facility. All instances where an applicant's design fails to meet final construction standards are relatively minor, and can easily be met during the licensure process with slight modifications and adaptations in design. Staffing proposals by each, while different, will all insure that adequate medical, nursing, counseling and therapeutic staff will be trained and available either on-staff or through contract, to implement quality care programs at each facility. Manor-Sarasota's past reliance on temporary nursing services is decreasing and this will have a positive effect on quality of care. HCR has just completed extensive repairs and renovations costing $350,000 at Kensington Manor which will improve the atmosphere, living conditions and overall quality of care at the facility. Sisters' educational affiliations will aid in recruiting and retaining well-trained staff for its facility. Each facility will be equipped to provide quality care. There was extensive testimony about the advantages and disadvantages of central bathing facilities compared with private baths or showers in patient rooms. Sisters and Health Quest would provide private bathing facilities in patient rooms, while the others would have central facilities. Obviously, individual bathing facilities in patient rooms offer more privacy than central facilities, but privacy can also be achieved in a central bathing area by taking only a single, or limited number of patients to a partitioned central facility at any one time. The central facility is less costly than bathing facilities in each room, and also requires less staff time and involvement to assist with, and insure safety in, the patients' bathing. It has not been shown that one type of bathing facility provided in a nursing home, to the exclusion of all others, affects the quality of care in a positive or adverse manner. Quality care can be, and is, provided under both designs. The elimination of 3-bed wards from Manor-Sarasota's application would have a positive impact on quality of care, and be consistent with the Department's position of discouraging the creation of additional 3-bed wards in nursing homes. However, such elimination was proposed after this application was deemed complete by the Department. Patients suffering from Alzheimer's and related disorders can benefit from programs and treatment conducted in separate units, or while comingled with other patients, particularly in the early and middle phases of the disease. In the later phase of the disease it may be less disruptive to other patients if Alzheimer patients reside in a separate wing or unit of the nursing home. Quality care can be rendered through separate or integrated programming, and all applicants in this case that propose to offer specialized services to these patients have proposed programs and facility designs which will provide quality care to persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders. While there are differences in facility design, such as the two-story construction of Manor-Sarasota compared with the single level construction of all other applicants, and the central heating and cooling proposed by Sisters compared with individual wall units to be used by Sarasota Healthcare, the proposed designs of all applicants allow for the rendering of quality care to patients. Access for Chronically Underserved The Health Quest proposal is inconsistent with the Local Health Plan policy that 33 1/3 percent of all nursing home beds should be dedicated for Medicaid patients since it proposes that only 5 of its 60 beds (8 percent) will be certified for Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Although Medicaid utilization at Manor-Sarasota has not been consistent with the Local Health Plan, it is projected that if CON 5050 is approved Medicaid utilization will rise to 40 percent. Sarasota Healthcare, HCR and Sisters propose to meet or exceed this Local Health Plan policy. HCR has experienced a 75-80 percent Medicaid utilization at Kensington Manor, and proposes a 45 percent Medicaid level in the new addition if CON 5049 is approved. Financial Feasibility The proposals of Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters are financially feasible. Health Quest did not file a pro forma and has not shown a profit in its year and a half of operation at Regents Park. Based upon its actual per patient operating expense at Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare has underestimated expenses in its second year of operation by approximately $8 per patient day. Its projection of a profit in the second year of operation is questionable due to this underestimation. Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters have established their ability to finance, through equity and debt, the construction, equipment, supplies, and start-up costs associated with their proposals. Health Quest will have no construction costs, and only very minor costs to equip and supply seven new beds it is requesting. The entire financial structure of CSI and Sarasota Healthcare is dependent upon the financial strength of their general partners, the Kelletts, who currently have $76 million in long term debt and $12 million in equity. This is a relatively high debt to equity ratio of 6 to 1 which makes them susceptible to adverse impacts from any downturn in the economy, especially since they have 15 additional CON applications pending in Florida, totaling $60 million in construction costs. In contrast to the Kelletts' high debt to equity ratio, Sisters have $159 million in long term debt and $160 million in equity for a very secure 1 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Projections of revenue and expense, as well as assumptions concerning projected utilization, Medicaid and Medicare rates, private pay rates, and patient mix used by Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters in their pro forma are reasonable, based upon that applicant's experience and the services proposed in their applications at issue. Adequacy of Staffing All proposals have adequate and reasonable staffing patterns, as well as staff training programs, to insure that quality care is provided. Proposed salaries are reasonable and will allow qualified staff to be hired, based upon the recruiting experience and salaries currently offered by Sarasota nursing homes. Adequate staff resources exist in the area. I. Most Effective and Less Costly Alternative Since it is generally not necessary to construct support areas for storage, laundry, kitchen and administration, adding additional beds to existing facilities is a less costly alternative to an entirely new facility. Health Quest, HCR and Manor-Sarasota are, therefore, less costly per bed than Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters' proposals to construct new 120 bed nursing homes. Specifically, there are only minor costs associated with Health Quest's proposal, while the cost per bed of the Manor-Sarasota and HCR proposals are $30,872 and $30,030, respectively, compared with $32,500 per bed for Sarasota Healthcare and $55,295 for Sisters. Health Quest's application is the least costly alternative since it involves no construction costs to add seven beds to the existing 53 sheltered beds which would be converted to community nursing home beds, although minor costs for equipping seven new beds would be incurred. Effect on Costs and Charges Sisters and Health Quest have proposed, or actually experienced, the highest costs and charges of all applicants. Health Quest has not shown any basis upon which it can be reasonably expected that room rates will decrease, as it asserts, if this CON is approved. Due to the large size of its proposed building, higher food costs and number of staff, Sisters projects the highest operating expense per patient day in the second year of operation. Sisters will provide almost 500 gross square feet per bed, while Manor-Sarasota, HCR, and Sarasota Healthcare will provide 278, 267 and 314 gross square feet per bed, respectively. Enhanced Competition Since the other applicants are already represented in the service area, the approval of Sisters' application would enhance competition by adding another provider to Sarasota County. This will provide more choices to nursing home residents, and should increase the quality of long term care in the community with the added emphasis this proposal will place on rehabilitative programming. Costs and Methods of Construction The costs and methods of construction proposed by the applicants are reasonable, as well as energy efficient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order, as follows: Approving HCR's application for CON 5049; Approving Sisters' application for CON 5039; Denying the application of Manor-Sarasota, Sarasota Healthcare and Health Quest for CONs 5050, 5025 and 5046, respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 9th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3471, 87-3473, 87-3475, 87-3478 and 87-3491 Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30, 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 6-10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the parties have stipulated to need. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 55, 69, 70. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 56, 58, 60. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55. Rejected as irrelevant since the parties have stipulated to need. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 57. Rulings on Manor-Sarasota's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17 and Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5, 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14 but Rejected in Findings of Fact 71, 73. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 35, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding or Fact 2. Rejected as unsupported and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61 but also Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 60, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but otherwise Rejected as unsupported argument on the evidence, without any citation to the record, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 82 but Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 64 in part, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64 and as not supported by the record. Rejected as unnecessary and without citation to the record. Adopted and. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 71. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 33-34. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 35-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as speculative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 41-43. Rejected as not supported by the record and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 81. Adopted in Findings of Fact 71, 75. 56-57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55, 56. 59-61. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact l. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81 but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 6-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 10-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 55. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23, 28, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 27, 28. 24-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 28-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46-49. 31-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 40-42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 71, 75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as unnecessary. 45-46. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 51-54. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 56-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 49, 51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. 69-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 34. Rulings on Sisters' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 13-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47-54. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 18-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 30, but otherwise Rejected as argument unsupported by any citation to the record. 30-38. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Rejected in Finding of Fact 40. 41-51. Adopted in Findings of fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. 52-58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. 60-75. Rejected as unnecessary irrelevant, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. 82-83. Rejected as unnecessary. 84. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 85-86. Rejected as unnecessary. 87-88. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 41. 89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as not supported by the record. 90-91. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63 and otherwise not supported by the record. 92-105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and irrelevant. Rejected as unsupported in the record and otherwise unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and speculative. Rejected as unnecessary. 111-112. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 113. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. 114-115. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 116-120. Adopted in Findings of Fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 121. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 122-123. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. 124. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31, 34, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported in the record. 125-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. 127-129. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since no applicant has locked in interest rates, and therefore these rates will vary and are speculative. Rejected as speculative and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 132-135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 136. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. 137-139. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 140. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 141-145. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. 146-147. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 71, 84, but Rejected in Findings of Fact 81, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Rejected as cumulative and unsupported by the record. 155-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. 159. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Sarasota Healthcare's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. 4-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 7-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12-16, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 61. 22-23. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 24-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 14, 57, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 83 and as unsupported in the record. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 57. 47-49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 56, 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 53-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 65-78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 79-85. Adopted in Findings of Fact 76, 77, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 86-97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 101-103. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 84. 104. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 105-109. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 16, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 73. 112-116. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 71, 73, 75, but otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. 120-121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. 122-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 127-128. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 32. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. 133-135. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 33, 63, and otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant since all licensure requirements can easily be met with minor modifications. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32, 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 140-142. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 51. 145-146. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 147-148. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 57 and as unsupported in the record. 149-150. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative 153-156. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76, 77 and otherwise not supported in the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact s. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51. Rulings on Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as speculative and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 27-34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 63, 76, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 35-39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66. 41-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as simply a statement on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact and otherwise irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. 68-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 72-74. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51 and otherwise as irrelevant. 75-76. Rejected as unnecessary, although it is agreed that these matters are irrelevant and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 81-82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 83. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 84-88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as legal argument rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. 92-94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 95. Adopted and. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 41. 96-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as irrelevant. 102. Rejected as cumulative. 103-104. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 107-109. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63. 110-111. Rejected as unsupported in the record and irrelevant. 112-114. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported by the record. 115. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 116-117. Rejected as unnecessary. 118-120. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise simply as a summation of testimony. 121-122. Rejected as irrelevant and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 125-127. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as a summation of testimony. 128. Rejected as cumulative. 129-131. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. 132-134. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise as irrelevant. 135. Rejected in Findings of Fact 43, 48, 57 and otherwise as irrelevant. 136-142. Rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is not the accuracy of the SAAR, but rather whether applicants have sustained their burden of establishing entitlement to a CON based on the record established at hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of HRS 2727 Mahan Drive, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Watkins, Esquire Harry F. X. Purnell, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Byron B. Matthews, Jr., Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2802 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue The central issue for disposition is whether Certificate of Need no. 7750, for 24 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds should be awarded to Petitioner, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s). To resolve that issue it is necessary to resolve factual issues regarding the need for the proposed beds and a legal issue regarding the impact of Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America v. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. 671 So.2d 217 (Fla 1st DCA 1996) (Tarpon Springs) on the fixed need pool published in the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994 in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) is a not- for-profit hospital which has operated in the Tampa, Florida area for over fifty years. It is currently licensed for 883 acute- care beds; it owns John Knox Village, which includes an adult congregate living facility and medical center nursing home; and it offers other services in a continuum of health care. St. Joseph’s also has a 19-bed, in-hospital skilled nursing care unit which became operational in early 1995. The Agency for Health Care Administration (agency or AHCA) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the certificate of need (CON) process described in sections 408.031 through 408.045, Florida Statutes (“the Health Facility and Services Development Act”). The Process The fixed need pool published by AHCA in vol. 20, number 15, April 15, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly, projected a need for 94 additional nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the January 1997 planning horizon. There is no evidence that this fixed need pool was challenged. Approximately eleven health care providers, including St. Joseph’s, responded to the fixed need pool notice with applications for CON’s ranging from 10 to 94 beds. Some of those applicants, like St. Joseph’s, were hospitals seeking hospital- based skilled nursing beds. After comparative review of the applications, AHCA issued its state agency action report (SAAR) on September 16, 1994, denying some and granting others, and explaining the basis for its intended actions. Some of the beds were awarded for a hospital-based skilled nursing unit; St. Joseph’s application for 24 in-hospital beds was denied in the comparative review that determined St. Joseph’s application was inferior to others in meeting statutory and rule criteria. The applicants’ petitions for formal hearing were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by AHCA and were consolidated in a single proceeding relating to the 94 beds in District 6, Subdistrict 1. On October 19, 1995, during the pendancy of appeal of the DOAH Final Order in Tarpon Springs, all of the parties in the consolidated cases executed and filed a stipulation which disposes of 93 out of the 94 available beds in the fixed need pool. The stipulation provides that all of the applicants, except St. Joseph’s, withdrew their petitions for formal hearing. As to St. Joseph’s, the stipulation provides: St. Joseph’s has previously withdrawn its opposition to the applications of all other parties to this proceeding by its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petitions for Administrative Hearing and Notice of Lack of Opposition, dated September 13, 1995. St. Joseph’s and AHCA stipulate that Case No. 94-6236, wherein St. Joseph’s challenged the denial of its application for certificate of need 7750 to add 24 skilled nursing unit beds, should be held in abeyance pending the final judicial determination of Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, et al. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Proceeding below DOAH Case Nos. 94-0958RU and 94-1165RU, reported at 16 FALR 3420, presently on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal). St. Joseph’s acknowledges that the terms of this settlement will deplete the fixed bed need pool determined to be available for this application cycle, assents to the same, and maintains its position that its application should be approved notwithstanding the lack of availability of community nursing home beds within the fixed bed need pool. All other parties to this agreement except for AHCA hereby withdraw their petitions filed in this proceeding in opposition to the application of St. Joseph’s for certificate of need 7750 and waive any challenge or protest that they may have to the issuance of certificate of need 7750. St. Joseph’s hereby agrees not to oppose the transfer of up to seven (7) beds from this application cycle to TGH. After remand of all of the consolidated cases except St. Joseph’s (DOAH no. 94-6236), AHCA entered its final order on December 13, 1995, awarding CON’s for 93 beds to various of the applicants. Some of those 93 beds were awarded for hospital- based skilled nursing units. This final order depleted the fixed need pool of all but one bed. In their prehearing stipulation filed on August 29, 1996, AHCA and St. Joseph’s admitted these relevant facts: The appropriate planning area is Hillsborough County; The appropriate planning horizon for the application is January 1997. Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code was appropriately used in determining the bed need for Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994; and The numbers used to derive the project pool of 94 beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1 for the January 1997 planning horizon were accurate and appropriate. At the hearing and in its proposed recommended order, St. Joseph’s concedes that it did not apply for beds under “not normal” circumstances. The Project St. Joseph’s proposes to establish a 24 bed, hospital- based skilled nursing unit in an area of its main hospital building by converting 24 acute care beds to this use. The project involves 19,600 square feet of renovation at a total project cost of $684,731, including conversion costs of $331,940. Actual out-of-pocket costs for the project are $352.791. The skilled nursing beds within the hospital facility are intended to contribute to St. Joseph’s goal of providing a full continuum of care for its patients, with services provided at different levels for a medically-appropriate and cost- effective outcome. St. Joseph’s anticipates that the patient using the skilled nursing (also called “subacute care”) unit would be one coming from the acute care setting and requiring less-acute care, but a more intensive level of care and a shorter length of stay than generally offered in a typical nursing home. All ancillary services and therapies will be available at the hospital seven days a week. Rehabilitative services, which are critical to the patient likely to use the skilled nursing beds, include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and recreation therapy. Need Analysis/Impact on Existing Programs Virtually all of the referrals to the proposed new beds will come from within St. Joseph’s. This is the experience of the new 19 bed unit. The hospital’s doctors and their patients prefer to not transfer to an outside facility and they plan in advance, as part of their treatment goals, that the subacute rehabilitative phase of treatment will be in St. Joseph’s own skilled nursing unit. The multi-discipline health care team evaluates and identifies patients who will benefit from such treatment; patients are not automatically shifted down to the unit. The existing unit enjoys a near-100 percent occupancy rate and has a waiting list for patients. Sometimes patients are held in an acute care bed while awaiting transfer to a vacant bed in the skilled nursing unit. This is an inappropriate use of the acute care bed. Few, if any patients would come from other hospitals. Since many hospitals now have their own skilled nursing units, there is little exchange of patients. In the experience of St. Joseph’s staff, other hospitals generally fill their own units from within in their own “continuum of care” system. John Knox Village is not an alternative for patients who need to “step-down” from acute to subacute care. John Knox is eleven miles from St. Joseph’s and does not provide the intensity of care that is offered in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. There are subacute care, or skilled nursing care, beds in Hillsborough County in free-standing, not hospital-based units. These alternative facilities are not all fully occupied and some offer similar services and treat patients comparable to those treated in the hospital-based units. Evidence that the free-standing skilled nursing facilities are not appropriate alternatives to St. Joseph’s new beds was largely anecdotal. Although Dr. Wasylik, St. Joseph’s chief of orthopedics, is generally familiar with facilities in which he has patients, his observation that transfer of patients from St. Joseph’s would not be appropriate is based on his concern that the “continuity of care” would be disrupted. In other words, even before surgery and admission to an acute care bed, a “critical pathway” in the patient’s rehabilitation is developed. Another facility might have a different pathway that would disrupt the rehabilitative process. Better continuity of care, in Wasylik’s view, translates into quicker, and thereby more cost-effective, recovery. Financial Considerations Although the agency found some inconsistencies in the financial data included in St. Joseph’s application, those inconsistencies affected only the scoring of the application in a competitive batching cycle. The agency witness who provided financial review of the application conceded there was no problem with funding the project, and due to the small size of the project in relation to the size of St. Joseph’s, the project would not have a significant impact on the cost of other services provided by St. Joseph’s. The proposed project would generate a positive financial return for St. Joseph’s. In the proforma financial statement included with the application, the hospital used an occupancy rate of 74%; the actual occupancy rate experienced in the new 19 bed unit is higher. Some of the problems the agency found when reviewing St. Joseph’s application were adequately explained at hearing. For example, the actual cost of the project is less than what the agency found in the financial projections in the application. Also, if, as the agency contends, St. Joseph’s has over-stated its projection of Medicaid patients, a lower Medicaid utilization rate will actually inure to the benefit of St. Joseph’s, since the Medicaid reimbursement rate is lower than for other payor sources. While not obvious on the face of the application, the financial assumptions provided by St. Joseph’s were sufficient to extrapolate valid projected salary expenses in the second year of operation. In summary, a CON application, by necessity, includes estimates and projections of expenses and revenue generated by the proposed project. St. Joseph’s now has the experience, which it did not have when the application was prepared, of the actual expenses and revenue from its 19 bed unit. That actual experience helps validate its prediction of financial feasibility for the proposed 24 beds. Architectural Issues At hearing, St. Joseph’s clarified its intent to not delicense nor relocate acute care beds to make room for the proposed 24 bed skilled nursing unit. Nor does it intend to “phase in” the skilled nursing beds, if approved. Neither of these intentions is clear from the face of the application and the architectural review by the agency raised questions on these issues. The questions affected St. Joseph’s overall standing in a competitive review process, but are not serious enough to foreclose approval if the application is considered on its own merit. The application states that the new beds would be co- located with the existing 19 beds. But if there is not sufficient room, as long as St. Joseph’s can accomplish the project at or below the approved project cost, and as long as St. Joseph’s obtains agency approval for placing the beds elsewhere (which approval is routinely granted), the precise location of the beds within St. Joseph’s facility is not a problem. The beds may not, nor are they intended to be, co-mingled with acute care beds in the hospital. Upon construction, the 24 beds will meet all of the licensure, building code and other regulations applicable to a skilled nursing unit within an acute care hospital. Balancing the Criteria and Summary of Findings There is little dispute that St. Joseph’s has the financial resources to complete the approved project and to operate it successfully. Nor is quality of care, either in the existing facility and projected in the future, an issue of dispute. The questions raised in the financial review and architectural review are not impediments to approval. There are two significant problems with St. Joseph’s proposal. St. Joseph’s serves the entire planning district, and the impact of new beds must be considered in that district-wide health-planning perspective. St. Joseph’s generates enough patients from within its own hospital to fill the beds close to capacity. Other facilities providing similar services in the district are not at full capacity. The possibility of those existing facilities serving as an alternative to new beds was not adequately explored by St. Joseph’s, but was rejected out of an abundance of pride in its own fine services, or physician and patient loyalty. Patient and physician preference does impact “real world” utilization of health care facilities but cannot drive the health planning decisions that are made in the CON process. The second, and most significant impediment to St. Joseph’s application is that only one bed remains in the fixed need pool established for the relevant planning horizon. As discussed below, Tarpon Springs did not invalidate that fixed need pool. St. Joseph’s application does not reflect a willingness to accept any fewer than the requested beds, much less an award of only one single bed. (See, Respondent’s Exhibit 12, CON application, p. 34)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order denying CON number 7750 to St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1997. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Baker & Hostetler Suite 2000 100 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
