The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether proposed amendments to Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), and (p) F.A.C. relating to certificates of need for hospital inpatient general psychiatric services, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, as defined in Section 120.52(8), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Metamorphosis of the Rules Prior to 1983, hospitals were not separately licensed, and certificates of need (CON) were not required for the designation of beds for psychiatric and substance abuse services. In 1983, statutory amendments to Chapter 381, F.S. addressed psychiatric beds as reviewable projects in the CON program. In 1983, HRS adopted rules establishing four new categories of beds, now found in Rules 10-5.011(1)(o), (p), and (q), F.A.C.: Short-term psychiatric, long-term psychiatric, and short and long-term substance abuse. At the time that the categories were created, HRS conducted an inventory of the hospitals, asking how many beds were designated in each category. Based on the responses, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, future projections of need were made and applications were considered for CONs. Another category of psychiatric beds was not included in the 1983 rules. Intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents were created by statute in 1982, and are defined in Section 395.002(8), F.S. as: a specialty hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals which provides 24-hour care and which has the primary functions of diagnosis and treatment of patients under the age of IS having psychiatric disorders in order to restore such patients to an optimal level of functioning. These facilities, called IRTFs, may become licensed as hospitals pursuant to Section 395.003(2)(f), F.S., but as hospitals they must obtain CON approval pursuant to Sections 381.702(7) and (12), F.S. and Section 381.706(1) (b), F.S. IRTFs have no statutory or regulatory restrictions on length of stay and were approved by HRS at one time under an unwritten policy that there be one such facility available in each HRS planning district, without regard to the availability of other long or short term psychiatric programs. In 1985, HRS proposed a rule amendment which would have eliminated the short and long term distinction, as well as the distinction between psychiatric services and substance abuse services. Six months later, the proposed rule amendment was withdrawn. It was highly controversial; several challenges were filed; objections were made by various local health councils; and a new administrator took over. The agency decided to rework its proposed change~;. The agency next began the process of revision in 1987, and in 1988 convened a workshop group to review an issue paper prepared by agency staff. Another work group met in 1989 to consider the consolidation of psychiatric and substance abuse rules. HRS staff reviewed literature on the subjects of substance abuse and psychiatric services, including literature relating to access by indigent patients and the provision of services to children and adolescents. Staff prepared rule drafts which were circulated in- house, including the alcohol, drug abuse and mental health program office; and to such outside groups as the Association of Voluntary Hospitals of Florida, the Florida Hospital Association and the League of Hospitals. The proposed rule amendments which are the subject of this proceeding were filed on January 19, 1990 (substance abuse), and on January 26, 1990 (inpatient psychiatric services) in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Parties HRS administers the CON program pursuant to Section 381.701, et seq., F.S. (1989). The CON program regulates entry into the Florida health care market by providers through review and approval of certain capital expenditures, services and beds. The petitioner, Florida League of Hospitals, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation which is organized and maintained for the benefit of investor-owned hospitals which comprise its membership. The remaining petitioners and intervenors are current providers of hospital inpatient psychiatric services, long and short term, and of inpatient substance abuse services, long and short term. The petitioners and intervenors are all substantially affected by the proposed rules and have stipulated to the standing of all parties in this proceeding. Abolishing Distinctions Between Long-Term & Short-Term Psychiatric Beds "Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services" is defined in existing rule 10-5.011(1)(o)1, FAC, as follows: Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services means a category of services which provides a 24-hour a day therapeutic milieu for persons suffering from mental health problems which are so severe and acute that they need intensive, full-time care. Acute psychiatric inpatient care is defined as a service not exceeding three months and averaging length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. "Long term psychiatric services" is defined in existing rule 10- 5.011(1)(p)1., FAC as a category of services which provides hospital based inpatient services averaging a length of stay of 90 days. Neither rule addresses services to adults with an average length of stay (ALOS) of 30-90 days, or services to children and adolescents with a 60-90 day ALOS. Because of this, and the "averaging" process, long term hospitals legitimately serve "short term" patients and short term hospitals may serve "long term" patients. One party has calculated than a long term facility could legally provide short term services for 80% of its patients, and long term services for only 20% of its patients and still have an ALOS of 90 days. Under the existing rules a facility must file a CON application to convert from long term to short term beds, or vice versa, and is subject to sanctions for failure to comply with the designation on its CON. The proposed changes would repeal rule 10-5.011(1) (p), FAC regarding long term services, and would amend rule 10- 5.011(1) (o), FAC to delete the definition of short term services, thereby permitting facilities to serve patients without regard to length of stay. The proposed changes are supported by several factors upon which a reasonable person could rely. Substantial changes have occurred in the last decade in clinical practices and in third party reimbursement to reduce the ALOS for hospital inpatient psychiatric care. Prior to the 1960s, there was no distinction between long and short term care, as all hospital based care was long term with an emphasis on psychoanalytic therapy. Beginning in the 1960s, the concept of community mental health programs evolved with an emphasis on deinstitutionalization of patients in large public "asylums" and with a goal of treatment in the least restrictive environment. In more recent years the trend has spread to the private sector. Improvements in the availability and use of psychiatric drugs, the use of outpatient care or partial hospitalization, and improved follow up care have led to a dramatic decrease in ALOS. Long term care is costly, and whether third party payors have been a driving force, or are merely responding to the trends described above, long term inpatient reimbursement is virtually nonexistent. During the 19805, most insurance companies imposed a 30-day limit on psychiatric inpatient care or imposed monetary limits which would have effectively paid for less than a 90-day term. CHAMPUS, the program providing insurance to military dependents, was providing long term coverage in 1982, but by 1986 its coverage was rarely available for more than 30-60 days, and today, under CHAMPUS' case management system, 30 days is a "luxurious amount". Other large third-party payors such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield have similar limits or aggressively use case management (the close scrutiny of need on a case by case basis) to limit reimbursement for inpatient care. Of the two or three long term facilities in existence at the time that HRS' rules were originally adopted, only one, Anclote Manor still reported an ALOS of over 90 days by 1989, dropping from an ALOS of 477.9 days in 1986 to 145.4 days in 1989. At the same time its occupancy rate dropped below 50%. There is an interesting dialogue among experts as to whether there still exists a clinical distinction between long term and short term inpatient psychiatric care. Studies at the Florida Mental Health Institute found no difference in rate of rehospitalization over a 12 month period between patients who were in a nine week program and patients from Florida State Hospital with a 500 day length of stay. Some mental health practitioners are looking now at treating the chronic psychiatric patient with repeated short term hospital stays and less intensive care between episodes, rather than a single long term inpatient stay. Other practitioners maintain that a long term psychiatric problem is behavioral in nature and requires a total life readjustment and longer length of stay. Whichever practice may be preferable, the facts remain that fewer and fewer mental patients are being treated with long term hospitalization. The proposed rules would not foreclose any facility from providing long term care, if it finds the need. To the extent that a clinical distinction exists between short and long term care, the existing rules do not address that distinction, except from a wholly arbitrary length of stay perspective. The existing rules no longer serve valid health care objectives. Existing providers with short term CONs are concerned that the allowing long term facilities to convert will further glut an underutilized market and will result in an increase in vacant beds and a rise in the cost of health services, contrary to the intent of the CON program. Intensive residential treatment facilities (IRTFs), which will be folded into the need methodology for children and adolescent beds, have no current restrictions on length of stay and may already compete with impunity with the short term providers. Moreover, long term facilities are also providing substantial short term care as a result of the trends discussed above. HRS has not consistently enforced the length of stay restrictions of long term providers' CONs. Whether those CONs were improvidently granted is beside the point. The capital costs have already been incurred; the beds are available; and the beds are being used, in part, for short term services. Abolishing the distinction is a rational approach to current conditions. And in determining that all existing providers would be placed in the same position regarding length of stay, HRS avoids the regulatory nightmare of trying to enforce limitations on existing providers and approving new beds without limitations. Creating a Distinction Between Adult and Children/Adolescent Beds Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)3.c. creates a CON distinction between general psychiatric services for adults, and those services for children and adolescents. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., as proposed, would create separate need criteria for hospital inpatient general psychiatric services for adults and for children/adolescents. Adolescents are defined in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o)2.a., as persons age 14 through 17 years. Persons over 17 years are adults, and under 14 years are children. There are valid clinical reasons to distinguish between programs fob the separate age groups. Although there is some overlap, differing therapies are appropriate with different ages. The types of services offered to adults are not the same as those which are offered to children. Children, for example, often receive academic educational services while being hospitalized. Adults receive career or vocational counseling and marriage counseling. The required separation by age categories would remove some flexibility from providers. However, this is offset by the Department's valid need to track for planning purposes inpatient services to children and adolescents separately from those provided to adults. Based on anecdotal evidence, HRS' Office of Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office is concerned about the possible overutilization of hospital inpatient services for children and adolescents and the potential that when insurance reimbursement expires they are discharged without clinical bases. Taking Inventory Under the proposed rule, in order to separately regulate adult and children/adolescent beds, HRS will fix an inventory of uses as of the time that the rule takes effect. For facilities with CONs which already allocate beds between the two groups, the proposed rule will have no effect. For facilities without a designation, as long as adults and children/adolescents are kept in separate programs, the allocation can now be mixed and changed at will. The rule amendment will freeze that use in place. HRS has conducted a preliminary survey to determine the existing uses of psychiatric, substance abuse and residential treatment program beds. The survey of approximately 120 facilities is complete, but is not intended to limit those facilities unless their CON already provides a limit. A final inventory will be taken after the proposed rules become effective. The inventory will be published, and providers will be given an opportunity to contest its findings. The ultimate outcome will be amended CONs and licenses which reflect each facility's mix of adult and children/adolescent beds. The process is a fair and reasonable means of commencing separate regulation of services to these age groups. The Definitions Proposed rules 10-5.011(1)(o)2.1., 2.p., and 2.t.) define "hospital inpatient general psychiatric services", "psychiatric disorder" and "substance abuse", respectively. Each of these provisions defines the terms by reference to classifications contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases (DSM-III-R Manual) and equivalent classifications contained- in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 Codes). The rule as originally proposed included the phrase "or its subsequent revisions", after incorporating the manuals by reference. In testimony, and in the parties second agreement (Hearing Office exhibit 3) the phrase is deleted. However, it still appears in proposed rule 10-5.011(1) (o)2.1., perhaps inadvertently. The DSM-III-R is a generally recognized manual for the classification of mental disorders and is widely used by clinicians and medical records professionals to categorize the conditions of patients. The ICD-9 codes are broader than just mental disorders, but they have a section on mental disorders with numbers that are identical to those in the DSM-III-R. Although the manuals are complex and subject to interpretation, clinicians are accustomed to their use and they provide a reasonable guide as to the services which may be provided in an inpatient substance abuse program, as distinguished from an inpatient psychiatric program. Advertising Limited Proposed rule 10-5.011(1)(o)3.d. (as amended in the parties second agreement, Hearing Officer exhibit #3), provides: D. Advertising of services. The number of beds for adult or for children and adolescent hospital inpatient general psychiatric services shall be indicated on the face of the hospital's license. Beds in intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents which are licensed as specialty hospital beds will be indicated as intensive residential treatment program beds on the face of the hospital's license. Only hospitals with separately-licensed hospital inpatient general psychiatric services, including facilities with intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents which are licensed as specialty hospitals, can advertise to the public the availability of hospital inpatient general psychiatric services. A hospital with separately licensed hospital inpatient general psychiatric services that does not have a certificate of need for hospital inpatient substance abuse services may advertise that they [sic] provide services for patients with a principal psychiatric diagnosis excluding substance abuse and a secondary substance abuse disorder. The Department does not currently have CON, licensure, or other rules which limit the ability of a health care provider to advertise its services, and has never used advertising as a factor in conducting CON review for any proposed services. HRS included provisions regarding advertising in its proposed rules because it had evidence that existing facilities have used misleading advertisements. The evidence came from other providers, rather than consumers. However, it is the consumer whom the agency feels may be confused by advertising which implies that services are available when such services cannot be legally provided under the facility's license. The advertising provision is prospective in nature, seeking to prevent licensed providers from advertising services for which they are not licensed. The provisions do not relate to CON review, and the staff is unclear as to how the rule would be implemented. Licensing and CON review are two separate functions within the agency. Although the term is not defined in the proposed rule, advertising broadly includes word of mouth referrals and public presentations by professionals in the community, as well as traditional media and written advertisements. Properly utilized, advertising helps consumers exercise choice and gain access to needed services. Improper advertising is subject to the regulation of federal and state agencies other than the department. New Need Methodology, with Preferences Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., deletes the existing population ratio methodology and creates a need formula based upon use rate, for adult and children/adolescent inpatient psychiatric services. Certain preferences are also described. 34. Rule 10-5.011(1) (o)4.e.(III) provides: In order to insure access to hospital inpatient general psychiatric services for Medicaid-eligible and charity care adults, forty percent of the gross bed need allocated to each district for hospital inpatient general psychiatric services for adults should be allocated to general hospitals. The same provision for children and adolescent services is found in rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.h.(III). Medicaid reimbursement is not available for inpatient services in a specialty hospital. 35. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.i. provides: Preferences Among Competing Applicants for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Services. In weighing and balancing statutory and rule review criteria, preference will be given to applicants who: Provide Medicaid and charity care days as a percentage of its total patient days equal to or greater than the average percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days of total patient days provided by other hospitals in the district, as determined for the most recent calendar year prior to the year of the application for which data are available from the Health Care Cost Containment Board. Propose to serve the most seriously mentally ill patients (e.g. suicidal patients; patients with acute schizophrenia; patients with severe depression) to the extent that these patients can benefit from a hospital-based organized inpatient treatment program. Propose to service Medicaid-eligible persons. Propose to service individuals without regard to their ability to pay. Provide a continuum of psychiatric services for children and adolescents, including services following discharge. The preferences are similar to those in CON rules relating to other types of health services and are intended to implement, in part, the legislative mandate that the agency consider an applicant's ". . . past and proposed provision of health care services to medicaid patients and the medically indigent." Section 381.705(1) (n), F.S. Under Medicaid reimbursement general hospitals are paid a set per diem based on a variety of services provided to all Medicaid patients, regardless of actual cost of the individual service. As psychiatric services are generally less costly than other services on a per diem basis, hospitals may recoup a greater percentage of their costs in serving Medicaid psychiatric patients. This and the fact that public hospitals receive some governmental subsidies do not obviate the need for incentives in the CON program. Not all of the charity care provided by these hospitals is funded and a large amount is written off. Although Petitioners argue that the preferences are not needed, or are too generous, none provide competent evidence that the facilities who do not enjoy the preferences are unduly prejudiced. The 40% allocation of bed need to general hospitals is a guideline, not a maximum, as applied by the agency, and presumes that there are general hospitals competing in any batch in question. It is not intended to frustrate a separate section of the rule which allows a hospital with at least an 85% occupancy rate to expand regardless of need shown in the formula and the occupancy rate district-wide. See 10- 5.011(1) (o)4.d. and g. "Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes" The proposed rules contain three provisions relating to a hospital's evaluation of its patients' treatment outcomes. Rule 10-5.011(1) (o)3.i, includes among "required services", ". . . an overall program evaluation of the treatment outcomes for discharged patients to determine program effectiveness." Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)8.j., requires in the application, A description of the methods to be used to evaluate the outcome of the treatments provided and to determine the effectiveness of the program, including any summary evaluation outcome results for hospital inpatient psychiatric services provided at other facilities owned or operated by the applicant in Florida and other states. The data shall exclude patient specific information. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)9.e., imposes a similar additional requirement in applications from providers seeking more beds: A summary description of any treatment outcome evaluation of the hospital inpatient general psychiatric services provided at the facility for which additional beds are requested, for children, adolescents or adults as applicable to the facility for the 12-month period ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed bed need pool. The purpose of these requirements, according to HRS, is to insure that hospitals will know whether its patients are better off when they leave than when they were admitted to the program. Most hospitals have such knowledge. The terms, "outcome determination", "summary evaluation outcome results", "summary description of treatment outcome evaluation" and "overall program evaluation of treatment outcomes", are nowhere defined in the proposed rules, and the department intends to leave to each applicant or provider the methodology for determining whether its patients are "better off" for having been in its program. Hospitals do not routinely evaluate their patients after discharge and such follow up would be difficult and costly. Most hospitals do, however, establish a treatment plan upon admission, continue to review and revise that plan as needed throughout treatment, and determine the patients' readiness for discharge based on the goals successfully attained. This is the process described by Florida Hospital's Center of Psychiatry Administrative Director. The rules require no more than a description similar to that provided by Florida Hospital. The rules set no standards and do not dictate that follow- up of discharged patients be accomplished, even though post discharge evaluation may be of value and is generally accepted as the best tool for measuring treatment effectiveness. The measurement of treatment outcome is an inexact process and relies on a series of subjective standards which need to be described. HRS does not intend to set those standards and, other than have its applicants demonstrate that a process is in place, the agency has no idea how the required information will impact its CON review. Without definitions and standards, the agency will have no way of comparing one applicant's information with another's. Without specificity and more guidance the rules fail to apprise the applicant of what is required and will provide no meaningful information to the agency in its CON review function. Miscellaneous Provisions The Non-Physician Director. The proposed definition of "Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Services" in Rule 10-5.011(1) (o)2.1. includes services provided under the direction of a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist In drafting this definition, agency staff relied on advice from experts at their workshops and on advice from the agency's own Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office, to the effect that professionals, other than physicians, are qualified to direct the units. Interpretation and Application. It is not the intention of HRS that its rules be interpreted to override good medical practice or the sound judgement of treating physicians. Thus, the rules would not prohibit stabilization of a patient who is presented to the emergency room of a hospital without a CON for substance abuse or psychiatric services. Stabilized Alzheimers patients may be housed in nursing homes. Nor do the rules prohibit or subject to sanctions the occasional admission of a psychiatric or substance abuse patient to a non-substance abuse or psychiatric bed so long as this occurs infrequently in a hospital without psychiatric or substance abuse programs. "Scatter" beds are not eliminated. Those beds would continue to be licensed as acute-care beds, as they would not be considered part of an organized program, with staff and protocols, to provide psychiatric or substance abuse services. Proposed rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.h.(v) provides that applicants for IRTPs for children and adolescents seeking licensing as a specialty hospital must provide documentation that the district's licensed non-hospital IRTPs do not meet the need for the proposed service. The department is not seeking specific utilization data in this regard, as such is not available. General information on the availability of alternatives to inpatient hospital services is obtainable from local health councils and mental health professionals in the community. Quarterly Reports. Proposed rule 10-5.011(1)(o)10. requires: Facilities providing licensed hospital inpatient general psychiatric services shall report to the department or its designee, within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter, the number of hospital inpatient general psychiatric services admissions and patient days by age and primary diagnosis ICD-9 code. The Health Care Cost Containment Board (HCCCB) is already collecting similar quarterly data from providers. The reporting system is being updated and improved but in the meantime HRS is experiencing problems with the type and accuracy of the data it receives from HCCCB. One problem is that HCCCB collects its data with regard to all discharges in a psychiatric or substance abuse diagnostic category, whereas HRS is interested only in data from a psychiatric or substance abuse program. Until the system improves, HRS needs the information it seeks from the providers in order to plan and apply the need methodology. The agency intends to designate local health councils to collect the data and has already worked with them to set up a system. If reports provided to the HCCCB comply with the proposed requirement, HRS has no problem in receiving a duplicate of those reports. The Economic Impact Statement Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., HRS prepared an economic impact statement for the proposed rule. It was authored by Elfie Stamm, a Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor with HRS. Ms. Stamm has a Masters degree in psychology and has completed course work for a Ph.D. in psychology. She has been employed by HRS for 13 years, including the last ten years in the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning. She is responsible for developing CON rules, portions of the state health plan, and special health care studies. It was impossible for Ms. Stamm to determine how the rule could impact the public at large. The economic impact statement addresses generally the effect of abolishing the distinction between long and short term services and acknowledges that the rule will increase competition among short term service providers. The impact statement also addresses a positive impact on current long term providers.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent withdrew controlled substances from the narcotics dispensing system and failed to document the administration or wastage of those substances; if yes, whether this conduct fails to conform to minimum acceptable standards of prevailing nursing practice; and, if yes, what penalty should be imposed on Respondent's license as a registered nurse.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing in the State of Florida. Respondent Marla Gunderson ("Respondent") is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 2832622 by the Florida Board of Nursing in 1994. Respondent was employed by Lee Memorial Health Care System Rehabilitation Hospital ("Lee Memorial") as a registered nurse from about January 29, 2001, until about March 22, 2001. During the first three or four weeks of Respondent's employment, she participated in a full-time training program through Lee Memorial's education department. A part of this training included training in the administration of medications to patients. After completing the three or four-week training program, Respondent began working directly with patients. From about mid-February 2001 through early-March 2001, Respondent had no problems with documenting the administration of medications to patients. Some time in or near the middle of March 2001, Melanie Simmons, R.N. ("Simmons"), Lee Memorial's Nursing Supervisor, received a complaint from the night nurse following Respondent's shift. The complaint alleged that a patient's wife reported that the pain medication her husband was given by Respondent was not the Codeine that had been ordered by the physician. Pursuant to Lee Memorial's policies and procedures, Simmons conducted an investigation into the allegations of the above-referenced complaint regarding the Respondent. Lee Memorial's policies and procedures set out a specific method for conducting investigations regarding the administration of medications to patients. First, the physician's orders are checked to see what medications have been ordered for the patient. Next, the Pyxis records are pulled to determine if and when medications were withdrawn for administration to patients. The Pyxis system is a computerized medication delivery system. Each nurse has an assigned user code and a password, which must be entered before medication can be withdrawn from the Pyxis system. Then, medication administration records (MARs), the documents used by nurses to record the administration of medications to patients, are checked to verify whether the nurse documented the administration of the medications to the patients for whom they were withdrawn. Finally, the Patient Focus Notes, the forms used by nurses to document non-routinely administered medications, are also checked to determine if, when, and why a medication was given to a patient. If after comparing the physician's orders, Pyxis records, MARs, and Patient Focus Notes, it is determined that medications were not properly administered or documented, the nurse making the errors is advised of the discrepancy and given an opportunity to review the documentation and explain any inconsistencies. Simmons' investigation, which included comparing the physician's orders, Pyxis records, MARs and Patient Focus Notes, revealed discrepancies in medications withdrawn by Respondent and the MARs of the three patients under her care. The time period covered by the investigation was March 12 through March 17, 2001. Of the six days included in the investigation period, Simmons determined that all the discrepancies had occurred on one day, March 13, 2001. Nurses are required to record the kind and amount of medication that they administer to patients. This information should be recorded at or near the time the medication is administered. It is the policy of Lee Memorial that should a nurse not administer the medication or the entire amount of the medication dispensed under his or her password, that nurse should have another nurse witness the disposal of the medication. The nurse who serves as a witness to the disposal of medication would then enter his or her identification number in the Pyxis. As a result of that entry, the nurse who observed the disposal of the medication would be listed on the Pyxis report as a witness to the disposal of the medication not administered to patients. Such excess medication is termed waste or wastage. The physician's order for Patient F.R. indicated that the patient could have 1 to 2 Percocet tablets, to be administered by mouth, as needed every 3 to 4 hours. On March 13, 2001, at 14:06 Respondent withdrew 2 Percocet tablets for Patient F.R. However, there was no documentation in the patient's MAR, focus notes, and other records which indicated that Respondent administered the Percocet tablets to Patient F.R. The physician's order for Patient G.D. indicated that 1 to 2 Percocet tablets could be administered to the patient by mouth as needed every 4 to 6 hours. On March 13, 2001, at 11:18 Respondent withdrew 2 Percocet tablets and on that same day at 17:16, Respondent withdrew another 2 Percocet tablets for Patient G.D. However, there was no documentation in the patient's MAR, focus notes, or any other records which indicated that Respondent administered the Percocet tablets to Patient G.D. The physician's order for Patient T.G. indicated that 1 to 1.5 Lortab/Vicodin tablets could be administered to the patient by mouth as needed every 4 to 6 hours. On March 13, 2001, Respondent withdrew 2 Lortab/Vicodin tablets for Patient T.G. However, Respondent failed to document on the patient's MAR, focus notes, or other records that the medication had been administered to Patient T.G. With regard to the above-referenced medications withdrawn by Respondent on March 13, 2001, there is no documentation that any of the medications were wasted. All the medications listed in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 are narcotics or controlled substances. Because Respondent did not document the patients' MARs or focus notes after she withdrew the medications, there was no way to determine whether the medications were actually administered to the patients. Proper documentation is very important because the notations made on patient records inform nurses on subsequent shifts if and when medications have been administered to the patients as well as the kind and amount of medications that have been administered. Without such documentation, the nurses taking over the subsequent shifts have no way of knowing whether medication has been administered, making it possible for affected patients to be overmedicated. Respondent has been a registered nurse since 1994 and knows or should have known the importance of documenting the administration of medications to patients. Respondent does not dispute that she did not document the administration and/or wastage of the narcotics or controlled substance she withdrew from the Pyxis system on March 13, 2001, for the patients identified in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15. Moreover, Respondent provided no definitive explanation as to why she did not properly document the records. According to Respondent, she "could have been busy, called away, [or] got distracted." Following Simmons' investigation of Respondent relating to the withdrawal and/or administration of medications, Respondent agreed to submit to a drug test. The results of the drug test were negative. Prior to being employed by Lee Memorial, all of Respondent's previous experience as an R.N. had been in long- term care. Except for the complaint which is the subject of this proceeding, there have been no complaints against Respondent's registered nurse's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order (1) imposing an administrative fine of $250; (2) requiring Respondent to remit the Agency's costs in prosecuting this case; (3) requiring Respondent to complete a continuing education course, approved by the Board of Nursing, in the area administration and documentation of medications; and (4) suspending Respondent's nursing license for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Reginald D. Dixon, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel's Office-Practitioner Regulation Post Office Box 14229 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Marla Gunderson 1807 Northeast 26 Terrace Cape Coral, Florida 33909 Ruth R. Stiehl, Ph.D., R.N. Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Mr. R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) 7700 filed by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, LTD. d/b/a Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart or MH).
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and taking action on CON applications pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes. The applicant, Miami Heart, operates a hospital facility known as Miami Heart Institute which, at the time of hearing, was comprised of a north campus (consisting of 273 licensed beds) and a south campus (consisting of 258 beds) in Miami, Florida. The two campuses operate under a single license which consolidated the operation of the two facilities. The consolidation of the license was approved by CON 7399 which was issued by the Agency prior to the hearing of this case. The Petitioner, Mount Sinai, is an existing health care facility doing business in the same service district. On February 4, 1994, AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero adult inpatient psychiatric beds for the planning horizon applicable to this batching cycle. The fixed need pool was not challenged. On February 18, 1994, Miami Heart submitted its letter of intent for the first hospital batching cycle of 1994, and sought to add twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at the Miami Heart Institute south campus. Such facility is located in the Agency's district 11 and is approximately two (2) miles from the north campus. Notice of that letter was published in the March 11, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Miami Heart's letter of intent provided, in pertinent part: By this letter, Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Miami Heart Institute announces its intent to file a Certificate of Need Application on or before March 23, 1994 for approval to establish 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults at Miami Heart Institute. Thus, the applicant seeks approval for this project pursuant to Sections 408.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The proposed capital expenditure for this project shall not exceed $1,000,000 and will include new construction and the renovation of existing space. Miami Heart Institute is located in Local Health Council District 11. There are no subsdistricts for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11. The applicable need formula for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults is contained within Rule 59C-1.040(4)(c), F.A.C. The Agency published a fixed need of "0" for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11 for this batching cycle. However, "not normal" circumstances exist within District which justify approval of this project. These circumstances are that Miami Beach Community Hospital, which is also owned by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., and which has an approved Certificate of Need Application to consol- idate its license with that of the Miami Heart Institute, has pending a Certificate of Need Application to delicense up to 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults. The effect of the application, which is the subject of this Letter of Intent, will be to relocate 20 of the delicensed adult psychiatric beds to the Miami Heart Institute. Because of the "not normal" circumstances alleged in the Miami Heart letter of intent, the Agency extended a grace period to allow competing letters of intent to be filed. No additional letters of intent were submitted during the grace period. On March 23, 1994, Miami Heart timely submitted its CON application for the project at issue, CON no. 7700. Notice of the application was published in the April 8, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Such application was deemed complete by the Agency and was considered to be a companion to the delicensure of the north campus beds. On July 22, 1994, the Agency published in the Florida Administrative Weekly its preliminary decision to approve CON no. 7700. In the same batch as the instant case, Cedars Healthcare Group (Cedars), also in district 11, applied to add adult psychiatric beds to Cedars Medical Center through the delicensure of an equal number of adult psychiatric beds at Victoria Pavilion. Cedars holds a single license for the operation of both Cedars Medical Center and Victoria Pavilion. As in this case, the Agency gave notice of its intent to grant the CON application. Although this "transfer" was initially challenged, it was subsequently dismissed. Although filed at the same time (and, therefore, theoretically within the same batch), the Cedars CON application and the Miami Heart CON application were not comparatively reviewed by the Agency. The Agency determined the applicants were merely seeking to relocate their own licensed beds. Based upon that determination, MH's application was evaluated in the context of the statutory criteria, the adult psychiatric beds and services rule (Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code), the district 11 local health plan, and the 1993 state health plan. Ms. Dudek also considered the utilization data for district 11 facilities. Mount Sinai timely filed a petition challenging the proposed approval of CON 7700 and, for purposes of this proceeding only, the parties stipulated that MS has standing to raise the issues remaining in this cause. Mount Sinai's existing psychiatric unit utilization is presently at or near full capacity, and MS' existing unit would not provide an adequate, available, or accessible alternative to Miami Heart's proposal, unless additional bed capacity were available to MS in the future through approval of additional beds or changes in existing utilization. Miami Heart's proposal to establish twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its Miami Heart Institute south campus was made in connection with its application to delicense twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its north campus. The Agency advised MH to submit two CON applications: one for the delicensure (CON no. 7474) and one for the establishment of the twenty beds at the south campus (CON no. 7700). The application to delicense the north campus beds was expeditiously approved and has not been challenged. As to the application to establish the twenty beds at the south campus, the following statutory criteria are not at issue: Section 408.035(1)(c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o) and (2)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Miami Heart meets, at least minimally, those criteria. During 1993, Miami Heart made the business decision to cease operations at its north campus and to seek the Agency's approval to relocate beds and services from that facility to other facilities owned by MH, including the south campus. Miami Heart does not intend to delicense the twenty beds at the north campus until the twenty beds are licensed at the south campus. The goal is merely to transfer the existing program with its services to the south campus. Miami Heart did not seek beds from a fixed need pool. Since approximately April, 1993, the Miami Heart north campus has operated with the twenty bed adult psychiatric unit and with a limited number of obstetrical beds. The approval of CON no. 7700 will not change the overall total number of adult general inpatient psychiatric beds within the district. The adult psychiatric program at MH experiences the highest utilization of any program in district 11, with an average length of stay that is consistent with other adult programs around the state. Miami Heart's existing psychiatric program was instituted in 1978. Since 1984, there has been little change in nursing and other staff. The program provides a full continuum of care, with outpatient programs, aftercare, and support programs. Nearly ninety-nine percent of the program's inpatient patient days are attributable to patients diagnosed with serious mental disorders. The Miami Heart program specializes in a biological approach to psychiatric cases in the diagnosis and treatment of affective disorders, including a variety of mood disorders and related conditions. The Miami Heart program is distinctive from other psychiatric programs in the district. If the MH program were discontinued, the patients would have limited alternatives for access to the same diagnostic and treatment services in the district. There are no statutes or rules promulgated which specifically address the transfer of psychiatric beds or services from one facility owned by a health care entity to another facility also owned by the same entity. In reviewing the instant CON application, the Agency determined it has the discretion to evaluate each transfer case based upon the review criteria and to consider the appropriate weight factors should be given. Factors which may affect the review include the change of location, the utilization of the existing services, the quality of the existing programs and services, the financial feasibility, architectural issues, and any other factor critical to the review process. In this case, the weight given to the numeric need criteria was not significant. The Agency determined that because the transfer would not result in a change to the overall bed inventory, the calculated fixed need pool did not apply to the instant application. In effect, because the calculation of numeric need was inapplicable, this case must be considered "not normal" pursuant to Rule 59C-1.040(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency determined that other criteria were to be given greater consideration. Such factors were the reasonableness of the proposal, the ability to afford access, the applicant's ability to provide a quality program, and the project's financial feasibility. The Agency determined that, on balance, this application should be approved as the statutory and other review criteria were met. Although put on notice of the other CON applications, Mount Sinai did not file an application for psychiatric beds at the same time as Miami Heart or Cedars. Mount Sinai did not claim that the proposed delicensures and transfers made beds available for competitive review. The Agency has interpreted Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code, to mean that it will not normally approve an application for beds or services unless the statutory and rule criteria are met, including the need determination criteria. There is no list of circumstances which are routinely considered "not normal" by the Agency. In this case, the proposed transfer of beds was, in itself, considered "not normal." The approval of Miami Heart's application would allow an existing program to continue. As a result, the overhead to maintain two campuses would be reduced. Further, the relocation would allow the program to continue to provide access, both geographically and financially, to the same patient service area. And, since the program has the highest utilization rate of any adult program in the district, its continuation would be beneficial to the area. The program has an established referral base for admissions to the facility. The transfer is reasonable for providing access to the medically under-served. The quality of care, while not in issue, would be expected to continue at its existing level or improve. The transfer would allow better access to ancillary hospital departments and consulting specialists who may be needed even though the primary diagnosis is psychiatric. The cost of the transfer when compared to the costs to be incurred if the transfer is not approved make the approval a benefit to the service area. If the program is not relocated, Medicaid access could change if the hospital is reclassified from a general facility to a specialty facility. The proposed cost for the project does not exceed one million dollars. If the north campus must be renovated, a greater capital expenditure would be expected. The expected impact on competition for other providers is limited due to the high utilization for all programs in the vicinity. The subject proposal is consistent with the district and state health care plans and the need for health care facilities and services. The services being transferred is an existing program which is highly utilized and which is not creating "new beds." As such, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing services in the district will not be adversely affected by the approval of the subject application. The proposed transfer is consistent with, and appropriate, in light of these criteria. Therefore, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The subject application demonstrates a full continuum of care with safeguards to assure that alternatives to inpatient care are fully utilized when appropriate. Therefore, the availability and adequacy of other services, such as outpatient care, has been demonstrated and would deter unnecessary utilization. Thus, Miami Heart has shown its application complies with Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Miami Heart has also demonstrated that the probable impact of its proposal is in compliance with Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. The proposed transfer will not adversely impact the costs of providing services, the competition on the supply of services, or the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of services which foster competition, promote quality assurance, and cost-effectiveness. Miami Heart has taken an innovative approach to promote quality assurance and cost effectiveness. Its purpose, to close a facility and relocate beds (removing unnecessary acute care beds in the process), represents a departure from the traditional approach to providing health care services. By approving Miami Heart's application, overhead costs associated with the unnecessary facility will be eliminated. There is no less costly, more efficient alternative which would allow the continuation of the services and program Miami Heart has established at the north campus than the approval of transfer to the south campus. The MH proposal is most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. The renovation of the medical surgical space at the south campus to afford a location for the psychiatric unit is the most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. In totality, the circumstances of this case make the approval of Miami Heart's application for CON no. 7700 the most reasonable and practical solution given the "not normal" conditions of this application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order approving CON 7700 as recommended in the SAAR. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4755 Note: Proposed findings of fact are to contain one essential fact per numbered paragraph. Proposed findings of fact paragraphs containing multiple sentences with more than one statement of fact are difficult to review. In reviewing for this case, where all sentences were accurate and supported by the recorded cited, the paragraph has been accepted. If the paragraph contained mixed statements where one sentence was an accurate statement of fact but the others were not, the paragraph has been rejected. Similarly, if one sentence was editorial comment, argument, or an unsupported statement to a statement of fact, the paragraph has been rejected. Proposed findings of fact should not include argument, editorial comments, or statements of fact mixed with such comments. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Mount Sinai: Paragraphs 1 through 13 were cited as stipulated facts. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15 it is accepted that Miami Heart made the business decision to move the psychiatric beds beds from the north campus to the south campus. Any inference created by the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as repetitive, or immaterial, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 28 is accepted but not relevant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant as the FNP was not in dispute. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive, or comment. Paragraph 38 is rejected as repetitive, comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41, 42, and 43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and/or argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as argument and comment on the testimony. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, and/or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 47 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as comment on testimony. It is accepted that the proposed relocation or transfer of beds is a "not normal" circumstance. Paragraph 50 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 53 is rejected as argument, comment or recitation of testimony, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant, comment, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 57 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 63 is accepted. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Mount Sinai could have filed in this batch given the not normal circumstances disclosed in the Miami Heart notice. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 66 is rejected as comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 70 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Agency: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the words "cardiac catheterization" and the inclusion of the word "psychiatric beds" in place, paragraph 7 is accepted. Cardiac catheterization is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or an error of law, otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraphs 11 through 17 are accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 21 are accepted; the remainder rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 22 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as argument, speculation, or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Miami Heart: Paragraphs 1 through 13 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 14 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to law or irrelevant since MS did not file in the batch when it could have. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted as the Agency's statement of its authority or policy in this case, not fact. Paragraphs 17 through 20 are accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence to the extent that it concludes the distance to be one mile; evidence deemed credible placed the distance at two miles. Paragraphs 42 through 47 are accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment. Paragraphs 49 through 57 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Terry Rigsby Geoffrey D. Smith Wendy Delvecchio Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Stephen Ecenia Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent’s denial of Petitioner’s Level II appeal should be upheld or whether the inpatient residential mental health services provided to R.H. by McLean Hospital’s 3 East Dialectical Behavior Therapy (“DBT”) program from September 9, 2015, through September 22, 2015, and again from October 15, 2015, through December 11, 2015, were “medically necessary” and therefore covered under the terms of the State Employees’ PPO Group Health Insurance Plan.
Findings Of Fact DSGI is the state agency responsible for administration of the state group insurance program, pursuant to section 110.123, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, A.H., is a State of Florida employee and was insured through the State Employees’ PPO Group Health Insurance Plan (the “Plan”). R.H., the child of A.H., was eligible for coverage under A.H.’s health insurance policy as of September 1, 2015. Pursuant to contract, Florida Blue acts as DSGI’s third-party medical claims administrator for employee health insurance benefits. New Directions is Florida Blue’s subcontractor and third-party administrator for mental health and substance abuse reviews and authorizations. “Utilization management” is the process of reviewing a service claim to determine whether the service is a covered benefit under the Plan and whether the service is “medically necessary” as that term is defined in the Plan. In cases involving mental health or substance abuse services, the service must also satisfy the more detailed and specific coverage guidelines, titled “Medical Necessity Criteria,” established by New Directions.1/ Consistent with general practice in the field, the “medical necessity” criteria of the New Directions document observe the following levels of care, in increasing order of intensity: psychiatric outpatient; psychiatric intensive outpatient; psychiatric partial hospitalization; psychiatric residential; and psychiatric acute residential. In the interests of conserving medical resources and preserving patient liberty, safety, and dignity, every effort is made to place patients in the least intensive level of care consistent with effective treatment of their presenting condition. R.H., a female who was 15 years old during the period relevant to this proceeding, has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and has a history of eating disorders. Her treating psychologist in Florida, Nicolle Arbelaez Lopez, noted that R.H. was also being treated for generalized anxiety disorder. R.H. had an inpatient admission to the Renfrew Center in Florida for eating disorder treatment in May 2015. R.H. transitioned to partial hospitalization over the summer, followed by a step down to the Renfrew Center's intensive outpatient program, then by a step up back to partial hospitalization when her eating disorder behaviors worsened. Though less intensive than a full residential admission, intensive outpatient treatment and partial hospitalization allow patients to receive comparatively intensive treatment while remaining in their home environment.2/ R.H.’s final discharge from the Renfrew Center was on August 21, 2015. At the time she was admitted to McLean Hospital’s 3 East DBT program, R.H. had a recent history of engaging in superficial cutting of her arm. On August 30, 2015, R.H. intentionally hit herself in the hand with a hammer. R.H.’s mother took her to the emergency room for treatment and told the treating personnel that R.H. had fallen down some stairs. The hammer blow caused swelling and bruising but no broken bones. R.H. was also continuing to purge and restrict her food intake. R.H.’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Thania V. Quesdada, and her psychologist, Ms. Lopez, both urged that she be admitted to one of three nationally-recognized immersion DBT programs. Her family chose the program at McLean Hospital. DBT is a cognitive behavioral treatment that was originally developed to treat chronically suicidal individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, though it is now employed for treatment of other conditions, including eating disorders. DBT teaches behavioral coping skills such as mindfulness, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, and emotional regulation. At the hearing, DSGI did not dispute the general efficacy of DBT treatment. However, DSGI did dispute whether R.H.’s presentation merited “immersion” DBT, i.e., a residential inpatient admission. McLean Hospital’s 3 East DBT program is self-pay and requires a minimum stay of 28 days. The program does not accept insurance and does not assist patients with insurance reimbursement efforts. Because of its stance on insurance, the 3 East DBT program is obviously not an in-network provider under the Plan. Prior to admission, Petitioner was aware that the 3 East DBT program did not accept insurance. R.H. was in residential treatment at McLean Hospital from September 9, 2015, through September 22, 2015. While at McLean Hospital, R.H. engaged in restricting and purging behaviors that led to medical instability. She was discharged to Cambridge Eating Disorder Center on September 23, 2015. She remained at the Cambridge Center until October 15, 2015. R.H.’s stay at the Cambridge Center was pre-certified by New Directions and is not at issue in this proceeding. On October 15, 2015, R.H. returned to McLean Hospital, again as a residential inpatient admission. She remained at McLean Hospital until her discharge on December 11, 2015. The total billed amount for R.H.’s two stays at McLean Hospital was $96,950, which was paid by the family out-of- pocket. Section 3-5 of the Plan sets forth the following under the heading “Mental Health and Substance Dependency Services”: “Physician office visits, Intensive Outpatient Treatment, Inpatient and Partial Hospitalization and Residential Treatment Services are covered based on medical necessity.” The general definition of “Medically Necessary” is set forth at section 15-4 of the Plan: [s]ervices required to identify or treat the Illness, injury, Condition, or Mental and Nervous Disorder a Doctor has diagnosed or reasonably suspects. The service must be: consistent with the symptom, diagnosis and treatment of the patient’s Condition; in accordance with standards of good medical practice; required for reasons other than convenience of the patient or the Doctor; approved by the appropriate medical body or board for the illness or injury in question; and at the most appropriate level of medical supply, service, or care that can be safely provided. The fact that a service, prescription drug, or supply is prescribed by a Doctor does not necessarily mean that the service is Medically Necessary. Florida Blue, CVS/Caremark, and DSGI determine whether a service, prescription drug, or supply is Medically Necessary. New Directions’ Medical Necessity Criteria guidelines provided the following admission criteria for psychiatric residential admissions: Must meet all of the following: A DSM diagnosis is the primary focus of active, daily treatment. There is a reasonable expectation of reduction in behaviors/symptoms with treatment at this level of care. The treatment is not primarily social, custodial, interpersonal, or respite care. The member has documented symptoms and/or behaviors that are a significant deterioration from baseline functioning and create a significant functional impairment in at least three (3) of the following areas: primary support social/interpersonal occupational/educational health/medical compliance ability to maintain safety for either self or others Must have one of the following: The member’s family members and/or support system demonstrate behaviors that are likely to undermine goals of treatment, such that treatment at a lower level of care is unlikely to be successful. This lack must be situational in nature and amenable to change as a result of the treatment process and resources identified during a residential confinement. The member has a documented history of an inability to be managed at an intensive lower level of care. There is a recent (in the last six months) history of multiple brief acute inpatient stays without a successful transition to a lower level of care, and at risk of admission to inpatient acute care. New Directions’ Medical Necessity Criteria guidelines provided the following admission criteria for eating disorder residential admissions: Must meet 1-4 and either 5, 6, or 7 A DSM diagnosis found in the Feeding and Eating Disorder section is the primary focus of active, daily treatment. There is a reasonable expectation of reduction in behaviors/symptoms with treatment at this level of care. The treatment is not primarily social, custodial, interpersonal, or respite care. The member has documented symptoms and/or behaviors that are a significant deterioration from baseline functioning and create a significant functional impairment in at least three (3) of the following areas: primary support social/interpersonal occupational/educational health/medical compliance ability to maintain safety for either self or others Must have one of the following: The member’s family members and/or support system demonstrate behaviors that are likely to undermine goals of treatment, such that treatment at a lower level of care is unlikely to be successful. This lack must be situational in nature and amenable to change as a result of the treatment process and resources identified during a residential confinement. The member has a documented history of an inability to be managed at an intensive lower level of care. There is a recent (in the last six months) history of multiple brief acute inpatient stays without a successful transition to a lower level of care, and at risk of admission to inpatient acute care. There are active biomedical complications that require 24-hour care, including, but not limited to: Adults Children/Adolescents Pulse <40 <50 Blood Pressure <90/60 <80/50 Orthostatic changes in BP Systolic: >20 point drop Systolic: > 20 point drop (Supine to standing) Diastolic: > 10 point drop Diastolic: > 10 point drop Potassium < 3 meq/l Hypokalemia Body temperature < 97 F Abnormal core temperature Electrolytes/ serum chemistry Significant deviation from normal Significant deviation from normal Must have either a. or b.: A low body weight that can reasonably lead to instability in the absence of intervention as evidenced by one of the following: Less than 85% of IBW or a BMI less than 16.5. Greater than 10% decrease in body weight within the last 30 days. In children and adolescents, greater than 10% decrease in body weight during a rapid growth cycle. Persistence or worsening of eating disorder behavior despite recent (with [sic] the last three months), appropriate therapeutic intervention in a structured eating disorder treatment setting. If PHP or IOP is contraindicated, documentation of the rationale supporting the contraindication is required. One of the following must be present: Compensatory behaviors (binging, purging, laxative abuse, excessive exercise, etc.) have caused significant physiological complications. Compensatory behaviors occur multiple times daily and have failed to respond to treatment at a lower level of care and acute physiologic imbalance can reasonably be expected. New Directions’ contact notes for this case indicate that it was called by someone named “Rachelle” on behalf of A.H.’s family on September 3, 2015. This person asked about the authorization process for McLean Hospital. No witness was presented who had direct knowledge of the contents of this conversation. The note indicates that “Rachelle” was advised that any authorization process must be initiated with New Directions by McLean Hospital. On September 9, 2015, the day R.H. was admitted to McLean Hospital, Florida Blue received what its notes reference as a “critical inquiry” message regarding this admission. A Florida Blue employee phoned the number attached to the message but discovered it was not for A.H. but for “someone at AllState Insurance who is out of the office.” (This person turned out to be Pearl Harrison, R.H.’s grandmother and qualified representative in this proceeding, who had not yet obtained a release to receive confidential medical information concerning R.H.). No number for A.H. could be found. Florida Blue contacted New Directions, which confirmed that no request for pre-authorization3/ had been received from McLean Hospital or the member. R.H.’s stays at McLean Hospital were not emergency admissions. The term “medical emergency” was not specifically defined in the 2015 Plan, but expert testimony at the hearing established that it is a term of common meaning and usage in the medical community. An emergency situation is one in which there is an immediate risk of death, serious bodily harm, or creation of an irreversible condition. If care is not administered immediately, the person will harm herself or someone else. Michael Shaw, the utilization management team leader for New Directions, explained that emergency care is not provided at the residential level of care, but in an inpatient setting under lock and key. The medical records indicated that R.H.’s last incident of self-harming behavior occurred about a week prior to her admission to McLean Hospital. Her injuries were superficial and she was in no immediate danger or risk of irreversible damage. Section 7-1 of the Plan provides for hospital admissions, including the following pertinent language as to non-emergency admissions to non-network hospitals and pre- certification for stays at non-network hospitals: Non-Network Hospital: Non-emergency Admission Every non-emergency admission to a non- network Hospital must be pre-certified. This means that before services are provided Florida Blue must certify the Hospital admission and provide the number of days for which certification is given. Precertification of non-network Hospital stays is your responsibility, even if the Doctor admitting you or your dependent to the Hospital is a Network Provider. Failure to obtain pre-certification will result in penalties (higher out-of-pocket costs). For more information on penalties, see “If You Do Not Pre-Certify Your Stay” within this section below. To pre-certify your stay in a non-network Hospital, ask your Doctor to call Florida Blue at (800) 955-5692 before your Hospital admission and provide the reason for hospitalization, the proposed treatment or surgery, testing, and the number of Hospital days anticipated. Florida Blue will review your Doctor’s request for admission certification and immediately notify your Doctor or the Hospital if your admission has been certified and the number of days for which certification has been given. If the admission is not certified, your Doctor may submit additional information for a second review. If your Hospital stay is certified and you need to stay longer than the number of days for which certification was given, your Doctor must call Florida Blue to request certification for the additional days. Your Doctor should make this call as soon as possible. * * * If You Do Not Pre-Certify Your Stay: Non- Network Hospital Benefits for covered services will be reduced by 25 percent of the covered charges, not to exceed a maximum benefit reduction of $500 IF you are admitted to a participating Hospital (Payment for Hospital Services or PHS Provider)[4/] that is not part of the Preferred Patient Care (PPC) Network and admission certification has not been requested on your behalf or the request is denied. This Plan will not pay room and board benefits for your first two days of hospitalization IF your non-network Hospital admission is denied, but you are admitted to a non-network Hospital anyway. This Plan will not pay room and board benefits for your entire Hospital stay IF you are admitted to a non-network Hospital without having your Doctor call prior to the admission. This Plan will not pay room and board benefits for the additional days that were not certified IF your non-network Hospital admission is certified but your stay is longer than the number of days for which the admission was certified. The Plan’s pre-certification requirement was not met. Neither A.H. nor McLean Hospital requested pre-certification. Mr. Shaw testified that he spoke to three different people at McLean Hospital, all of whom stated that the 3 East DBT program does not accept or work with insurance. Mr. Shaw was unable to generate the paperwork needed to begin the pre-certification process because McLean Hospital declined to share with him the necessary clinical information about R.H.5/ Although pre-certification was not obtained for R.H.’s stays at McLean Hospital, Florida Blue conducted a post-service review to determine whether the claim was eligible for reimbursement. Petitioner submitted a request for a Level I appeal pursuant to Section 12 of the Plan, under which a person denied benefits or payment of a claim for medical services may obtain a review by Florida Blue. Petitioner submitted a package of R.H.’s medical records for review. Prest & Associates, Inc., a URAC-approved independent review organization,6/ was retained to conduct an independent review of Petitioner’s claim. Dr. Barbara Center, a staff psychiatrist with Prest & Associates, performed a review designed to determine the medical necessity of R.H.’s stays at McLean Hospital. Dr. Center is board-certified in General Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Addiction Medicine. Dr. Center reviewed the claim in terms of the New Directions criteria for psychiatric residential admissions and for eating disorder residential admissions. She performed two reviews, one for the admission starting on September 9, 2015, and another for the admission starting on October 15, 2015. Dr. Center stated that the McLean Hospital medical records provided by Petitioner gave a detailed description of R.H.’s history of present illness, past psychiatric history, and other elements of her history that were adequate for making a medical necessity determination. As to the September 9 admission, Dr. Center concluded that medical necessity criteria were not met for either a psychiatric residential or an eating disorder residential admission. As to the psychiatric residential criteria, Dr. Center concluded that R.H.’s admission failed to satisfy criteria 3, 4, and 5. Dr. Center testified that criterion 4 looks at symptoms and behaviors that represent a significant deterioration from the patient’s baseline functioning in several areas. R.H.’s primary support structures were stable. Her mother was clearly involved in her care and had the support of other family members. Dr. Center stated that the medical records showed no sign of substantial social or interpersonal deterioration, aside from some typical difficulty in starting high school. R.H. was having no medical instability at the time of admission. She was not at a dangerously low body weight. She had a recent onset of self-harming behaviors, but there was no documentation of acute risk issues that warranted placement in 24-hour care. As to criterion 5, Dr. Center testified that the records showed no indication that R.H.’s family and support system was unsupportive or unable to take her to treatment and participate in her care. There was no documentation that R.H. could not progress in a less intensive level of care. Dr. Center noted that R.H.’s prior treatment for eating disorders had been at varying levels of care and that R.H. had not had multiple brief acute inpatient stays. Criterion 3 is a diagnosis of exclusion, meaning that if there is no apparent medical necessity for the residential placement, then the reason must be “primarily social, custodial, interpersonal or respite care.” Dr. Center found in the records no support for a 24-hour residential placement. She noted that R.H.’s self-injury was of a recent onset and that McLean Hospital had ruled out any immediate prospect of self-injury or serious threat to other people. Cutting is not uncommon among adolescents and does not rise to the level of requiring residential care. Mental health providers distinguish between self-injurious behaviors and suicidal ideation, and McLean Hospital did not describe R.H. as suicidal. Dr. Center testified that, at the request of Mr. Shaw, she also reviewed R.H.’s admission in terms of the New Directions eating disorder residential criteria. Dr. Center noted that R.H. was not at a dangerous body weight (122 pounds, with a BMI of 22.2) at the time of her admission on September 9. There was no indication of medical instability or of out-of- control eating disorders requiring 24-hour care. Dr. Center testified that DBT is routinely taught on an outpatient basis and that she recommended outpatient treatment for the stay beginning on September 9. She opined that R.H. did not meet numbers 3 through 7 of the New Directions eating disorder residential criteria. As to the McLean Hospital admission beginning on October 15, 2015, Dr. Center recommended intensive outpatient treatment. Dr. Center knew that R.H. had been transitioned from McLean Hospital to the Cambridge Center to address the eating disorder as her primary symptom. Dr. Center felt that continuing R.H. in an intensive outpatient setting would help her stabilize and maintain the progress she had made at the Cambridge Center. Dr. Center stated that a basic tenet of medical care, and especially psychiatric care, is that the patient be treated in the least restrictive setting possible under the circumstances. She stated that it is always best to treat people in the environment they live in. Treatment in the 24- hour residential setting removes the patient from the stressors she will have to deal with when she goes home. Upon her readmission to the McLean Hospital from Cambridge Center, R.H. denied suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation, and the record disclosed nothing to indicate suicidal thoughts. R.H. denied auditory or visual hallucinations and her mood was described as “euthymic,” i.e., essentially normal. Dr. Center acknowledged that the medical record showed that R.H. had been in intensive outpatient treatment for her eating disorder at the Renfrew Center in Florida from July 23 through August 21, 2015, with limited success. Dr. Center stated that the issue for R.H. had recently changed from her eating disorder to her self-harming behavior and believed that an intensive outpatient program focusing on skills to deal with self-injurious behaviors would be the appropriate placement under the circumstances. Dr. Center also acknowledged that her review did not include the records of R.H.’s treating psychiatrist and therapist during her stay at Renfrew, and that their notes indicated that R.H.’s condition had regressed while in intensive outpatient care. Dr. Center testified that these records might have persuaded her to recommend a higher level of care, such as a partial hospital program, but that she still would not have recommended residential placement. After Dr. Center rendered her opinion that R.H.’s residential stays at McLean Hospital were not medically necessary, the claim was reviewed by Dr. Frank Santamaria, Florida Blue’s care management medical director. In rendering his opinion, Dr. Santamaria reviewed the medical records sent by Petitioner and McLean Hospital, the log of contact notes kept by New Directions, and Dr. Center’s report.7/ He testified that the available records were adequate to allow him to render an opinion as to medical necessity. Dr. Santamaria concluded that, as to the New Directions criteria for psychiatric residential admissions, R.H. failed to meet criteria 3, 4, and 5. He opined generally that when assessing the need for a residential stay, he is looking for someone who is at risk of self-harm or harming others or who has an acute severe psychiatric condition such as a psychotic disorder that requires confinement. Dr. Santamaria noted that R.H.’s eating disorder was not the primary concern at the time of her admissions to McLean Hospital; however, because the eating disorder was occurring at the same time as the psychiatric problem, he was also looking for medical manifestations of the eating disorder, such as severe weight loss affecting blood chemistry. Criterion 4 requires documented symptoms and/or behaviors that are a significant deterioration from baseline functioning and create a significant functional impairment in at least three of five listed areas. Under area 4a, “primary support,” Dr. Santamaria noted that R.H. had good support from her mother and grandmother. He did not believe that primary support was a problem.8/ As to area 4b, “social/interpersonal,” the notes indicated that R.H. recently had an altercation with a friend. Dr. Santamaria did not find such an altercation out of the ordinary for a 15-year-old and thus found no functional impairment under 4b. Area 4c, “occupational/educational,” appeared to pose no problem because the records indicated that R.H. was an A-B student, despite her rocky first week of high school. As to area 4d, “health/medical compliance,” Dr. Santamaria noted that R.H. had been compliant with medical instructions and her family had been good about seeking care for her. As to area 4e, “ability to maintain safety for either self or others,” Dr. Santamaria acknowledged that R.H. had hit her hand with a hammer and acted in other self-injurious ways, chiefly superficial cutting. He testified that such behaviors are not uncommon in younger populations and do not necessarily make the person a candidate for residential care. Self-injury alone does not satisfy the criterion, unless there is a concern for suicide or homicide. The hammer incident occurred in August, at least one week before R.H.’s admission to McLean Hospital. The McLean Hospital admission note of September 9, 2015, indicates no reported history of suicidal thinking. Dr. Santamaria found no documentation to indicate R.H. was aggressive against herself or others. She had no acute conditions such as psychotic disorders. Dr. Santamaria noted that even if area 4e were deemed to have been met, criterion 4 requires significant functional impairment and degradation from baseline functioning in at least three of the listed areas, and that R.H. at most satisfied one area of the criterion. Criterion 5 of the New Directions psychiatric residential criteria requires that one of three conditions relating to the patient’s support system or treatment history be met. Dr. Santamaria concluded that none of the three conditions were met. Condition 5c requires a recent history of multiple brief acute inpatient stays without a successful transition to a lower level of care. Dr. Santamaria conceded that the record he examined disclosed little information about prior therapies that had been tried with R.H., but he concluded that the record was sufficient to confirm that R.H. did not have multiple brief inpatient stays. He was reasonably confident that McLean Hospital would have documented such stays had they occurred because they would be a very significant part of her history. Dr. Santamaria also noted that R.H. had been able to transition to an intensive outpatient program from her inpatient admission to the Renfrew Center in May 2015. Condition 5a requires that family members or the patient’s support system demonstrate behaviors that are likely to undermine the goals of treatment, such that treatment at a lower level of care is unlikely to be successful. The record disclosed that R.H.’s mother, who was her custodial guardian, had a history of substance abuse but had gone through a rehabilitation program, attended Narcotics Anonymous regularly, and had been sober for one year at the time of R.H.’s October 15, 2015, admission to McLean Hospital. Dr. Santamaria testified that if R.H.’s mother were currently using drugs and R.H. had nowhere else to go, then condition 5a might be met. However, the actual situation presented by the medical record did not establish that R.H. was living in an unsafe environment that could undermine her treatment. As to condition 5b, a documented history of an inability to be managed at an intensive lower level of care, Dr. Santamaria concluded that R.H. had responded to various therapies in the past. As noted above, criterion 3 of the New Directions psychiatric residential criteria is exclusionary, i.e., if the placement appears not to be medically necessary, then one begins to seek another motivation, such as the desire for a change of pace or a respite for the family. Dr. Santamaria noted that DBT does not require placement at the residential level. It can be done at an intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization level, both of which are lower levels of care than residential.9/ This fact made Dr. Santamaria suspect that the prime motive for R.H.’s placement may have been custodial. Dr. Santamaria testified that he also analyzed R.H.’s admission under the New Directions eating disorder residential criteria. He stated that he could not be certain from the record whether McLean Hospital was treating R.H.’s eating disorder, as well as providing DBT, but he knew that McLean Hospital was mindful of the eating disorder. He also knew that R.H.’s transfer to the Cambridge Center was partly because her eating disorder was becoming worse. Dr. Santamaria concluded that R.H. did not satisfy criteria 3 through 7 for an eating disorder residential admission. Dr. Santamaria testified that R.H. did not meet eating disorder residential criteria 3 through 5 for the same reasons she did not meet the identical criteria 3 through 5 of the psychiatric residential criteria. Criterion 6 concerns biomedical complications of an eating disorder. Dr. Santamaria reviewed the medical records and concluded that R.H. presented none of the complications that would require 24-hour care at the time of her admission on September 9, 2015. Dr. Santamaria likewise found that R.H. satisfied neither factor 7a nor 7b of Criterion 7. As to 7a, R.H. did not present with a low body weight and there was no documentation that she had lost 10 percent of her body weight in the last 30 days. As to 7b, there was no evidence that R.H.’s “compensatory behaviors,” i.e., binging and purging, had caused “significant physiological complications” or that such behaviors occurred multiple times daily and did not respond to treatment “at an intensive lower level of care.” Dr. Santamaria testified that his analysis as to the October 15, 2015, admission was identical to that for the September 9, 2015, admission. As to both admissions, he believed that intensive outpatient was the appropriate level of care. Dr. Santamaria defined “intensive outpatient” as three hours of intensive therapy for at least three days per week. He believed that this level of care could address all of R.H.’s issues, including her self-injurious behavior. Dr. Santamaria concluded that if R.H. tried the intensive outpatient level of care and failed, then a higher level could be considered. Like Dr. Center, he stated that he might have recommended a partial hospitalization setting had he known that intensive outpatient had been tried and failed, but he still would not have recommended a 24-hour residential admission. Petitioner’s presentation implied that Florida Blue and/or Prest & Associates base their coverage decisions on financial considerations rather than strictly on the merits of the claims. Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria both testified that they had no incentive, financial or otherwise, to deny a claim for reimbursement. Their testimony on this point is credible. Petitioner offered no direct evidence that Florida Blue or Prest & Associates directly pressure their physician employees to reject meritorious claims, and there is no evidence that Dr. Santamaria or Dr. Center based their recommendations on anything other than their assessment of R.H.’s medical records in light of the relevant medical necessity criteria. Petitioner raised questions about the completeness of the records examined by Dr. Santamaria and Dr. Center and sounded a skeptical note as to the diligence of the physicians’ efforts to obtain additional documentation. As found above, both Dr. Santamaria and Dr. Center testified that they had adequate documentation to render an opinion as to medical necessity in this case. Both physicians stated that in other cases they have taken additional steps to obtain missing information, including making peer-to-peer calls to the treating physicians or reaching out to the case managers, but that no such steps were necessary in this case. Both physicians conceded that not all of the medical records were available to them at the time of their reviews. They did not have records from R.H.’s stays at the Renfrew Center and the Cambridge Center or the notes of R.H.’s treating physicians in Florida. Both Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria credibly testified that nothing in these additional records would have changed their opinion as to the medical necessity of residential treatment for R.H. Section 12 of the Plan, which sets forth the appeal process for a denied claim, expressly states: “Your appeal may include any additional documentation, information, evidence or testimony that you would like reviewed and considered during the appeal process.” This language is included in the explanations for both the Level I and Level II appeals. Nothing prevents the member from providing any documentation whatsoever during the appeal process. Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria are physician reviewers, not medical investigators. If something Petitioner asserted to be relevant to the decision was missing from the files, it was not the fault of the reviewing physicians. It is ultimately the member’s responsibility to provide appropriate documentation for review. By letter dated April 5, 2016, Florida Blue notified Petitioner that it “remains unable to approve additional coverage and/or payment for the Residential Treatment.” The letter set forth the following rationale for the denial: Per the State Employees’ PPO Plan Booklet and Benefits Document page 5-5: “Services or supplies that are not Medically Necessary, as determined by Florida Blue and/or CVS Caremark clinical staff and Division of State Group Insurance, are non- covered.” Specifically, coverage for the Mental Health (Eating Disorder) Residential stays is denied as it does not meet the definition of medical necessity. This is for hospital stay on and after 09/09/2015 and 10/15/2015. The final decision to proceed with the requested services is between the provider and the member. Records show that the member was not deemed to be a present risk to self or to others. Though the member had a preoccupation with weight sand [sic] eating, there was no evidence of inability to adequately care for self with functioning in multiple sphere areas, including stabilization of the eating disorder issues. There was no report of medical instability or psychosis. The member was in a body weight range. The member was described as having her eating disorder symptoms under control. From the clinical evidence, this member could have been safely treated at each occasion at a lesser level of care such as in an eating disorder intensive outpatient setting. This review was done using New Directions Clinical Care criteria and is based on the opinion of a board certified psychiatrist. Services that are not medically necessary are not covered under your health benefit plan. The denial letter provided Petitioner with information regarding the Level II appeal process to DSGI, including a reference to the pertinent section of the Plan. The denial letter reiterated that Petitioner could submit any information or documentation that Petitioner believed could assist in DSGI’s review of the appeal. Petitioner submitted a request for a Level II appeal to DSGI on May 23, 2016. The Level II appeal was reviewed by DSGI’s legal nurse coordinator, Kathy Flippo. Ms. Flippo reviewed all of the documents reviewed by Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria, plus additional records submitted by Petitioner with the Level II appeal request. Ms. Flippo determined that the stays at issue were non-emergency admissions that required pre-certification and that the pre-certification requirements of the Plan were not met. Ms. Flippo reached the same conclusions as Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria regarding the New Directions psychiatric residential criteria. Ms. Flippo concluded that R.H. did not meet criteria 3, 4, or 5. Ms. Flippo testified that she did not review the case pursuant to the New Directions eating disorder residential criteria because Petitioner’s Level II appeal addressed only the psychiatric issues and because R.H.’s eating disorder stay at the Cambridge Center was covered by Florida Blue. By letter dated July 29, 2016, signed by Tami Fillyaw, director of DSGI, Petitioner was informed that the Level II appeal had been denied. The letter informed Petitioner of his rights under the Plan to file a petition for a formal or an informal hearing contesting the denial of the appeal and/or to request a binding external review from an Independent Review Organization (“IRO”).10/ Petitioner requested both an administrative hearing and an external review.11/ The external review was conducted under the auspices of the Medical Review Institute of America, Inc. (“MRIoA”), a URAC-accredited external review network. The MRIoA assigned a physician whom it stated is board-certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in the specialties of General Psychiatry and Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.12/ The external review upheld the adverse determinations regarding coverage for the McLean Hospital stays. In its decision letter dated November 11, 2016, the MRIoA provided the following relevant clinical summary and findings: At the time in question, the patient was a 15 year old female with a variety of difficulties related to depression, anxiety, eating disorder symptoms, and symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) with self-harming behaviors. This review has to do with a question of whether residential treatment center (RTC) level of care (LOC) for two episodes of service 9/9/15-9/22/15 and 10/15/15-12/11/15 met the plan criteria for medical necessity. It is noted that the patient was treated in a special eating disorders program on the dates between these two episodes. * * * The patient’s presentation did not meet the plan criteria for medical necessity for the dates in question. Specifically, the patient did not meet criteria #5 of the Admission Criteria. The patient is noted to have a caring and effective support system that would have supported a less intensive level of care. There was no recent history of inability to be effectively treated at an intensive level of service below residential treatment center (RTC) level of care (LOC), and there was no recent history of inability to transition from inpatient treatment into a less intensive level of care. At the time of admission to residential treatment, it is clear that the patient struggled with mood dysregulation along with episodes of food restriction and self- harming behaviors. She was not responding to attempts at outpatient treatment. The residential program in question was sought out specifically due to its approach to the utilization of DBT (dialectical behavior therapy). However, there is no indication that the patient could not have responded to attempts to escalate her treatment in the outpatient setting through the use of either intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization services. In particular, the patient could have been involved in a formal DBT program without utilization of residential treatment. Her symptom severity for the dates in question was not of a severity to require the use of round the clock observation and treatment. As a result, there was no medical necessity for residential treatment center (RTC) level of care (LOC). * * * The appeal letters from the patient’s family, outpatient providers, and residential facility discuss the need for residential treatment due to the patient’s symptoms severity, particularly the patient’s episodes of self-harming behavior and the need for her to participate in the immersive DBT program utilized at the residential program in question. The patient’s need for more intensive treatment is acknowledged. However, the patient’s recent treatment history was one of outpatient treatment with a previous history of residential treatment for eating disorder symptoms. For the DOS in question, the patient could have obtained appropriate and effective DBT in a less restrictive setting, such as either a partial hospitalization program (PHP) or an intensive outpatient program (IOP). Based on the above, the previous determination has been upheld. At the hearing, Petitioner complained that, prior to receiving the letter denying the Level II appeal, he had no inkling that medical necessity determinations were based on criteria produced by New Directions. The Plan’s definition of “medically necessary” does not reference the fact that Florida Blue relies on the New Directions criteria for medical necessity determinations in psychiatric and eating disorder admissions. Petitioner basically argues that not having the precise language of the New Directions medical necessity criteria deprived him and the medical providers of the ability to frame the coverage requests in such a way as to satisfy the criteria. The record evidence shows Florida Blue does not make the New Directions medical necessity criteria directly available to its members. In fact, New Directions is nowhere mentioned in the Plan. Witnesses for DSGI correctly stated that anyone can download the criteria from the New Directions website, but Petitioner pointed out that one must be aware the criteria exist before one can download them. If this case is typical, it appears that a Florida Blue member must be denied coverage and go through the appeal process before Florida Blue makes him aware of precisely how the determination of medical necessity is made. Dr. Santamaria testified that Florida Blue does not expect its members to have any knowledge of the New Directions criteria or to “understand all the medical jargon.” The member is expected to present Florida Blue with the best and most accurate medical information available (preferably before the services are rendered) and rely on Florida Blue to make the decision. Dr. Santamaria stated, “Your role is not to do the utilization management. That’s my role. Your role is, if you disagree with a coverage determination, to appeal it and to even have your doctor speak on your behalf or write a letter or do whatever. It’s not your role to access the documents and to use them on your own. That--that’s not what they were created for.” Dr. Santamaria emphasized that the member’s “role” is not to “meet criteria” but to provide Florida Blue with information sufficient to allow its experts to apply the criteria. While his phrasing may be condescending, Dr. Santamaria’s statement is basically accurate: the medical records determine whether the criteria have been met. Petitioner’s awareness of the particulars of the criteria would not change the substance of the medical record. The undersigned tends to agree with Petitioner that Florida Blue’s process could be more transparent. However, Petitioner failed to show how the outcome would have been different if the New Directions medical necessity criteria had been available to him or McLean Hospital. Every expert who examined the medical records agreed that R.H. did not meet the criteria for medical necessity. Their opinions are credited. Ms. Flippo emphasized that Florida Blue did not deny coverage merely because McLean Hospital’s 3 East DBT program was self-pay. If the member had been able to obtain pre- certification for hospitalization and a proper bill had been presented to Florida Blue, it would have been covered at the allowable non-network coverage amount. Ms. Flippo also stated that even if pre-certification had been obtained, Florida Blue would certainly not have covered the 70 days that R.H. spent in McLean Hospital. Ms. Flippo had never seen more than 15 days at a time approved, even for members who were floridly psychotic and admitted under the Baker Act. With modern treatments and medications, it is seldom necessary to keep patients at a residential level of care for months at a time. All of the experts agreed that DBT is more commonly provided on an outpatient basis. Additionally, Mr. Shaw pointed out that the ability of the insurer to pay the non-contracted, non-network rate to the hospital is contingent on the hospital’s willingness to accept insurance payments. McLean Hospital’s 3 East DBT program did not accept insurance. Mr. Shaw succinctly stated, “We’re not obligated to pay you back because you made the choice to go to a facility that takes your money but not ours.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, issue a final order denying Petitioner’s claim for coverage under the State Employees’ PPO Plan for R.H.’s residential treatment at McLean Hospital from September 9, 2015, to September 30, 2015, and October 15, 2015, to December 11, 2015. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2017.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency") for the issuance of a final order. 1. On March 10, 2014, Greystone Hospice of District 6B, LLC, (“Greystone”) requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the preliminary denial of Certificate of Need (“CON”) Application No. 10206, which it submitted to establish a hospice program in the Service District 6B, and to contest the preliminary approval of VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida (“VITAS”) CON Application No. 10207, to establish a hospice program in Hospice Service Area 6B. Filed May 15, 2014 4:04 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 2. The request was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) where it was assigned Case No. 14-1369CON. 3. On March 13, 2014, VITAS requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the co-batched CON Application filed by Greystone to establish a hospice program in Service District 6B, (CON No. 10206), and to support the preliminary approval of its application (CON No. 10207). 4. The request was referred to DOAH where it was assigned Case No. 14-1366CON. 5. On April 4, 2014, DOAH issued an Order of Consolidation. 6. On April 18, 2014, Greystone filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. It is therefore ORDERED: 7. The denial of Greystone’s CON Application No. 10206 is upheld. 8. The approval of VITAS’ CON Application No. 10207 is upheld subject to the conditions noted in the State Agency Action Report. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this /4 day of hay 2014. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Hgalth Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below- named persons by the method designated on this [Soma Ate , 2014. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 412-3630 R. Bruce McKibben Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia and Purnell, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Steve@reuphlaw.com (Electronic Mail) R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Pennington, P.A. Post Office Drawer 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Trigsby@penningtonlaw.com (Electronic Mail) | James McLemore, Supervisor Certificate of Need Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Page 3 of 3
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), is a publicly owned hospital corporation with corporate offices located in Naples, Florida. It owns and/or operates 17 hospitals in the United States, including 2 owned facilities in the State of Florida, and one which it operates for the State under contract. Psychiatric service is limited in scope. Charter Medical Corporation, operating 66 hospitals, owns and operates Charter Glade Hospital, a 104-bed specialty psychiatric hospital located in Ft. Myers, Lee County, Florida. The facility is located approximately 2 miles west of I-75 and approximately 22 miles north of the site identified by HMA for its facility. As an existing facility in the service area, it has intervened herein to protest any award of a Certificate of Need to a competing facility, here, HMA proposed hospital. THE FACILITIES Of Charter Glades' 104 beds, 80 are licensed as short-term psychiatric beds, of which 56 are utilized for adults and 24 for adolescents. The remaining 24 beds are licensed as short-term substance abuse beds. It draws approximately 91 percent of its patients from Lee County, where it is located, and the remaining 9 percent from Collier County, contiguous to the south. It also operates an outpatient program in Naples, Florida, further south in Collier County, and utilizes substantial marketing and advertising programs within Collier County to inform and attract patients from that area. HMA proposes to establish a 50-bed, freestanding, psychiatric hospital in Collier County, 30 beds of which will be on a unit dedicated to adult patients and 20 beds dedicated to adolescents. The facility is designed to be built on an 8 to 10 acre tract of land and due to efforts by HMA's vice president for psychiatric operations, Mr. Beatty, who has personally surveyed the northern Collier County area, at least one adequate tract of property, already appropriately zoned, with access to adequate roads and utilities, has been identified. The project was designed by Architect Bruce Hartwigson, a professional with over 20 years experience in the design of health care facilities. Construction is projected to take approximately 8 months from the beginning of construction, with the facility being ready for operations within one month after completion of construction. As designed, the facility will provide a state of the art atmosphere for the psychiatric patients. Design provides for a residential appearance with allowance for quiet space, counseling offices, and recreational and therapeutic areas in addition to patient rooms. The adult and adolescent units will be physically separated and those areas scheduled for use by both categories of patient, such as dining and recreation areas, will not be utilized by both at the same time. The building, consisting of approximately 47,670 square feet, will also include, in addition to those facilities described above, necessary support facilities including doctors' and nurses' offices, administrative and business offices, storage, educational and physical activities areas, a swimming pool, and various therapy and treatment/examination rooms, as well as a chapel, beauty and barber shops, and support activities. The design proposed provides good visibility from the nurses' station to the entire unit served by that facility. All outside doors and those between units will be secured. Outdoor courtyards will be enclosed by fences or walls, and security/seclusion rooms have been designed to promote patient safety. The design proposed by HMA, complies with all codes and regulations of state and local agencies, and the size and layout proposed is reasonable. NEED HRS District 8 includes Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Glades, Hendry, Lee and Sarasota counties. HMA's proposed facility will serve, primarily, Collier county. Collier county is located, along with Lee county, in the southernmost of two separate marketing regions within District 8. Currently, almost all psychiatric inpatient services provided in both Lee and Collier counties are provided by Charter Glade Hospital in Lee county, and in the limited psychiatric service at Naples Community Hospital in Collier county. These two facilities are the only facilities licensed to provide hospital inpatient psychiatric services in their respective counties and the services are substantially different. Whereas Charter Glade Hospital is a freestanding psychiatric facility, Naples Community Hospital is a general, acute care hospital with a hospital-based psychiatric unit. In the Naples Community Hospital psychiatric facility, the average length of stay is 7.8 days. Naples Community Hospital is currently licensed to operate a 32-bed short-term psychiatric unit, and an 11-bed substance abuse unit. Consistent with the terms of a Certificate of Need issued to Naples Community Hospital for the establishment of a satellite facility, the hospital has agreed to de-license 9 of the 32 short-term psychiatric beds and the 11 short-term substance abuse beds. At the time of the hearing, the psychiatric unit at Naples Community Hospital had 20 beds staffed. The unit is used by area psychiatrists primarily for providing crisis intervention and the treating of immediate symptoms. Crisis stabilization/intervention is a psychiatric service which in normal circumstances results in an average length of stay of between 10 and 12 days. It differs substantially from longer term care, available in a psychiatric hospital. Under the shorter term programs, the disturbed and disoriented patient does not have sufficient opportunity to benefit from the programs available in a more comprehensive long term program. In short, Naples Community Hospital's program is oriented primarily to short term treatment, and this would not be contradicted or duplicated by the proposed service to be offered by HMA in its facility. Additional psychiatric care is provided by the David Lawrence Center located in Naples, which is Collier county's comprehensive community mental health center. At this facility, psychiatric care ranges from outpatient care through group and family therapy, to inpatient crisis stabilization and residential treatment programs for substance abuse or mental health problems. As a part of its inpatient program, David Lawrence operates a 12-bed crisis stabilization unit and a 12-bed short-term residential treatment program, with the former operating at an average occupancy of 66 percent and the latter at an average occupancy of 70 percent. The average length of stay at David Lawrence Center is generally between 5 and 7 days, at which time the patient is generally released and medicated for outpatient care with the opportunity then existing to obtain appropriate therapeutic care from other sources. As a publicly funded facility, David Lawrence refers most paying patients to either Naples Community Hospital or Charter Glade. Little difficulty has been experienced in placing inpatient referrals with the exception of younger children. There is also a community health center operating 30 crisis stabilization and short-term residential treatment service beds located in Lee County. Since this facility's mandate includes providing provision of services for all of the southwest portion of District 8, some patients come from Collier county as well as Lee county. This facility also operates an adult residential treatment service, which has been funded to add an additional 80 to 100 beds in the foreseeable future. Other relevant resources, either actual or potential, include an adult residential treatment service funded to begin operation in Charlotte county, which will give access to geriatric psychiatric patients residing in Collier county, and the Naples Research and Counseling Center (The Willows), located in Collier county, whose program is primarily oriented to the treatment of bulimia and other food disorders. This facility, under the terms of its license, is primarily oriented to serving patients outside District 8, but may devote up to 3 percent of its total patient days to District 8 patients. Though it does serve as a resource, its impact on the need for psychiatric services in the southernmost portion of District 8 is minimal. Other outpatient psychiatric services available to Collier county residents include the activities of the six practicing psychiatrists located within the county, who provide outpatient services in conjunction with non- medical professionals. There is also psychologists and psychiatric social workers practicing within the county. In February, 1987, DHRS published projections for the January, 1992 Planning Horizon which revealed the net need for 61 short-term psychiatric beds in District 8. It was noted at the time that the short-term psychiatric bed need projection had not yet been adjusted for occupancy rates according to the terms of Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency thereafter promulgated Rule 10-5.008(2), which established the "fixed pool" concept for Certificate of Need Review. HMA submitted its application based on the 61-bed projection. Upon review of the applications, during which time the Agency calculated a net need numerically for 55 additional short-term psychiatric beds, DHRS denied HMA's application on September 9, 1987, even though a 55-bed need was established. Under the provisions of Rule 10-5.011(o)(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, the Department determined the numeric need to be inapplicable, because the average annual occupancy rates for all existing adult short-term inpatient psychiatric beds in District 8 did not exceed 75 percent for the preceding 12 month period. By the same token, the same rate for adolescents and children did not exceed 70 percent for the same time period. DHRS's observation regarding occupancy rate thresholds was accepted by HMA's health planner. The difference between the 61-bed need published by DHRS initially and the 55-bed projection is an award of 6 short-term psychiatric beds to Venice Hospital. During the course of the hearing, and after HMA had presented its case in chief, the Department revised its numeric need calculation to reflect a 44- bed net need for January, 1992. This change was attributed to the mistaken assumption that 20 beds at Naples Community Hospital would be de-licensed. In reality, only 9 beds will actually be de-licensed. Under the terms of the Rule, gross need is calculated upon a standard of 35 beds per 1,000 population, and this figure must be reduced by the number of licensed and approved beds within the District. The proper count, therefore, should be a total of 295 beds including 23 at Naples Community Hospital instead of 12. HMA objected to the introduction of evidence relating to the change in numeric bed need on the basis that it had already presented its case in chief, and had not been advised of the change in advance. The basis for the original denial of HMA's application by the Department included as a important part thereof the fact that the occupancy standards outlined in the Department's Rules had not been met regardless of the bed need established by use of the methodology. This is as much a factor with a numeric need of 44, as it was with a numeric need of 55. The evidence did not establish that the occupancy rates had increased so as to meet the Department's standards. It is nonetheless appropriate for the Department to correct, at the hearing, an obvious miscalculation which goes to the very heart of the numeric need methodology. If accurate information is not included in the calculations under the methodology, then the methodology result is totally unreliable. Consequently, it is found that the appropriate bed need for the January, 1992 Planning Horizon is 44 beds. Turning to the question of occupancy levels, statistics compiled for District 8 for the years 1984 through 1987, reflect that district wide, the average occupancy for 1984 was 54.7 percent; for 1985, 69.22 percent; for 1986, 59.29 percent; and for 1987 through October, 59.12 percent. Though the health plan does not call for sub-district districting, if one looks at the two major facilities located in the Lee and Collier counties, that is Naples Community Hospital and Charter Glade Hospital, the average for those two is 51.35 percent, with Charter Glade at 33.2 percent. For 1985, the two had an average occupancy of 55.75 percent; for 1986, an average of 49.92 percent, and for 1987, an average of 50.81 percent. Therefore, no matter how it is looked at, either on a district wide basis or considering only the two counties, the average occupancy is well below the 75 percent standard for adults or 70 percent for adolescents. Under the provisions of the DHRS Rule, when numeric need has not been established, no new beds will "normally be approved." It has long been settled that this means that if other circumstances exist which indicate the need, outside of the numeric calculation, for additional beds, DHRS may consider and award them. The occupancy rates catalogued above would be one possible example of abnormal circumstances, if they had exceeded the Rule standards. Another is the access standard, contained in Rule 10-5.011(o)4g, which provides that short- term, inpatient hospital psychiatric services should be available within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes, under average travel conditions, for at least 90 percent of the service area population. As was stated above, service area means the entire District 8. It was clearly established at final hearing that more than 90 percent of the District 8 population is within a 45 minute travel time of short-term, inpatient hospital psychiatric services with only 6.3 percent falling outside that parameter. In fact, the local health plan indicates that 90 percent of the district population falls within 30 minutes travel time. Other real factors which may be considered are the shortage of psychiatrists in the area, in both counties, and a definite shortage of psychiatrically trained nurses in both counties. It has been shown, however, that physicians, like nature, abhor a vacuum. If facilities are available, medically trained personnel will generally gravitate to the area of availability, and it is consequently found that these two factors are not controlling. OTHER FACTORS The issue of the financial feasibility of the project is always pertinent. HMA proposes to develop this project, utilizing 20 percent equity contribution, and 80 percent debt financing. HMA has access to a $75,000,000.00 line of credit and financing drawn on that line would be at prime rate. It is estimated that costs and fees associated with financing will total approximately $57,000.00. The method of funding and the proposed interest expense and fees are considered reasonable. The applicant proposes to charge an all-inclusive rate of $398.00 per patient day in the first year and $415.00 per patient day in the second year. These are not contested and are considered reasonable. During the first year, total deductions of $508,000.00 include contractual allowances of $400,000.00, plus a bad debt allowance of approximately $100,000.00. Intervenor contends that HMA's bad debt factor of 4 percent is unrealistic, and Charter Glade's experience of 5 percent would be more reasonable. An adjustment of that nature would total $41,600.00, which is not particularly significant when compared against the overall project estimated yearly income. The second year's proposed revenue deductions of $716,500.00 are also contested by the Intervenor on the basis of what it considers unrealistic projections, but again, there is insufficient evidence to indicate HMA's projections are unreasonable. Intervenor has contested many of the line items on HMA's pro forma statement. Whereas HMA projects a 4 to 5 percent per year inflation rate for salaries and benefits, Intervenor suggests that an inflation rate of 6 percent would be more appropriate. Supplies and expenses figures should be increased according to Intervenor, who also contends that HMA's projected depreciation and other expense is understated, as were the projected pre- opening expenses. If all adjustments suggested by the Intervenor were to be made, HMA's facility would lose $588,000.00 in its second year of operation, in the event HMA's projected second year occupancy of 55 percent were to be realized. Intervenor contests this, contending that because of lack of bed need and lack of demand, it is doubtful HMA will achieve the projected occupancy and its position is well taken. The growth rate in the two county area is projected to be a sum equivalent to 19.6 percent of the 1980 population. Applying this same figure to the average daily census for the two existing facilities reveals an additional 12.4 patients per day available to HMA, if one assumes Naples Community Hospital and Charter Glade would continue to serve the existing population base. The 12.4 patient census would constitute a 25 percent occupancy rate, as opposed to 55 percent. In light of the currently existing occupancy rates, it is found that HMA's projected 55 percent occupancy rate at year two is overly generous and would likely not be achieved in light of the various factors discussed previously. While the criticisms and suggested adjustments by the Intervenor as to expense and salary items are considered unconvincing, there is some question, in light of proposed occupancy rates, whether Petitioner can operate the facility feasibly within two years. There is, however, little doubt that HMA would construct a quality facility and operate it in such a manner as to meet, if not exceed, all state standards. Its prior record would tend to establish that. Proposed staffing ratios are reasonable and consistent with industry standards, and the programs incorporated within the proposal are appropriate and reasonable. HMA has access to adequate capital resources to fund the construction and operate it for the first several years. There is some question, however, as to whether adequate, qualified staff can be recruited in sufficient numbers. HMA proposes to serve indigent patients in numbers sufficiently high to meet its proportionate share of indigent mental health problems within the service area. There was some evidence, through the deposition of Dr. Mack, which tends to indicate that from time to time, psychiatrists practicing in Collier county have difficulty from a logistical standpoints securing inpatient placement for their psychiatric patients at Charter Glade, and there can be little doubt that the distribution of psychiatric beds in District 8 is unbalanced, with far more beds in the northern portion of the district than in the south. Whether this justifies construction of a new psychiatric hospital in Collier county, however, is another matter. The evidence clearly indicates that the short- term beds at Naples Community Hospital are not fully utilized and the occupancy rates would tend to indicate that the demand within the two counties, as it currently exists and is proposed to exist within the framework of the Planning Horizon, is currently being met. Another legitimate factor to be considered is the adverse impact construction of a new facility, such as proposed by HMA, would have on the existing Charter Glade facility which, more than any other existing facility, provides the same service. Evidence of record indicates that Charter Glade gets 85 percent of its patients from Lee county, in which it is located, and 17 percent of that number comes from that area of Lee county, south of the Charter Glade facility. In addition, 9.3 percent of Charter Glade's patients come from Collier county. Adding the south Lee county patients to the north Collier county patients, accounts for approximately 23.75 percent of Charter Glade's total patients. (.17 X .85 .1445 + .093 .2375) If HMA's new facility were to draw 50 percent of that figure, approximately 12 percent of Charter Glade's total patient days would be lost. (.2375 X .50 .11875) In 1987, Charter Glade's charge per day was slightly in excess of $431.00, which resulted in a net profit of slightly over $105,000.00. Were Charter Glade to lose approximately 12 percent of its patient days, the net adverse effect to its revenue picture would be substantial.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Health Management Associates, Inc.'s application for Certificate of Need Number 5170 to establish a 50-bed, freestanding, short-term psychiatric hospital in Collier county be denied. Recommended in Tallahassee this 30th day of June, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4741 The following constitutes my ruling on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties hereto, consistent with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. For HMA: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Irrelevant. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15 - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. First and third sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence is irrelevant. 18. First and second sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence is irrelevant. 19 - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Cumulative. 25 - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a finding but a restatement of evidence. Accepted. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected as a restatement of evidence. 30 - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a restatement of evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 - 43. Accepted. 44 - 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 - 48. Accepted. 49. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 50. Irrelevant. 51 - 53. Accepted and incorporated herein. 54 - 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59 - 61. Accepted and incorporated herein. 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63 - 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 71 - 81. Accepted and incorporated herein. 82. Rejected. 83. Irrelevant. 84. Accepted. 85 - 87. Rejected as an overstatement of the situation as it exists. By DHRS: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 - 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12 - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. By Charter Glade Hospital: 1 - 4. Not Findings of Fact but Introduction. 5 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted. 10 - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13 - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21 - 22. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 26 - 27. Accepted. 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35 - 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 39 - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Remainder is irrelevant. Accepted. 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44 - 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47. Irrelevant. 48 - 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. 52. Accepted and incorporated herein. 53 - 55. Accepted and incorporated herein. 56 - 59. Accepted and incorporated herein. 60 - 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 68 - 70. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 71 - 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 75. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of and comment on the evidence. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of and comment on the evidence. 81-83(o). Accepted in part by HMA and commented on in Recommended Order. 84 - 86. Not a Finding of Fact but a speculative projection. 87 - 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90. First sentence accepted - Second sentence rejected as a restatement of evidence designed to bolster first sentence. 91 - 94. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy, III, Esquire Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Haben and Culpepper Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Rodriguez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Michael Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, Laface & Richards 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether there is a need for an additional 31 short-term psychiatric beds for Broward County?
Findings Of Fact I. General. History of Case. In June of 1984, the Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a certificate of need to add 31 short- term psychiatric beds to its existing facility. The certificate of need sought by the Petitioner was assigned certificate of need #3372 by the Respondent. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for certificate of need #3372. On October 25, 1984, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Respondent challenging its proposed denial of the Petitioner's application. The Petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Respondent and was assigned case number 84-4037. Biscayne, Memorial and Charter were granted leave to intervene by Orders dated January 28, 1985, April 26, 1985 and July 9, 1985, respectively. The final hearing was held on November 19 and 21, 1985 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and February 24 and 25, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. The Petitioner's Proposal. The Petitioner originally sought to add 31 short-term psychiatric beds to its existing facility. If approved, the additional beds would have increased its current licensed beds from 334 to 365 beds. The Petitioner proposed to meet projected need for short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County for 1989. In its original application, the Petitioner proposed to provide services to children, adolescents, adults and the elderly. No distinct psychiatric units were proposed. The total cost of the original proposal was estimated to be $209,368.00. At the final hearing, the Petitioner proposed to relinquish 31 medical/surgical beds and to add 31 short-term psychiatric beds to meet projected need for short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County for 1989. The Petitioner will end up with a total of 334 licensed beds, the same number it now has, if its application is approved. The total cost of the proposal presented at the final hearing was $337,169.00, which is accurate and reasonable. The 31 proposed beds will be divided into a 15-bed dedicated adolescent unit and a 16-bed dedicated geropsychiatric unit. Adults will generally not be treated by the Petitioner. Involuntary admissions will be treated by the Petitioner, although there was some evidence to the contrary. The sixth floor of the Petitioner's existing facility will be converted into space for the new psychiatric units. The Petitioner changed the estimated staffing for its proposal between the time it filed its original application and the final hearing. The changes were not significant. During the 1985 legislative session, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 394.4785(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). This,, Section requires that most adolescents be separated from other patients for purposes of psychiatric treatment. Some of the modifications of the Petitioner's application which were made at the final hearing were made in order to conform with this Section. The changes in the Petitioner's proposal which were made between the time it filed its original application with the Respondent and the time of the final hearing are not substantial enough to require that the Petitioner's application, as modified, be remanded to the Respondent for further consideration. The Parties; Standing. The Petitioner is a 334-bed, for-profit, general acute-care hospital. The Petitioner is a full service hospital providing general medical services. The Petitioner has a medical staff of more than 400 physicians, including a department of psychiatry. The Petitioner is owned by National Medical Enterprises, one of the largest health care providers in the country. The Petitioner is located in Hollywood, Florida, which is located in the southern portion of Broward County, Florida. Broward County is the only County in the Respondent's service district 10. The Petitioner's primary service area consist of the southern portion of Broward County from State Road 84 in the North to the Broward-Dade County line in the South. Memorial is a not-for-profit general acute care hospital located in southern Broward County. Memorial holds License #1737, issued on June 1, 1985, which authorizes Memorial to operate 74 short-term psychiatric beds. This license is valid for the period June 1, 1985 to May 31, 1987. Memorial was also authorized to operate 74 short-term psychiatric beds in its license issued for the 2-year period prior to June 1, 1985. Memorial is located a short distance from where the Petitioner is located in southern Broward County. Memorial and the Petitioner share the same general primary service area. Most of the physicians on the staff at Memorial are also on the Petitioner's staff. Memorial is subsidized by tax revenues for providing indigent care for southern Broward County. About 17 percent of Memorial's revenue is attributable to bad debt and indigent care. If the Petitioner's application is approved it is likely that the Petitioner will take patients from Memorial. It is also likely that the patients taken from Memorial will be other than indigent patients. If the Petitioner were to achieve a 75 percent occupancy rate and 50 percent of its patients come from Memorial, Memorial would lose a little over $1,000,000.00 in terms of 1985 dollars. It is unlikely, however, that the Petitioner will achieve an occupancy rate of 75 percent and, more importantly, it is unlikely that 50 percent of the Petitioner's patients will come from Memorial. The loss of patients from Memorial which would be caused by approval of the Petitioner's application will, however, result in a financial loss to Memorial which may effect its ability to provide quality care. Additionally, the loss in paying patients could increase the percentage of indigent patients at Memorial and, because a portion of the cost of caring for indigents is covered by paying patients at Memorial, could result in a further loss in revenue and an increase in tax support. The public may have difficulty accepting a public hospital, such as Memorial, as a high-quality hospital if the public hospital is perceived to be a charity hospital. It is therefore important for a public hospital to attract a significant number of paying patients to its facility to avoid such an image. It is unlikely that the number of patients which may be lost to the Petitioner by Memorial is sufficient to cause the public to perceive that Memorial is a charity hospital. Biscayne is a 458-bed, general acute-care hospital located on U.S. 1 in northern Dade County, Florida, just south of the Broward County line. Biscayne's facility is located within about 5 miles of the Petitioner's facility. Biscayne is about a 5 to 10 minute drive from the Petitioner. Dade County is not in service district 10. It is in service district 11. Of the 458 licensed beds at Biscayne, 24 are licensed as short-term psychiatric beds and 24 are licensed as substance abuse beds. The rest are licensed as medical/surgical beds. Ten of the medical/surgical beds at Biscayne are used as a dedicated 10-bed eating disorder (anoxeria nervosa and bulimirexia) unit. These 10 beds are not licensed for such use. A separate support staff is used for the 10-bed eating disorder unit. Approximately 60 percent of Biscayne's medical staff of approximately 400 physicians are residents of Broward County. Most of these physicians are also on the medical staff of other hospitals, principally the Petitioner, Memorial and Parkway Regional Medical Center, which is located in northern Dade County. Most of its staff have their business offices in southern Broward County. Biscayne's service area includes southern Broward County and northern Dade County. Approximately 60 percent of Biscayne's patients are residents of southern Broward County. Biscayne markets its services in southern Broward County. Eighty percent of Biscayne's psychiatric patients are elderly. Many types of psychotic and psychiatric disorders are treated at Biscayne. Biscayne offers psycho-diagnostic services, crisis stabilization services, shock therapy services, individual therapy services and group therapy services. Biscayne has had difficulty in recruiting qualified staff for its psychiatric unit. Biscayne currently has 4 vacancies for registered nurses, 4 vacancies for mental health assistants and 1 vacancy for an occupational therapist in its psychiatric unit. Biscayne recruits nurses who are certified in mental health nursing. They have not always been successful in finding such nurses. Therefore, Biscayne provides educational programs to help train its nursing staff. These programs are necessary because of the unavailability of experienced nurses for its psychiatric unit. The Petitioner has projected that most of its patients for its proposed psychiatric units will come from southern Broward County, where Biscayne gets approximately 60 percent of its patients. The Petitioner plans to try to convince psychiatrists currently using existing providers, except Hollywood Pavilion, to refer their patients to the proposed psychiatric units. Since Biscayne and the Petitioner share some of the same physicians, it is likely that many of the patients cared-for by the Petitioner will come form Biscayne and other providers in southern Broward County, including Memorial. The loss of patients at Biscayne, if the Petitioner's proposal is approved, will result in a loss of revenue to Biscayne which may affect its ability to provide quality care. Charter was an applicant for a certificate of need to construct a free-standing psychiatric facility in Broward County. In its application Charter sought approval of long-term and short-term psychiatric beds. Charter's application was filed with the Respondent in August of 1983. It was filed for review by the Respondent in a batching cycle which preceded the batching cycle in which the Petitioner's application was filed. In December of 1983, the Respondent proposed to approve Charter's application and authorize a project consisting of 16 short-term adolescent psychiatric beds, 16 long-term adolescent psychiatric beds, 16 long-term substance abuse beds and 12 long-term children's psychiatric beds. The Respondent's proposed approval of Charter's application was challenged. Following an administrative hearing, it was recommended that Charter's application be denied. Final agency action had not been taken as of the commencement of the hearing in this case. Subsequent to the date on which the final hearing of this case commenced, the Respondent issued a Final Order denying Charter's certificate of need application. This Final Order is presently pending on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. Charter does not have an existing facility offering services similar to those proposed by the Petitioner in Broward County or anywhere near the Petitioner's facility. When the Orders allowing Memorial, Biscayne and Charter to intervene were issued by Hearing Officer Sherrill, Mr. Sherrill determined that if the Intervenor's could prove the facts alleged in their Petition to Intervene they would have standing to participate in this case. Memorial and Biscayne have in fact proved the allegations contained in their Petitions to Intervene. Based upon all of the evidence, it is therefore concluded that Memorial and Biscayne have standing to participate in this proceeding. Both Memorial and Biscayne will probably lose patients to the Petitioner if its proposal is approved resulting in a loss of revenue. This loss could affect quality of care at Memorial and Biscayne. Also, it is possible that both would lose some of their specialized nursing personnel to ;the Petitioner to staff its proposed psychiatric units. Charter has failed to establish that it has standing to participate in this proceeding. The potential injury to Charter is too speculative. II. Rule 10-5.11(25), F.A.C. A. General. Whether a certificate of need for short-term psychiatric beds should be approved for Broward County is to be determined under the provisions of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), and the Respondent's rules promulgated thereunder. In particular, Rule 10-5.11(25), F.A.C., governs this case. Under Rule 10-5.11(25)(c), F.A.C., a favorable determination will "not normally" be given on applications for short-term psychiatric care facilities unless bed need exists under Rule 10-5.11(25)(d), F.A.C. B. Rule 10-5.11(25)(d) , F.A.C. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)3, F.A.C., bed need is determined 5 years into the future. In this case, the Petitioner filed its application with the Respondent in 1984, seeking approval of additional short-term psychiatric beds for 1989. The Petitioner did not change this position prior to or during the final hearing. Therefore, the planning horizon for purposes of this case is 1989. Under Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)3, F.A.C., bed need is determined by subtracting the number of "existing and approved" beds in the service district from the number of beds for the planning year based upon a ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population projected for the planning year in the service district. The population projection is to be based on the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. Bed need is determined under the Respondent's rules on a district-wide basis unless the service district has been sub- divided by the Respondent. District 10 has not been subdivided by the Respondent. Therefore, bed need for purposes of this case under Rule 10-5.11(25)(d), F.A.C., is to be determined based upon the population projections for all of Broward County for 1989. The projected population for Broward County for 1989 is 1,228,334 people. Based upon the projected population for Broward County for 1989, there will be a need for 430 short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County in 1989. The evidence at the final hearing proved that there are currently 427 licensed short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County. During the portion of the final hearing held in November of 1985, evidence was offered that proved that there were also 16 approved short-term psychiatric beds for Broward County. These short-term beds were part of the application for the certificate of need sought by Charter. Subsequently, however, a Final Order was issued by the Respondent denying Charter's application. Therefore, the 16 short-term psychiatric beds sought by Charter do not constitute "existing and approved" short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County for purposes of this case. Subsequent to the conclusion of the final hearing in this case, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a Final Order of the Respondent denying an application for a certificate of need for a free-standing 10 -bed psychiatric facility, including 80 additional short-term psychiatric beds, for Broward County. Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, So.2d (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). As indicated in Finding of Fact 23, Memorial is licensed to operate 74 short-term psychiatric beds. Memorial is in fact operating all 74 of these licensed beds. Memorial filed an application with the Respondent for certificate of need #1953 in October of 1981 in which Memorial indicated that it planned to reduce the number of short-term psychiatric beds it had available by 24 beds. Memorial's certificate of need application involved an expenditure of capital and did not specifically involve an application for a change in bed inventory at Memorial. Memorial also represented that it would reduce the number of its available short-term psychiatric beds by 24 in a bond prospectus it issued in September of 1983. The Respondent approved Memorial's certificate of need application. Despite Memorial's representations that it would reduce its short-term psychiatric bed inventory, the beds are still in use in Broward County. Memorial has no plans to close any beds and the Respondent does not plan to take any action against Memorial to require it to stop using 24 of its short-term psychiatric beds. Hollywood Pavilion is licensed to operate 46 short- term psychiatric beds in Broward County. In 1985, 475 patients were admitted to Hollywood Pavilion and its occupancy rate was 62.3 percent. In fact, Hollywood Pavilion had more admissions than Florida Medical Center had to its psychiatric unit. It therefore appears that other physicians find Hollywood Pavilion acceptable. Hollywood Pavilion is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. The Petitioner presented the testimony of a few physicians who questioned the quality of care at Hollywood Pavilion. These physicians indicated that they did not use Hollywood Pavilion. At least one of the physicians indicated, however, that he did refer patients to other physicians whom he knew admitted patients to Hollywood Pavilion despite his feeling that the quality of care at Hollywood Pavilion was poor. This action is inconsistent with that physician's opinion as to the lack of quality of care at Hollywood Pavilion. His opinion is therefore rejected. The other physicians' opinions are also rejected because very little evidence was offered in support of their opinions and because of the contrary evidence. Based upon a consideration of all of the evidence concerning the quality of care at Hollywood Pavilion, it is concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that the 46 short-term psychiatric beds licensed for use and available for use at Hollywood Pavilion should not be counted as existing short- term psychiatric beds in Broward County. Coral Ridge Hospital is licensed to operate 74 short- term psychiatric beds in Broward County. The average length of stay at Coral Ridge Hospital during 1984 and 1985 was almost 80 days. The average length of stay at Coral Ridge Hospital has been in excess of 40 days since 1980 and in excess of 60 days since 1983. The average length of stay at Coral Ridge Hospital is in excess of the average length of stay for which short-term psychiatric beds are to be used under the Respondent's rules. Rule 10-5.11(25)(a), F.A.C., provides that short-term beds are those used for an average length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years of age. Rule 10-5.11(26)(a), F.A.C., provides that long-term beds are those used for an average length of stay of 90 days or more. The psychiatric beds at Coral Ridge Hospital, based upon an average length of stay for all of its beds, falls between the average length of stay for short-term beds and long-term beds. The occupancy rate at Coral Ridge Hospital for 1985 was between 40 percent and 50 percent. Therefore, it is possible that a few patients at Coral Ridge Hospital with a very long length of stay could cause the overall average length of stay of the facility to be as long as it is. Coral Ridge Hospital will probably take short-term psychiatric patients because of its low occupancy rate. Therefore, there are at least 29 to 37 short-term psychiatric beds available for use as short-term psychiatric beds at Coral Ridge Hospital. The Petitioner failed to prove how many of the licensed short-term psychiatric beds at Coral Ridge Hospital are not being used for, and are not available for use by, short-term psychiatric patients in Broward County. It cannot, therefore, be determined how many, if any, of the licensed short-term beds at Coral Ridge Hospital should not be treated as existing short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County. Based upon the foregoing, the 427 licensed short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County should be treated as "existing" beds for purposes of determining the need for short- term psychiatric beds under Rule 10-5.11(25)(d), F.A.C. There is a net need for short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County for 1989 of only 3 additional beds under Rule 10- 5.11(25)(d)3, F.A.C. If the 80 short-term psychiatric beds approved by the First District Court of Appeal in Balsam are taken into account, there will be a surplus of 77 short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County for 1989 under Rule 10- 5.11(25)(d)3, F.A.C. Based upon an application of Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)3, F.A.C., there is no need for the additional 31 short-term psychiatric beds sought by the Petitioner. Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)1, F.A.C., provides that a minimum of .15 beds per 1,000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license to ensure access to needed services for persons with multiple health problems. Some patients who need psychiatric care also need other medical services which can better be obtained in an acute care hospital. This fact is taken into account by the requirement of Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)1, F.A.C. Based upon the projected population for Broward County in 1989, there should be a minimum of 184-short-term psychiatric beds in hospitals holding a general license in Broward County. There are currently 243 short-term psychiatric beds in hospitals holding a general license in Broward County. Therefore, the standard of Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)1, F.A.C., has been met without approval of the Petitioner's proposal. There is no need for additional short-term psychiatric beds in general hospitals in Broward County for 1989. Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)4, F.A.C., provides that applicants for short-term psychiatric beds must be able to project an occupancy rate of 70 percent for its adult psychiatric beds and 60 percent for its adolescent and children's psychiatric beds in the second year of operation. For the third year of operation, the applicant must be able to project an 80 percent adult occupancy rate and a 70 percent adolescent and children's occupancy rate. The beds sought by the Petitioner will be managed by a professional psychiatric management company: Psychiatric Management Services (hereinafter referred to as "PMS"). PMS is owned by Psychiatric Institutes of America, a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises. Because of the lack of need for additional short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County, it is doubtful that the Petitioner can achieve its projected occupancy rates as required by Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)4, F.A.C. Rules 10-5.11(25)(d)5 and 6, F.A.C., require that certain occupancy rates normally must have been met in the preceding 12 months before additional short-term psychiatric beds will be approved. The facts do not prove whether the occupancy rates provided by Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)5, F.A.C., have been met because the statistics necessary to make such a determination are not available. The evidence failed to prove that the occupancy rates of Rule 10- 5.11(25)(d)6, F.A.C. have been met. The average occupancy rate for short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County for 1985 was between 64.8 percent and 68.4 percent. Occupancy rates in Broward County for short-term psychiatric beds have not reached 71 percent since 1982. These rates are well below the 75 percent occupancy rate provided for in Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)6, F.A.C. This finding is not refuted by the fact that Florida Medical Center added 59 beds in 1984 and the fact that occupancy rates at most general hospitals exceeded 75 percent in 1985. Based upon the average occupancy rate in Broward County for 1985, there were approximately 100 empty short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County on any day. Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)7, F.A.C. requires that short-term psychiatric services provided at an inpatient psychiatric hospital should have at least 15 designated beds in order to assure specialized staff and services at a reasonable cost. The Petitioner's proposal to add 31 short-term psychiatric beds meets this requirement of the rule. C. Rule 10-5.11(25)(e), F.A.C. Rule 1O-5.11(25)(e)1, F.A.C., requires that an applicant prove that its proposal is consistent with the needs in the community as set out in the Local Health Council plans, local Mental Health District Board plans, State Mental Health Plan and needs assessment data. The Petitioner has failed to meet this requirement. The Petitioner's proposal is inconsistent with the District 10 Local Health Plan, the Florida State Health Plan and State and Local Mental Health Plans. In particular, the Petitioner's proposal is inconsistent with the following: The District 10 Local Health Plan's recommendation that applications not be approved if approval would result in an excess number of beds under the Respondent's bed need methodology; The District 10 Local Health Plan's recommendation concerning occupancy standards for the district (75 percent during the past 12 months); The position of the Florida State Health Plan that inpatient psychiatric services are a setting of last resort; The recommendation of the District 10 Mental Health Plan that alternatives to hospitalization for psychiatric services should be encouraged; and The recommendation of the Florida State Mental Health Plan that less restrictive treatment alternatives should be encouraged. Rule 10-5.11(25)(e)3, F.A.C., requires that applicants indicate the amount of care to be provided to underserved groups. The Petitioner's representations concerning its plans to provide indigent care contained in its application are misleading, in that the Petitioner represented that it would not turn away indigents. At the final hearing, the Petitioner indicated that it will generally provide care to indigents only on an emergency basis. Patients who need indigent care on a non-emergency basis will be referred to Memorial. Also, once an indigent patient who needs emergency care has stabilized, that patient will be transferred to Memorial for care. The Petitioner accepts few Medicaid and indigent patients. During 1985, the Petitioner treated 21 Medicaid patients out of a total of 6,800 patients. Only 1.5 percent of its total revenue was for uncompensated care. During 1984, the Petitioner treated 22 Medicaid patients out of a total of 7,321 patients. Only 1.2 percent of its total gross revenue was for uncompensated care. Memorial is subsidized by tax revenues for providing indigent care, or southern Broward County. Because Memorial provides indigent care, indigent patients are usually referred to Memorial if they do not need emergency care or are transferred to Memorial after they stabilize if they do need emergency care. There are other hospitals in northern Broward County which provide similar indigent care. It is therefore common practice to refer patients to those hospitals. Rule 10-5.11(25)(e)5, F.A.C., provides that development of new short- term psychiatric beds should be through the conversion of underutilized beds in other hospital services. The Petitioner's proposal to convert 31 medical/surgical beds for use as short-term psychiatric beds meets this provision. Rule 10-5.11(25)(e)7, F.A.C., provides that short- term psychiatric services should be available within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the service area's population. There is no geographic access problem in Broward County. At least 90 percent of the population of Broward County is within a maximum of 45 minutes driving time under average driving conditions to existing short-term psychiatric services in Broward County. The Petitioner's proposal will not significantly enhance geographic access in Broward County. III. Statutory Criteria. Need for Services. The Respondent has approved two certificates of need authorizing the addition of a total of 135 long-term psychiatric beds for Broward County. The addition of 135 long-term beds probably means that additional short-term beds in Broward County which have been used for patients requiring longer treatment will be available. If the additional long-term beds free up short-term beds, the occupancy rate of short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County would be even less than it has been during the past 12 months, if other things remain equal. Both Memorial and Florida Medical Center have been using short-term psychiatric beds for the care of long-term patients. Once the new long-term psychiatric beds are operational, more short-term psychiatric beds will be available in Broward County. Existing Providers. In addition to the short-term psychiatric beds available at Coral Ridge Hospital and Hollywood Pavilion, short- term psychiatric beds are available at the following existing facilities in the service district: Ft. Lauderdale Hospital: 64 beds Florida Medical Center: 74 beds Imperial Point: 47 beds Broward General Medical Center: 48 beds There is no geographic distribution problem in district 10. Generally, the Petitioner did not prove that existing short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County are not available, efficient, appropriate, accessible, adequate or providing quality of care. The Petitioner also did not prove that existing facilities are over-utilized. No new services are proposed by the Petitioner. The evidence did prove that there is usually a waiting list for short-term psychiatric beds at Memorial and that physicians have resorted to various devices to get their patients into short-term psychiatric beds at Memorial. Specialized adolescent psychiatric services are available in the service district at Ft. Lauderdale Hospital and at Florida Medical Center. Ft. Lauderdale Hospital has 24 short- term psychiatric beds dedicated to the treatment of adolescents. Florida Medical Center has 20 short-term psychiatric beds dedicated to the treatment of adolescents. Broward General Medical Center and Imperial Point also provide children/adolescent services. Treatment for eating disorders is provided and available at Imperial Point and Florida Medical Center. Florida Medical Center solicits patients from all parts of the service district. Geropsychiatric short-term psychiatric beds are available in the service district at Hollywood Pavilion, Imperial Point and Ft. Lauderdale Hospital. Florida Medical Center has a closed adult psychiatric unit and often treats persons over 60 years of age. It also has a 26-bed adult short-term psychiatric unit with 2 specialized treatment programs: one for eating disorders and the other for stress and pain management. The Petitioner has proposed to provide a dedicated geropsychiatric unit to meet the needs of geriatric patients which are different from those of adults generally. Although there are no such dedicated geropsychiatric units in the service district, the Petitioner failed to prove that geriatrics are not receiving adequate care from existing providers. Quality of Care. The Petitioner is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. The Petitioner has established adequate quality control procedures, including educational programs and a quality assurance department. These quality control procedures will also be used to insure quality of care in the proposed psychiatric units. The psychiatric units will be managed by PMS. PMS specializes in the management of psychiatric units in acute care hospitals. PMS has programs for adolescents and geriatrics. These programs will be available for use in the proposed psychiatric units. PMS also has a large variety of programs, services and specialists available to establish and maintain quality of care at the Petitioner. The Petitioner will be able to provide quality of care. Alternatives. The Petitioner did not prove that available and adequate facilities which may serve as an alternative to the services it is proposing do not exist in Broward County. Economies of Scale. The Petitioner's parent corporation, National Medical Enterprises has purchasing contracts available for use by the Petitioner in purchasing items needed for the proposed psychiatric units. These contracts can result in a reduction of costs for the proposed project. Staff Resources. PMS will help in recruiting staff for the proposed psychiatric units. Recruiting will be done locally but the Petitioner also has the ability to recruit specialized staff on a broader geographic scale. There is a shortage of nursing personnel for psychiatric services in southern Broward County and northern Dade County. Since the Petitioner plans to recruit locally, this could cause existing providers to lose specialized nursing personnel to the Petitioner. If the Petitioner causes vacancies at existing facilities, this could adversely affect quality of care. Financial Feasibility. The total projected cost of the project ($337,169.00) can easily be provided by National Medical Enterprises, the parent corporation of the Petitioner. The Petitioner's financial projections are unrealistic to the extent of the projected utilization and revenue for the proposed psychiatric units. Based upon the projected need of only 3 short-term psychiatric beds (or possibly a surplus of 77 beds) for 1989, the Petitioner's projected utilization and revenue for its proposal is rejected. The Petitioner has proved immediate financial feasibility but has failed to prove the proposal is financially feasible in the long-term. Impact of Proposal. The Petitioner's proposal could adversely effect the costs of providing health services in Broward County. This is especially true in light of the lack of need for additional short-term psychiatric beds in Broward County. Because of the high quality of the services the Petitioner proposes to provide, competition in Broward County could be enhanced and ultimately benefit consumers, if there was a need for the proposed additional beds. If a hospital has an image of being a charity hospital serving the needs of underserved groups, the hospital can experience difficulty in attracting paying patients and have difficulty in getting consumers to accept the high quality of the services of the hospital. Although it is likely that the Petitioner will take paying patients away from Memorial, it is unlikely that the number of patients lost could substantially affect the public's image of Memorial. The effect the Petitioner's proposal will have on Memorial is limited by the fact that the Petitioner is only seeking 31 beds and they are only short-term psychiatric beds. Memorial provides a variety of services and psychiatric services are only a small part of those services. I. Construction. It the Petitioner's proposal is approved, 11,500 square feet on the sixth floor of the Petitioner's hospital will be renovated and converted for use for the two proposed psychiatric units. The renovations can be made quickly. There will be space for 16 beds in a geropsychiatric unit and 15 beds in an adolescent unit. There will be a separate lobby for the psychiatric units and the elevators to the lobby will be strictly controlled. The two units will be separated and adequate security precautions will be taken to keep the two units separate. The ceilings in both units will be modified to insure security. Nurse stations will be provided for both units. Visibility from the nurse stations will be fair. Space is provided for a dayroom for each unit and there will be a class room and four rooms for therapy. These spaces will barely be adequate to meet the various needs of patients. With adequate planning and coordination, patients' needs can be met. There is inadequate space in the proposed facility for physical activities for patients.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the certificate of need application filed by the Petitioner for certificate of need #3372 should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 15th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE, CAROTHERS & PROCTOR Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Suite 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James C. Hauser, Esquire MESSER, VICHERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH & MADSEN Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Eleanor A. Joseph, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32313-6507 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL SMITH & CUTLER, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
