Findings Of Fact A. whether the "Grandfather" Issue Should Be Determined. The Petitioner, Mease Hospital and Clinic (Mease), operates a 278 bed hospital in Dunedin, a 100 bed hospital in Countryside, and a medical clinic. All are located in north Pinellas County, in the North Pinellas subdistrict of HRS District 5. In 1982, Mease applied for a certificate of need to equip and operate a cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL). At the time, Mease was of the view that a CCL would be a new service and would therefore require a certificate of need. When Mease determined that approval would not be likely under then current rules, Mease withdrew its application because it understood that a final denial legally would preclude Mease from re-applying for three years. On July 11, 1986, the Respondent, HRS, entered a Final Order adopting a Recommended Order and acknowledging that Humana Hospital Northside, also located in Pinellas County, HRS District 5, continuously had been providing cardiac catheterization services since before July 1, 1977, the effective date of certificate of need regulation of CCLs, and therefore was not required to obtain a certificate of need for a CCL as a new service. Final Order, Humana Hospital Northside v. Department of Health, etc., 8 F.A.L.R. 3910 (DHRS July 11, 1986). When Mease reviewed the Humana Northside Final Order and final hearing transcript, it concluded that it, too, should be "grandfathered." Mease was doing the same type catheterization procedures as Humana Northside. Mease decided to re-apply for a certificate of need both on the basis of need for a CCL at Mease and on the basis of the "grandfather" claim. In October, 1986, Mease filed the pending certificate of need application. In addition to the more typical components of a CON application, the Mease application states in pertinent part: EQUIPMENT/SERVICE TYPE: Mease Hospital and Clinic maintains that the Cardiac Catheterization Program is not a new service, as procedures similar to those performed at Humana Northside, which was recently approved on a grandfathering basis for cardiac catheterization have been performed at Mease Hospital and Clinic in Dunedin for more than 20 years. * * * ADDITIONAL PROJECT DETAILS/REMARKS: Mease Hospital and Clinic believes its historic performance of procedures identical to those for which Humana Northside was grand fathered a cardiac catheterization lab is sufficient to justify similar action, resulting in approval of Mease' proposal. HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) was completed in April, 1987. It evaluated the Mease proposal as a typical certificate of need application and denied it on the basis of lack of need. There was no direct mention of the "grandfather" claim, but the SAAR concludes in pertinent part: "Deny a certificate of need for [the Mease] project [among others] in its entirety... Reasons for decision: Insufficient need for an additional cardiac cath lab." Mease's petition for formal administrative proceedings on the denial does not specifically address the "grandfather" claim, either. During the pendency of this proceeding, Mease continued to seek a "grandfather" exemption apart from this proceeding. But Mease's prehearing proceedings in this case were conducted in a way that indicated its assumption that the "grandfather" issue would be determined by final agency action in this case, if not before by informal means. The other parties recognized this assumption and were not prejudiced by Mease's failure to formally specify the issue in its pending petition for formal administrative proceedings or by amendment to it. By letter dated November 23, 1987, HRS finally responded to Mease's continued efforts to obtain "grandfather" status and denied the request. Mease still did not amend its petition for formal administrative proceedings (nor did it file a new, separate petition in response to the November 23 letter.) But it continued to conduct prehearing procedures in a manner so as to have the "grandfather" claim heard as part of this case. HRS and the Intervenor, Morton Plant Hospital, Inc. (Morton Plant) first objected on the record to consideration of the "grandfather" issue in this case in the Prehearing Stipulation filed on January 6, 1988. The "grandfather" issue should be determined in this proceeding. Whether Mease Has A "Grandfathered" CCL. Before July 1, 1977, and continuously since, Mease has operated a special procedures room at its Dunedin hospital. The special procedures room is the largest room in the x-ray department, with adjoining rooms that contain sinks for sterile technique and housing computers. Equipment in the room includes an x-ray generator with a high MA capability to do moderately rapid sequence films and fluoroscope. There is a table of special design to allow movement in all directions to facilitate fluoroscopy. Three different film changers are used. The room contains a large array of catheters, wires and needles for use in the catheterization process. There is a defibrillator monitor, pressure monitors, and various physiologic monitors also in the room. Finally, there is a digital vascular imaging ("DVI") machine to facilitate the computerized processing of digital subtraction studies. The DVI machine has been used to perform coronary arteriographies. During the time the special procedures room has been operational, it has been staffed with persons specifically trained in critical care of patients, with special knowledge of cardiovascular medication and catheterization type equipment. There has always been ample support staff available for patient observation, handling blood samples, performing blood gas evaluations and monitoring physiological data. The catheterization team usually consists of the physician, a special procedures nurse (an R.N. with critical care training) and at least two dedicated radiographer technologists with special knowledge of the equipment. A special procedures log is maintained by physicians using the special procedures room. Procedures typical of those contained on the log prior to and consistently since 1977 include renal arteriograms, pulmonary arteriograms, cerebral arteriograms and femoral arteriograms. Pulmonary arteriograms involve passing a catheter through a right side chamber of the heart into the lungs; the other procedures do not involve passing a catheter into the heart. Pulmonary angiograms, right ventriculography and right atrial injections are all currently performed at Mease in the radiology laboratory. Right heart catheterization procedures are being performed in the CCU units and the special procedures lab at Mease. The special procedures room is not used by radiologists or cardiologists to do any therapeutic or diagnostic studies of the left chambers of the heart. Unlike procedures such as pulmonary arteriograms, in which the catheter is inserted into or through a chamber on the right side of the heart, fluoroscopy is required for insertion of a catheter into a chamber of the left side of the heart. With fluoroscopy, left heart catheterization procedures involve no significantly increased danger to the patient. Left heart catheterization procedures require faster film sequencing equipment for fluoroscopy because the left heart is a higher pressure (faster flow) system than the right heart chambers. Mease's cardiologists perform these procedures in a CCL at either Morton Plant or Largo Medical Center in Clearwater. The Mease special procedures room does not have, and has not had, the more sophisticated equipment needed to perform catheterization procedures in the left chambers of the heart. The sophisticated equipment needed for left heart catheterizations customarily is part of a CCL. It is commonly understood that a CCL is a laboratory which includes this equipment and uses this equipment for left heart catheterizations. Mease shared this understanding until it learned of the Final Order in Humana Hospital Northside. It never contested the omission of cardiac cath services from its hospital license, never reported cardiac cath procedures to the local health council and applied for a CON for a CCL in 1982. On review of the Humana final order and the record of the case, Mease correctly concluded that its special procedures room was being operated in the same way as Humana Northside's. Mease also concluded that it, too, was entitled to "grandfather" status. But the Humana final order points out: The respondent HRS offered no evidence to dispute the fact that petitioner has indeed been providing cardiac catheterization services on a regular and continuous basis from pre-July 1, 1977 to the present time. Instead, HRS takes the position that since petitioner never reported to the Local Health Council that it was performing such services, it is now somehow estopped from claiming a "grandfather" exemption from Certificate of Need review. There is competent and substantial evidence demonstrating that petitioner began performing cardiac catheterization procedures prior to July 1, 1977, at a time when Certificate of Need review was not required, and has continued to perform such services on a regular basis. Accordingly, petitioner was exempt from Certificate of Need review when it initiated such services and continues to maintain that exempt status so long as it regularly and continuously performs such services. In this case, there was persuasive evidence disputing that Mease has been operating a CCL. Mease's special procedures room had some, but not all, of the equipment customarily used in cardiac catheterization. Its special procedures room is not the kind of room customarily used to perform cardiac catheterization procedures. This is why Mease never before claimed entitlement to "grandfather" status but rather presumed that it did not have a CCL and would need a CON to open a CCL. Mease has not been operating a CCL continuously since July 1, 1977. Need For Mease's Proposed CCL. Mease filed the pending CON application in October, 1986. At the time, the local health council for District 5 was reporting an inventory of four CCLs: St. Anthony's; Morton Plant; Largo; and All Children's. Mease also knew that HRS had entered a final order in July, 1986, recognizing "grandfather status" for Humana Northside and allowing Humana Northside to upgrade its CCL by adding up-to-date equipment required for left heart catheterization procedures. At the time of the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) denying Mease's application in April, 1987, HRS was aware of, and also counted in the inventory at the time of the SAAR, a second CCL at Morton Plant which was added without CON review. The second Morton Plant CCL became operational in July, 1986, but was not reported to the local health council until early 1987, and was not reported by the local health council until September, 1987. A second CCL also opened without CON review at Largo Medical Center. But the evidence was not clear when the second Largo lab opened. It was not reported to, or by, the local health council before the SAAR either, and HRS did not count it in the inventory for purposes of the SAAR. Since the SAAR, two additional CCLs have been approved without CON review at Bayfront Hospital/All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg. Finally, on November 24, 1987, the District Court of Appeal, First District, rendered an opinion reversing HRS' final order denying an application for a CON for a CCL at Bayonet Point Regional Medical Center in Pasco County in District 5. This CCL was approved for purposes of meeting the need existing as of 1986. The actual District 5 CCL use rate for the period July, 1985, through June, 1986, using local health council data, was 308.47 procedures per 100,000 population. The year in which the proposed CCL would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future, is July, 1988. The District 5 population in July, 1988, is projected to be 1,124,986. The number of procedures projected for District 5 in July, 1988, is 3470. Allocating 600 procedures per CCL, 3470 procedures would create a numerical need for 6 CCLs in District 5 in July, 1988. The local health council did not report any procedures done at the "grandfathered" CCL at Humana Northside, and none were included in the data for the time period July, 1985, to June, 1986. Counting the "grandfathered" Humana Northside CCL in the inventory at the time of the SAAR without attributing any procedures to it for purposes of calculating the use rate for July, 1985, to June, 1986, amounts to a recognition that Humana Northside, while given "grandfather" status based on the facts presented in DOAH Case No. 84-4070, was not in fact operating a CCL continuously since July, 1977. Refusal to attribute procedures to Humana Northside reflects a rational policy decision in this case not to perpetuate the error resulting from the apparently less-than-adequate HRS presentation of its case in the Humana Northside case. There was evidence officially recognized in this case without objection--namely, the Final Order, Bayonet Point Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 4342 (DHRS 1986)--that 1200 Pasco County (District 5) residents were being referred to Tampa for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery in the year preceding June, 1986. (300 were open heart surgery patients.) But there was no evidence to prove how many of the 900 cardiac catheterization patients who were referred to Tampa in the period July, 1985, to June, 1986, would have had the procedure performed in District 5 if Bayonet Point had a CCL. It necessarily follows that there was no evidence to prove that any additional cardiac cath procedures for Pasco County patients performed in District 5 as a result of the Bayonet Pont CCL will not be absorbed by and performed at the Bayonet Point CCL. District 5 has the highest percentage of 65 and over population in the state (29.7 percent for calendar year 1986), but next to the lowest number of catheterizations per thousand of all the districts in the sate. District 5 also has a large cohort of population age 45 to 64. Over 50 percent of the population in District 5 is in the age cohort for which cardiac catheterization is most frequently needed as a diagnostic or therapeutic tool. Seasonal fluctuations increase the elderly winter population. Resident death rate from heart disease is almost 50 percent higher in District 5 than it is for the state of Florida. These factors combine to create an actual use rate in District 5 that, for the past two years (1986 and 1987) has exceeded (or, for 1987, was projected to exceed) the projected horizon year (July 1988) use rate derived from using the 1985 use rate data. The actual use rate for January through September 1987, when extrapolated for the entire calendar year of 1987, shows that the number of procedures expected to be actually performed in District 5 in 1987 is 46 percent (approximately 1,000 procedures) greater than the number of procedures projected to be needed in July 1988 using the 1985 use rate. The projection of procedures for July 1988 is 700 procedures less than actually occurred in District 5 in 1986. Use of July, 1985 to June, 1986, use rate in a demographic configuration like that found in District 5 underestimates projected procedures for July, 1988. Some trends in health care and area population growth do not support the addition of a cath lab at Mease. While the population of north Pinellas County, where Mease is located, is equal in age distribution to south Pinellas County, the new growth in north Pinellas and Pasco is younger than south Pinellas. Increased use of non-invasive diagnostic procedures, such as MRI and CAT scan, will reduce the growth of cardiac cath procedures in the future. The growth in the use rate in cardiac caths is in the number of therapeutic caths, which by rule are required to be done in a facility with open heart surgery and therefore cannot be done at Mease at this time. Indeed, the number of right heart caths being done at Mease has remained constant over the past several years. Also, death from heart disease is decreasing due to improvements in life style. All the cath labs in District 5 are within a two hour drive time of 90 percent of the population in District 5. Morton Plant is six miles from Mease Dunedin. Mease Countryside is twelve miles from Morton Plant and eight miles from Mease Dunedin. One-third of the Mease cardiologist's patients are at Mease Countryside and for catheterization these patients would have to be admitted at or transported to Mease Dunedin where the proposed lab would be located. There is sufficient capacity in the existing cath labs to serve growth in the near future. Approximately 600 more procedures could be done at Morton Plant. There is no problem scheduling caths at Morton Plant. There has been some difficulty getting beds for Mease patients before and after the procedure, but Morton Plant just opened new ICU beds with specially trained nurses to accommodate Dr. Gibbs' patients. The existing labs in District 5 are financially accessible. A significant number of the labs are located in not- for-profit hospitals that serve all types of patients. E.g., Morton Plant, which has an overlapping service district with Mease, offers twice the number of Medicaid days as Mease. In addition, as previously mentioned, new approved labs at Bayfront/ALL Children's (2) and Bayonet Point (1) will be coming on line to provide additional capacity (and bring the total number of CCLs in District 5 to ten.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a final order: (1) denying Mease's request for recognition of a "grandfathered" CCL at its Dunedin hospital; and (2) denying its application for a CON for a CCL at its Dunedin hospital, CON Action No. 5108. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 12th day of May, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Certificate of Need application (CON 9239) of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") to establish an open heart surgery program at its hospital facility in Hillsborough County should be granted?
Findings Of Fact District 6 District 6 is one of eleven health service planning districts in Florida set up by the "Health Facility and Services Development Act," Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. See Section 408.031, Florida Statutes. The district is comprised of five counties: Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Hardee, and Highlands. Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. Of the five counties, three have providers of adult open heart surgery services: Hillsborough with three providers, Manatee with two, and Polk with one. There are in District 6 at present, therefore, a total of six existing providers. Existing Providers Hillsborough County The three providers of open heart surgery services ("OHS") in Hillsborough County are Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., d/b/a Tampa General Hospital ("Tampa General"), St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. ("St. Joseph's"), and University Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a University Community Hospital ("UCH"). For the most part, Interstate 75 runs in a northerly and southerly direction dividing Hillsborough County roughly in half. If the interstate is considered to be a line dividing the eastern half of the county from the western, all three existing providers are in the western half of the county within the incorporated area of the county's major population center, the City of Tampa. Tampa General Opened approximately a century ago, Tampa General has been at its present location in the City of Tampa on Davis Island at the north end of Tampa Bay since 1927. The mission of Tampa General is three-fold. First, it provides a range of care (from simple to complex) for the west central region of the state. Second, it supports both the teaching and research activities of the University of South Florida College of Medicine. Finally and perhaps most importantly, it serves as the "health care safety net" for the people of Hillsborough County. Evidence of its status as the safety net for those its serves is its Case Mix Index for Medicare patients: 2.01. At such a level, "the case mix at Tampa General is one of the highest in the nation in Medicare population." (Tr. 2452). In keeping with its mission of being the county's health care safety net, Tampa General is a full-service acute care hospital. It also provides services unique to the county and the Tampa Bay area: a Level I trauma center, a regional burn center and adult solid organ transplant programs. Tampa General is licensed for 877 beds. Of these, 723 are for acute care, 31 are designated skilled nursing beds, 59 are comprehensive rehabilitation beds, 22 are psychiatry beds, and 42 are neonatal intensive care beds (18 Level II and 24 Level III). Of the 723 acute care beds, 160 are set aside for cardiac care, although they may be occupied from time-to-time by non-cardiac care patients. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. It has an affiliation with the University of South Florida College of Medicine. It offers 13 residency programs, serving approximately 200 medical residents. Tampa General offers diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization services in four laboratories dedicated to such services. It has four operating rooms dedicated to open heart surgery. The range of open heart surgery services provided by Tampa General includes heart transplants. Care of the open heart patient immediately after surgery is in a dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit of 18 beds. Following stay in the intensive care unit, the patient is cared for in either a 10-bed intermediate care unit or a 30- bed telemetry unit. Tampa General's full-service open heart surgery program provides high quality of care. St. Joseph's Founded by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny, New York, St. Joseph's is an acute care hospital located on Martin Luther King Boulevard in an "inner city kind of area" (Tr. 1586) of the City of Tampa near the geographic center of Hillsborough County. On the hospital campus sit three separate buildings: the main hospital, consisting of 559 beds; across the street, St. Joseph's Women's Hospital, a 197-bed facility dedicated to the care of women; and, opened in 1998, Tampa Children's Hospital, a 120-bed free-standing facility that offers pediatric services and Level II and Level III neonatal intensive care services. In addition to the women's and pediatric facilities, and consistent with the full-service nature of the hospital, St. Joseph's provides behavioral health and oncology services, and most pertinent to this proceeding, open heart surgery and related cardiovascular services. Designated as a Level 2 trauma center, St. Joseph's has a large and active emergency department. There were 90,211 visits to the Emergency Room in 1999, alone. Of the patients admitted annually, fifty-five percent are admitted through the Emergency Room. The formal mission of St. Joseph's organization is to take care of and improve the health of the community it serves. Another aspect of the mission passed down from its religious founders is to take care of the "marginalized, . . . the people that in many senses cannot take care of themselves, [those to whom] society has . . . closed [its] eyes . . .". (Tr. 1584). In keeping with its mission, it is St. Joseph's policy to provide care to anyone who seeks its hospital services without regard to ability to pay. In 1999, the hospital provided $33 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. In total, St. Joseph's provided $121 million in unfunded care during the same year. Not surprisingly, St. Joseph's is also a disproportionate Medicaid provider. The only hospital in the district that provides both adult and pediatric open heart surgery services, St. Joseph's has three dedicated OHS surgical suites, a 14-bed unit dedicated to cardiovascular intensive care for its adult OHS patients, a 12-bed coronary care unit and 86 progressive care beds, all with telemetry capability. St. Joseph's provides high quality of care in its OHS. UCH University Community Hospital, Inc., is a private, not-for-profit corporation. It operates two hospital facilities: the main hospital ("UCH") a 431-bed hospital on Fletcher Avenue in north Tampa, and a second 120-bed hospital in Carrollwood. UCH is accredited by the JCAHO "with commendation," the highest rating available. It provides patient care regardless of ability to pay. UCH's cardiac surgery program is called the "Pepin Heart & Vascular Institute," after Art Pepin, "a 14-year heart transplant recipient [and] . . . the oldest heart transplant recipient in the nation alive today." (Tr. 2841). A Temple Terrace resident, Mr. Pepin also helped to fund the start of the institute. Its service area for tertiary services, including OHS, includes all of Hillsborough County, and extends into south Pasco County and Polk County. The Pepin Institute has excellent facilities and equipment. It has three dedicated OHS operating suites, three fully-equipped "state-of-the-art" cardiac catheterization laboratories equipped with special PTCA or angioplasty devices, and several cardiology care units specifically for OHS/PTCA services. Immediately following surgery, OHS patients go to a dedicated 8-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. From there patients proceed to a dedicated 20-bed progressive care unit ("PCU"), comprised of all private rooms. There is also a 24-bed PCU dedicated to PTCA patients. There is another 22-bed interventional unit that serves as an overflow unit for patients receiving PTCA or cardiac catheterization. UCH has a 22-bed medical cardiology unit for chest pain observation, congestive heart failure, and other cardiac disorders. Staffing these units requires about 110 experienced, full-time employees. UCH has a special "chest pain" Emergency Room with specially-trained cardiac nurses and defined protocols for the treatment of chest pain and heart attacks. UCH offers a free van service for its UCH patients and their families that operates around the clock. As in the case of the other two existing providers of OHS services in Hillsborough Counties, UCH provides a full range of cardiovascular services at high quality. Manatee County The two existing providers of adult open heart surgery services in Manatee County are Manatee Memorial Hospital, Inc., and Blake Medical Center, Inc. Neither are parties in this proceeding. Although Manatee Memorial filed a petition for formal administrative hearing seeking to overturn the preliminary decision of the Agency, the petition was withdrawn before the case reached hearing. Polk County The existing provider of adult open heart surgery services in Polk County is Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. ("Lakeland"). Licensed for 851 beds, Lakeland is a large, not-for- profit, tertiary regional hospital. In 1999, Lakeland admitted approximately 30,000 patients. In fiscal 1999, there were about 105,000 visits to Lakeland's Emergency Room. Lakeland provides a wide range of acute care services, including OHS and diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheterization. It draws its OHS patients from the Lakeland urban area, the rest of Polk County, eastern Hillsborough County (particularly from Plant City), and some of the surrounding counties. Lakeland has a high quality OHS program that provides high quality of care to its patients. It has two dedicated OHS surgical suites and a third surgical suite equipped and ready for OHS procedures on an as-needed basis. Its volume for the last few years has been relatively flat. Lakeland offers interventional radiology services, a trauma center, a high-risk obstetrics service, oncology, neonatal intensive care, pediatric intensive care, radiation therapy, alcohol and chemical dependency, and behavioral sciences services. Lakeland treats all patients without regard to their ability to pay, and provides a substantial amount of charity care, amounting in fiscal year 1999 to $20 million. The Applicant Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") is a 255-bed hospital located in Brandon, Florida, an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County east of Interstate 75. Included among Brandon's 255 beds are 218 acute care beds, 15 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds, 14 tertiary Level II neonatal intensive care unit ("NICU") beds, and 8 tertiary Level III NICU beds. Brandon offers a wide array of medical specialties and services to its patients including cardiology; internal medicine; critical care medicine; family practice; nephrology; pulmonary medicine; oncology/hematology; infectious disease; neurology; psychiatry; endocrinology; gastroenterology; physical medicine; rehabilitation; radiation oncology; pathology; respiratory therapy; and anesthesiology. Brandon operates a mature cardiology program which includes inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, electrocardiography, stress testing, and echocardiography. The Brandon medical staff includes 22 Board-certified cardiologists who practice both interventional and invasive cardiology. Board certification is a prerequisite to maintaining cardiology staff privileges at Brandon. Brandon's inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization program was initiated in 1989 and has performed in excess of 800 inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures per year since 1996. Brandon's daily census has increased from 159 to 187 for the period 1997 to 1999 commensurate with the burgeoning population growth in Brandon's primary service area. Brandon's Emergency Room is the third busiest in Hillsborough County and has more visits than Tampa General's Emergency Room. From 1997- 1999, Brandon's Emergency Room visits increased from 43,000 to 53,000 per year and at the time of hearing were expected to increase an additional 5-6 percent during the year 2000. Brandon has also recently expanded many services to accommodate the growing health care needs of the Brandon community. For example, Brandon doubled the square footage of its Emergency Room and added 17 treatment rooms. It has also implemented an outpatient diagnostic and rehabilitation center, increased the number of labor, delivery and recovery suites, and created a high-risk ante-partum observation unit. Brandon was recently approved for 5 additional tertiary Level II NICU beds and 3 additional tertiary Level III NICU beds which increased Brandon's Level II/III NICU bed complement to 22 beds. Brandon is a Level 5 hospital within HCA's internal ranking system, which is the company's highest facility level in terms of service, revenue, and patient service area population. Brandon has been ranked as one of the Nation's top 100 hospitals by HCIA/Mercer, Inc., based on Brandon's clinical and financial performance. The Proposal On September 15, 1999, Brandon submitted to AHCA CON Application 9239, its third application for an open heart surgery program in the past few years. (CON 9085 and 9169, the two earlier applications, were both denied.) The second of the three, CON 9169, sought approval on the basis of the same two "not normal" circumstances alleged by Brandon to justify approval in this proceeding. CON 9239 addresses the Agency's January 2002 planning horizon. Brandon proposes to construct two dedicated cardiovascular operating rooms ("CV-OR"), a six-bed dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU"), a pump room and sterile prep room all located in close proximity on Brandon's first floor. The costs, methods of construction, and design of Brandon's proposed CV-OR, CVICU, pump room, and sterile prep room are reasonable. As a condition of CON approval, Brandon will contribute $100,000 per year for five years to the Hillsborough County Health Care Program for use in providing health care to the homeless, indigent, and other needy residents of Hillsborough County. The administration at Brandon is committed to establishing an adult open heart surgery program. The proposal is supported by the medical and nursing staff. It is also supported by the Brandon community. The Brandon Community in East Hillsborough County Brandon, Florida, is a large unincorporated community in Hillsborough County, east of Interstate 75. The Brandon area is one of the fastest growing in the state. In the last ten years alone, the area's population has increased from approximately 90,000 to 160,000. An incorporated Brandon municipality (depending on the boundaries of the incorporation) has the potential to be the eighth largest city in Florida. The Brandon community's population is projected to further increase by at least 50,000 over the next five to ten years. Brandon Regional Hospital's primary service area not only encompasses the Brandon community, but further extends throughout Hillsborough County to a populous of nearly 285,000 persons. The population of Brandon's primary service area is projected to increase to 309,000 by the year 2004, of which approximately 32,000 are anticipated to be over the age of 65, making Brandon's population "young" relative to much of the rest of the State. The community of Brandon has attracted several new large housing developments which are likely to accelerate its projected growth. According to the Hillsborough County City- County Planning Commission, six of the eleven largest subdivisions of single-family homes permitted in 1998 are located nearby. For example, the infrastructure is in place for an 8,000-acre housing development east of Brandon which consists of 7,500 homes and is projected to bring in 30,000 people over the next 5-10 years. Two other large housing developments will bring an additional 5,000-10,000 persons to the Brandon area. The community of Brandon is also an attractive area for relocating businesses. Recent additions to the Brandon area include, among others, CitiGroup Corporation, Atlantic Lucent Technologies, Household Finance, Ford Motor Credit, and Progressive Insurance. CitiGroup Corporation alone supplemented the area's population with approximately 5,000 persons. The community of Brandon has experienced growth in the development of health care facilities with 5 new assisted living facilities and one additional assisted living facility under construction. The average age of the residents of these facilities is much higher than of the Brandon area as a whole. Existing Providers' Distance from Brandon's PSA Brandon's primary service area ("PSA") is comprised of 12 zip code areas "in and around Brandon, essentially eastern Hillsborough County." (Tr. 1071). Using the center of each zip code in Brandon's primary service area as the location for each resident of the zip code area, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of 15 miles from Tampa General, 16.4 miles from St. Joseph's, 17.3 miles from UCH and 24.6 miles from Lakeland Regional Medical Center. In contrast, they are only 7.7 miles from Brandon Regional Hospital. Using the same methodology, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of more than 40 miles from Blake Medical Center (44.9 miles) and Manatee Memorial (41 miles). Numeric Need Publication Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code (the "Open Heart Surgery Program Rule" or the "Rule") specifies a methodology for determining numeric need for new open heart surgery programs in health planning districts. The methodology is set forth in section (7) of the Rule. Part of the methodology is a formula. See subsection (b) of Section (7) of the Rule. Using the formula, the Agency calculated numeric need in the District for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. The calculation yielded a result of 3.27 additional programs needed to serve the District by January 1, 2002. But calculation of numeric need under the formula is not all that is entailed in the complete methodology for determining numeric need. Numeric need is also determined by taking other factors into consideration. The Agency is to determine net need based on the formula "[p]rovided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) and (7) (c) do not apply." Rule 59C-1.033(b), Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (7)(a) states, "[a] new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district" if the following condition (among others) exists: 2. One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; . . . Rule 59C-1.033(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Both Blake Medical Center and Manatee Memorial Hospital in Manatee County were operational and performed less that 350 adult open heart surgery operations in the qualifying time periods described by subparagraph (7)(a)2., of the Rule. (Blake reported 221 open heart admissions for the 12-month period ending March 31, 1999; Manatee Memorial for the same period reported 319). Because of the sub-350 volume of the two providers, the Rule's methodology yielded a numeric need of "0" new open heart surgery programs in District 6 for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. In other words, the numeric need of 3.27 determined by calculation pursuant to the formula prior to consideration of the programs described in (7)(a)2.1, was "zeroed out" by operation of the Rule. Accordingly, a numeric need of zero for the district in the applicable planning horizon was published on behalf of the Agency in the January 29, 1999, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. No Impact on Manatee County Providers In 1998, only one resident of Brandon's PSA received an open heart surgery procedure in Manatee County. For the same period only two residents from Brandon's PSA received an angioplasty procedure in Manatee County. These three residents received the services at Manatee Memorial. Of the two Manatee County programs, Manatee Memorial consistently has a higher volume of open heart surgery cases and according to the latest data available at the time of hearing has "hit the mark" (Tr. 1546) of 350 procedures annually. Very few residents from other District 6 counties receive cardiac services in Manatee County. Similarly, very few Manatee county residents migrate from Manatee County to another District 6 hospital to receive cardiac services. In 1998, only 19 of a total 1,209 combined open heart and angioplasty procedures performed at either Blake or Manatee Memorial originated in the other District 6 counties and only two were from the Brandon area. Among the 6,739 Manatee County residents discharged from a Florida hospital in calendar year 1998 following any cardiovascular procedure (MDC-5), only 58(0.9 percent) utilized one of the other providers in District 6, and none were discharged from Brandon. Among the 643 open heart surgeries performed on Manatee County residents in 1998, only 17 cases were seen at one of the District 6 open heart programs outside of Manatee County. There is, therefore, practically no patient exchange between Manatee County and the remainder of the District. In sum, there is virtually no cardiac patient overlap between Manatee County and Brandon's primary service area. The development of an open heart surgery program at Brandon will have no appreciable or meaningful impact on the Manatee County providers. CON 9169 In CON 9169, Brandon applied for an open heart surgery program on the basis of special circumstances due to no impact on low volume providers in Manatee County. The application was denied by AHCA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") on CON 9169, dated June 17, 1999, in a section of the SAAR denominated "Special Circumstances," found the application to demonstrate "that a program at Brandon would not impact the two Manatee hospitals . . .". (UCH Ex. No. 6, p. 5). The "Special Circumstances" section of the SAAR on CON 9169, however, does not conclude that the lack of impact constitutes special circumstances. In follow-up to the finding of the application's demonstration of no impact to the Manatee County, the SAAR turned to impact on the non-Manatee County providers in District The SAAR on CON 9169 states, "it is apparent that a new program in Brandon would impact existing providers [those in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] in the absence of significant open heart surgery growth." Id. In reference to Brandon's argument in support of special circumstances based on the lack of impact to the Manatee County providers, the CON 9169 SAAR states: [T]he applicant notes the open heart need formula should be applied to District 6 excluding Manatee County, which would result in the need for several programs. This argument ignores the provision of the rule that specifies that the need cannot exceed one. (UCH No. 6, p. 7). The Special Circumstances Section of the SAAR on CON 9169 does not deal directly with whether lack of impact to the Manatee County providers is a special circumstance justifying one additional program. Instead, the Agency disposes of Brandon's argument in the "Summary" section of the SAAR. There AHCA found Brandon's special circumstances argument to fail because "no impact on low volume providers" is not among those special circumstances traditionally or previously recognized in case law and by the Agency: To demonstrate need under special circumstances, the applicant should demonstrate one or more of the following reasons: access problems to open heart surgery; capacity limits of existing providers; denial of access based on payment source or lack thereof; patients are seeking care outside the district for service; improvement of care to underserved population groups; and/or cost savings to the consumer. The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of these reasons. (UCH No. 6, p. 29). Following reference to the Agency's publication of zero need in District 6, moreover, the SAAR reiterated that [t]he implementation of another program in Hillsborough County is expected to significantly [a]ffect existing programs, in particular Tampa General Hospital, an important indigent care provider. (Id.) Typical "not normal circumstances" that support approval of a new program were described at hearing by one health planner as consisting of a significant "gap" in the current health care delivery system of that service. Typical Not Normal Circumstances Just as in CON 9169, none of the typical "not normal" circumstances" recognized in case law and with which the Agency has previous experience are present in this case. The six existing OHS programs in District 6 have unused capacity, are available, and are adequate to meet the projected OHS demand in District 6, in Hillsborough County ("County"), and in Brandon's proposed primary service area ("PSA"). All three County OHS providers are less than 17 miles from Brandon. There are, therefore, no major service geographic gaps in the availability of OHS services. Existing providers in District 6 have unused capacity to meet OHS projected demand in January 2002. OHS volume for District 6 will increase by only 179 surgeries. This is modest growth, and can easily be absorbed by the existing providers. In fact, existing OHS providers have previously handled more volume than what is projected for 2002. In 1995, 3,313 OHS procedures were generated at the six OHS programs. Yet, only 3,245 procedures are projected for 2002. The demand in 1995 was greater than what is projected for 2002. Neither population growth nor demographic characteristics of Brandon's PSA demonstrate that existing programs cannot meet demand. The greatest users of OHS services are the elderly. In 1999, the percentage in District 6 was similar to the Florida average; 18.25 percent for District 6, 18.38 percent for the state. The elderly percentage in Hillsborough County was less: 13.21 percent. The elderly component in Brandon's PSA was less still: 10.44 percent. In 2004, about 18.5 percent of Florida and District 6 residents are projected to be elderly. In contrast, only 10.5 percent of PSA residents are expected to be elderly. Brandon's PSA is "one of the younger defined population segments that you could find in the State of Florida" (Tr. 2892) and likely to remain so. Brandon's PSA will experience limited growth in OHS volume. Between 1999 - 2002, OHS volume will grow by only 36. The annual growth thereafter is only 13 surgeries. This is "very modest" growth and is among the "lowest numbers" of incremental growth in the State. Existing OHS providers can easily absorb this minimal growth. Brandon's PSA, is not an underserved area . . . there is excellent access to existing providers and . . . the market in this service area is already quite competitive. There is not a single competitor that dominates. In fact, the four existing providers [in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] compete quite vigorously. (Tr. 2897). Existing OHS programs in District 6 provide very good quality of care. The surgeons at the programs are excellent. Dr. Gandhi, testifying in support of Brandon's application, testified that he was very comfortable in referring his patients for OHS services to St. Joseph and Tampa General, having, in fact, been comfortable with his father having had OHS at Tampa General. Likewise, Dr. Vijay and his group, also supporters of the Brandon application, split time between Bayonet Point and Tampa General. Dr. Vijay is very proud to be associated with the OHS program at Tampa General. Lakeland also operates a high quality OHS program. In its application, Brandon did not challenge the quality of care at the existing OHS programs in District 6. Nor did Brandon at hearing advance as reasons for supporting its application, capacity constraints, inability of existing providers to absorb incremental growth in OHS volume or failure of existing providers to meet the needs of the residents of Brandon's primary service area. The Agency, in its preliminary decision on the application, agreed that typical "not normal" circumstances in this case are not present. Included among these circumstances are those related to lack of "geographic access." The Agency's OHS Rule includes a geographic access standard of two hours. It is undisputed that all District 6 residents have access to OHS services at multiple OHS providers in the District and outside the District within two hours. The travel time from Brandon to UCH or Tampa General, moreover, is usually less than 30 minutes anytime during the day, including peak travel time. Travel time from Brandon to St. Joseph's is about 30 minutes. There are times, however, when travel time exceeds 30 minutes. There have been incidents when traffic congestion has prevented emergency transport of Brandon patients suffering myocardial infarcts from reaching nearby open heart surgery providers within the 30 minutes by ground ambulance. Delays in travel are not a problem in most OHS cases. In the great majority, procedures are elective and scheduled in advance. OHS procedures are routinely scheduled days, if not weeks, after determining that the procedure is necessary. This high percentage of elective procedures is attributed to better management of patients, better technology, and improved stabilizing medications. The advent of drugs such as thrombolytic therapy, calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, and anti-platelet medications have vastly improved stabilization of patients who present at Emergency Rooms with myocardial infarctions. In its application, Brandon did not raise outmigration as a not-normal circumstance to support its proposal and with good reason. Hillsborough County residents generally do not leave District 6 for OHS. In fact, over 96 percent of County residents receive OHS services at a District 6 provider. Lack of out-migration shows two significant facts: (a) existing OHS programs are perceived to be reasonably accessible; and (2) County residents are satisfied with the quality of OHS services they receive in the County. This 96 percent retention rate is even more impressive considering there are many OHS programs and options available to County residents within a two-hour travel time. In contrast, there are two low-volume OHS providers in Manatee County, one of them being Blake. Unlike Hillsborough County residents, only 78 percent of Manatee County residents remain in District 6 for OHS services. Such outmigration shows that these residents prefer to bypass closer programs, and travel further distances, to receive OHS services at high-volume facility in District 8, which they regard as offering a higher quality of service. In its Application, Brandon does not raise economic access as a "not normal" circumstance. In fact, Brandon concedes that the demand for OHS services by Medicaid and indigent patients is very limited because Brandon's PSA is an affluent area. Brandon does not "condition" its application on serving a specific number or percentage of Medicaid or indigent patients. There are no financial barriers to accessing OHS services in District 6. All OHS providers in Hillsborough County and LRMC provide services to Medicaid and indigent patients, as needed. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve service or care to Medicaid or indigent patient populations. Tampa General is the "safety net" provider for health care services to all County residents. Tampa General is an OHS provider geographically accessible to Brandon's PSA. Tampa General actively services the PSA now for OHS. Brandon did not demonstrate cost savings to the patient population of its PSA if it were approved. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve cost savings to the patient population. Brandon based its OHS and PTCA charges on the average charge for PSA residents who are serviced at the existing OHS providers. While that approach is acceptable, Brandon does not propose a charge structure which is uniquely advantageous for patients. Restated, patients would not financially benefit if Brandon were approved. Tertiary Service Open Heart Surgery is defined as a tertiary service by rule. A "tertiary health service" is defined in Section 408.032(17), Florida Statutes, as follows: health service, which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost- effectiveness of such service. As a tertiary service, OHS is necessarily a referral service. Most hospitals, lacking OHS capability, transfer their patients to providers of the service. One might expect providers of open heart surgery in Florida in light of OHS' status as a tertiary service to be limited to regional centers of excellence. The reality of the six hospitals that provide open heart surgery services in District 6 defies this health-planning expectation. While each of the six provides OHS services of high quality, they are not "regional" centers since all are in the same health planning district. Rather than each being a regional center, the six together comprise more localized providers that are dispersed throughout a region, quite the opposite of a center for an entire region. Brandon's Allegations of Special Circumstances. Brandon presents two special circumstances for approval of its application. The first is that consideration of the low-volume Manatee County providers should not operate to "zero out" the numeric need calculated by the formula. The second relates to transfers and occasional problems with transfers for Brandon patients in need of emergency open heart services. "Time is Muscle" Lack of blood flow to the heart during a myocardial infarction ("MI") results in loss of myocardium (heart muscle). The longer the blood flow is disrupted or diminished, the more myocardium is lost. The more myocardium lost, the more likely the patient will die or, should the patient survive, suffer severe reduction in quality of life. The key to good patient outcome when a patient is experiencing an acute MI is prompt evaluation and rapid treatment upon presentation at the hospital. Restoration of blood flow to the heart (revascularization) is the goal of the treating physician once it is recognized that a patient is suffering an MI. If revascularization is not commenced within 2 hours of the onset of an acute MI, an MI patient's potential for recovery is greatly diminished. The need for prompt revascularization for a patient suffering an MI is summed up in the phrase "time is muscle," a phrase accepted as a maxim by cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons. Recent advances in modern medicine and technology have improved the ability to stabilize and treat patients with acute MIs and other cardiac traumas. The three primary treatment modalities available to a patient suffering from an MI are: 1) thrombolytics; 2) angioplasty and stent placement; and, 3) open heart surgery. Because of the advancement of the effectiveness of thrombolytics, thrombolytic therapy has become the standard of care for treating MIs. Thrombolytic therapy is the administration of medication to dissolve blood clots. Administered intravenously, thrombolytic medication begins working within minutes to dissolve the clot causing the acute MI and therefore halt the damage done by an MI to myocardium. The protocols to administer thrombolysis are similar among hospitals. If a patient presents with chest pain and the E.R. physician identifies evidence of an active heart attack, thrombolysis is normally administered. If the E.R. physician is uncertain, a cardiologist is quickly contacted to evaluate the patient. Achieving good outcomes in cases of myocardial infarctions requires prompt consultation with the patient, competent clinical assessment, and quick administration of appropriate treatment. The ability to timely evaluate patient conditions for MI, and timely administer thrombolytic therapy, is measured and evaluated nationally by the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. The National Registry makes the measurement according to a standard known as "door-to-needle" time. This standard measures the time between the patient's presentation at the E.R. and the time the patient is initially administered thrombolytic medication by injection intravenously. Patients often begin to respond to thrombolysis within 10-15 minutes. Consistent with the maxim, "time is muscle," the shorter the door-to-needle time, the better the chance of the patient's successful recovery. The effectiveness of thrombolysis continues to increase. For example, the advent of a drug called Reapro blocks platelet activity, and has increased the efficacy rate of thrombolysis to at least 85 percent. As one would expect, then, thrombolytic therapy is the primary method of revascularization available to patients at Brandon. Due to the lack of open heart surgery backup, moreover, Brandon is precluded by Agency rule from offering angioplasty in all but the most extreme cases: those in which it is determined that a patient will not survive a transfer. While Brandon has protocols, authority, and equipment to perform angioplasty when a patient is not expected to survive a transfer, physicians are reluctant to perform angioplasty without open heart backup because of complications that can develop that require open heart surgery. Angioplasty, therefore, is not usually a treatment modality available to the MI patient at Brandon. Although the care of choice for MI treatment, thrombolytics are not always effective. To the knowledge of the cardiologists who testified in this proceeding, there is not published data on the percentage of patients for whom thrombolytics are not effective. But from the cardiologists who offered their opinions on the percentage in the proceeding, it can be safely found that the percentage is at least 10 percent. Thrombolytics are not ordered for these patients because they are inappropriate in the patients' individual cases. Among the contraindications for thrombolytics are bleeding disorders, recent surgery, high blood pressure, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Of the patients ineligible for thrombolytics, a subset, approximately half, are also ineligible for angioplasty. The other half are eligible for angioplasty. Under the most conservative projections, then at least 1 in 20 patients suffering an MI would benefit from timely angioplasty intervention for which open heart surgery back-up is required in all but the rarest of cases. In 1997, 351 people presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. In 1998, the number of MIs increased to 427. In 1999, 428 patients presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. At least 120 (10 percent) of the total 1206 MI patients presenting to Brandon's Emergency Room from 1997 to 1999 would have been ineligible for thrombolytics as a means of revascularization. Of these, half would have been ineligible for angioplasty while the other half would have been eligible. Sixty, therefore, is the minimum number of patients from 1997 to 1999 who would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon using the most conservative estimate. Transfers of Emergency Patients Those patients who presented at Brandon's Emergency Room with acute MI and who could not be stabilized with thrombolytic therapy had to be transferred to one of the nearby providers of open heart surgery. In 1998, Brandon transferred an additional 190 patients who did not receive a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon for either angioplasty or open heart surgery. For the first 9 months of 1999, 114 such transfers were made. Thus, in 1998 alone, Brandon transferred a total of 516 cardiac patients to existing providers for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery, more than any other provider in the District. In 1999, Brandon made 497 such transfers. Not all of these were emergency transfers, of course. But in the three years between 1997 and 1999 at least 60 patients were in need of emergency transfers who would benefit from angioplasty with open heart backup. Of those Brandon patients determined to be in need of urgent angioplasty or open heart surgery, all must be transferred to existing providers either by ambulance or by helicopter. Ambulance transfer is accomplished through ambulances maintained by the Hillsborough County Fire Department. Due to the cardiac patient's acuity level, ambulance transfer of such patients necessitates the use of ambulances equipped with Advanced Life Support Systems (ALS) in order to monitor the patient's heart functions and to treat the patient should the patient's condition deteriorate. Hillsborough County operates 18 ambulances. All have ALS capability. Patients with less serious medical problems are sometimes transported by private ambulances equipped with Basic Life Support Systems (BLS) that lack the equipment to appropriately care for the cardiac patient. But, private ambulances are not an option to transport critically ill cardiac patients because they are only equipped with BLS capability. Private ambulances, moreover, do not make interfacility transports of cardiac patients between Hillsborough County hospitals. There are many demands on the ambulance transfer system in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County's 18 ALS ambulances cover in excess of 960 square miles. Of these 18 ambulances, only three routinely operate within the Brandon area. Hillsborough County ambulances respond to 911 calls before requests for interfacility transfers of cardiac patients and are extremely busy responding to automobile accidents, especially when it rains. As a result, Hillsborough County ambulances are not always available on a timely basis when needed to perform an interfacility transfer of a cardiac patient. At times, due to inordinate delay caused by traffic congestion, inter-facility ambulance transport, even if the ambulance is appropriately equipped, is not an option for cardiac patients urgently in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. It has happened, for example, that an ambulance has appeared at the hospital 8 hours after a request for transport. Some cardiac surgeons will not utilize ground transport as a means of transporting urgent open heart and angioplasty cases. Expeditious helicopter transport in Hillsborough County is available as an alternative to ground transport. But, it too, from time-to-time, is problematic for patients in urgent need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. Tampa General operates two helicopters through AeroMed, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County. AeroMed's two helicopters are not exclusively devoted to cardiac patients. They are also utilized for the transfer of emergency medical and trauma patients, further taxing the availability of AeroMed helicopters to transfer patients in need of immediate open heart surgery or angioplasty. BayCare operates the only other helicopter transport service serving Hillsborough County. BayCare maintains several helicopters, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County at St. Joseph's. BayCare helicopters are not equipped with intra-aortic balloon pump capability, thereby limiting their use in transporting the more complicated cardiac patients. Helicopter transport is not only a traumatic experience for the patient, but time consuming. Once a request has been made by Brandon to transport a patient in need of urgent intervention, it routinely takes two and a half hours, with instances of up to four hours, to effectuate a helicopter transfer. At the patient's beside, AeroMed personnel must remove the patient's existing monitors, IVS, and drips, and refit the patient with AeroMed's equipment in preparation for flight. In more complicated cases requiring the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump, the patient's balloon pump placed at Brandon must be removed and substituted with the balloon pump utilized by AeroMed. Further delays may be experienced at the receiving facility. The national average of the time from presentation to commencement of the procedure is reported to be two hours. In most instances at UCH, it is probably 90 minutes although "[t]here are of course instances where it would be much faster . . .". (Tr. 3212). On the other hand, there are additional delays from time-to-time. "[P]erhaps the longest circumstance would be when all the labs are full . . . or . . . even worse . . . if all the staff has just left for the day and they are almost home, to then turn them around and bring them all back." (Id.) Specific Cases Involving Transfers Delays in the transfer process were detailed at hearing by Brandon cardiologists with regard to specific Brandon patients. In cases in which "time is muscle," delay is critical except for one subset of such cases: that in which, no matter what procedure is available and no matter how timely that procedure can be provided, the patient cannot be saved. Craig Randall Martin, M.D., Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Disease, and an expert in cardiology, wrote to AHCA in support of the application by detailing two "examples of patients who were in an extreme situation that required emergent, immediate intervention . . . [intervention that could not be provided] at Brandon Hospital." (Tr. 408). One of these concerned a man in his early sixties who was a patient at Brandon the night and morning of October 13 and 14, 1998. It represents one of the rare cases in which an emergency angioplasty was performed at Brandon even though the hospital does not have open heart backup. The patient had presented to the Emergency Room at approximately 11:00 p.m., on October 13 with complaints of chest pain. Although the patient had a history of prior infarctions, PTCA procedures, and onset diabetes, was obese, a smoker and had suffered a stroke, initial evaluation, including EKG and blood tests, did not reveal an MI. The patient was observed and treated for what was probably angina. With the subsiding of the chest pain, he was appropriately admitted at 2:30 a.m. to a non- intensive cardiac telemetry bed in the hospital. At 3:00 a.m., he was observed to be stable. A few hours or so later, the patient developed severe chest pain. The telemetry unit indicated a very slow heart rate. Transferred to the intensive care unit, his blood pressure was observed to be very low. Aware of the seriousness of the patient's condition, hospital personnel called Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin arrived on the scene and determined the patient to be in cardiogenic shock, an extreme situation. In such a state, a patient has a survival rate of 15 to 20 percent, unless revascularization occurs promptly. If revascularization is timely, the survival rate doubles to 40 percent. Coincident with the cardiogenic shock, the patient was suffering a complete heart block with a number of blood clots in the right coronary artery. The patient's condition, to say the least, was grave. Dr. Martin described the action taken at Brandon: . . . I immediately called in the cardiac catheterization team and moved the patient to the catheterization laboratory. * * * Somewhere around 7:30 in the morning, I put a temporary pacemaker in, performed a diagnostic catheterization that showed that one of his arteries was completely clotted. He, even with the pacemaker giving him an adequate heart rate, and even with the use of intravenous medication for his blood pressure, . . . was still in cardiogenic shock. * * * And I placed an intra-aortic balloon pump . . ., a special pump that fits in the aorta and pumps in synchrony with the heart and supports the blood pressure and circulation of the muscle. That still did not alleviate the situation . . . an excellent indication to do a salvage angioplasty on this patient. I performed the angioplasty. It was not completely successful. The patient had a respiratory arrest. He required intubation, required to be put on a ventilator for support. And it became apparent to me that I did not have the means to save this patient at [Brandon]. I put a call to the . . . cardiac surgeon of choice . . . . [Because the surgeon was on vacation], [h]is associate [who happened to be in the operating room at UCH] called me back immediately . . . and said ["]Yes, I'll take your patient. Send him to me immediately, I will postpone my current case in order to take care of your patient.["] At that point, we called for helicopter transport, and there were great delays in obtaining [the] transport. The patient was finally transferred to University Community Hospital, had surgery, was unsuccessful and died later that afternoon. (Tr. 409-412). By great delays in the transport, Dr. Martin referred to inability to obtain prompt helicopter transport. University Community Hospital, the receiving hospital, was not able to find a helicopter. Dr. Martin, therefore, requested Tampa General (a third hospital uninvolved from the point of being either the transferring or the receiving hospital) to send one of its two helicopters to transfer the patient from Brandon to UCH. Dr. Martin described Tampa General's response: They balked. And I did not know they balked until an hour later. And I promptly called them back, got that person on the telephone, we had a heated discussion. And after that person checked with their supervisor, the helicopter was finally sent. There was at least an hour-and-a-half delay in obtaining a helicopter transport on this patient that particular morning that was unnecessary. And that is critical when you have a patient in this condition. (Tr. 413, emphasis supplied.) In the case of this patient, however, the delay in the transport from Brandon to the UCH cardiovascular surgery table, in all likelihood, was not critical to outcome. During the emergency angioplasty procedure at Brandon, some of the clot causing the infarction was dislodged. It moved so as to create a "no-flow state down the right coronary artery. In other words, . . ., it cut off[] the microcirculation . . . [so that] there is no place for the blood . . . to get out of the artery. And that's a devastating, deadly problem." (Tr. 2721). This "embolization, an unfortunate happenstance [at times] with angioplasty", id., probably sealed the patient's fate, that is, death. It is very likely that the patient with or without surgery, timely or not, would not have survived cardiogenic shock, complete heart block, and the circumstance of no circulation in the right coronary artery that occurred during the angioplasty procedure. Adithy Kumar Gandhi, M.D., is Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiology. Employed by the Brandon Cardiology Group, a three-member group in Brandon, Dr. Gandhi was accepted as an expert in the field of cardiology in this proceeding. Dr. Gandhi testified about two patients in whose cases delays occurred in transferring them to St. Joseph’s. He also testified about a third case in which it took two hours to transfer the patient by helicopter to Tampa General. The first case involves an elderly woman. She had multiple-risk factors for coronary disease including a family history of cardiac disease and a personal history of “chest pain.” (Tr. 2299). The patient presented at Brandon’s Emergency Room on March 17, 1999 at around 2:30 p.m. Seen by the E.R. physician about 30 minutes later, she was placed in a monitored telemetry bed. She was determined to be stable. During the next two days, despite family and personal history pointing to a potentially serious situation, the patient refused to submit to cardiac catheterization at Brandon as recommended by Dr. Gandhi. She maintained her refusal despite results from a stress test that showed abnormal left ventricular systolic function. Finally, on March 20, after a meeting with family members and Dr. Gandhi, the patient consented to the cath procedure. The procedure was scheduled for March 22. During the procedure, it was discovered that a major artery of the heart was 80 percent blocked. This condition is known as the “widow-maker,” because the prognosis for the patient is so poor. Dr. Gandhi determined that “the patient needed open heart surgery and . . . to be transferred immediately to a tertiary hospital.” (Tr. 2305-6). He described that action he took to obtain an immediate transfer as follows: I talked to the surgeon up at St. Joseph’s and I informed him I have had difficulties transferring patients to St. Joseph’s the same day. [I asked him to] do me a favor and transfer the patient out of Brandon Hospital as soon as possible by helicopter. The surgeon promised me that he would take care of that. (Tr. 2261). The assurance, however, failed. The patient was not transferred that day. That night, while still at Brandon, complications developed for the patient. The complications demanded that an intra-aortic balloon pump be inserted in order to increase the blood flow to the heart. After Dr. Gandhi’s partner inserted the pump, he, too, contacted the surgeon at St. Joseph’s to arrange an immediate transfer for open heart surgery. But the patient was not transferred until early the next morning. Dr. Gandhi’s frustration at the delay for this critically ill patient in need of immediate open heart surgery is evident from the following testimony: So the patient had approximately 18 hours of delay of getting to the hospital with bypass capabilities even though the surgeon knew that she had a widow-maker, he had promised me that he would make those transfer arrangements, even though St. Joseph’s Hospital knew that the patient needed to be transferred, even though I was promised that the patient would be at a tertiary hospital for bypass capabilities. (Tr. 2262). Rod Randall, M.D., is a cardiologist whose practice is primarily at St. Joseph’s. He had active privileges at Brandon until 1998 when he “switched to courtesy privileges,” (Tr. 1735) at Brandon. He reviewed the medical records of the first patient about whom Dr. Gandhi testified. A review of the patient’s medical records disclosed no adverse outcome due to the patient’s transfer. To the contrary, the patient was reasonably stable at the time of transfer. Nonetheless, it would have been in the patient’s best interest to have been transferred prior to the catheterization procedure at Brandon. As Dr. Randall explained, [W]e typically cath people that we feel are going to have a probability of coronary artery disease. That is, you don’t tend to cath someone that [for whom] you don’t expect to find disease . . . . If you are going to cath this patient, [who] is in a higher risk category being an elderly female with . . . diminished injection fraction . . . why put the patient through two procedures. I would have to do a diagnostic catheterization at one center and do some type of intervention at another center. So, I would opt to transfer that patient to a tertiary care center and do the diagnostic catheterization there. (Tr. 1764, 1765). Furthermore, regardless of what procedure had been performed, the significant left main blockage that existed prior to the patient’s presentation at Brandon E.R. meant that the likely outcome would be death. The second of the patients Dr. Gandhi transferred to St. Joseph’s was a 74-year-old woman. Dr. Gandhi performed “a heart catheterization at 5:00 on Friday.” (Tr. 2267). The cath revealed a 90 percent blockage of the major artery of the heart, another widow-maker. Again, Dr. Gandhi recommended bypass surgery and contacted a surgeon at St. Joseph’s. The transfer, however, was not immediate. “Finally, at approximately 11:00 the patient went to St. Joseph’s Hospital. That night she was operated on . . . ”. (Tr. 2267). If Brandon had had open heart surgery capability, “[t]hat would have increased her chances of survival.” No competent evidence was admitted that showed the outcome, however, and as Dr. Randall pointed out, the medical records of the patient do not reveal the outcome. The patient who was transferred to Tampa General (the third of Dr. Ghandhi's patients) had presented at Brandon’s ER on February 15, 2000. Fifty-six years old and a heavy smoker with a family history of heart disease, she complained of severe chest pain. She received thrombolysis and was stabilized. She had presented with a myocardial infarction but it was complicated by congestive heart failure. After waiting three days for the myocardial infarction to subside, Dr. Gandhi performed cardiac catheterization. The patient “was surviving on only one blood vessel in the heart, the other two vessels were 100 percent blocked. She arrested on the table.” (Tr. 2271). After Dr. Gandhi revived her, he made arrangements for her transfer by helicopter. The transfer was done by helicopter for two reasons: traffic problems and because she had an intra-aortic balloon pump and there are a limited number of ambulances with intra- aortic balloon pump maintenance capability. If Brandon had had the ability to conduct open heart surgery, the patient would have had a better likelihood of successful outcome: “the surgeon would have taken the patient straight to the operating room. That patient would not have had a second arrest as she did at Tampa General.” (Tr. 2273). Marc Bloom, M.D., is a cardiothoracic surgeon. He performs open-heart surgery at UCH, where he is the chief of cardiac surgery. He reviewed the records of this 54-year-old woman. The records reflect that, in fact, upon presentation at Brandon’s E.R., the patient’s heart failure was very serious: She had an echocardiogram done that . . . showed a 20 percent ejection fraction . . . I mean when you talk severe, this would be classified as a severe cardiac compromise with this 20 percent ejection fraction. (Tr. 2712). Once stabilized, the patient should have been transferred for cardiac catheterization to a hospital with open- heart surgery instead of having cardiac cath at Brandon. It is true that delay in the transfer once arrangements were made was a problem. The greater problem for the patient, however, was in her management at Brandon. It was very likely that open heart surgery would be required in her case. She should have been transferred prior to the catheterization as soon as became known the degree to which her heart was compromised, that is, once the results of the echocardiogram were known. Adam J. Cohen, M.D., is a cardiologist with Diagnostic Consultative Cardiology, a group located in Brandon that provides cardiology services in Hillsborough County. Dr. Cohen provided evidence of five patients who presented at Brandon and whose treatments were delayed because of the need for a transfer. The first of these patients was a 76-year old male who presented to Brandon’s ER on April 6, 1999. Dr. Cohen considered him to be suffering “a complicated myocardial infarction.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 43) Cardiac catheterization conducted by Dr. Cohen showed “severe multi-vessel coronary disease, cardiogenic shock, severely impaired [left ventricular] function for which an intra-aortic balloon pump was placed . . .”. (Id.) During the placement of the pump, the patient stopped breathing and lost pulse. He was intubated and stabilized. A helicopter transfer was requested. There was only one helicopter equipped to conduct the transfer. Unfortunately, “the same day . . . there was a mass casualty event within the City of Tampa when the Gannet Power Plant blew up . . .”. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 44). An appropriate helicopter could not be secured. Dr. Cohen did not learn of the unavailability of helicopter transport for an hour after the request was made. Eventually, the patient was transferred by ambulance to UCH. There, he received angioplasty and “stenting of the right coronary artery times two.” (Id., at p. 47.) After a slow recovery, he was discharged on April 19. In light of the patient’s complex cardiac condition, he received a good outcome. This patient is an example of another patient who should have been transferred sooner from Brandon since Brandon does not have open heart surgery capability. The second of Dr. Cohen’s patients presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 10:30 p.m. on June 14, 1999. He was 64 years old with no risk factors for coronary disease other than high blood pressure. He was evaluated and diagnosed with “a large and acute myocardial infarction” Two hours later, the therapy was considered a failure because there was no evidence that the area of the heart that was blocked had been reperfused. Dr. Cohen recommended transfer to UCH for a salvage angioplasty. The call for a helicopter was made at 12:58 a.m. (early the morning of June 15) and the helicopter arrived 40 minutes later. At UCH, the patient received angioplasty procedure and stenting of two coronary arteries. He suffered “[m]oderately impaired heart function, which is reflective of myocardial damage.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 58). If salvage angioplasty with open heart backup had been available at Brandon, the patient would have received it much more quickly and timely. Whether the damage done to the patient’s heart during the episode could have been avoided by prompt angioplasty at Brandon is something Dr. Cohen did not know. As he put it, “I will never know, nor will anyone else know.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 60). The patient later developed cardiogenic shock and repeated ventricular tachycardia, requiring numerous medical interventions. Because of the interventions and mechanical trauma, he required surgery for repair of his right femoral artery. The patient recently showed an injection fraction of 45 percent below the minimum for normal of 50 percent. The third patient was a 51-year-old male who had undergone bypass surgery 19 years earlier. After persistent recurrent anginal symptoms with shortness of breath and diaphoresis, he presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 1:00 p.m. complaining of heavy chest pain. Thrombolytic therapy was commenced. Dr. Cohen described what followed: [H]he had an episode of heart block, ventricular fibrillation, losing consciousness, for which he received ACLS efforts, being defibrillated, shocked, times three, numerous medications, to convert him to sinus rhythm. He was placed on IV anti- arrhythmics consisting of amiodarone. The repeat EKG showed a worsening of progression of his EKG changes one hour after the initiation of the TPA. Based on that information, his clinical scenario and his previous history, I advised him to be transferred to University Hospital for a salvage angioplasty. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 62). Transfer was requested at 1:55 p.m. The patient departed Brandon by helicopter at 2:20 p.m. The patient received the angioplasty at UCH. Asked how the patient would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon without having to have been transferred, Dr. Cohen answered: In a more timely fashion, he would have received an angioplasty to the culprit lesion involved. There would have been much less occlusive time of that artery and thereby, by inference, there would have been greater salvage of myocardium that had been at risk. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 65). The patient, having had bypass surgery in his early thirties, had a reduced life expectancy and impaired heart function before his presentation at Brandon in June of 1999. The time taken for the transfer of the patient to UCH was not inordinate. The transfer was accomplished with relative and expected dispatch. Nonetheless, the delay between realization at Brandon of the need for a salvage angioplasty and actual receipt of the procedure after a transfer to UCH increased the potential for lost myocardium. The lack of open heart services at Brandon resulted in reduced life expectancy for a patient whose life expectancy already had been diminished by the early onset of heart disease. The fourth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented to Brandon’s E.R. at 8:30, the morning of August 29, 1999. A fifty-four-year-old male, he had been having chest pain for a month and had ignored it. An EKG showed a complete heart block with atrial fibrillation and change consistent with acute myocardial infarction. Thrombolytic therapy was administered. He continued to have symptoms including increased episodes of ventricular arrhythmias. He required dopamine for blood pressure support due to his clinical instability and the lack of effectiveness of the thrombolytics. The patient refused a transfer and catheterization at first. Ultimately, he was convinced to undergo an angioplasty. The patient was transferred by helicopter to UCH. The patient was having a “giant ventricular infarct . . . a very difficult situation to take care of . . . and the majority of [such] patients succumb to [the] disease . . .”. (Tr. 2703). The cardiologist was unable to open the blockage via angioplasty. Dr. Bloom was called in but the patient refused surgical intervention. After interaction with his family the patient consented. Dr. Bloom conducted open heart surgery. The patient had a difficult post-operative course with arrythmias because “[h]e had so much dead heart in his right ventricle . . .”. (Id.) The patient received an excellent outcome in that he was seen in Dr. Bloom’s office with 40 percent injection fraction. Dr. Bloom “was just amazed to see him back in the office . . . and amazed that this man is alive.” (Tr. 2704). Most of the delay in receiving treatment was due to the patient’s reluctance to undergo angioplasty and then open heart surgery. The fifth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented at Brandon’s E.R. on March 22, 2000. He was 44 years old with no prior cardiac history but with numerous risk factors. He had a sudden onset of chest discomfort. Lab values showed an elevation consistent with myocardial injury. He also had an abnormal EKG. Dr. Cohen performed a cardiac cath on March 23, 2000. The procedure showed a totally occluded left anterior descending artery, one of the three major arteries serving the heart. Had open heart capability been available at Brandon, he would have undergone angioplasty and stenting immediately. As it was, the patient had to be transferred to UCH. A transfer was requested at 10:25 that morning and the patient left Brandon’s cath lab at 11:53. Daniel D. Lorch, M.D., is a specialist in pulmonary medicine who was accepted as an expert in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine and critical care medicine, consistent with his practice in a “five-man pulmonary internal medicine critical care group.” (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 4). Dr. Lorch produced medical records for one patient that he testified about during his deposition. The patient had presented to Brandon’s E.R. with an MI. He was transferred to UCH by helicopter for care. Dr. Lorch supports Brandon’s application. As he put it during his deposition: [Brandon] is an extremely busy community hospital and we are in a very rapidly growing area. The hospital is quite busy and we have a large number of cardiac patients here and it is not infrequently that a situation comes up where there are acute cardiac events that need to be transferred out. (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 20). Transfers Following Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization Brandon transfers a high number cardiac patients for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery in addition to those transferred under emergency conditions. In 1996, Brandon performed 828 diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures. Of this number, 170 patients were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 170 patients for angioplasty. In 1997, Brandon performed 863 diagnostic catheterizations of which 180 were transferred for open heart surgery and 159 for angioplasty. During 1998, 165 patients were transferred for open heart surgery and 161 for angioplasty out of 816 diagnostic catheterization procedures. For the first nine months of 1999, Brandon performed 639 diagnostic catheterizations of which 102 were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 112 for angioplasty. A significant number of patients are transferred from Brandon for open heart surgery services. These transfers are consistent with the norm in Florida. After all, open heart surgery is a tertiary service. Patients are routinely transferred from most Florida hospitals to tertiary hospitals for OHS and PCTA. The large majority of Florida hospitals do not have OHS programs; yet, these hospitals receive patients who need OHS or PTCA. Transfers, although the norm, are not without consequence for some patients who are candidates for OHS or PCTA. If Brandon had open heart and angioplasty capability, many of the 1220 patients determined to be in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery following a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon could have received these procedures at Brandon, thereby avoiding the inevitable delay and stress occasioned by transfer. Moreover, diagnostic catheterizations and angioplasties are often performed sequentially. Therefore, Brandon patients determined to be in need of angioplasty following a diagnostic catheterization would have had access to immediate angioplasty during the same procedure thus reducing the likelihood of a less than optimal outcome as the result of an additional delay for transfer. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Competition There is active competition and available patient choices now in Brandon's PSA. As described, there are many OHS programs currently accessible to and substantially serving Brandon's PSA. There is substantial competition now among OHS providers so as to provide choices to PSA residents. There are no financial benefits or cost savings accruing to the patient population if Brandon is approved. Brandon does not propose lower charges than the existing OHS providers. Balanced Budget Act The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has had a profound negative financial impact on hospitals throughout the country. The Act resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of Medicare payments made to hospitals for services rendered to Medicare recipients. During the first five years of the Act's implementation, Florida hospitals will experience a $3.6 billion reduction in Medicare revenues. Lakeland will receive $17 million less, St.Joseph's will receive $44 million less, and Tampa General will receive $53 million less. The impact of the Act has placed most hospitals in vulnerable financial positions. It has seriously affected the bottom line of all hospitals. Large urban teaching hospitals, such as TGH, have felt the greatest negative impact, due to the Act's impact on disproportionate share reimbursement and graduate medical education payment. The Act's impact upon Petitioners render them materially more vulnerable to the loss of OHS/PTCA revenues to Brandon than they would have been in the absence of the Act. Adverse Impact on Tampa General Tampa General is the "safety net provider" for Hillsborough County. Tampa General is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider. In fiscal year 1999, the hospital provided $58 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. Tampa General plays a unique, essential role in Hillsborough County and throughout West Central Florida in terms of provision of health care. Its regional role is of particular importance with respect to Level I trauma services, provision of burn care, specialized Level III neonatal and perinatal intensive care services, and adult organ transplant services. These services are not available elsewhere in western or central Florida. In fiscal year 1999, Tampa General experienced a net loss of $12.6 million in providing the services referenced above. It is obligated under contract with the State of Florida to continue to provide those services. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. In fiscal year 1999, it provided unfunded graduate medical education in the amount of $19 million. Since 1998, Tampa General has consistently experienced losses resulting from its operations, as follows: FY 1998-$29 million, FY 1999-$27 million; FY 2000 (5 months)-$10 million. The hospital’s financial condition is not the result of material mismanagement. Rather, its financial condition is a function of its substantial provision of charity and Medicaid services, the impact of the Act, reduced managed care revenues, and significant increases in expense. Tampa General’s essential role in the community and its distressed financial condition have not gone unnoticed. The Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce established in February of 2000 an Emergency Task Force to assess the hospital's role in the community, and the need for supplemental funding to enable it to maintain its financial viability. Tampa General requires supplemental funding on a continuing basis in order to begin to restore it to a position of financial stability, while continuing to provide essential community services, indigent care, and graduate medical education. It will require ongoing supplemental funding of $20- 25 million annually to avoid triggering the default provision under its bond covenants. As of the close of hearing, the 2000 session of the Florida Legislature had adjourned. The Legislature appropriated approximately $22.9 million for Tampa General. It is, of course, uncertain as to what funding, if any, the Legislature will appropriate to the hospital in future years, as the terms which constitute the appropriations must be revisited by the Legislature on an annual basis. Tampa General has prepared internal financial projections for its fiscal years 2000-2002. It projects annual operating losses, as follows: FY 2000-$20.1 million; FY 2001- $20.6 million; FY 2002-$31.9 million. While its projections anticipate certain "strategic initiatives" that will enhance its financial condition, including continued supplemental legislative funding, the success and/or availability of those initiatives are not "guaranteed" to be successful. If the Brandon program is approved, Tampa General will lose 93 OHS cases and 107 angioplasty cases during Brandon's second year of operation. That loss of cases will result in a $1.4 million annual reduction in TGH's net income, a material adverse impact given Tampa General’s financial condition. OHS services provide a positive contribution to Tampa General's financial operations. Those services constitute a core piece of Tampa General's business. The anticipated loss of income resulting from Brandon's program pose a threat to the hospital’s ability to provide essential community services. Adverse Impact on UCH UCH operated at a financial break-even in its fiscal year 1999. In the first five months of its fiscal year 2000, the hospital has experienced a small loss. This financial distress is primarily attributed to less Medicare reimbursement due to the Act and less reimbursement from managed care. UCH's reimbursement for OHS services provides a good example of the financial challenges facing hospitals. In 1999, UCH's net income per OHS case was reduced 33 percent from 1998. Also in 1999, UCH received OHS reimbursement of only 32 percent of its charges. UCH would be substantially and adversely impacted by approval of Brandon's proposal. As described, UCH currently is a substantial provider of OHS and angioplasty services to residents of Brandon's PSA. There are many cardiologists on staff at Brandon who also actively practice at UCH. UCH is very accessible from Brandon's PSA. UCH reasonably projects to lose the following volumes in the first three years of operation of the proposed program: a loss of 78-93 OHS procedures, a loss of 24-39 balloon angioplasties, and a loss of 97-115 stent angioplasties. Converting this volume loss to financial terms, UCH will suffer the following financial losses as a direct and immediate result of Brandon being approved: about $1.1 million in the first year, and about $1.2 million in the second year, and about $1.3 million in the third year. As stated, UCH is currently operating at about a financial break-even point. The impact of the Balanced Budget Act, reduced managed care reimbursement, and UCH's commitment to serve all patients regardless of ability to pay has a profound negative financial impact on UCH. A recurring loss of more than $1 million dollars per year due to Brandon's new program will cause substantial and adverse impact on UCH. Adverse Impact on St. Joseph’s If Brandon's application is approved, St. Joseph’s will lose 47 OHS cases and 105 PTCA cases during Brandon's second year. That loss of cases will result in a $732,000 annual reduction in SJH's net income. That loss represents a material impact to SJH. Between 1997 and 2000, St. Joseph’s has experienced a pattern of significant deterioration in its financial performance. Its net revenue per adjusted admission had been reduced by 12 percent, while its costs have increased significantly. St. Joseph's net income from operations has deteriorated as follows: FYE 6/30/97-$31 million; FYE 12/31/98- $24 million; FYE 12/31/99-$13.8 million. A net operating income of $13.8 million is not much money relative to St Joseph's size, the age of its physical plant, and its need for capital to maintain and improve its facilities in order to remain competitive. St. Joseph’s offers a number of health care services to the community for which it does not receive reimbursement. Unreimbursed services include providing hospital admissions and services to patients of a free clinic staffed by volunteer members of SJH's medical staff, free immunization programs to low-income children, and a parish nurse program, among others. St. Joseph’s evaluates such programs annually to determine whether it has the financial resources to continue to offer them. During the past two years, the hospital has been forced to eliminate two of its free community programs, due to its deteriorating financial condition. St. Joseph’s anticipates that it will have to eliminate additional unreimbursed community services if it experiences an annual reduction in net income of $730,000. Adverse Impact to LRMC The approval of Brandon will have an impact on Lakeland. Lakeland will suffer a financial loss of about $253,000 annually. This projection is based on calculated contribution margins of OHS and PTCA/stent procedures performed at the hospital. A loss of $253,000 per year is a material loss at Lakeland, particularly in light of its slim operating margin and the very substantial losses it has experienced and will continue to experience as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In addition to the projected loss of OHS and other procedures based upon Brandon's application, Lakeland may experience additional lost cases from areas such as Bartow and Mulberry from which it draws patients to its open heart/cardiology program. Lakeland will also suffer material adverse impacts to its OHS program due to the negative effect of Brandon's program on its ability to recruit and retain nurses and other highly skilled employees needed to staff its program. The approval of Brandon will also result in higher costs at existing providers such as Lakeland as they seek to compete for a limited pool of experienced people by responding to sign-on bonuses and by reliance on extensive temporary nursing agencies and pools. Nursing Staff/Recruitment The staffing patterns and salaries for Brandon's projected 40.1 full-time equivalent employees to staff its open heart surgery program are reasonable and appropriate. Filling the positions will not be without some difficulty. There is a shortage for skilled nursing and other personnel needed for OHS programs nationally, in Florida and in District 6. The shortage has been felt in Hillsborough County. For example, it has become increasingly difficult to fill vacancies that occur in critical nursing positions in the coronary intensive care unit and in telemetry units at Tampa General. Tampa General's expenses for nursing positions have "increased tremendously." (Tr. 2622). To keep its program going, the hospital has hired "travelers . . . short-term employment, registered nurses that come from different agencies, . . . with [the hospital] a minimum of 12 weeks." (Tr. 2622). In fact, all hospitals in the Tampa Bay area utilize pool staff and contract staff to fill vacancies that appear from time-to- time. Use of contract staff has not diminished quality of care at the hospitals, although "they would not be assigned to the sickest patients." (Tr. 2176). Another technique for dealing with the shortage is to have existing full-time staff work overtime at overtime pay rates. St. Joseph's and Lakeland have done so. As a result, they have substantially exceeded their budgeted salary expenses in recent months. It will be difficult for Brandon to hire surgical RNs, other open heart surgery personnel and critical care nurses necessary to staff its OHS program. The difficulty, however, is not insurmountable. To meet the difficulty, Brandon will move members of its present staff with cardiac and open heart experience into its open heart program. It will also train some existing personnel in conjunction with the staff and personnel at Bayonet Point. In addition to drawing on the existing pool of nurses, Brandon can utilize HCA's internal nationwide staffing data base to transfer staff from other HCA facilities to staff Brandon's open heart program. Approximately 18 percent of the nurses hired at Brandon already come from other HCA facilities. The nursing shortage has been in existence for about a decade. During this time, other open heart programs have come on line and have been able to staff the programs adequately. Lakeland, in District 6, has demonstrated its ability to recruit and train open heart surgery personnel. Brandon, itself, has been successful, despite the on- going shortage, in appropriately staffing its recent additions of tertiary level NICU beds, an expanded Emergency Room, labor and delivery and recovery suites, and new high-risk, ante-partum observation unit. Brandon has begun to offer sign-on bonuses to compete for experienced nurses. Several employees who staff the Lakeland, UCH and Tampa General programs live in Brandon. These bonuses are temptations for them to leave the programs for Brandon. Other highly skilled, experienced individuals who already work at existing programs may be lost to Brandon's program as well simply as the natural result of the addition of a new program. In the end, Brandon will be able to staff its program, but it will make it more difficult for all of the programs in Hillsborough County and for Lakeland to meet their staffing needs as well as producing a financial impact on existing providers. Financial Feasibility Short-Term Brandon needs $4.2 million to fund implementation of the program. Its parent corporation, HCA will provide financing of up to $4.5 million for implementation. The $4.2 million in start-up costs projected by Brandon does not include the cost of a second cath lab or the costs to upgrade the equipment in the existing cath lab. Itemization of the funds necessary for improvement of the existing cath lab and the addition of the second cath lab were not included in Brandon's pro formas. It is the Agency's position that addition of a cath lab (and by inference, upgrade to an existing lab) requires only a letter of exemption as projects separate from an open heart surgery program even when proposed in support of the program. (See UCH No. 7, p. 83). The position is not inconsistent with cardiac catheterization programs as subject to requirements in law separate from those to which an open heart surgery program is subject. Brandon, through HCA, has the ability to fund the start-up costs of the project. It is financially feasible in the short-term. Long-Term Open heart surgery programs (inclusive of angioplasty and stent procedures, as well as other open heart surgery procedures) generally are very profitable. They are among the most profitable of programs conducted by hospitals. Brandon's projected charges for open heart, angioplasty, and stent procedures are based on the average charges to patients residing in Brandon's PSA inflated at 2 percent per year. The inflation rate is consistent with HCFA's August 1, 2000, Rule implementing a 2.3 percent Medicare reimbursement increase. Brandon's projected payor mix is reasonably based on the existing open heart, angioplasty, and stent patients within its PSA. Brandon also estimated conservatively that it would collect only 45 to 50 percent of its charges from third-party payors. To determine expenses, Brandon utilized Bayonet Point's accounting system. It provided a level of detail that could not be obtained otherwise. "For patients within Brandon's primary service area, . . . that information is not provided by existing providers in the area that's available for any public consumption." (Tr. 1002). While perhaps the most detailed data available, Bayonet Point data was far from an ideal model for Brandon. Bayonet Point performs about 1,500 OHS cases per year. It achieves economies of scale that will not be achievable at Brandon in the foreseeable future. There is a relationship between volume and cost efficiency. The higher the volume, the greater the cost efficiency. Brandon's volume is projected to be much lower than Bayonet Point's. To make up for the imperfection of use of Bayonet Point as an "expenses" proxy, Brandon's financial expert in opining that the project was feasible in the long-term, considered two factors with regard to expenses. First, it included its projected $1.8 million in salary expenses as a separate line item over and above the salary expenses contained in the Bayonet Point data. (This amounted to a "double" counting of salary expenses.) Second, it recognized HCA's ability to obtain competitive pricing with respect to equipment and services for its affiliated hospitals, Brandon being one of them. Brandon projected utilization of 249 and 279 cases in its second and third year of operations. These projections are reasonable. (See the testimony of Mr. Balsano on rebuttal and Brandon Ex. 74). Comparison of Agency Action in CONs 9169 and 9239 Brandon's application in this case, CON 9239, was filed within a six-month period of the filing of an earlier application, CON 9169. The Agency found the two applications to be similar. Indeed, the facts and circumstances at issue in the two applications other than the updating of the financial and volume numbers are similar. So is the argument made in favor of the applications. Yet, the first application was denied by the Agency while the second received preliminary approval. The difference in the Agency's action taken on the later application (the one with which this case is concerned), i.e., approval, versus the action taken on the earlier, denial, was explained by Scott Hopes, the Chief of the Bureau of Certificate of Need at the time the later application was considered: The [later] Brandon application . . ., which is what we're addressing here today, included more substantial information from providers, both cardiologists, internists, family practitioners and surgeons with specific case examples by patient age [and] other demographics, the diagnoses, outcomes, how delays impacted outcomes, what permanent impact those adverse outcomes left the patient in, where earlier . . . there weren't as many specifics. (Tr. 1536, 1537). A comparison of the application in CON 9169 and the record in this case bears out Mr. Hopes' assessment that there is a significant difference between the two applications. Comparison of the Agency Action with the District 9 Application During the same batching cycle in which CON 9239 was considered, five open heart surgery applications were considered from health care providers in District 9. Unlike Brandon's application, these were all denied. In the District 9 SAAR, the Agency found that transfers are an inherent part of OHS as a tertiary service. The Agency concluded that, "[O]pen heart surgery is a tertiary service and patients are routinely transferred between hospitals for this procedure." (UCH Ex. 7, pp. 51-54). In particular, the Agency recognized Boca Raton's claim that it had provided "extensive discussion of the quality implications of attempting to deal with cardiac emergencies through transfer to other facilities." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 52). Unlike the specific information referred to by Mr. Hopes in his testimony quoted, above, however, the foundation for Boca Raton's argument is a 1999 study published in the periodical Circulation, entitled "Relationship Between Delay in Performing Direct Coronary Angioplasty and Early Clinical Outcomes." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 21). This publication was cited by the Agency in its SAAR on the application in this case. Nonetheless, a fundamental difference remains between this case and the District 9 applications, including Boca Raton's. The application in this case is distinguished by the specific information to which Mr. Hopes alluded in his testimony, quoted above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the application of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital for open heart surgery, CON 9239. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 North Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 James C. Hauser, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Sarah E. Evans, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Proposed Rule 10- 5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, as promulgated by DHRS constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Based upon the following findings of fact, conclusions and analysis, proposed Rule 10-5.005(2)(a) and (b) is invalid.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. DHRS' Office of Health Planning and Development is divided into two separate divisions: The Office of Community Medical Facilities, which administers the State Certificate of Need Program and has responsibility for making recommendations regarding CON applications, and (2) the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, which has primary responsibility for development of rules pertaining to Certificate of Need policy. Mr. Robert Maryanski, Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, believes his office made no formal comments (perhaps informal comments,) concerning the proposed rule. Mr. Maryanski considered that the proposed rule was objectionable based on his understanding of the statutes. (TR 33, 54). Elfie Stamm is employed by the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and has primary responsibility for development of Proposed Rule 10-5.005. The text of the proposed rule is as follows: 10-5.005 Exemptions. * * * (2)(a) Physician offices or physician group practices which do not exist for the primary purpose of providing elective surgical care are exempt from certificate of need requirements for ambulatory surgical centers as specified in 10-5.011(30). This certificate of need exemption applies to offices and associated surgical suites maintained by one or more private physicians or a physician group which is used only by the physician or the physicians of the group practice, and in which 50 percent or more of the patients treated annually are non-surgical patients. (b) Physician offices, or physician group practices applying for designation as an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and who meet the requirements for exemption from certificate of need review under the provisions delineated under paragraph (2), shall submit a request for exemption from certificate of need to the Department. The physician office or physician group practice shall provide the Department with at least 30 day's written notice of the proposed exemption from the certificate of need requirements for ambulatory surgical centers. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the Department shall determine if the physician office or physician group practice is exempt and advise the applicant of its determination in writing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). The proposed rule exempts physician offices and physician group practices from CON requirements for ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) when at least 50 percent of the patients treated annually in these facilities are non- surgical patients. The proposed rule purportedly implements the Federal Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA) policy allowing physician offices which are exempt from State CON and licensure requirements to apply directly (to HCFA) to receive ASC designation for medical facility reimbursement purposes without first obtaining a CON. Currently, "Ambulatory Surgical Center" means a facility, the primary purpose of which is to provide elective surgical care and in which the patient is admitted to and discharged from such facility within the same working day and which is not part of a hospital. However, a facility existing for the primary purpose of performing therapeutic abortions, an office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine, or an office maintained for the practice of dentistry shall not be construed to be an ASC. Section 395.002(2), Florida Statutes (1985). DHRS is trying to implement what it believes to be a statutory CON exemption for doctor's offices through the proposed rule. In so doing, HRS considers physicians' offices to be indistinguishable from physician group practices. In this regard, the relevant statutes do not reference physician group practices. Historically, HRS would not certify physician offices as medicare providers (in its role as surveyor for HCFA) because such certification entails the requirement that a physician's office comply with the State ASC Law. In short, a physician's office wishing to become an ASC had to satisfy both CON and State licensure requirements in order to be certified as a medicare providing ASC. Prior to promulgation of the proposed rule, DHRS never had a policy that group practices or physicians with operating suites are excluded from the statutory definition of an ASC. DHRS has no exemptions or exclusions for physicians' groups with surgical suites so that they could become ASCs for medicare certification. (Testimony of Tom Porter, previous supervisor for DHRS' Certificate of Need Program). DHRS took the position that it was without authority to grant an exemption to physician group practices and the related offices as an associated surgical suite without such facility having first obtained a CON as an ASC prior to offering such services. DHRS also took the position that a physician wishing to do minor surgical procedures as a sub-part of his office practice would not be required to obtain a CON as an ASC. These services could be done as an ancillary part of the physician's office. (Testimony of Gene Nelson, former Administrator, Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities prior to Mr. Maryanski's tenure with DHRS). Section 381.495, Florida Statutes, provides for several defined exemptions from CON review. As stated above, the proposed rule purports to grant an exemption to physician offices or to physician group practices from State CON requirements. Section 381.493 (3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), states, in relevant part, that an office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine is excluded from the definition of an ASC. The referenced statute does not grant an exemption from the ASC regulation nor has DHRS previously exempted a person or entity from CON review under such circumstances. DHRS has historically distinguished between a physician performing minor surgical procedures as an ancillary part of his office versus a full service ASC. HCFA clarified in Memorandum FQA-731, Ambulatory Surgical Center regulations relating to compliance with state licensure requirements and the application of state CON provisions as a prerequisite for medicare certification. (Pet. Exh. 8) In states where ASC licensure laws are in effect, facilities seeking to participate in medicare must meet such licensure requirements. Thus, 42 CFR Section 416.40 states, in pertinent part, that the ASC must comply with state licensure requirements. CON provisions must be met as a prerequisite for medicare licensure certification for an entity to operate legally within a state and CON approval is required before the decision to award a license is made. In instances where licensure is not required either by virtue of the absence of an ASC Licensure Law or the exemption of certain entities from the licensure law, compliance with CON provisions is not necessary for medicare eligibility as an ASC. It is through a series of correspondence between Mr. Robert Streimer of HCFA and Mr. Marshall Kelley, DHRS' Assistant Secretary for Program Planning that affords the proffered "basis" for the proposed rule. (TR 87). The Streimer letter provides that ASC services performed in a physician's office which is not required by state law to be licensed as an ASC and which meets all medicare ASC requirements would be covered and reimbursed by medicare at the ASC rate. As noted, DHRS historically took a different position. Nowhere in Mr. Kelley's letter to Mr. Streimer did HRS identify the specific criteria that would relate to an exemption request in Florida as currently stated in the proposed rule. DHRS, based on the proposed rule, now takes the position that any physician having a operating room and furnishing surgical procedures for less than 50 percent of his or her patients would be entitled to an exemption from CON requirements and in turn be entitled to apply for certification from HCFA as an ASC for ASC reimbursement (facility fee). The proposed rule allows for surgery currently performed in a physician's office to qualify for higher reimbursement from medicare (i.e., a facility fee). DHRS uses as authority for the proposed rule, Section 381.493(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Prior to receipt of Streimer's letter, DHRS considered HCFA's policy to be that if a facility did not have a CON and was not licensed as an ASC, there would be no medicare certification forthcoming from HCFA. The Streimer letter purportedly clarifies HCFA's policy although it does not represent a change in that policy. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). The proposed rule defines "primary as 50 percent or more of the patients treated annually as being non-surgical patients. However, according to the 1982 federal regulations, an entity seeking application and certification as a medicare ASC must be dedicated exclusively to the provision of Ambulatory Surgical Services (42 CFR Section 416.2). Federal Rules provide that the requirement for ASC's to be certified in order to receive medicare payments was expected to exclude physicians offices. There appears to be no federal regulation dealing with reimbursement for the surgical procedures which are to be done in physicians' offices. To satisfy HCFA's certification requirements, an applicant must satisfy the relevant state licensure requirements if any, and meet federal certification requirements. As presently codified, it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy the proposed rule and the federal ASC definition contained in 42 CFR Section 416.02. Thus, an entity could not "exclusively" provide ASC services and at the same time not exist for the "primary" purpose of providing elective surgical care on an outpatient basis. They are mutually exclusive since the two definitions are inconsistent. The Streimer letter initiated HRS's evaluation of current statutes and the proposed rule is, according to HRS, designed to implement current statutes. HCFA's policy is that if a facility legally provides or is allowed to provide elective surgical procedures in Florida, without having to be licensed as an ASC or having gone through the CON process, it is inappropriate to require the facility to obtain a CON and be licensed as an ASC as a condition of that facility being approved for medicare reimbursement at the ASC rate. Prior to HCFA's correspondence, HCFA required an applicant for medicare ASC certification to meet State Law and also meet its certification requirements. This is still the case and the HCFA's correspondence to DHRS did not change that requirement. The purpose of the Health Facility and Health Services Planning Act, more commonly known as the CON law, (sometimes called the Act) is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of Floridians. These protections are further defined as a necessary increase in health care, minimizing duplication in health services, and minimizing situations where there is an underutilization of existing health care resources. The proposed rule does not relate to or otherwise address any "need" issue or capacity issue and contrary thereto, allows for uncontrolled growth of surgery suites as long as the physician group practice has 50 percent or more of total patients treated as non-surgical patients. It can be expected that there will be a proliferation of physicians, solo or group practices, with physician surgical practices developing in addition to hospital out-patient surgery. Additionally, there is no physical constraint on the location of the physician and a physician's group practice. Adoption of the proposed rule will also increase the cost of the total health care system in Florida as follows: The average cost per procedure increases when procedures are spread out over a greater number of fixed facilities and because of incentives that would be inherent in this additional capacity for additional unnecessary utilization. Physicians would receive a facility fee in addition to a professional fee. Physicians would thereby receive more money for doing the same procedures they are currently doing in their offices without the facility fee. The effect of the introduction of surgery centers where there is already excess capacity in hospitals and in freestanding surgery centers is to increase the cost of health care to the community. With the addition of new facilities, there are added fixed costs placed into the system that would remain until the facility becomes outmoded. With the addition of fewer procedures spread over more fixed costs, the average cost per procedure likewise increases even though the cost to an individual patient might appear to be lower in an alternative setting. Excess capacity leads to underutilization with the resultant increase in the rates for surgery. Without a capacity constraint, there will be more elective surgery performed. With the approval of the proposed rule, a doctor's office will be eligible for medicare reimbursement for a facility fee. Medicare reimbursement for a facility fee is unique to ASCs and does not apply to surgical procedures performed in a doctor's office. The purpose behind reimbursing for facility fees is that there is considerable overhead associated with performing relatively complex surgical procedures which require an operating room. If procedures are so simple as to be safely performed in a doctor's office, the intent of the rule is to distinguish between these two settings. It is desirable for procedures to be done in a doctor's office that are simple because it is the lower cost setting. Procedures performed in a physician's office will not qualify for the facility fee reimbursement and overhead payment because of the simplistic nature of the procedures and the lack of need for sophisticated equipment which is currently being used in ASCs. The federal regulations were intended to remove hospital surgery to ASCs, if appropriate, and to remove minor surgery to doctors' offices in order to avoid reimbursement for procedures which can be done in a less sophisticated setting. If more procedures are shifted to medicare certified ASCs, there would be an additional facility fee and physicians would be eligible for this reimbursement. An example of the operational effect of the proposed rule is the scenario surrounding Doctor Stephen S. Spector and the Presidential Eye Surgery Center in Palm Beach County. Doctor Spector was denied a CON for an ASC based on a lack of need for additional operating suites in Palm Beach County. After DHRS made its initial decision denying Dr. Spector's CON, he petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. A Recommended Order was entered denying Dr. Spector a CON and HRS then issued a Final Order denying a CON to Dr. Spector. Dr. Spector has since simply requested an exemption for a freestanding ASC pursuant to the proposed rule. DHRS will entertain this request and if granted, Dr. Spector will be entitled to medicare certification and a facility fee for surgical procedures performed in his office. The proposed rule will encourage the massive proliferation of outpatient surgery facilities and outpatient surgery suites. 3/ Evidence adduced at final hearing indicates that CON approved and licensed freestanding ambulatory surgery centers are currently underutilized and not operating at optimal capacity. The result will be increased hospital and ASC costs per unit because fixed costs must then be spread over a smaller patient base. It is likely that there will be underutilization of existing facilities. The proposed rule does not foster the purposes of Florida's CON law and it will not restrain increases in health care costs. The proposed rule will enhance or maximize unnecessary duplication and promote underutilization of existing resources. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the Department is required to prepare an economic impact statement of the proposed rule. For the proposed rule, HRS states, in part, in its economic impact statement as follows: The proposed amendment is expected to have an economic impact on hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgical centers licensed by the State. It is expected that some Medicare patients who previously have been referred to hospital outpatient departments or a freestanding ambulatory surgical center licensed by the State may have their elective surgeries performed in the physician's group practice. In addition, the proposed rule may encourage the development of physician group practices with surgical suites since they are exempted from the certificate of need process and State licensure requirements. The fiscal impact on hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers cannot be estimated since the Department has no data regarding the number of potential applicants under this Rule, the location of those applicants, the volume of surgeries which may be performed by these entities, or the number of surgeries which would have been performed in hospital outpatient departments or State licensed ambulatory surgical centers in the absence of these new entities. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). The economic impact statement for the proposed rule does not provide any data or method used in making the required economic impact estimates. The statement does not include any data to analyze whether the rule will impact ASCs having less than one million dollars net worth and less than 25 employees or whether the proposed rule will have an economic impact on hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers. Although HRS has indicated that the exact amount of the fiscal impact is impossible to estimate due to the unknowns respecting the number of physician offices or group practices that will qualify for the exemptions and therefore no analysis was undertaken or developed, studies could have been made to determine the effect any level of participation would have on hospital costs and utilization of existing facilities. Although the task of compiling such data would, no doubt, be arduous, evidence adduced at final hearing indicates that DHRS could have, with effort, compiled a data base with a stratified sample which would have been reliable and could forecast the likely effect of the proposed rule within an acceptable margin of error. DHRS did not compile data which would provide an estimate as to the number of patients who would choose the physician's office over other facilities that perform Ambulatory Surgery. DHRS never requested input from hospitals or outpatient surgery centers with respect to pay or patient mix. DHRS conducted no surveys with respect to the number of potential applicants under the proposed rule. DHRS considered it not relevant to examine the capacity of existing freestanding surgery centers or hospitals having outpatient surgery facilities. DHRS conducted no studies to determine the accessibility of existing ASCs and hospital ASCs. No studies were done to examine the impact, as to the cost to patients, that the proposed rule is likely to have on existing providers. No studies were done to assess the impact the proposed rule will have on the medicare trust fund. No studies were done to determine the impact, if any, on Florida small and minority businesses. It is true that a great deal of the needed data was not readily available to HRS whereas, on the other hand, it made no attempt to gather such data. DHRS has the ability to assess the number of surgeries that could be performed in hospital outpatient departments and ASC's since DHRS does such compilations on a day to day basis when it projects the need for new ASCs. DHRS could have commissioned studies to determine the effect any level of participation would have on hospital costs and utilization. Development of an adequate data base and a meaningful economic impact of the proposed rule is paramount in view of the legislative mandate (to DHRS) to contain health care costs. Rules are promulgated to further the purpose and objective of the statutes they implement. To accomplish this, they must be consistent with the statute. Here, the purpose of the statute is cost containment. Evidence adduced at final hearing reveals, without contradiction, that the proposed rule will increase health care costs, contrary to the major purpose for its existence. Finally, DHRS compiled no data as to the impact on the ability of hospitals to provide indigent care under the proposed rule. As example, Florida Hospital projects that it will provide $48,000,000 in uncompensated care for fiscal year 1986. If the hospital were to lose revenue as result of this proposed rule, the level of indigent care will also correspondingly be reduced in order to offset the loss of revenue. Other parties herein provide services to indigent persons. The proposed rule does not require these exempt facilities to provide indigent care. In addition to the above economic impact which will be brought about by the proposed rule on the Health Care system as a whole, the proposed rule will have an economic impact on the existing hospitals and ASC's. (TR 276-277; 438-440). As example, one Petitioner herein advises that if one surgery suite were added by an existing physician group or formed near the hospital, the hospital will lose approximately $481,000 per annum. By letter dated August 29, 1986, DHRS forwarded a copy of the purposed rule to the statewide and local health councils requesting comments by September 12, 1986. The public hearing on the proposed rule was scheduled for October 20, 1986. Neither health council (state or local) participated in the public hearing for the proposed rule nor has either council submitted comments respecting the proposed rule. The notice provided to the local and statewide health councils for comments on the proposed rule was adequate and afforded the various councils an opportunity to voice any concerns or provide input about the proposed rule. Dr. Montgomery, an Intervenor herein, will receive additional medicare reimbursements of $500.00 per patient for a facility fee under the proposed rule. Dr. Montgomery approximated that he performed 320 cataract surgeries per year of which approximately 300 patients are paying patients. Approximately 85 percent of those patients are over 65. Therefore, Dr. Montgomery will receive medicare reimbursement for 255 patients or approximately $127,500.00 in additional fees if his office is certified as exempt under the proposed rule.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether the following statement was made by Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; whether the statement violates the provisions of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes; whether the statement constitutes a declaratory statement under Section 120.565, Florida Statutes; whether Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC., has standing to maintain this action; and whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The alleged agency statement which is at issue in this case is: The Agency for Health Care Administration takes the position that a shared service agreement may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and the shared service contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition, the Agency takes the position that modifications to a shared service agreement do not require prior review and approval by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC. (hereinafter ALL CHILDREN'S), is a medical facility located in St. Petersburg, Florida, which provides pediatric hospital care. Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA), is the agency of the State of Florida vested with statutory authority to issue, revoke or deny certificates of need in accordance with the statewide and district health plans. Intervenor, BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER (BAYFRONT), is an acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida. ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT are located adjacent to each other and are connected by a thirty-yard tunnel. In 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S began operation of a pediatric cardiac catheterization program. ALL CHILDREN'S pediatric cardiac catheterization program existed prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to provide such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S cardiac catheterization program. Since 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S has expended at least $500,000 on upgrading the cardiac catheterization program. Since 1970, ALL CHILDREN'S has operated a pediatric open heart surgery program. ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program existed prior to the statutory requirement for issuance of a certificate of need to perform such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program. By letter dated May 13, 1974, HRS specifically advised ALL CHILDREN'S that modifications to the ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program were not subject to agency approval. In May of 1973, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT entered into a shared service agreement to provide adult cardiac catheterization services. In accordance with the shared service agreement, the actual catheterizations are performed in the physical plant of ALL CHILDREN'S and with equipment located on the ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult cardiac catheterization shared service program by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. Beginning in 1975, BAYFRONT has also provided adult open heart surgery services through a joint program with ALL CHILDREN'S with the actual surgeries being performed at the physical plant on ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult open heart surgery shared service by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. The shared service agreement between ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT to provide adult cardiac catheterization and open heart surgical services was in existence prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to perform such services. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need to provide such services. The cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery program operated by ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT was "grandfathered" in because the program existed prior to the certificate of need requirement. Because no certificate of need was issued to ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT for its shared adult cardiac service program, no conditions have been imposed by AHCA on the operation of the program. "Conditions" placed on certificates of need are important predicates to agency approval and typically regulate specific issues relating to the operation of the program and the provision of the service such as access, location, and provision of the service to Medicaid recipients. The ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT cardiac shared services program is the only "grandfathered in" shared service arrangement in Florida, and is the only shared service arrangement operating without a certificate of need in Florida. An open heart surgery program is shared by Marion Community Hospital and Munroe Regional Medical Center in Ocala, Florida. The Marion/Munroe program operates pursuant to a certificate of need issued by AHCA. On December 22, 1995, AHCA published a notice of its intent to approve a certificate of need for a shared pediatric cardiac catheterization program between Baptist Hospital and University Medical Center in Duval County, Florida. BAYFRONT has applied for, but has not yet been issued, a certificate of need to perform cardiac catheterization services independent of the shared services arrangement with ALL CHILDREN'S. The agency receives hundreds of inquiries each year requesting information and guidance from health care providers regarding the certificate of need application process and other requirements of the certificate of need program. On more than one occasion ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT have inquired either orally or in letters to the agency regarding whether certain changes in their adult cardiac shared services program would require agency approval through a certificate of need application. In response to a 1990 written inquiry from ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT regarding modifications to the shared services agreement, the agency (then HRS) by letter dated September 18, 1990, stated in pertinent part that "the alterations you propose still constitute shared services." The agency response went on to state that it is therefore "...determined that they (the proposed changes) have not altered the original intent." On January 31, 1991, Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code, governing shared service arrangements in project-specific certificate of need applications was promulgated. The rule provides: Shared service arrangement: Any application for a project involving a shared service arrangement is subject to a batched review where the health service being proposed is not currently provided by any of the applicants or an expedited review where the health service being proposed is currently provided by one of the applicants. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services where none of the applicants are currently authorized to provide the service: Each applicant jointly applying for a new health service must be a party to a formal written legal agreement. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service will authorize the applicants to provide the new health service as specified in the original application. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service shall not be construed as entitling each applicant to independently offer the new health service. Authority for any party to offer the service exists only as long as the parties participate in the provision of the shared service. Any of the parties providing a shared service may seek to dissolve the arrangement. This action is subject to review as a termina- tion of service. If termination is approved by the agency, all parties to the original shared service give up their rights to provide the service. Parties seeking to provide the service independently in the future must submit applications in the next applicable review cycle and compete for the service with all other applicants. All applicable statutory and rule criteria are met. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services when one of the applicants has the service: A shared services contract occurs when two or more providers enter into a contractual arrangement to jointly offer an existing or approved health care service. A shared services contract must be written and legal in nature. These include legal partnerships, contractual agreements, recognition of the provision of a shared service by a governmental payor, or a similar documented arrangement. Each of the parties to the shared services contract must contribute something to the agreement including but not limited to facilities, equipment, patients, management or funding. For the duration of a shared services contract, none of the entities involved has the right or authority to offer the service in the absence of the contractual arrangement except the entity which originally was authorized to provide the service. A shared services contract is not transferable. New parties to the original agreement constitute a new contract and require a new Certificate of Need. A shared services contract may encom- pass any existing or approved health care service. The following items will be evaluated in reviewing shared services contracts: The demonstrated savings in capital equipment and related expenditures; The health system impact of sharing services, including effects on access and availability, continuity and quality of care; and, Other applicable statutory review criteria. Dissolution of a shared services contract is subject to review as a termination of service. If termination is approved, the entity(ies) authorized to provide the service prior to the contract retains the right to continue the service. All other parties to the contract who seek to provide the service in their own right must request the service as a new health service and are subject to full Certificate of Need review as a new health service. All statutory and rule criteria are met. By letter dated October 22, 1993, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT inquired again of the agency regarding modifications of the adult inpatient cardiac shared service program. AHCA did not respond to the 1993 inquiry, and AHCA ultimately considered the inquiry withdrawn. By letter dated February 24, 1995, BAYFRONT made further inquiry of the agency, and requested agency confirmation of the following statement: The purpose of this letter is to confirm our understanding that the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") takes the position that the shared services agreement between Bayfront and All Children's may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and that the shared services contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4) F.A.C. By letter dated March 16, 1995, the agency made the following reply to BAYFRONT from which this proceeding arose: The purpose of this letter is to confirm your understanding of this agency's position with reference to the reviewability of a modifica- tion of the shared services agreement between Bayfront Medical Center and All Children's Hospital set forth in your February 24, 1995 letter.
Findings Of Fact "[HRS] has adopted a Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., which makes provision for the review of CON applications in specific time sequences, known as "batching cycles." The purpose of this rule was to implement the statutory mandate of ss. 381.494(5), Florida Statutes, which required that: The Department by rule shall provide for the applications to be submitted on a timetable or cycle basis, provide for review on a timely basis; and provide for all completed applications pertaining to similar types of services, facilities, or equipment affecting the same service district to be considered in relation to each other no less often than four times a year. Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., states that the letter of intent and application schedules were established "[i]n order that applications pertaining to similar types of services, facilities, or equipment affecting the same service district may be considered in relation to each other for purposes of competitive review. "Under Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., June 15, 1984, was the beginning of a batching cycle for "hospital projects" that included certificate of need requests by hospitals for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs. To enter a batching cycle, an applicant must first have filed a letter of intent ("LOI") with [HRS] and the Local Health Council at least thirty (30) days prior to filing an application. The LOI deadline for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle was thus May 16, 1984. There was, however, one exception to this requirement of filing an LOI thirty (30) days in advance. This exception, known as the "grace provision," was found at Rule 10 5.08(e), F.A.C. In cases where a letter of intent was filed within five working days of the letter of intent deadline, a grace period of 10 days from the deadline date for receipt of letters of intent shall be established to provide an opportunity for a competing applicant to file a letter of intent. "On or about May 14, 1984, St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach submitted a letter of intent to file a CON application for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and an open heart surgery program. St. Marys' [sic] LOI was for entry in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. This date of Nay 14, 1984, was within five (5) working days of the LOI deadline for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Boca Raton Community Hospital [also] filed a letter of intent to apply for a CON for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Boca Raton's LOI was filed in April of 1954, a time period greater than five (5) working days prior to the LOI deadline. "On May 29, 1984, Good Samaritan filed with [HRS] and the Local Health Council a letter of intent to establish cardiac catheterization and an open heart surgery program in order to compete for CON approval with the similar services proposed by St. Marys [sic]. Good Samaritan's May 29, 1984, LOI sought entry into the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "May 29, 1984, was within ten (10) days from the deadline date for receipt of letters of intent for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Good Samaritan does not view itself as directly competing with Boca Raton Community Hospital for patients or services due to the distance between these facilities. Good Samaritan does view itself to be in direct competition with St. Marys [sic]. All three hospitals are, however, in the same HRS Service District and [HRS] reviews CON applications for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery on the basis of whether there is a need for such laboratories or programs in the service district. "On June 15, 1984, Good Samaritan submitted its [CON] application to [HRS], together with the required Four Thousand Dollar ($4,000.00) application fee. [HRS] refused to accept this application for review in its June 15, 1984, batching cycle and returned the application and the filing fee to Good Samaritan. [HRS] advised Good Samaritan that the next batching cycle it could enter for this application would be the October 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Good Samaritan timely filed a request for formal proceedings pursuant to ss. 120.57, Florida Statutes (1983), regarding [HRS's] refusal to accept its application in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of this proceeding. "Effective September 6, 1984, and subsequent to the Department's refusal to accept Good Samaritan's application for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle, [HRS] amended Rule 10-5.08(e). The new rule, as amended, reflects the requirements that the Department contends are applicable to Good Samaritan in this case prior to the amendment. "[HRS's] refusal to accept Good Samaritan's application in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle prevents Good Samaritan from having its proposed project reviewed comparatively and competitively with St. Marys' [sic] or Boca Raton's similar proposals, because [HRS] does not review CON applications comparatively and competitively unless they are filed in the same batching cycle. "[HRS] approved in part [sic] both St. Marys' [sic] and Boca Raton's CON applications. CON #3367 was issued to St. Marys [sic] for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and CON #3366 was issued to Boca Raton for a cardiac catheterization laboratory. These actions by [HRS], however, have not yet become final and are subject to formal administrative hearings requested by Good Samaritan. "[HRS] takes the position that the approvals of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at St. Marys [sic] and Boca Raton count against the need for an additional cardiac catheterization laboratory as proposed by Good Samaritan if Good Samaritan's application is considered in a later batching cycle."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That HRS enter a final order requiring that Good Samaritan's CON application be reviewed in the June 15, 1984 batching cycle. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 13th day of February, 1985.
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need Application No. 8614, filed by Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., meets, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration relied upon an unpromulgated and invalid rule in preliminarily denying CON Application No. 8614.
Findings Of Fact Vencor Hospital South, Inc. (Vencor), is the applicant for certificate of need (CON) No. 8614 to establish a 60-bed long term care hospital in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the state agency authorized to administer the CON program in Florida, preliminarily denied Vencor's CON application. On January 10, 1997, AHCA issued its decision in the form of a State Agency Action Report (SAAR) indicating, as it also did in its Proposed Recommended Order, that the Vencor application was denied primarily due to a lack of need for a long term care hospital in District 8, which includes Lee County. Vencor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vencor, Inc., a publicly traded corporation, founded in 1985 by a respiratory/physical therapist to provide care to catastrophically ill, ventilator-dependent patients. Initially, the corporation served patients in acute care hospitals, but subsequently purchased and converted free-standing facilities. In 1995, Vencor merged with Hillhaven, which operated 311 nursing homes. Currently, Vencor, its parent, and related corporations operate 60 long term care hospitals, 311 nursing homes, and 40 assisted living facilities in approximately 46 states. In Florida, Vencor operates five long term care hospitals, located in Tampa, St. Petersburg, North Florida (Green Cove Springs), Coral Gables, and Fort Lauderdale. Pursuant to the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, filed on October 2, 1997, the parties agreed that: On August 26, 1996, Vencor submitted to AHCA a letter of intent to file a Certificate of Need Application seeking approval for the construction of a 60-bed long term care hospital to be located in Fort Myers, AHCA Health Planning District 8; Vencor's letter of intent and board resolution meet requirements of Sections 408.037(4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, and were timely filed with both AHCA and the local health council, and notice was properly published; Vencor submitted to AHCA its initial Certificate of Need Application (CON Action No. 8614) for the proposed project on September 25, 1996, and submitted its Omissions Response on November 11, 1996; Vencor's Certificate of Need Application contains all of the minimum content items required in Section 408.037, Florida Statutes; Both Vencor's initial CON Application and its Omissions Response were timely filed with AHCA and the local health council. During the hearing, the parties also stipulated that Vencor's Schedule 2 is complete and accurate. In 1994, AHCA adopted rules defining long term care and long term care hospitals. Rule 59C-1.002(29), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: "Long term care hospital" means a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part 1, F.S., which meets the requirements of Part 412, Subpart B, paragraph 412.23(e), [C]ode of Federal Regulations (1994), and seeks exclusion from the Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services. Other rules distinguishing long term care include those related to conversions of beds and facilities from one type of health care to another. AHCA, the parties stipulated, has no rule establishing a uniform numeric need methodology for long term care beds and, therefore, no fixed need pool applicable to the review of Vencor's CON application. Numeric Need In the absence of any AHCA methodology or need publication, Vencor is required to devise its own methodology to demonstrate need. Rule 59C-1.008(e) provides in pertinent part: If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Vencor used a numeric need analysis which is identical to that prepared by the same health planner, in 1995, for St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. (St. Petersburg). The St. Petersburg project proposed that Vencor would manage the facility. Unlike the current proposal for new construction, St. Petersburg was a conversion of an existing but closed facility. AHCA accepted that analysis and issued CON 8213 to St. Petersburg. The methodology constitutes a use rate analysis, which calculates the use rate of a health service among the general population and applies that to the projected future population of the district. The use rate analysis is the methodology adopted in most of AHCA's numeric need rules. W. Eugene Nelson, the consultant health planner for Vencor, derived a historic utilization rate from the four districts in Florida in which Vencor operates long term care hospitals. That rate, 19.7 patient days per 1000 population, when applied to the projected population of District 8 in the year 2000, yields an average daily census of 64 patients. Mr. Nelson also compared the demographics of the seven counties of District 8 to the rest of the state, noting in particular the sizable, coastal population centers and the significant concentration of elderly, the population group which is disproportionately served in long term care hospitals. The proposed service area is all of District 8. By demonstrating the numeric need for 64 beds and the absence of any existing long term care beds in District 8, Vencor established the numeric need for its proposed 60-bed long term care hospital. See Final Order in DOAH Case No. 97-4419RU. Statutory Review Criteria Additional criteria for evaluating CON applications are listed in Subsections 408.035(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, and the rules which implement that statute. (1)(a) need in relation to state and district health plans. The 1993 State Health Plan, which predates the establishment of long term care rules, contains no specific preferences for evaluating CON applications for long term care hospitals. The applicable local plan is the District 8 1996-1997 Certificate of Need Allocation Factors Report, approved on September 9, 1996. The District 8 plan, like the State Health Plan, contains no mention of long term care hospitals. In the SAAR, AHCA applied the District 8 and state health plan criteria for acute care hospital beds to the review of Vencor's application for long term care beds, although agency rules define the two as different. The acute care hospital criteria are inapplicable to the review of this application for CON 8614 and, therefore, there are no applicable state or district health plan criteria for long term care. (1)(b) availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the district; and (1)(d) availability and adequacy of alternative health care facilities in the district. Currently, there are no long term care hospitals in District 8. The closest long term care hospitals are in Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Fort Lauderdale, all over 100 miles from Fort Myers. In the SAAR, approving the St. Petersburg facility, two long term care hospitals in Tampa were discussed as alternatives. By contract, the SAAR preliminarily denying Vencor's application lists as alternatives CMR facilities, nursing homes which accept Medicare patients, and hospital based skilled nursing units. AHCA examined the quantity of beds available in other health care categories in reliance on certain findings in the publication titled Subacute Care: Policy Synthesis And Market Area Analysis, a report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, on November 1, 1995, by Levin-VHI, Inc. ("the Lewin Report"). The Lewin Report notes the similarities between the type of care provided in long term care, CMR and acute care hospitals, and in hospital-based subacute care units, and subacute care beds in community nursing homes. The Lewin Report also acknowledges that "subacute care" is not well-defined. AHCA has not adopted the Lewin Report by rule, nor has it repealed its rules defining long term care as a separate and district health care category. For the reasons set forth in the Final Order issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order, AHCA may not rely on the Lewin Report to create a presumption that other categories are "like and existing" alternatives to long term care, or to consider services outside District 8 as available alternatives. Additionally, Vencor presented substantial evidence to distinguish its patients from those served in other types of beds. The narrow range of diagnostic related groups or DRGs served at Vencor includes patients with more medically complex multiple system failures than those in CMR beds. With an average length of stay of 60 beds, Vencor's patients are typically too sick to withstand three hours of therapy a day, which AHCA acknowledged as the federal criteria for CMR admissions. Vencor also distinguished its patients, who require 7 1/2 to 8 hours of nursing care a day, as compared to 2 1/2 to 3 hours a day in nursing homes. Similarly, the average length of stay in nursing home subacute units is less than 41 days. The DRG classifications which account for 80 percent of Vencor's admissions represent only 7 percent of admissions to hospital based skilled nursing units, and 10 to 11 percent of admissions to nursing home subacute care units. Vencor also presented the uncontroverted testimony of Katherine Nixon, a clinical case manager whose duties include discharge planning for open heart surgery for patients at Columbia-Southwest Regional Medical Center (Columbia-Southwest), an acute care hospital in Fort Myers. Ms. Nixon's experience is that 80 percent of open heart surgery patients are discharged home, while 20 percent require additional inpatient care. Although Columbia-Southwest has a twenty-bed skilled nursing unit with two beds for ventilator-dependent patients, those beds are limited to patients expected to be weaned within a week. Finally, Vencor presented results which are preliminary and subject to peer review from its APACHE (Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation) Study. Ultimately, Vencor expects the study to more clearly distinguish its patient population. In summary, Vencor demonstrated that a substantial majority of patients it proposes to serve are not served in alternative facilities, including CMR hospitals, hospital-based skilled nursing units, or subacute units in community nursing homes. Expert medical testimony established the inappropriateness of keeping patients who require long term care in intensive or other acute care beds, although that occurs in District 8 when patients refuse to agree to admissions too distant from their homes. (1)(c) ability and record of providing quality of care. The parties stipulated that Vencor's application complies with the requirement of Subsection 408.035(1)(c). (1)(e) probable economics of joint or shared resources; (1)(g) need for research and educational facilities; and (1)(j) needs of health maintenance organizations. The parties stipulated that the review criteria in Subsection 408.035(1)(e), (g) and (j) are not at issue. (f) need in the district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Based on the experiences of Katherine Nixon, it is not reasonable for long term care patients to access services outside District 8. Ms. Nixon also testified that patients are financially at a disadvantage if placed in a hospital skilled nursing unit rather than a long term care hospital. If a patient is not weaned as quickly as expected, Medicare reimbursement after twenty days decreases to 80 percent. In addition, the days in the hospital skilled nursing unit are included in the 100 day Medicare limit for post-acute hospitalization rehabilitation. By contrast, long term care hospitalization preserves the patient's ability under Medicare to have further rehabilitation services if needed after a subsequent transfer to a nursing home. (h) resources and funds, including personnel to accomplish project. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that Vencor has sufficient funds to accomplish the project, and properly documented its source of funds in Schedule 3 of the CON application. Vencor has a commitment for $10 million to fund this project of approximately $8.5 million. At the hearing, AHCA also agreed with Vencor that the staffing and salary schedule, Schedule 6, is reasonable. (i) immediate and long term financial feasibility of the proposal. Vencor has the resources to establish the project and to fund short term operating losses. Vencor also reasonably projected that revenues will exceed expenses in the second year of operation. Therefore, Vencor demonstrated the short and long term financial feasibility of its proposal. needs of entities serving residents outside the district. Vencor is not proposing that any substantial portion of it services will benefit anyone outside District 8. probable impact on costs of providing health services; effects of competition. There is no evidence of an adverse impact on health care costs. There is preliminary data from the APACHE study which tends to indicate the long term care costs are lower than acute care costs. No adverse effects of competition are shown and AHCA did not dispute the fact that Vencor's proposal is supported by acute care hospitals in District 8. costs and methods of proposed construction; and (2)((a)-(c) less costly alternatives to proposed capital expenditure. The prehearing stipulation includes agreement that the design is reasonable, and that proposed construction costs are below the median in that area. past and proposed service to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Vencor has a history of providing Medicaid and indigent care in the absence of any legal requirements to do so. The conditions proposed of 3 percent of total patient days Medicaid and 2 percent for indigent/charity patients proposed by Vencor are identical to those AHCA accepted in issuing CON 8213 to St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. Vencor's proposed commitment is reasonable and appropriate, considering AHCA's past acceptance and the fact that the vast majority of long term care patients are older and covered by Medicare. services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system. While Vencor's services are needed due to a gap in the continuum of care which exists in the district, it has not shown that it will be a part of a multilevel system in District 8. (2)(d) that patients will experience serious problems obtaining the inpatient care proposed. Patients experience and will continue to experience serious problems in obtaining long term care in District 8 in the absence of the project proposed by Vencor. Based on the overwhelming evidence of need, and the ability of the applicant to establish and operate a high quality program with no adverse impacts on other health care providers, Vencor meets the criteria for issuance of CON 8614.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue CON 8614 to Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., to construct a 60-bed long term care hospital in Fort Myers, Lee County, District 8. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kim A. Kellum, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's applications for certificates of need to institute cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert M. Eisenberg District IV Legal Counsel Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Charles Collette Art Forehand, Administrator Assistant General Counsel Office of Community Medical Department of HRS Facilities 1317 Winewood Boulevard Department of HRS Tallahassee, Florida 32301 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
