The Issue The issues under consideration concern the request by Petitioner, Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center (Brookwood) to be granted a certificate of need for dual certification of skilled and immediate care nursing home beds associated with the second review cycle in 1987. See Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1987 Brookwood filed an application with HRS seeking to expand its facility in Graceville, Jackson County, Florida, one with 120 licensed beds and 30 beds approved effective June 12, 1986, to one with 30 additional beds for a total of 180 beds. Beds being sought in this instance were upon dual certification as skilled and intermediate nursing home beds. The nursing home is located in Subdistrict A to District II which is constituted of Gadsden, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. This applicant is associated with Brookwood, Investments, a Georgia corporation qualified to do business and registered in the State of Florida and other states in the southeastern United States. That corporation has as its principal function the development and operation of nursing homes and other forms of residential placement of the elderly. The actual ownership of the applicant nursing home is through a general partnership. Kenneth Gummels is one of two partners who own the facility. The Brookwood group has a number of nursing home facilities which it operates in the southeastern United States. Florida facilities that it operates are found in DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida; Panama City, Bay County, Florida; Chipley, Washington County, Florida; Homestead, Dade County, Florida; Hialeah Gardens, Dade County, Florida, as well as the present applicant's facility. The applicant as to the beds which it now operates, serves Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Administration, private pay and other third party pay patients. The number of Medicaid patients in the 120 licensed beds is well in excess of 90 percent. The ratio of Medicaid patients with the advent of the 30 approved beds was diminished. As to those beds, 75 percent were attributed to Medicaid. If the 30 beds now sought were approved, the projection is for 87 percent private pay and 13 percent Medicaid for those new beds. The nursing home administration feels that the new beds must be vied for under those ratios in order for it to continue to be able to serve a high number of Medicaid patients, an observation which has not been refuted by the Respondent. Nonetheless, if these beds are approved the percentage of Medicaid patients would be reduced to the neighborhood of 80 percent within the facility which compares to the approximately 81 percent experience of Medicaid beds within the district at present and the approximately 88 percent of Medicaid beds within the subdistrict at present. The cost of the addition of the 30 beds in question would be $495,000. Financial feasibility of this project has been stipulated to by the parties assuming that need is found for the addition of those beds. The basic area within the Florida panhandle wherein the applicant facility may be found, together with other facilities in the Florida panhandle is depicted in a map found at page 101 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This map also shows that a second licensed nursing home facility is located in Jackson County in Marianna, Florida, known as Marianna Convalescent Center. The applicant facility is directly below the Alabama-Florida border, immediately south of Dothan, Alabama, a metropolitan community. The significance of the relative location of the applicant's facility to Dothan, Alabama concerns the fact that since 1984 roughly 50 percent of its nursing home patients have been from out-of-state, the majority of those out-of-state patients coming from Alabama. Alabama is a state which has had a moratorium on the approval of new nursing home beds for eight years. The proximity of one of that state's relatively high population areas, Dothan, Alabama, has caused its patients to seek nursing home care in other places such as the subject facility. The applicant has encouraged that arrangement by its business practices. Among the services provided by the nursing home facility are physical therapy, physical examination and treatment, dietary services, laundry, medical records, recreational activity programs and, by the use of third party consultants, occupational and social therapy and barber and beauty services, as well as sub-acute care. The facility is adjacent to the Campbellton-Graceville Hospital in Graceville, Florida. The nursing home was developed sometime in 1978 or 1979 with an original complement of 90 beds expanding to 120 beds around 1983 or 1984. The Chamber of Commerce of Marianna, Florida had held the certificate of need upon the expectation that grant funds might be available to conclude the project. When that did not materialize, the County Commissioners of Jackson County, Florida sought the assistance of Brookwood Investments and that organization took over the development of the 90 beds. The original certificate holder voluntarily terminated and the Brookwood partnership then took over after receiving a certificate of need for Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center. The nursing home in Marianna, Florida which is located about 16 miles from Graceville has 180 beds having undergone a 60 bed expansion several years ago. Concerning the Brookwood organization's nursing home beds in Florida, the Walton County Convalescent Center was a 100 bed facility that expanded to 120 beds at a later date and has received permission to expand by another 32 beds approved in the same review cycle associated with the present applicant. Gulf Coast Convalescent Center in Panama City, is a 120 bed facility of Brookwood. Brookwood also has the Washington County Convalescent Center in Washington County, in particular in Chipley, Florida which has 180 beds. That facility was expanded by 60 beds as licensed in October, 1987 and those additional beds have been occupied by patients. Brookwood has a 120 bed facility in Homestead and a 180 bed facility in Hialeah Gardens. With the exception of its two South Florida facilities in Homestead and Hialeah Gardens, recent acquisitions under joint ownership, the Brookwood group has earned a superior performance rating in its Florida facilities. No attempt has been made by this applicant to utilize the 30 beds which were approved, effective June 12, 1986. Its management prefers to await the outcome in this dispute before determining its next action concerning the 30 approved beds. The applicant asserted that the 30 beds that had been approved would be quickly occupied based upon experience in nursing home facilities within Subdistrict A to District II following the advent of nursing home bed approval. That surmise is much less valuable than the real life experience and does not lend effective support for the grant of the certificate of need in this instance. The waiting list for the 120 licensed beds in the facility has been reduced to five names. This was done in recognition of the fact that there is very limited patient turnover within the facility. Therefore, to maintain a significant number of people on the waiting list would tend to frustrate the sponsors for those patients and social workers who assist in placement if too many names were carried on the waiting list. At the point in time when the hearing was conducted, the facility was not in a position to accept any patients into its 120 licensed facility. This condition of virtually 100 percent occupancy has been present since about 1984 or 1985. The applicant has transfer agreements with Campbellton-Graceville Hospital and with two hospitals in Dothan, Alabama, they are Flower's Hospital and Southeast Alabama Medical Center. The applicant also has a transfer agreement with the Marianna Community Hospital in Marianna, Florida. The referral arrangements with the Alabama hospitals were made by the applicant in recognition of the proximity of those hospitals to the nursing home facility and the belief in the need to conduct its business, which is the provision of nursing home care, without regard for the patient origin. Early on in its history with the nursing home, Brookwood promised and attempted in some fashion to primarily serve the needs of Jackson County, Florida residents, but the explanation of its more recent activities in this regard does not portray any meaningful distinction between service to the Jackson County residents and to those from other places, especially Alabama. This reflects the concern expressed by Kenneth Gummels, owner and principal with the applicant nursing home, who believes that under federal law the nursing home may not discriminate between citizens in Florida and Alabama when considering placement in the nursing home. In this connection, during 1987 the experience within the applicant nursing home was to the effect that for every patient admitted from Florida five Florida patients were turned away. By contrast, to deal with the idea of priority of placing patients some effort was made by Gummels to explain how priority is still given to Jackson County residents in the placement for nursing home care. Again, in the end analysis, there does not seem to be any meaningful difference in approach and this is evidenced by the fact that the level of out-of-state patients in the facility has remained relatively constant after 1984. If there was some meaningful differentiation in the placement of Florida patients and those from out-of-state, one would expect to see a change in the number of patients from out-of-state reflecting a downward trend. As described, historically the experience which Brookwood has had with the facility occupancy rates is one of high utilization except for brief periods of time when additional beds were added at the facility or in the Marianna Nursing Home. At time of the application the primary service area for the applicant was Jackson County with a secondary service area basically described as a 25 mile radius outside of Graceville extending into Alabama and portions of Washington and Holmes Counties. As stated, at present the occupancy rate is as high as it has ever been, essentially 100 percent, with that percentage only decreasing on those occasions where beds come empty based upon transfers between nursing homes or between the nursing home and a hospital or related to the death of a resident. Those vacancies are filled through the waiting list described or through recommendations of physicians who have a referral association with the facility. The patients who are in the facility at the place of consideration of this application were 50 percent from Florida and 50 percent from out-of-state, of which 56 of the 60 out-of-state patients were formerly from Alabama, with one patient being from Ohio and three others from Georgia. More specifically, related to the history of out-of-state patients coming to reside in the nursing home, in 1984 basically 25 percent patients were from Alabama, moving from there into 1985 at 47 percent of the patient population from Alabama, in 1986 50 percent from Alabama, in 1987 48 percent from Alabama and in 1988 the point of consideration of the case at hearing the figure was 47 percent of Alabama patients, of the 50 percent patients described in the preceding paragraph. Of the patients who are in the facility from Florida, the majority of those are believed to be from Jackson County. Those patients who come to Florida from Alabama, by history of placement, seem to be put in the applicant's facility in Graceville as a first choice because it is closest to the Dothan, Alabama area. The next preference appears to be Chipley and the Brookwood nursing home facility in Chipley, and thence to Bonifay and then to other places in the Florida panhandle, in particular Panama City. In the Brookwood-Washington County facility at Chipley, Florida 35 percent of the patients are from Alabama which tends to correspond to the observation that the Alabama placements as they come into Florida are highest in Graceville and decrease in other places. This is further borne out by the experience in the Brookwood-Walton County facility at DeFuniak Springs, Florida which has an Alabama patient percentage of approximately 10 to 12 percent. When the nursing home facilities in Chipley and Bonifay received 60 additional beds each in October, 1987, they began to experience rapid occupancy in those beds as depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at pages 228 through 230. The other facility in Jackson County, namely Jackson County Convalescent Center, within the last six months has shown an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent, thereby being unavailable to attend the needs of additional Jackson County patients who need placement and other patients within the subdistrict. This same basic circumstance has existed in other facilities within Subdistrict A to District II. When the applicant is unable to place patients in its facility it then attempts placement in Chipley, Bonifay, DeFuniak Springs, and Panama City, Florida, and from there to other places as nearby as possible. The proximity of the patient to family members and friends is important for therapeutic reasons in that the more remote the patient placement from family and friends, the more difficult it is for the family and friends to provide support which is a vital part of the therapy. Consequently, this is a significant issue. Notwithstanding problems in achieving a more desirable placement for some patients who must find space in outlying locales, there was no showing of the inability to place a patient who needed nursing home care. Most of the Alabama referrals are Medicaid referrals. Those patient referrals are treated like any other resident within the nursing home related to that payment class for services. Effectively, they are treated in the same way as patients who have come from locations within Florida to reside in the nursing home. Notwithstanding the management choice to delay its use of the 30 approved beds dating from June 12, 1986, which were challenged and which challenge was resolved in the fall, 1987, those beds may not be ignored in terms of their significance. They must be seen as available for patient placement. The fact that the experience in this service area has been such that beds fill up rapidly following construction does not change this reality. This circumstance becomes more significant when realizing that use of the needs formula for the project at issue reveals a surplus of 19 beds in Subdistrict A to District II for the planning horizon associated with July, 1990. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The 19 bed surplus takes into account the 30 approved beds just described. Having recognized the inability to demonstrate need by resort to the formula which is found within the rule's provision referenced in the previous paragraph, the applicant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to a certificate through reference to what it calls "special circumstances." Those circumstances are variously described as: Patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. Lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds. High rate of poverty, Medicaid utilization and occupancy. Jackson County Convalescent Center utilization by out-of- state patients. The applicant in asking for special relief relies upon the recommendation of the Big Bend Health Council, District II in its health plan and the Statewide Health Council remarks, whose suggestions would modify the basis for calculation of need found in the HRS rule with more emphasis being placed on the adjustment for poverty. Those suggestions for health planning are not controlling. The HRS rule takes precedence. Consequently, those suggestions not being available to substitute for the HRS rule, Petitioner is left to demonstrate the "special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" in the context of the HRS rule and Section 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1985). Compliance per se with local and statewide planning ideas is required in the remaining instances where those precepts do not conflict with the HRS rule and statute concerning the need calculations by formula. Turning to the claim for an exception to the rule on need, the first argument is associated with the patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. This would be preferable but is not mandated. On the topic of this second reason for exceptions to the need formula, the matter is not so much a lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds as it is an argument which is to the effect that there are no beds available be they licensed or approved. This theory is not convincing for reasons to be discussed, infra. Next, there is an extremely high rate of poverty in District II. It has the highest rate of poverty in the state. Moreover Subdistrict A to District II has an even greater degree of poverty and this equates to high Medicaid use and contributes to high occupancy. This coincides with the observation by the Big Bend Health Council when it takes issue with the HRS methodology rule concerning recognition of the significance of poverty within the HRS rule and the belief by the local health council that given the high poverty rates in District II some adjustments should be made to the need formula in the HRS rule. Under its theory, 161 additional beds would be needed at the planning horizon for July 1990 in Subdistrict A. Concerning the attempt by the applicant to make this rationalization its own, the record does not reflect reason to defer to the Big Bend Health Council theory as an exception to the normal poverty adjustment set forth in the HRS rule. When the applicant describes the effects of the out-of-state patients, in particularly those from Alabama in what some have described as in-migration, it argues that Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code makes no allowance for those influences. The applicant chooses to describe these beds, the beds used by out-of-state residents, as unavailable or Inaccessible. This concept of inaccessibility is one which departs from the definition of inaccessibility set forth at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. The specific exception to the requirement for compliance with the numeric need methodology in demonstration of a net need is set forth in that reference, and the proof presented did not show entitlement to the benefits of that exception. That leaves the applicant arguing in favor of recognition of its entitlement to a certificate of need premised upon a theory not specifically announced in that reference. This is the in-migration idea. It ties in the basic idea of poverty but does not depend on rigid adherence to the Big Bend Health Council idea of a substitute element in the HRS needs formula related to poverty. It also promotes the significance of problems which a number of physicians, who testified by deposition in this case, observed when attempting to place patients in the subject nursing home and other nursing homes in the surrounding area. They found high occupancy rates in the present facility and others within Subdistrict A to District II. These problems with placement as described by the physicians can have short term adverse effects on the patient and the family members, but they are not sufficient reason to grant the certification. In considering the formula for deriving need as promulgated by HRS, the proof does not seem to suggest that the nursing home residents themselves who came from out-of-state are excluded from the population census for Florida. On the other hand, unlike the situation in Florida in which the population at large is considered in trying to anticipate future nursing home bed needs, it make no assumptions concerning the Alabama population at large. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether this unknown factor, given the history of migration of patients from Alabama into Florida and in particular into the subject nursing home, together with other relevant considerations, may properly form the basis for granting the certificate of need to the applicant. It is concluded that there is a fundamental difference in the situation found within this application compared to other planning areas within Florida which do not have to contend with the level of poverty, the proximity to Alabama and the advent of Alabama placements in this nursing home, the high occupancy rates in the subdistrict and the resulting difficulty in placement of patients near their homes. Posed against this troublesome circumstance is the fact that the applicant has failed to use its 30 approved beds or to make a decision for such use, that it had invited and continues to invite the placement of Alabama residents through the referral arrangements with the two Dothan, Alabama hospitals, realizing that such an arrangement tends to exclude opportunities for Florida residents to some extent, and the recognition that patients are being placed; that is patients are not going without nursing home care. The two Alabama hospitals with whom the applicant has referral agreements provide a substantial number of the patients who are admitted. This recount acknowledges what the ownership considers to be their obligation in law and morally to serve the interest of all patients without regard for their home of origin; however, the thrust of the certificate of need licensing process in Florida is to develop the apparatus necessary to service the needs of Florida residents, not Alabama residents. This does not include the necessity of trying to redress the circumstance which appears to exist in Alabama in which the government in that state is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of its citizens. On balance, the applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient reason to depart from the normal requirements of statute and rule, which departure would have as much benefit for Alabama residents as it would for Florida Residents. Contrary to the applicant's assertions it could legitimately de-emphasize its association with Alabama. It has chosen not to and should not be indulged In this choice in an enterprise which is not sufficiently related to the needs of Florida residents to condone the licensure of the beds sought, even when other factors described are taken into account. The applicant has also alluded to a certificate of need request made by Walton County Convalescent Center, a Brookwood facility in District I which sought a certificate of need in the same batch which pertains to the present applicant. The application and the review and comment by HRS may be found within Composite Exhibit 2 by the Petitioner admitted as evidence. Petitioner asserts that the Walton County experience in which 32 beds were granted is so similar to the present case that it would be inappropriate for the agency to act inconsistently in denying the present applicant after having granted a certificate of need to the Walton County applicant. Without making a line-by- line comparison, it suffices to say that in many respects these projects are similar. In other respects they are not. On the whole, it cannot be found that the agency is acting unfairly in denying the present applicant while granting a certificate to the applicant in the Walton County case. The differences are substantial enough to allow the agency to come to the conclusion that the present applicant should be denied and the applicant in Walton County should have its certificate granted. Likewise, no procedural impropriety on the part of HRS in its review function has been shown.
The Issue The parties have stipulated that Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party" as defined in Section 57.111, F.S., and that the attorney fees requested are reasonable, up to the $15,000.00 statutory limit. The issue remaining for resolution is whether the expungement proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by [the] state agency", as provided in Section 57.111, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are adduced from the record, consisting of the transcript and exhibits in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C, from the stipulations of the parties, and from the final order of the agency adopting the recommended order of Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers, dated March 20, 1990. Petitioners are sole proprietors of Forest Haven, an unincorporated adult congregate living facility (ACLF) licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, F.S., and located at 8207 Forest City Road, Orlando, Florida. Petitioners and Forest Haven have their principal office in Orlando, Florida and are domiciled in Orlando, Florida. They have less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of less than $2 million. On March 17, 1989, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) survey team visited Forest Haven to conduct an annual survey of the facility. The survey team was comprised of 10 persons, enlarged due to a training exercise. Several of the team members were registered nurses; several members were Office of Licensure and Certification supervisors. During the course of the visit and observations of the residents, members of the team determined that eight residents required a higher level of care than could be provided at the ACLF. As found in the recommended order adopted by the agency, the basis for this determination was, As to T.M., age 81, the need for a restraining vest, and the existence of bruises and gashes on the face and head; As to H.L., age 89, the presence of a foley catheter, total disorientation, low weight and poor skin turgor (brittle skin); As to F.W., age 72, the presence of a foley catheter, observation of fresh blood in the catheter bag, and low body weight; As to M.B., age 81, incontinence and nonambulatory status; As to R.T., age 84, a foley catheter and contraction of both legs; As to L.O., age 94, edema of lower extremities, contracture of both knees, low body weight, skin tear on left buttocks, and possible bed sore on right buttocks; As to P.B., age 88, incontinence, low body weight, and inability to transfer from wheelchair to bed without assistance; and As to F.H., age 89, one-half inch bed sore on coccyx, pitting edema of legs, incontinence and somewhat confused state. An adult protective services investigator was summoned, as well as law enforcement personnel, and the above residents were removed from the facility on an emergency basis and were placed in a nursing home. They were evaluated at the nursing home the following day by Carolyn Lyons, a Registered Nurse Specialist with HRS, who found that intermediate or skilled nursing home services were required. A ninth resident, C.K., was evaluated by a medical review team nurse and an adult protective services worker at the ACLF on March 20, 1989, and was removed from the facility and placed in a nursing home the same day. C.K., age 89, was found to be confused, incontinent, with bruises, a swollen foot, non- ambulatory, and with a red rash on the trunk of her body. HRS obtained orders from the Circuit Court to provide protective services for seven of the above-mentioned residents. Of the remaining two, one was competent to consent to the nursing home placement and another was returned to his own home by relatives. On March 22, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Annette Hair, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. of the eight residents who had been removed from the ACLF. She relied on her own observations of the individuals, on the medical assessments performed by the survey team nurses at the ACLF, and the subsequent assessment of Carolyn Lyons, the HRS staff person responsible for making an evaluation of the level of care required for medicaid nursing home placement. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Hair's report provides, in pertinent part: * * * Based on the facts obtained during the course of this investigation this case is being classified as CONFIRMED. In accordance with F.S. Section 415.102(4) it is clearly estab- lished that [S. and J.G.] were the caregivers of the eight alleged victims of this report as they had been entrusted with the care of said individuals. The allegation of neglect is verified for each of the eight alleged victims in that [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the care and service necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of an aged person that a prudent person would deem essential for the well-being of an aged person (F.S. Section 415.102(13)). Specifically each of the eight alleged victims has a medical condition which required twenty-four hour skilled nursing care and supervision which the caregivers, [S. and J.G.] failed to provide for said individuals. Five of the eight alleged victims, [H.L., L.O., T.M., F.H. and P.B.] had Scabies (a highly contagious disease caused by parasitic mites that burrow under the skin. This disease is associated with unsanitary conditions and causes a painful itch). [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the supervision necessary to detect this disease and in so doing jeopardized the health and well-being of the other residents in the facility. [H.L.] in addition to having Scabies, was semi-comatose, had bed sores on her buttocks and pelvic area and had a foley catheter. [T.M.] had open lacerations on her face, was extremely mentally confused and was known to wander and fall which required her to be physically restrained. [L.O.] had two open skin areas and Edema. [M.B.] has an excoriated area on her buttocks, Edema of the feet, and her right knee was swollen. [R.T.] had a cough of unknown origin, contraction of both legs, and an in-dwelling catheter. [F.W.] had an in-dwelling catheter which was draining bloody urine and appeared malnourished. [P.B.] appeared malnourished and was incontinent of both bowels and bladder, was extremely confused, and had an open draining wound. [F.H.] had bed sores, and Pitting Edema in addition to Scabies. [S. and J.G.], in addition to being negligent for failing to provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of the alleged victims, were in direct violation of F.S. Section 400.426(1) as they did not perform their responsibility of determining the appropriateness of residence of said individuals in their facility. (Petitioner's exhibit 2, in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) On April 4, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Kathleen C. Schirhman, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. She relied on her own assessment of the resident, and on the medical assessments by Nurse Lyons, and by medical staff at the receiving nursing home, including a physician, Dr. Parsons. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Schirhman's report provides: Based upon the facts obtained during the course of this investigation, both alle- gations of medical neglect and other neglect were determined to be verified, and the case is being classified as CONFIRMED. [J.G. and S.G.] assumed the responsibility of care for [C.K.] and, therefore, became her caregivers. They did not provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of [C.K.] that a prudent person would deem essential for her well-being. She required medical services and nursing supervision in a skilled nursing facility. Pursuant to F.S. 400.426 "the owner or Admini- strator of a facility is responsible for determining the appropriateness of admission of an individual to the facility and for deter- mining the continued appropriateness of resi- dence of an individual in the facility." The assessment by the CARES nurse determined that [C.K.] was being medically neglected, because she required 24 hour nursing care, which she was not receiving. She had Scabies, for which she was not being treated. The CARES nurse believed that the alleged victim was at risk and requiring immediate nursing home placement. Allegation of "other neglect" was added to the original report. [C.K.] was being neglected, because she was a total transfer patient, who required restraints, which were not used and cannot be used in an ACLF. Furthermore, the potential for harm to her was great: She was blind, confused, and unable to self-preserve. (Petitioner's exhibit number 1 in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) S.G. and J.G. requested expungement of the reports but the request was denied on July 10, 1989. Thereafter, through counsel, they made a timely request for a formal evidentiary hearing. The hearing was conducted on February 14 and 15, 1990, by DOAH Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers. Depositions of David J. Parsons, M.D. and Gideon Lewis, M.D. were filed after the hearing, by leave of the Hearing Officer. In his recommended order issued on March 20, 1990, Hearing Officer Ayers found that the HRS investigators did not contact the physicians who had signed the admissions forms when each of the residents at issue had been admitted to the ACLF. Nor did the HRS staff obtain records from the home health agency which, at the treating physicians' direction, was providing, or had provided, home health care to most of the residents at Forest Haven. Skin lesions (decubitus) and scabies were found to be frequently present in nursing home and ACLF residents. Edema and underweight conditions are also common in these residents. Dr. Lewis, the treating physician for most of the residents at Forest Haven, had ordered the vest restraint for T.M.'s protection. He had also written to HRS about a year prior to the survey, recommending that efforts be made to relocate H.L. to a skilled nursing facility. The recommended order found that no evidence of exploitation or neglect, other than medical neglect, was presented at the hearing. The order also found that evidence of medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. was not presented, but rather, "[t]o the contrary, the evidence was unrebutted that Respondents [Petitioners in this proceeding] promptly reported to the resident's physician all changes in the resident's physical condition." The agency's final order was filed on May 29, 1990, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law recommended by Hearing Officer Ayers, and granting J.G. and S.G.'s requests for expungement. The Final Order addressed the department's exceptions to the recommended order, as follows: RULING ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT The dispositive issue is whether retention of a resident (or residents) in an ACLF whose medical condition is more serious than the established criteria for residence in an ACLF (see Section 10A-5.0181, Florida Administra- tive Code for the criteria) constitutes per se neglect under Chapter 415. Inappropriate retention of a resident may constitute grounds for disciplinary sanctions under the licensure rules, but it does not automatically consti- tute abuse under Chapter 415. See State vs. E. N. G., Case Number 89-3306C (HRS 2/13/90). The evidence of medical neglect was based on the inappropriate retention of certain resi- dents. The Hearing Officer's finding that these residents were not medically neglected is based on competent, substantial evidence; therefore, the department is obligated to accept this finding. Johnson vs. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), B. B. vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 542 So2d 1362 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989). In pursuing expungement, Petitioners incurred fees, costs and interest in the total amount of $22,772.49. The amount of interest included in that total is $1,000.91. As stipulated, the fees, up to the $15,000.00 statutory maximum, are reasonable.
The Issue Whether a certificate of need for an additional 60 nursing home beds to be located in Sarasota County, Florida, in July, 1990, should be granted to any of the four competing certificate of need applicants in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact Procedural. Arbor, Health Quest, HCR, Trecor and fourteen other applicants filed certificate of need applications with the Department in the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle of the Department for Sarasota County. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed a letter of intent with the Department within the time required for the filing of letters of intent for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed their certificate of need application within the time required for the filing of certificate of need applications for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. The applications were deemed complete by the Department. The Department completed its State Agency Action Report for the October, 1987, nursing home bed review cycle on February 19, 1988. The State Agency Action Report relevant to these cases was published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 4, 1988. The Department proposed to approve the certificate of need application filed by Trecor and to deny all other applications. Eleven of the applicants whose certificate of need applications were denied by the Department filed Petitions pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the Department's proposed action. All of the Petitioner's except the three Petitioners in these cases withdrew their Petitions. The Parties. The Department. The Department is the agency responsible for reviewing certificate of need applications for or nursing home beds to be located in Sarasota County, Florida. Arbor. Arbor is a nursing home company that designs, develops, constructs and operates nursing homes. Arbor's corporate headquarters are located in Lima, Ohio. Arbor owns and operates eighteen nursing home and adult congregate living facilities comprising approximately 2,218 beds. In Florida, Arbor owns Lake Highlands Nursing and Retirement Center in Clermont, The Village at Brandon, and The Village at Countryside. In Florida, Arbor is currently developing certificate of need approved facilities in Clay, Orange, Polk, Pinellas and Sarasota Counties. Arbor formed Sarasota Health Center, Inc., to hold the certificate of need it is seeking in this proceeding. Although this corporation is in form the applicant, Arbor is in substance the applicant in these proceedings. Health Quest. Health Quest is an Indiana corporation which has been in the business of constructing and operating nursing homes and retirement housing facilities for approximately twenty years. Health Quest currently operates eleven nursing centers and three retirement housing developments. In Florida, Health Quest operates three nursing centers and two retirement housing developments. The nursing centers are located in Sarasota, Jacksonville and Boca Raton, Florida. The Jacksonville center is located adjacent to, and is operated in conjunction with, a retirement facility. The facility located in Sarasota is Regents Park of Sarasota (hereinafter referred to as "Regents Park"), a 53-bed sheltered nursing center. Regents Park is located at Lake Pointe Woods, a Health Quest retirement community, which includes 212 independent living apartments and 110 assisted living apartments. The assisted living apartments qualify as an adult congregate living facility. The 53 sheltered nursing home beds are authorized as part of a living care complex pursuant to Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. Health Quest has received approval from the Department to locate 60 nursing home beds, which Health Quest has received as part of a certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds, at Regents Park. The other 120 approved nursing home beds will be located at another facility to be constructed in Sarasota County by Health Quest. Health Quest also has two other projects under construction in Florida: a new facility in Winter Park, Florida, and a new facility in Sunrise, Florida. HCR. HCR is a corporation engaging in the business of designing, developing, constructing and operating nursing homes and related facilities. HCR is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Owens Illinois Corporation. HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds. HCR has designed and built over 200 nursing homes and related health care facilities. 24 HCR owns and operates ten nursing homes in Florida, including Kensington Manor, a 147-bed nursing center located in Sarasota County, Florida. HCR also has ten other projects being developed in Florida. Trecor. Trecor is a Florida corporation formed to engage in the business of developing and operating facilities within the full spectrum of the health care industry. Trecor was founded in 1985 when it acquired Burzenski Nursing Home (hereinafter referred to as "Burzenski"). Trecor does not own or operate any other health care facility. Burzenski is an existing nursing home with 60 dually certified beds located in the City of Sarasota. The facility was built in 1955 as a private residence. An addition to the facility was constructed in 1962. The Proposals. Arbor's Proposal. Pursuant to a stipulation with the Department dated September 9, 1987, Arbor received certificate of need 4182. Certificate of need 4182 authorizes Arbor to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. 20. Arbor's approved 60-bed nursing home facility will consist of 18,000 gross square feet. Costs of $2,200,000.00 have been approved by the Department in the certificate of need issued for the facility. Arbor intends to develop certificate of need 4182 by building a facility large enough for 120 beds. This facility will house the approved 60 nursing home beds and, if Arbor's application in this case is not approved, an additional 60 beds, licensed as adult congregate living facility beds. In this proceeding Arbor is requesting approval of a proposed conversion of the 60 adult congregate living facility beds to 60 nursing home beds. Arbor has proposed the construction of an additional 18,000 gross square feet to house the additional 60 nursing home beds sought in this proceeding. The proposed cost of the proposal is $2,380,000.00. The total cost of 120 bed facility will be $4,580,000.00. Health Quest's Proposal. Health Quest is seeking approval to convert its 53 sheltered nursing center beds at Regents Park to nursing home beds and to add 7 nursing home beds. The 60 nursing home beds are to be housed in the new community nursing home facility at Regents Park. The beds will be housed in 30,945 square foot of the Regents Park facility. Health Quest also intends to add 60 nursing home beds, which have already been approved by the Department, to Regents Park. The certificate of need application filed by Health Quest indicates that its proposal involves no capital costs. This is incorrect. There will be minimal costs associated with the addition of the 7 additional nursing home beds being sought by Health Quest which it has failed to include in its proposal. Health Quest did not present evidence concerning the total cost of the facility it plans to use to house the proposed 60 beds or the cost of the 60 beds already approved by the Department which it plans to add to Regents Park. HCR's Proposal. HCR is seeking approval to construct a new, freestanding 60-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. HCR's proposal also includes a 31-bed adult congregate living facility. The nursing home component will consist of 25,600 gross square feet (including 2,300 square feet to be used for adult day care). The total facility will consist of 43,000 gross square feet. Total capital cost for the nursing home component is estimated to be $2,519,000.00. The total cost, including the costs attributable to proposed adult day care services, is $2,657,000.00. The cost of the 31-bed adult congregate living portion of the project will be $1,800,000.00. The total cost of HCR's planned facility is $4,457,000.00. Trecor's Proposal. Trecor is seeking approval to construct a 60-bed addition to the Burzenski 60-bed nursing home. Burzenski is located at 4450 Eighth Street, Sarasota, Florida. The building in which the existing 60 nursing home beds are housed will be replaced by Trecor with a new building. The existing Burzenski building has out-lived its useful life and contains several structural deficiencies. Operations are severely restricted and inefficient. Existing three and four bed wards limit the placement of residents. The existing building does not comply with all current licensure requirements. The noncompliance, however, was "grandfathered" in. In order to replace its existing building with a modern building which meets all current licensure requirements, Trecor applied for a certificate of need in 1985 to build a replacement facility on an adjoining parcel of real estate for which Trecor held an option to purchase at the time. This application was approved on December 4, 1985. After an error by Trecor caused the time established for exercising the certificate of need to pass and a requested six-month extension of the certificate of need was denied by the Department, the certificate of need to construct the replacement facility lapsed. Another application for a replacement facility was filed in January, 1987. This application was approved by the Department in May, 1987. The replacement facility was not, however, constructed. Subsequently, in April and May, 1988, the Department determined that replacement of the existing building was exempt from certificate of need review. Trecor now proposes to add 60 nursing home beds at the same time that it builds its replacement facility for its existing 60 nursing home beds. The new nursing home beds will be housed on a second floor to be built on the replacement facility. In Trecor's application for (30 additional nursing home beds, Trecor has proposed the addition of 12,061 gross square feet to its replacement facility and a project cost of $885,210.00. The cost of Trecor's replacement facility will be $1,303,424.00 plus a $1,400,000.00 debt on the existing building. The total cost of Trecor's 120 bed facility will be $3,588,634.00. Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need. Pursuant to the need methodology of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k)(2), Florida Administrative Code, there is a need for an additional 75 community nursing home beds for Sarasota County for July, 1990, the planning horizon applicable in these cases. All of the applicants have agreed with the Department's determination of the need for additional nursing home beds for Sarasota County. All of the applicants are seeking to provide 60 of the needed nursing home beds. The District Health Plan. The district health plan for the Department's District 8, which includes Sarasota County, provides certain standards and criteria to be considered in determining community nursing home care need. The policy guidelines and their application, if applicable to the applicants in this proceeding, are as follows: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. Sarasota County is a separate planning subdistrict for community nursing home beds. Therefore, this guideline should be applied to Sarasota County. All of the applicants will increase the availability of nursing home services to the residents of Sarasota County. Community nursing home beds should be geographically distributed throughout the counties of District Eight to promote optimal availability and accessibility. The 2,264 existing licensed and 283 approved community nursing home beds located, or to be located in Sarasota County, are already geographically distributed throughout Sarasota County. All of the applicants will increase geographic distribution of beds throughout Sarasota County, regardless of where they may be located. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy g. occupational therapy laboratory h. physical therapy x-ray i. speech therapy dental care j. mental health counseling visual care k. social services diet therapy l. medical services All of the applicants will meet thin guideline. New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. The applicants have proposed to provide the following percentage of care to Medicaid patients: Arbor: 45% Health Quest: 16.7% HCR: 42% Burzenski: 59% 1st Year; 60% 2d Year. All of the applicants except Health Quest comply with this guideline. Community nursing home facilities in District Eight should expand their financial base to include as many reimbursement mechanisms as are available to them including Medicare, Medicaid, Champus, VA, and other third-party payers, and private pay. This guideline applies to existing facilities. None of the applicants are proposing to "expand their financial bases" in the manner suggested in this guideline. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. This guideline has been filled. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable services areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. Existing facilities cannot reasonably meet the need for the 75 additional nursing home beds in Sarasota County for July, 1990. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. All of the applicants meets this guideline. Expansion of existing facilities to 120 beds should be given priority over construction of new facilities in the health service area. The proposals of Arbor, Health Quest and Trecor meet this guideline. The proposal of HCR does not meet this guideline. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. All of the applicants meet, or will meet, this guideline. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up service with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Nursing home services should be within at least one hour typical travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of all residents of District Eight. This guideline is not applicable. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Health Quest meets this guideline less than the other applicants because of its minimal Medicaid commitment. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Health Quest has not, however, provided Medicaid care at Regents Park. Health Quest does provide Medicaid at all its other nursing centers and will obtain Medicaid certification at Regents Park if its application for a certificate of need in this case is approved. Medicare is not provided at Burzenski at this time. Burzenski will, however, provide Medicare at its proposed facility. Failure of a holder of a certificate of need to substantially comply with statements of intent made in the application and relied upon the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as set forth in the Certificate shall be cause for the Department to initiate an action for specific performance, fines as specified in s. 381.495(3), or injunctive relief. This guideline is not applicable. Need for Services. HCR conducted a "non-numeric community need survey" in Sarasota County. Based upon this survey, HCR has suggested that there is an unmet need for 1,600 nursing home beds for Sarasota County for Alzheimer patients and other dementia patients. HCR's conclusions concerning unmet need for services for Sarasota County are unrealistic. HCR failed to prove that any need in Sarasota County for services for Alzheimer patients and others is not being met adequately. Services for Alzheimer patients are currently being provided by Trecor and Health Quest. HCR and Trecor have proposed to dedicate 30 of their proposed nursing home beds to the care of Alzheimer patients and patients with other forms of dementia. All of the applicants propose to provide a full range of services to their residents, including sub-acute care. Other Considerations. Health Quest's avowed purpose for the proposed conversion of its 53 sheltered beds is to insure that Regents Park remains available for use by the general public. Florida law allows sheltered nursing home beds to be used by persons other than residents of an adult congregate living facility for five years from the issuance of a license for the sheltered nursing home beds. Regents Park received its license in November, 1986. Therefore, its sheltered nursing home beds can remain available for use by the general public until November, 1991. Health Quest has received a certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds for Sarasota. Health Quest intends on placing 60 of those beds at Regents Park. The other 120 beds will be placed at another facility to be constructed in Sarasota County. Health Quest may be able to use some of its 180 approved nursing home beds to avoid the closing of Regents Park to the general public. Health Quest has not, however, explored this alternative. Health Quest's decision not to pursue this course of action is based in part on its decision that the 43% Medicaid care required for its certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds is not acceptable at Regents Park. Health Quest has failed to prove that its proposal is needed because of its desire to convert its sheltered beds to community nursing home beds. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The evidence in this case failed to prove that like and existing health care services in Sarasota County are not available, efficient, appropriate, accessible, adequate or providing quality of care except to the extent that existing services cannot meet the need for 75 additional nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Arbor. Two of Arbor's three licensed facilities in Florida are currently rated superior. The other facility is rated standard. Arbor's proposal may qualify it for a superior rating at its proposed facility. Arbor proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Arbor should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Health Quest. Health Quest has a corporate policy of emphasizing quality of care. It attempts to obtain the highest quality rating in every community it serves. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton have been rated superior. Health Quest's Sarasota facility has not been in operation long enough to qualify for a superior rating. Health Quest's Sarasota facility offers a high level of staffing, including a Human Resources Director, who is responsible for personnel administration and training, a full time social activities director and an activities coordinator. It also has a high nursing ratio. Health Quest is proposing the highest level of staffing of the applicants in this proceeding. Extensive training and development of staff at Health Quest's Sarasota facility is provided. Orientation training and in-service training on an on- going basis will be provided. Health Quest proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Health Quest should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. HCR. HCR's existing Sarasota nursing home has received a license with a standard rating. Other HCR facilities have received standard ratings, including some facilities which were acquired by HCR with superior ratings. HCR also has facilities which have been rated superior. HCR will enhance the quality of care available by providing a full range of services, from the least intensive level (adult day care) to the most intensive levels (i.e., sub- acute care). HCR's proposal to provide adult day care, a dedicated Alzheimer's unit, sub-acute care and respite care, and its adult congregate living facility will enhance quality of care in Sarasota County. HCR adheres to extensive quality assurance standards and guidelines. HCR provides adequate training, exceeding state minimum requirements, for its staff. HCR proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. HCR should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Trecor. Trecor has contracted with Central Care, Inc., a Florida corporation providing a full spectrum of health care and retirement living services, to manage its facility. Trecor provides education and training for its staff on an ongoing basis. Even though Trecor is operating in an inadequate building, Trecor received a superior rating in 1986-1987 and 1987-1988. Trecor proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Trecor should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants provided sufficient proof to conclude that they will provide joint, cooperative or shared health care resources sufficient to provide them with an advantage over the other applicants. Section 381.705(1)(f), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants proved that there is any need in the service district for special equipment or services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Section 381.705(1)(g), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants proved that this criterion applies in this proceeding. Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants' proposals will be accessible to all residents of the service district. Health Quest will, however, provide less access to Medicaid residents than the other applicants. Trecor will attempt to initiate internship and training programs for area nursing and allied health programs, and provide clinical placements. Health Quest participates in training programs for nurses from Sarasota Vocational/Technical school. A certified nursing aide program is also offered by Health Quest through Sarasota Vocational/Technical School. All of the applicants will be able to attract and maintain the staff necessary to operate their proposed facilities. HCR is proposing to provide the highest salaries and benefits for staff. Health Quest already has staff for its existing 53 beds. Health Quest is adding, however, 60 nursing home beds to Regents Park. HCR failed to prove that all of the existing staff will be used to staff the proposed 60 nursing home beds and not the already approved 60 nursing home beds. Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Immediate Financial Feasibility. Short-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to finance a project. Arbor. The total projected cost of Arbor's proposed 60-bed addition is $2,380,000.00. The total cost for its 120-bed facility is $4,580,000.00. Arbor's projected costs are reasonable. Arbor is proposing to contribute 10% of the cost of its proposal and finance the remaining 90%. Arbor has $39,000,000.00 in bank lines of credit, of which $34,000,000.00 remain available for development of Arbor's proposed project. Arbor also has sufficient money market funds to meet its projected equity contribution of 10%. Arbor has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Health Quest. Health Quest indicated in its application that there were no capital costs associated with its proposal. This is not correct. It will have some minor costs for the addition of the seven new nursing home beds it is seeking. Health Quest's proposal is the lowest in terms of additional capital costs which must be incurred. Most of the capital costs associated with the 53 nursing home beds it is seeking were already incurred when it built Regents Park. Health Quest did not provide proof of the cost of Regents Park. The unaudited financial statements of Health Quest indicate that it experienced a loss of $3,200,000.00 in 1986 and a loss of $5,000,000.00 in 1987. Health Quest has net worth and equity of $300,000.00 on over $200,000,000.00 in assets. The losses Health Quest has been experiencing have been the result of Health Quest's development activities. Health Quest can finance its project with internal funds. The evidence failed to prove that Health Quest must liquidate assets to generate operating funds. Health Quest demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. HCR. HCR's total estimated project costs for its 60-bed facility is $2,657,000.00. This amount includes the cost of the portion of the project to be used for adult day care ($138,000.00). The costs to be incurred for the adult congregate living facility is $1,800,000.00. HCR's projected costs are reasonable. HCR intends to contribute 25% of the total project costs and finance the remaining 75%. HCR has sufficient funds on hand to fund 25% of its project costs. In fact, HCR has the ability to contribute 100% of the total project costs. HCR has lines of credit with banks and other sources of obtaining financing for the project, including a loan from its parent corporation. HCR has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Trecor. The total cost of Trecor's proposed 60-bed nursing home addition is $885,210.00. The total cost of replacing the existing Burzenski building is projected as $3,588,634.00 ($885,210.00 for the proposed addition; $1,400,000.00 debt on the existing building; and $1,303,424.00 for the replacement of the existing building). Trecor is proposing to contribute 10% of the proposed project costs, or $88,521.00, and to finance the remaining 90%. To finance the entire project will require an equity contribution of over $300,000.00. Trecor has experienced operating losses in 1986 and 1987 and has a negative net worth of $259,000.00. Trecor has a positive cash flow, however. Trecor does not have sufficient equity to contribute 10% of the proposed project costs. The Board of Directors of Trecor has, however, adopted a resolution indicating Trecor's intent to provide the necessary contribution. Trecor can obtain the necessary funds from its owners if necessary. NCNB has expressed an interest in financing the rest of the project. Although NCNB has not legally committed to such an arrangement, it is reasonable to conclude that a satisfactory loan agreement can be reached with NCNB or Barnett Bank. Trecor has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Long-Term Financial Feasibility. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to operate a project at a profit, generally measured at the end of the second year of operation. Arbor. At the formal hearing Arbor presented an updated pro forma. Arbor suggested that the purpose of the updated pro forma was to reflect increased personnel costs and reduced utilization from 97% to 95%. According to Arbor, the changes reflect changes caused by inflation and "actual experience." The updated pro forma submitted by Arbor includes substantial increases in salary expense ranging from 10% to 30% (and one increase of 50%). The updated pro forma also includes at least one position not included in the original pro forma filed with Arbor's application. Arbor's original pro forma understated salary expenses. The updated salary expenses were foreseeable, and should have been foreseen, when Arbor filed its application. The updated pro forma was accepted into evidence over objection. In the updated pro forma, Arbor has projected a loss of $347,043.00 from revenue of $2,034,837.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $41,833.00 from revenue of $3,016,512.00 for the second year of operation. Arbor has projected a payor mix of 45% Medicaid, 5% Medicare and 50% private pay. These projections are reasonable. Arbor's projected fill-up rate is reasonable. Arbor's projected charges are reasonable. The evidence failed to prove that Arbor's projected revenue and expenses as contained in its original application are reasonable. The evidence also failed to prove that Arbor's projected expenses as contained in its updated pro forma are reasonable either. Arbor has failed to prove that its project is feasible in the long term. Health Quest. Health Quest is operating at close to capacity at Regents Park and is already charging close to its projected patient charges. The facility has been operating at a loss. The facility experienced a profit only during its latest month of operation. The addition of Medicaid beds will erode Health Quest's revenues to some extent. Health Quest has projected a profit of $16,663.00 from revenue of $1,771,303.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $40,698.00 from revenue of $1,850,156.00 for the second year of operation. Health Quest is projecting a payor mix of 16.7% Medicaid, 4.2% medicare and 79.2% private pay. These projections are reasonable. Regents Park opened in November, 1986, and filled up rapidly. It has been operating at full occupancy and with a waiting list. Health Quest's estimated fill up rate is reasonable in light of this fact. Health Quest has failed to prove that its project is feasible in the long term. HCR. HCR has projected a loss of $267,436.00 on $1,068,427.00 of revenue for its first year of operation and a profit of $62,729.00 on $1,772,399.00 of revenue for its second year of operation. HCR has projected a payor mix of 42% Medicaid, 4% medicare and 54% private pay. These projections are reasonable. HCR's projected fill-up rate to 95% occupancy is reasonable. HCR's projected patient charges are reasonable. HCR's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. HCR's project is feasible in the long term. (4). Trecor. Trecor has projected a profit of $77,458.00 on revenue of $2,481,229.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $367,896.00 on revenue of $3,106,152.00 for the second year of operation. The pro forma submitted by Trecor is for the 120-bed nursing home facility and not just the proposed 60-bed project. Trecor has a negative net worth and Trecor has been operating at a loss. Trecor has projected a payor mix of 59% Medicaid, 3.5% medicare, 34% private pay and 3.5% V.A. These projections are reasonable. Trecor has estimated it will achieve 50% occupancy in the first month of operation and an occupancy of 96% by the seventh month. This is a fill up rate of 2 residents a week. Arbor and HCR have projected fill up rates of 2 residents a month. Trecor does not expect to lose any patients during construction of its facility. Trecor is currently at full occupancy and has a waiting list. Trecor's projected fill up rate is achievable. Trecor's projected patient charges are reasonable. They are the lowest of the competing applicants. Trecor has failed to include some expenses in its projections. Trecor left $50,000.00 of administrative salaries out of its projections and FICA is underestimated because Trecor used the old rate. When these expenses are taken into account, Trecor's project is still financially feasible. Trecor's projected revenue and expenses, except as noted above, are reasonable. Trecor's project is feasible in the long term. Section 381.705(1)(1), Florida Statutes. Based upon the projected rates for nursing home services to be charged by the applicants, Arbor and Trecor will have the least adverse impact on patient charges, followed by HCR. Health Quest will have the greatest adverse impact on patient charges. Generally, all of the applicants will enhance competition if their projects are approved. Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Arbor. Arbor's building will contain 36,000 gross square feet, with 18,000 gross square feet attributable to the 60 nursing home beds it is seeking in this proceeding. The cost of Arbor's proposed 60-bed addition is $2,380,000.00 ($132.22 per square foot) and the cost of its entire project is $4,580,000.00. The projected cost of construction is $1,228,000.00, a cost of $68.22 per square foot. Arbor's projected costs are reasonable. Arbor's proposed building will provide 300 square feet per bed. Arbor plans to build its prototype 120-bed nursing home facility. It has used its 120-bed nursing home plans for other Florida projects. These plans have been approved by the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification. Arbors' building will comply with all code and regulatory requirements. The building will be constructed on a 6.5 acre site which is appropriately zoned and of sufficient size. The design of Arbor's proposed building and the proposed methods of construction are reasonable. Health Quest. Health Quest has already constructed the building in which its proposed 60 nursing home beds dire to be located. The building is already licensed. The building complies witch all code and regulatory requirements. A total of 30,945 square feat will be devoted to the nursing home portion of Regents Park. This is the largest of the proposed facilities. The proposed building will have 515 square feet per bed. There are no construction costs to be incurred for Health Quest's proposal. Construction costs have already been incurred to construct the facility in which Health Quest's proposed beds will be housed. Health Quest's building design is of the highest quality. HCR. HCR is proposing to construct a 60-bed nursing home. Additional space for 31 adult congregate living beds and for an additional 60 nursing home beds will also be built. The facility will include a dedicated 30-bed Alzheimer's unit. The inclusion of this unit requires more space. The proposed HCR building will consist of 25,600 square feet for the 60-bed nursing home. This includes the $138,240.00 cost and the 2,300 square feet of the adult day care unit. The projected cost of HCR's project is $2,657,000.00 or $103.79 per square foot. The projected cost of constructing HCR's proposed building is $1,536,000.00 or $60.00 a square foot. HCR's projected costs are reasonable. 166. HCR's facility will consist of 426 square feet per bed. 167. HCR's facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. 168. HCR's design and methods of construction are reasonable. 169. HCR's facility will incorporate energy conservation measures. Trecor. The Trecor proposal entails the addition of a 60-bed patient wing on the second floor of a two-story building. The first floor of the building will be constructed by Trecor to replace its existing building. Approval of the replacement facility is not part Trecor's proposal at issue in this proceeding. The plans for the replacement building and the addition thereto have been developed together. The plans can be modified to insure that all of the proposed services can be accommodated in the building. The proposed Trecor building will be constructed in phases. First, the portion of the new building which will house the 120 nursing home beds will be constructed. Patients will then be transferred to the newly constructed facility. All of the existing building except the kitchen and administration facilities will then be demolished. Patients will be fed out of the existing kitchen and the administrative functions will be handled form the old administrative facilities. The new kitchen, dining and administrative offices will then be constructed. When this portion of the building is completed, the old kitchen and administrative offices will be demolished. Although inconvenient, Trecor should be able to continue to provide quality of care during the construction period. The other applicants have raised a number of issues concerning the Trecor building. The issues do not, however, involve violations of code or regulatory requirements for nursing home facilities. Trecor's building will contain a total of 31,398 square feet. This total includes 19,337 square feet attributable to the existing 60 nursing home beds and 12,061 square feet attributable to the 60 nursing home beds at issue in this proceeding. The proposed building is relatively small. Trecor's architect did a very good job of properly using the relatively small parcel of real estate he had to work with. The small size of the building, however, accounts for the lower cost of the Trecor proposal. The evidence failed to prove that Trecor cannot provide adequate care, despite the building's size. The cost of Trecor's proposed 60-bed addition is $885,210.00 ($73.39 per square foot) and the cost of its replacement facility is $1,303,424.00. The projected cost of construction for Trecor's proposed 60-bed addition is $592,500.00, a cost of $49.13 per square foot. Questions have been raised concerning the project development costs and the estimated architecture/engineer fees for Trecor's project. Trecor did not include all of the expenses for these items in the projected costs of its proposed 60-bed addition because the costs were included as part of building the replacement facility. Some of those costs could have been included as part of the cost of the proposal being reviewed in this proceeding. If those costs had been included, their inclusion would not affect the conclusions reached in this proceeding concerning the reasonableness of Trecor's project. Trecor's projected costs are reasonable. Trecor's proposed building will provide 201 square feet for the proposed 60 nursing home beds, 322 square feet for the existing 60 nursing home beds and 261 square feet for the total 120 nursing home beds. Trecor's building will comply with all code and regulatory requirements. The Trecor facility will be located on 1.97 acres. The design of the Trecor building and the proposed methods of construction are reasonable. Trecor's facility will incorporate energy conservation measures. Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants have a history of providing care to Medicaid patients. Health Quest, however, does not provide care to Medicaid patients at Regents Park. If Health Quest's application is approved, Regents Park will become Medicaid certified. The projected Medicaid of the applicants is as follows: Arbor: 45% Health Quest 16.7% HCR 42% Burzenski 59% first year; 60% second year All of the applicants except Health Quest are proposing to provide at least 42% Medicaid, which is the average Medicaid provided in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting Trecor's application for certificate of need number 5443 and denying Arbor's application for certificate of need number 5841, Health Quest's application for certificate of need number 5442 and HCR's application for certificate of need number 5437. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1945; 88-1949; 88-1950 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Arbor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 10-13. 2 1 and 29-33. 3 15-21 and hereby accepted. 4 19-20, 34 and 36. 5 22-25. 6 37-40. 7 26-27. 28, 41 and 44-47. Trecor applied for a certificate of need in January, 1987, not May, 1987. Hereby accepted. Not all of the applicants in this proceeding, however, have met the minimum criteria for the issuance of a certificate of need. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and a statement concerning the proceedings. 51. The last two sentences are argument. 51. The fifth through ninth sentences are argument. The evidence proved that Health Quest is adding 60 nursing home beds to its existing facility. Therefore, if its application in this case is approved it will have a 120-bed nursing home facility. 51. The last five sentences are statements of law and argument. Statement of law or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15 64-66. 16 67-69 and 73. 74 and hereby accepted. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43 and 81. The fifth, sixth and eighth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The third, fourth and seventh sentences are hereby accepted. Although this proposed finding of fact, except the last sentence, is generally correct, this is not the only factor to consider in determining whether an applicant can provide quality of care. Argument, not relevant to this proceeding or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-55 and hereby accepted. The last sentence, except the reference to the state health plan, is hereby accepted. The second, sixth, ninth, tenth and eleventh sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence or are argument. See 52-56. Argument. 56 and hereby accepted. 85, 87-88 and hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 51, 60-61 and 86. The second, third, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth sentences are not relevant to this proceeding, not supported by the weight of the evidence or argument. 26 92 and 114. 27 95-97 and 106-107. 28 98 and 100. 109-111. The last five sentences are argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 111-113. 97 and 107. Short-term financial feasibility of Health Quest is not moot and Trecor can finance its project with the assistance of its shareholders. Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115 and 118. The last four sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence or are argument. 119-120. The last two sentences are not relevant to this proceeding or are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 123. 34 130 and 134. 125, 127 and 132. The fifth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is hereby accepted. 136-137 and 143. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument, not relevant to these proceedings or taken into account in determining the weight to be accorded to testimony. 40 Hereby accepted. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 139-141. 42 See 97, 103, 107, 113, 124, 129, 135 and 145. Arbor has not proven that it is financially feasible in the long term. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43, 46 and 56 Statements of law. 146 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 47 148 and 153-155. 48 157-158, 160 and 175. 49 161-163 and 175. 171, 175, 180 and hereby accepted. The sixth, ninth and tenth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 171. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-54 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument or not relevant to this proceeding. 55 185 and 187-188. The last sentence is argument. 57-58 These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the stipulation of the parties. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Department accepted all of the applicants' certificate of need applications as being complete. It would not be proper for the Department to now disqualify an applicant on the grounds that its application is not complete. Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 32, 34, 37 and 41. 3 2. 4 3. 4 and 6. 7. Not all of the applicants filed petitions. 7 48. 8 15-16. 9 67-68. 10 17-19. 11 21. 12 19. 13 58-59. See 57. The weight of the evidence did not prove that Regents Park will be closed to the public "unless Health Quest's application for conversion to community status is approved." 14-15 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant to this proceeding. 16 See 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 17-19 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant to this proceeding. 20 70 and hereby accepted. 21, 24, 27, 30-48, 52, 54-57, 61, 64, 70, 77, 88-89, 93, 95, 97, 107-108, 110-111, 113, 118, 124, 126, 128-129, 132, 135-136 and 138-139. Hereby accepted. 22 Hereby accepted and summary of testimony. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 91. 23 72. 25-26 88 and hereby accepted. 56 and hereby accepted. Not relevant to this proceeding. 49 Hereby accepted. The last two sentences are not relevant to this proceeding, are based upon hearsay and constitute opinion testimony from a nonexpert witness. 50 69. 51 Not relevant to this proceeding or based upon hearsay. 53 126 and 128. 58 Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 59 157. 60, 65-67, 71, 91, 112, 114-116, 121-122 and 125 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 62 Not relevant to this proceeding. 63 51 and 185-186. 68 100-101. 69 102. 72 51. The last sentence is rejected. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. The parties did not indicate that Section 381.703(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, was at issue in this proceeding or that Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, does not apply. 73-76 Not relevant to this proceeding. The issue is not just whether nursing home services are available to all residents of the service area. Also at issue is whether each applicant is proposing to serve all of the residents of the service area. Health Quest's proposal does indicate Health Quest intends on serving a significant portion of Sarasota County's Medicaid population. 78 60-61. The portion of this proposed finding of fact prior to subparagraph a, the portion of subparagraph a appearing on page 19 of the proposed recommended order and subparagraphs b-d are rejected as argument, statements of law or as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. 79-82 Although generally correct, these proposed findings of fact are argument. 83 Not relevant to this proceeding. 84-86 Summary of testimony and argument. 87 Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding or supported by the weight of the evidence. 90, 92 Not relevant to this proceeding. 94 Summary of testimony and argument. 96 Hereby accepted. The last sentence and the last half of the second sentence are rejected as not being relevant to this proceeding. 98-106 These proposed findings of fact were taken into account in determining the weight to be given testimony and other evidence. 109 Although the first sentence is correct, the rest of the proposed finding of fact is not relevant to this proceeding or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 117, 119-120 Not relevant to this proceeding. 123 108. The portion of this proposed finding of fact contained on page 30 of the proposed recommended order is primarily argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 127 143. 130-131 and 133-134 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, cumulative or not relevant to this proceeding. 137 The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument or not relevant to this proceeding. Summary of testimony. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 48. 2, 4-9, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 22-23, 27, 30-32, 35, 41-42, 45, 47, 49-51, 53, 63-67, 71 and 75 Hereby accepted. 3, 15 and 33 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. The last sentence, as it applies to Sarasota County, is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally true, this proposed finding of fact, as it applies to Sarasota County, is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 12 55. 17 37-4 and 55. 18 Hereby accepted, except that the first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 21 51 and 86. 24 51. The parties stipulated that the state health plan has been met by all of the applicants. 25 22-25. 26 76-78 and hereby accepted. 77 and hereby accepted. 78 and hereby accepted. 34 106-107. 36 Although generally true, the evidence failed to prove that HCR would provide these benefits without cost to its proposed Sarasota facility. 37 131-132. 38 133. 39 134-135. 40 89-90. 43 39-40, 163-164 and 166. 44 152, 167-170, and 180. 46 169-170. 48 165-166. 52 Hereby accepted. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that appropriate services for "AD patients" are not adequately available. 54 The parties stipulated that the state health plan has been met by all of the applicants. 55 2-3. 56-58 These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the stipulation of the parties. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Department accepted all of the applicants' certificate of need applications as being complete. It would not be proper for the Department to now disqualify an applicant on the grounds that its application is not complete. 59 148-149. 60 Taken into account in determining the weight to be given to testimony. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 61 123. 62 Hereby accepted except the last two sentences which are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 68-69 115-117. 70 Not relevant to this proceeding. 72 41, 45-47, 175-176, 180 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted except the third through fifth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted except the last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Taken into account in determining the weight to be given testimony and other evidence. Not relevant to this proceeding. 80-81 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 109-110. The last three sentences are not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted, except for the first two sentences, which are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted except the third and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 136. Not relevant to this proceeding. Trecor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-6, 20-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 37-39 and 56. Hereby accepted. 7 28 and 41-42. 8 41, 43 and 81. 9 26-27. 10 41, 44 and 81. 11 44-45. 12 46 and 171. 13 173. 14 46, 171-172 and 174. 15-16 173. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 16 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 17 181. 18 54-55 and hereby accepted. 19 79. 25 40, 47, 109, 111-112 and hereby accepted. 26 175 and 177. 28 178 and hereby accepted. 33 184 and hereby accepted. 34 138 and 142. 36 139-141. 40 50. 41 51. 42 51. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although the Arbor site was not disclosed, the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Arbor's proposal meets this portion of the district plan. 43-47 51. 48 51. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49-50 51 and hereby accepted. 51 51 and hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-53 51. Argument. 51 and hereby accepted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 48. 2-3 49. 4 Not relevant to this proceeding. 5-6 Conclusions of law. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Contrary to a stipulation of the parties that all of the parties meet the state health plan to the extent that it is applicable. See 63. 10, 13, 15 and 17 Hereby accepted. 11 See 64-84 concerning Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(d), Florida Statutes, had been met or did not apply. 12 86 and 129. 14 Not relevant in this de novo proceeding and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 16 See 60-62. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Charles M. Loeser Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 James M. Barclay, Esquire 231 A East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jay Adams, Esquire Jay Adams, P.A. 1519 Big Sky Way Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws. In this case, AHCA projected a need for an additional 295 community nursing home beds in District 3 for the July 1996 planning horizon, and reviewed the applications submitted in response to the published need. A numeric need for 186 beds remains. CON applications are evaluated according to applicable statutory and rule criteria and, as required by Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the preferences and factors in the state and local health plans. The applicable state plan is Toward A Healthier Future - The 1993 State Health Plan. The applicable local health plan is the District Three Health Plan for 1992, with 1993 Allocation Factors, prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council in Gainesville. AHCA has not promulgated a rule subdividing District 3. However, the local planning council has divided the sixteen counties into nursing home planning areas, as follows: Columbia, Hamilton, Suwannee, Bradford, Union and Lafayette Counties; Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, and Levy Counties; Putnam County; Marion County; Citrus County; Hernando County; Lake and Sumter Counties. In this case, one applicant, Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., ("Dixie") proposes to locate in Dixie County in planning area 2 or (b). Hilliard HealthCare, Inc., ("Hilliard"), Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., ("Unicare"), Life Care Centers of America, Inc., ("Life Care") and Beverly Enterprises- Florida, Inc., ("Beverly") propose to construct nursing homes in planning area 7 or (g). Within planning area 7, Hilliard would build a nursing home in Sumter County, while Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly would build in Lake County. The total population in planning area 2 is approximately 230,000, and in planning area 7, approximately 180,000. More relevant to a determination of need for a nursing home, the population age 65 and over in planning area 2 is approximately 25,000, as compared to 49,000 in planning area 7. Within planning area 2, the projected Dixie County population over 65 in the year 2000 is 2,211, while the Sumter County projection is 9,824 residents. The actual 1994 population age 75 and over was 644 in Dixie, and 3,296 in Sumter County, and over 20,000 in Lake County. Currently, there are 1,238 licensed and approved beds in planning area 2, and 1,391 in planning area 7. For planning area 2, which includes Dixie County, there are 22 people age 65 and over for each nursing home bed. In planning area 7, the ratio is 41.1 to one. If 120 beds are added in Lake County, the comparable county ratio will decrease from 41.4 to 37.6 persons 65 and over to a bed. The addition of 60 beds in Sumter County will result in a decline in the county from 39.5 to ratio of 30.7 to 1. The district-wide ratio for District 3 is 34.5 persons 65 and over for every nursing home bed. The local planning council has compared the relative need for nursing home beds by planning area, according to a Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation Matrix ("PANHAM"). Using a comparison of the percent of population age 75 and over to the percent of district beds in each planning area, the local health council describes planning area 7 as high need/moderate occupancy. It is ranked the planning area of greatest need for this CON application cycle. Planning area 2 is described as an area of low need/high occupancy. It also ranked as an area of priority in this cycle, although lower than planning area 7. The local health council has adopted three factors for use in making more specific determinations of locations which will best meet unmet needs within a planning area. Ranked in order of priority, the factors are: the absence of nursing homes in the same county, a location more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from any other nursing home, and an area in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months or 95 percent for the most recent six months. There is no evidence that construction of new nursing home beds is not needed or that the need is based on any inefficiency or quality of care problems in existing nursing homes. Consideration of the availability, utilization, and adequacy of other nursing homes and alternative health care providers in the district is also mandated by statute. See, e.g. Subsections 408.035(1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c), and (2)(d), Florida Statutes. In this group of applicants, only Dixie is favored by the first local health council factor for proposing to locate in a county in which there are no existing or approved nursing homes. Dixie does not meet the preference for a location more than 20 miles or a 25 minute drive from the closest nursing home. Dixie's expert witness who believed the drive took more than 25 minutes lacked direct knowledge of the road conditions. By contrast, the deposition testimony of the administrator of Tri-County Nursing Home established that the drive from Tri-County to Cross City takes about 15 minutes, most of it on a four lane highway, U.S. 27. Tri-County in Wilcox near Fanning Springs, and Medic-Ayers in Trenton are both within 20 miles or 25 minutes drive of the proposed Dixie site. Their occupancy rates for the first six months of 1993 were 94.41 percent and 95.85 percent, respectively, or an average of 95.13 percent. Therefore, Dixie is extremely close to meeting the local allocation factor related to existing nursing home occupancies in excess of 95 percent for the January-June 1993. By contrast, there are 12 existing and approved nursing homes in Lake County, and one in Sumter County. Occupancy rates in Lake County averaged 91.7 percent, but the facility in Sumter County reported 99.13 percent occupancy in the 1992-1993 reporting period. Applicants in Lake and Sumter Counties are not favored for proposing locations in counties without nursing homes, or for locations more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing nursing homes. Lake County applicants also do not meet the preference for an area defined by a 20-mile radius in which average occupancy rates exceeded 95 percent for the most recent six months or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. The Sumter County applicant, Hilliard, does meet the occupancy requirement for a location in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months. Because the state rule methodology results in a positive need calculation, the local health council factor related to special circumstances in the absence of numeric need is inapplicable to this case. Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., Cross City, Dixie County Dixie is seeking AHCA's issuance of CON 7492 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Cross City, Dixie County, which is in planning area 2. If issued a CON, Dixie offers to be bound by the following conditions: to construct the nursing home on a specific site in Cross City; to provide 80 percent of its total resident days to Medicaid-reimbursed residents by the second year, with all beds certified for Medicaid and 9 beds certified for Medicare reimbursement; to provide rehabilitative, respite, and adult day care, with transportation for some day care participants; and not to deny HIV+ admissions. At the time that Dixie filed the letter of intent for the 60-bed project in Dixie County, it also submitted three others for contiguous areas of District 3. Thus, four legal notices, for projects in Alachua, Gilchrist, Levy and Dixie Counties were submitted by fax and then by mail to the Gainesville Sun newspaper for publication. All four legal notices, when published, referred to Levy County, as the proposed location of the nursing home. The proof of publication sent by the newspaper to the applicant and included in the CON application states that the notice published was for Dixie County, although the notice itself states that the project will be in Levy County. Dixie's health care planning expert requested the publication of a corrected notice, but there is no evidence that one ever appeared in the newspaper. AHCA accepts CON applications, despite publication errors, if the error is made by a newspaper, not by the applicant. Dixie is a partnership formed to file the application for CON 7492. The project will be funded by Smith/Packett Med-Com, Inc. Smith/Packett is owned by James R. Smith, who with Herbert H. Frazier, is a general partner in Dixie Health Care Center, Limited Partnership. Herbert Frazier is an employee of a Florida licensed general contractor, MB Conn Construction, and president of its Frazier Division which oversees the construction of nursing homes. Separately, the two general partners in Dixie own over 20 nursing homes, and jointly own one in Virginia and one in North Carolina. The partners owned, but, in February 1994, sold a Lake City nursing home. The estimated total project cost is approximately $3,000,000, of which the general partners will provide $250,000 in cash for project development costs and initial cash flow requirements, as noted in the application in the schedule 3 assumptions. Dixie included in its application a letter of interest in financing the project from Colonial Bank, Alabama. Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site for the project for $33,000. As previously noted, Dixie meets the highest priority local allocation factor for proposing to locate in a county which has no nursing homes, and is close to the factor for over 95 percent average occupancy rates in the nearest nursing homes. Dixie is also favored by the local plan for proposing to construct at least 60 beds, for improving access within the planning area, and for proposing respite care, adult day care, and rehabilitative therapies. Dixie meets state health plan preferences for proposing the following: to locate in a subdistrict with over 90 percent occupancy (93.42 percent for plan- ning area 2); to serve 80 percent Medicaid, which is in excess of the subdistrict average of 79.37 percent in the first six months of 1993, for specialized services to AIDS, Alzheimers' and mentally ill patients, to provide a continuum of services including long term, respite, and adult day care; to construct a well-designed facility to maximize resident comfort and quality or care, which is a reasonable size and meets all licensure requirements; to provide rehabilitative and restorative therapies, to establish a Medicaid reimbursement rate of $91.75 in year one and $94.65 in year two, as compared to the projected subdistrict high of $92.83 in 1995 and $96.54 in 1996 (using an annual 4 percent inflation rate from the January 1994 rate); * * * to offer multi-disciplinary services to residents, with the various therapist, social workers, and counselors; to document protection for residents rights and privacy, and to establish resident's councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs, as SunQuest and all other nursing homes operating in Florida must do by state laws; to operate with lower administrative costs and higher patient care costs than the average in the district ($21.61 and $51.33 respectively in year two (1996), in contrast to $22.02 and $41.62 in 1992 for the respective average district per diem costs); Questions were raised about Dixie's compliance with state factors (8) for providing superior resident care in existing facilities, and (9) for staffing ratios which exceed minimum state requirements and are appropriate for proposed special services. The proposal is substantially based on the assumption that the applicant will contract with SunQuest for management services. Although the application refers to a management contract with SunQuest, no contract has been executed, which is not unusual prior to the issuance of a CON. At the final hearing, however, Dixie contended that SunQuest is only one of the candidates for a management contract, while conceding that the management policies and procedures in its application are those of SunQuest. In fact, the Dixie application states in response to state allocation factor (9) that SunQuest will be the management company. SunQuest manages 10 and leases an additional 10 long term care facilities in the United States, two in Florida. One of the Florida nursing homes, Bayshore Convalescent Center in North Miami Beach, has a superior license. SunQuest also manages the Lake City Extended Care Center, which was built by the company which employs Mr. Frazier, began accepting residents in December 1993, and was sold by the Dixie general partners in approximately February 1994. The original holder of the Lake City CON became unable to develop the proposal and contacted Mr. Smith and Mr. Frazier just prior to the expiration of the CON. They acquired the CON, financed, designed, and constructed the nursing home. Lake City currently operates with a conditional license, as a result of medical record-keeping deficiencies. The testimony, by Dixie's corporate representative, that SunQuest is merely one management company candidate along with Senior Care Properties, is inconsistent with the totality of the proposal, which renders significantly less reliable the program descriptions in the original application. Dixie's intent to provide van transportation for adult day care participants was also questioned, due to the absence of any provision for the service in the financial schedules to the application. The financial feasibility of Dixie's proposal is also a matter at issue. Although Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site, the architect who designed the facility testified he had constructed a 120-bed two-story nursing home on less than two acres, but that two and a half to three acres are generally needed to construct a 60-bed facility. Dixie projected a net loss of $201,813 in the first year of operation and a net profit of $55,123 by the end of the second year. The general partners have committed to provide $250,000 to cover the first year negative cash flow. However, the average annual salaries projected when multiplied by number of full time equivalent ("F.T.E.") positions listed on schedule 6 of its application exceeds salaries listed in the projected income and expenses on schedule 11 by approximately $219,866 in year one and $51,694 in year two. Including the underestimate of related benefits, the loss expected in the second year is $8,759. Dixie maintains that the staffing on schedule 6 cannot be compared to the pro forma, because the staffing and related expenses in the pro forma will increase over the first year as the census increases, while the staffing schedule is a snapshot at the end of the first year. The same is not true for the second year, since the facility is projected to be full after 8 months. Dixie's expert on finance described the second year discrepancy between a $50,000 profit and an $8,700 loss as insignificant in determining the financial viability of a $2 million project which, taking into consideration depreciation, amortization, and noncash related items, still results in a positive cash flow. Dixie's financial feasibility also depends on its reaching 96 percent occupancy by the fourth quarter of the first year. One witness for Dixie has achieved 93 percent occupancy in similar facilities in a county he deemed comparable, but has operated his facilities since 1989. Dixie also has to contend with competition for residents and staff from a relatively new facility within 20 miles and a 25 minute drive, Tri-County Nursing Home. Tri-County Nursing Home in Gilchrist County opened in May 1992, close to the Gilchrist- Dixie line, serving residents of Levy, Gilchrist and Dixie Counties. Approximately 30 of its 60 beds are occupied by Dixie County residents, all of whom rely on Medicaid reimbursement. Tri-County is also establishing a 25 person adult day care, having completed the required state inspection and awaiting the issuance of its license. After 8 months of operation, 51 of the 60 beds were filled. In June of 1993, Tri-County was full, with 98 percent occupancy. Approximately 40 percent of Tri-County's staff resides in Dixie County. There was testimony that 41 registered nurses reside in Dixie County, but with no information concerning their distribution within the county, current employment, or ages, their availability to work at a new nursing home could not be evaluated. In Gilchrist County, the ratio of persons 65 and over to nursing home beds is 8.7 to 1, in contrast to 31.46 for Levy County, and 34.5 for the district. The data supports the conclusion that Tri-County relies on service to Dixie County residents, clearly has an insufficient population base within Gilchrist County to fill its beds, and even when combined with Levy County is below the district ratio of 34.5 persons over 65 per nursing home bed. AHCA's expert in health planning and nursing home financial feasibility testified that Tri-County has had financial difficulties. On balance, Dixie has failed to demonstrate that it has estimated reasonable land requirements and costs, and that it can meet the required occupancy and staffing levels to survive financially, without adversely affecting Tri-County. Hilliard Healthcare, Inc., Bushnell, Sumter County Hilliard is the applicant for CON 7485 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Bushnell, Sumter County, which is in planning area 7. Hilliard's CON, if issued, will commit to construction of Osprey Point Nursing Center on a specific five acre site on State Road 475, and to the establishment of a 10-bed Medicare unit, and a 20-bed secure Alzheimers' unit, with all beds Medicare and Medicaid certified. Hilliard commits to providing 64 percent of total resident days for Medicaid. The total estimated project cost is $2,650,000, funded by $650,000 cash from stockholders and $2,000,000 in loans from Bankers First. Hilliard, formed in 1987, currently owns a superior licensed 120-bed facility in Nassau County, having completed a 60-bed expansion in September 1994. The Nassau County nursing home is managed by Health Care Managers ("HCM"), which is owned by Steven Sell, Hilliard's president and founder. Mr. Sell, in partnership with three others, first acquired a 55-bed facility in Jacksonville in 1984, expanded it to 120 beds in 1988, and sold it in 1994 for a profit of approximately $2.5 million. In 1991, Hilliard's president also received a CON to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Clay County, which was sold without a profit, but at a break-even point, while it was under construction. HCM is the intended manager of the Bushnell facility, if the CON is approved. Hilliard submitted a notice of its intent to file a CON application to the Sumter County Times newspaper for publication. The notice, published in November of 1993, stated erroneously that the application would be filed on December 1, 1992, rather than December 1, 1993. Hilliard's president testified that he knows for a fact that he submitted the notice with the correct date, but no document in evidence establishes what Hilliard submitted to the Sumter County Times. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the local health council factors for a location in a county without nursing homes, nor is Bushnell more than a 20 mile radius or 25 minute drive from existing nursing homes. It does merit consideration under the factor which relates to the occupancy of nursing homes within a 20 mile radius, all of which exceeded 90 percent from July 1992 - June 1993, ranging from 90.89 to 99.13 percent. The highest rate was at WeCare, the only other nursing home in Sumter County, which is located in Wildwood, in the northern area of Sumter County. WeCare has two fifteen-bed Alzheimers' units, and unchallenged CON approval to add 30 beds. The approval of the 30 additional beds at WeCare raises the bed to population ratio of Sumter County from 20.2 to 23.5 per 1000, in contrast to the current Lake County ratios of 22.4. With the approval of 60 beds at Hilliard and another 120 beds in Lake County, the ratios are increased to 30.2 in Sumter and 24.7 in Lake County. After approval of WeCare's addition, the need in Sumter County has been decreased. Hilliard, by its proposal to serve central and southern sections of Sumter County, would improve access within the planning area. The occupancy rate for Medicare patients at WeCare was 1.1 percent. Hilliard contends that the relatively low percentage of Medicare services indicates a need for short-term, post-hospitalization rehabilitation services, as proposed in its 10-bed Medicare unit. Hilliard demonstrated that average lengths of hospital stays for Sumter County residents for certain procedures exceed national Medicare reimbursement averages, but there was no comparison to average lengths of stay within the district or the state. Other local health council allocation factors which apply to and favor Hilliard's proposal are those for: establishing a facility of at least 60 beds, improving access within a planning area with over 80 percent occupancy, and serving Alzheimers' and dementia patients. Hilliard's proposal meets state preferences for: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (95.42 percent for planning area 7); * * * providing specialized services to Alzheimers' residents; offering respite care (although limited to hospice services); designing a comfortable facility, with short corridor segments, relatively large therapy areas, and a separate enclosed courtyard for the Alzheimers' unit; proposing occupational, speech and physical therapies, particularly to enhance the functioning of Alzheimers' residents; setting Medicaid rates of $101.90 for 1996 and $104.13 for 1998, in contrast to the highest rates projected for the same time, $107.89 and $113.28, respectively (using 5 percent inflation); providing superior resident care at its existing Nassau County Nursing home; proposing staffing ratios in excess of minimum state requirements, with reasonable salaries; including multi-disciplinary staff, including occupational, speech, and physical therapists, as well as nurses and an activities director; protecting residents' rights and privacy, and developing quality assurance and discharge planning programs; and proposing lower administrative costs ($26.35) with higher patient care costs ($64.30) than the district average of $26.63 and $54.67, respectively (1977 projection with 5 percent inflation). Hilliard does not meet state preference 2 for service to Medicaid proportionate to the subdistrict average, which is 69.95 percent, in contrast to Hilliard's proposed commitment of 64 percent. Under the preference, Hilliard's proposal to emphasize Medicare reimbursed therapies does not relieve it of the obligation to serve a proportionate share of Medicaid. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the specific exceptions allowed in preference 2 for applicants proposing to serve particular ethnic or cultural groups, and those developing multi-level care systems. Hilliard has a commitment letter from Banker's First to provide a $2 million loan for a fee of 1 1/2 to 2 percent of the principal loan amount, or $30,000 to $40,000. In schedule 1 of the application Hilliard's estimate of closing costs in $10,000, with $4,120 in legal fees. Dixie's expert claimed that the closing cost was inconsistent with the Banker's First letter and unreasonably low. By contrast for a $3 million loan, Dixie estimated $10,000 for loan closing costs, $30,000 for legal fees, $10,000 for recording fees and taxes, and $60,000 in loan origination fees. Dixie's expert apparently overlooked an additional $20,000 in origination fees, which was included on Hilliard's schedule 1. Hilliard projects a loss of $177,000 in year one, and income from nursing home operations of $114,690 in year two. In the first year, a loan of $271,660 is expected to cover the losses in year one. In the second year, a pay off of $154,940 on the loan is expected. The financial ability of Hilliard's shareholders to provide the initial $650,000 equity contribution and $271,660 to cover first year losses was questioned. Hilliard's president noted that the shareholders previously raised in excess of $600,000 to develop the Nassau County facility and have received $2.5 million in profits from the sale of the Jacksonville nursing home. Personal financial statements of three of the six stockholders were included in Hilliard's application. The personal financial statements were incomplete, omitting referenced attachments. The statements were also inaccurate or inconsistent, with missing liabilities, discrepancies regarding property values, and including the total value of some property which was not owned by the shareholders individually. Nevertheless, the statements do, according to Dixie's expert, show that the shareholders could provide over $900,000 in capital needed for Hilliard to be financially feasible, although that would take virtually all of the liquid assets, unless they assumed some additional individual debts. On balance, Hilliard has shown that Sumter County is more likely than not in need of additional Medicare-reimbursed subacute services, and that its proposal is financially feasible based on the shareholders' history of being able to raise capital for similar development projects. Lake County Applicants Three applicants in this batch seek to construct new 115 or 120-bed nursing homes in Lake County. Given the remaining numeric need for 186 beds, only one of the applicants can be approved. See, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., et al. v. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 92-6656 (F.O. 10/17/94). In addition, the District 3 Allocation Factors Report Preferences includes the following guideline: To the extent possible, all planning areas ranked in one of the four categories of priority established in subparagraph d above should be approved to add some new beds. Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., Lady Lake, Lake County Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") is an applicant for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home or to receive a partial award to construct a 115-bed community nursing home in the town of Lady Lake, in northwest Lake County. Unicare proposes to have its CON conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed Alzheimers' and related dementia unit, an adult day care to accommodate an additional 20 Alzheimers' sufferers for half day care, and on providing 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents. Unicare also plans to include a 10-bed subacute unit, and to offer rehabilitative therapies, respite and hospice care. The total size of the building is 58,700 square feet. Unicare is a subsidiary of United Health, Inc., which is committed to finance the project by providing an equity contribution of 60 percent and drawing on its available line of credit for the remaining 40 percent of the total projected cost of $5,754,983. Unicare owns and operates 45 nursing homes in 7 states, has been in business for 28 years and in Florida since 1982, and currently owns and operates 13 Florida nursing homes. Life Care Centers of America Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care") proposes to establish a 120-bed community nursing home of 53,175 square feet, in west central Lake County, in the areas of Lady Lake, Tavares, or Leesburg, for a total project cost of $5,906,000. Life Care's CON, if issued, will include its commitment to provide 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, to establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit, to offer adult day care services, and to include a 20-bed sub-acute unit. Life Care is a privately held company operating 150 nursing homes in 27 states. Life Care owns two and operates three other nursing homes in Florida. Life Care proposes to fund the Lake County nursing home from $206,000 cash-on-hand and $5,700,000 in financing from a non-related company. With its application, Life Care submitted letters of interest from potential lenders with interest rates ranging from 9 to 12 percent, and a 25 year amortization schedule. In reviewing other Life Care applications, AHCA has considered and rejected as incomplete a list of capital projects identical to that included in this Lake County application. Specifically, Life Care listed projects by county name, although the total amount of capital obligations, according to AHCA, was significantly underestimated. Life Care submitted, at hearing, its exhibit 6, a stipulation to certain facts and, through the testimony of its Vice President for Development, established that the facts related to the schedule 2 issues in this case are identical to those considered in Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. Agency For Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 94-2409 (F.O. 10/24/94), which is pending on appeal in the district court. Beverly Enterprises Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly") is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Corporation-California, a subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lady Lake or Leesburg, in Lake County, with a commitment to provide 73 percent of total annual resident days for Medicaid, to establish a 20-bed Medicare-certified subacute unit with 4 beds for ventilator-dependent patients, an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, an adult day care for 8 clients, respite care, and to accept and care for residents who are HIV positive, or have mental health disorders. Beverly also will commit to donate $10,000 for gerontological research. Beverly Enterprises companies operate 720 nursing homes, 70 in Florida. Of the 70, 41 are operated by the applicant. Beverly's proposal to establish Lake Beverly Terrace has a total project cost of $5,421,372, for 48,969 square feet. Existing Nursing Home and Alternatives - Sections 408.035(1)(b), and (2), Florida Statutes. As of January 1994, there were 460 nursing home beds in Leesburg, 142 in Clermont, 236 in Mount Dora and 377 in Eustis. All of the facilities, exceeded the average Lake County occupancy of approximately 92 percent in 1992- 1993, except two, Waterman Hospital Extended Care Center in Eustis and Edgewater in Mount Dora. All of the parties agreed that additional subacute and Alzheimers' beds, and adult day care spaces are needed in Lake County. Local and State Health Plans - Sections 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly propose to locate in Lake County, within planning area 7 for Lake/Sumter Counties. The planning area has a higher priority need ranking than planning area 2, as determined by the local health plan council. Local allocation factors 1 - 5 apply equally, or are inapplicable to the three proposals. There are existing nursing homes in the county, which are within 20 miles or 25 minutes all of the proposed locations, and which exceeded 90 percent occupancy. Unicare distinguishes its proposal based on its intention to locate in the town of Lady Lake, rather than further contributing to the concentration of nursing homes in Leesburg. Lady Lake was, in 1990, the third largest municipality in Lake County, and projected to be the largest in 2000. The 1990- 2000 projected growth rate is over 100 percent, in contrast to 13 percent for Leesburg, 50 percent for Tavares, and 37 percent for the entire county. Lady Lake was also mentioned in the Life Care and Beverly applications as a possible location for their facility, along with other towns in Lake County. Beverly's Vice President has investigated the cost of sites only in Leesburg, Fruitland Park, and Eustis, but concedes that Leesburg is a desirable location due to its proximity to the hospital. Without a CON condition, which AHCA could impose, all three applicants could locate anywhere within Lake County. Although Lady Lake is only 8 miles from Leesburg, Unicare's proposal, all other factors being equal, would be favored as more consistent with local allocation factor 6, which discourages the concentration of nursing homes in one community within a multi- county planning area. The final local allocation factor, 7 (as related to Alzheimers' and adult day care), as well as state health plan factors 3 (as related to Alzheimers') and 4 (as related to adult day care), and subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes, favor applicants proposing specialized care or therapies to meet the needs of community and nursing home residents suffering from Alzheimers' and related forms of dementia. Unicare's 20-bed Alzheimers' unit and programs, and half day adult day care for 20 additional Alzheimers' sufferers are consistent with the specialized services that are needed. Life Care also proposes, as conditions for its CON, that it will establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit and an adult day care center to accommodate 10 participants a day, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Beverly proposes to provide services in an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, and an 8-person adult day care program. State health plan allocation factors met by all of the Lake County applicants include the following: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (approximately 92 percent for planning area 7 for January-June 1993); see, also Subsection 408.035(1)(b), (d), and (2) (a) - (d); proposing to serve 73 percent Medicaid- reimbursed residents in comparison to the subdistrict average of 72.65 percent in the first six month of 1993; and * * * (11) documenting measures and procedures to protect resident's rights and privacy, and the use of resident councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs. The Lake County applicants' proposals differ more when compared in accordance with state health plan factors and related statutory criteria, for: services to AIDS residents and the mentally ill; respite care, adult day care, and other services in a continuum of care (Sections 408.035(1)(o), F.S.); facilities with designs which maximize residents' comfort and the quality of care, and the costs and methods of construction (Sections 408.035(l)(m), F.S.); innovative therapeutic programs to enhance mental and physical functioning; charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict (Sections 408.035(2)(e), F.S.); a record of providing superior care in existing nursing homes (Sections 408.035)(1)(c), F.S.); staffing in excess of minimum requirements, with the highest ratio of registered and licensed practical nurses to residents (Sections 408.035)(1)(h), F.S. - availability of staff and personnel); use of professionals from a variety of disciplines; and * * * (12) administrative cost which are lower patient care costs which are higher than the district average. State health plan preference 3 is given to applicants for care to AIDS residents and the mentally ill, and state health plan 4, in part, applies to respite care. Beverly points to its increase in service to HIV positive patients from 39 patients for 124 patient days in 1993 to 3500 patient days in 1994. Unicare also has served AIDS residents. All of the Lake County applicants plan to offer respite care. Beverly offers a wider array of specialized services. By providing a range of levels of care to inpatients and outpatients, including adult day care and respite care, the applicants also, in part, meet the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes. Nursing homes with more features to enhance resident comfort and quality of care are given state health plan preference 5. Unicare's 58,720 square foot plan, includes semi-private patient rooms designed for the placement of the heads of residents' beds on opposite walls, each side with a window, rather than the alignment of beds next to each other, typical of semi-private hospital rooms. The plan includes indoor wandering space for Alzheimers' residents in a loop around an activity and recreation area, separated by a 3 to 4 foot wall. The Alzheimers' unit has a separate dining room with access to a secured courtyard, which, in turn, connects with the day care center. AHCA's architectural report notes that the construction cost of $60 per gross square foot is below the median cost projection, because Unicare will use a design/build contract. The design/build contract provides for one contractor to provide all of the services, including architectural and design, engineering and construction management, which saves time and money. Unicare's contractor, KM Development Corporation, has been in business since 1977, and has renovated and enlarged Unicare's facilities in Florida without cost overruns, and has done residential construction in the state. Unicare's design, based on the AHCA architectural review and the contractor's testimony, meets requirements for licensure and safety, and is a one-hour fire safety protected structure with a stucco finish, and brick and wood trim. Although skeptical and concerned that the design/build contract can be manipulated to cut corners to stay within budget, AHCA's expert in architecture testified that it is possible for Unicare to build the facility at the projected cost, but he would expect a cost over- run. Life Care's 53,175 square foot building will cost $75 a square foot. AHCA's architects described it as wings organized around a central courtyard, providing good visual control of short corridors. Life Care's design also includes a gift shop, library, and ice cream parlor. A separate wing for Alzheimers residents is adjacent to the adult day care center, with a separate dining room and courtyard. The institutional effect of corridors is decreased by using recessed entrances and doors to residents' rooms. There were no concerns expressed by architectural experts with the appropriateness of the design for the functions in each wing, the adequacy of the project cost, or the safety of the structure. Beverly's construction cost per gross square feet, listed as $63 on line I in response to question 4A was challenged as too low by Life Care's experts. Beverly's construction cost plus a 10 percent contingency or $70 a square foot for 48,969 square feet is considered reasonable by AHCA, although that eliminates the availability of the contingency for unknown conditions on an unselected site. Beverly's design is organized generally around a core area of courtyards with therapy space in the center. Beverly's Alzheimers' unit has a separate courtyard which allows wandering residents to exit a door near one end of the corridor and return by a door near the opposite end. AHCA's architectural review concludes that Beverly's design meets licensure and safety requirements. In general, Unicare's design better meets the preference for enhancing resident comfort and quality of care with rooms over 30 percent larger than required, four outside landscaped areas, physical therapy rooms, and three staff lounges, and an in-service training area, but its cost may be underestimated. Life Care's design is second in terms of accommodating program needs with space arrangements. Adult day care clients with Alzheimers, for example, are located adjacent to the area for Alzheimers residents' programs and activities. Life Care's projected construction costs are also the highest. Innovative therapeutic programs effective in enhancing physical and mental functions are favored in state health plan preference 6. Unicare will provide physical, occupational, and speech therapy and has developed special programs to serve Alzheimers's and related dementia residents and day care clients. Life Care and Beverly will offer IV therapy, wound care, and ventilator and respiratory therapy in addition to other therapies offered by Unicare. Beverly's therapy programs are more innovative and intense, based on the staffing and level of detail provided in describing the proposed services. Preference 7 is given for proposed charges not exceeding the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. Unicare proposes a Medicaid per diem rate for $86.57 for 120 beds in the second year while at least one provider in the subdistrict for 1997 will be charging $95.27. Unicare computed projected future rates by using 9.1 percent inflation of the Medicaid rate at one facility, which is not necessarily the highest existing provider, which results in a $98.44 rate. Unicare criticized Beverly's use of a 5 percent inflation rate of the highest current provider resulting in a projected rate of $99.47. The highest Medicaid rate in the district, inflated forward to 1997, was $99.31 at the time the application was submitted, so that Beverly's proposed charge of $99.00 is lower, as is Life Care's projected $97.11 and Unicare's $86.57. Preference 8 and subsection 408.035(1)(c) require a comparison of the applicants' records in terms of the quality of care provided in their existing nursing homes, as indicated partly by licensure ratings over the last 36 months. During that time, Unicare's 13 nursing homes have had 468 months of operation at approximately 63 percent superior, 29 percent standard, and 9 percent conditional. Beverly has had a total of 976 months of operations, 67 percent superior, 25 percent standard, and 7 percent conditional. Beverly has also paid a fine to the State of Oregon to settle claims related to patient care problems. The two Florida nursing homes owned by Life Care are rated standard, one in Citrus County opened in November, 1994 and is not yet eligible for a superior license. The other, in Altamonte Springs has been in operation for over 36 months, 29 of those with a superior licensure rating. The three applicants generally have operated and have the capacity to continue to operate superior facilities. Preference 9, on proposed staffing ratios and preference 10 related to the use of varied professional staff are also indications of the quality of care. AHCA requires one registered nurse on the day shift and none on the night shift in a 120-bed nursing home. All of the applicants exceed the minimum. The number of nursing hours per patient day will be 3.2 at Unicare, 3.35 at Life Care, and 3.85 at Beverly. One of four registered nurses on the day shift at Beverly will always be in the subacute unit. However, the ratio outside the unit, for the remaining 100 residents, still exceeds the minimum and meets the preference requirements. All three companies have existing Florida facilities available to provide training and, if needed, transfers of experienced staff to a new nursing home. They currently use and are proposing to continue to use professional staff from a variety of disciplines to meet residents' and clients' needs. Average administrative costs in the district, inflated forward, will be $24.58 and average patient care costs will be $49.49. The applicants report their comparable projections on Schedule 11. Unicare's projected costs are $27.80 and $50.59, respectively. Life Care's costs are $24.84 and $65.94, respectively. Beverly's are $24.44 and $62.30, respectively. With erroneously omitted laundry costs added to administrative costs, Beverly's administrative costs increase to $26.52. All three applicants propose higher administrative costs than the district average, but Life Care's are the lowest. All three have higher than average patient care costs, with Life Care favored as the highest. The following subsections of the CON statutory review criteria do not apply, in this case, to distinguishing among the Lake County applicants: - availability or adequacy of alternatives, such as outpatient care or home care; - economics of joint or shared resources; - need for equipment or services not accessible in adjoining areas; * * * - special needs of health maintenance organizations; - needs of entities which provide substantial services beyond the district; and - impacts on costs and effects of competition. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) - research and educational facilities needs Unicare and Life Care have established foundations to foster education and research in gerontology and health care. Beverly will commit, as a condition for the issuance of its CON, to providing a $10,000 research grant for a gerontological studies to Florida State University. All three companies assist in providing clinical experiences for nursing and therapy students in technical schools, community colleges, and universities, and benefit by recruiting employees from the programs. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - availability of funds to establish and operate project, and Subsection 408.045(1)(i) - immediate and long-term financial feasibility Unicare has $5 million in available cash and a $30 million line of credit. Unicare, using costs from other facilities adjusted to take into consideration geographical differences, projects a net loss of $250,672 in the first year and a profit of $50,482 in the second year. Unicare failed to include $3,000 in housekeeping equipment in its projected expenses, but can more than cover that omission with a $75,000 contingency. Life Care had a net worth of $50 million in 1993. For calendar year 1992, its audited financial statement shows over $10 million in net earnings and $4.5 million in cash on hand. Life Care projects a net loss of $548,190 in year one and a net profit of $236,022 in year two. Beverly has access to over $200 million for project development, combining its cash, cash equivalents, commercial paper and lines of credit. Beverly projects a pre-tax loss of $314,000 in the first year and a net profit of $214,000 in the second year. Beverly's figures were questioned based on its use of the experience of a Tampa area facility to determine some costs and expenses, its assumption that Medicare will be 13 percent of its patient mix, and its projected lengths of stay and revenues from Medicare. Beverly's use of unit-costs from existing facilities with modifications to fit the specific proposal is reasonable. Although the district Medicare rate is 5.7 percent and Lake County's is 6.1 percent, Beverly's higher proportion of Medicare is consistent with the level of subacute services it proposes in 20 of its 120 beds. After the maximum of 100 days of Medicare coverage, Beverly will have weaned or will transfer ventilator patients who do not have private insurance. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid participation Unicare has no nursing homes with CON conditions requiring a specified level of Medicaid participation, having purchased older, existing facilities in Florida. Nevertheless, eleven of its thirteen facilities exceed the Medicaid average in their respective subdistricts. For the first six months of 1993, Life Care's Medicaid resident days were 78 percent in Altamonte Springs (with no CON condition), 70 percent in Punta Gorda, 88 percent and 68 percent, respectively, in the two West Palm Beach nursing homes. Beverly's percent of patient days for Medicaid increased 63.3 percent to 66.8 percent from 1993 to 1994 for facilities in Florida. Beverly paid a $1500 fine to the state for falling below its Medicaid commitment in one of 17 state facilities with such conditions, Coral Trace in Lee County. AHCA agreed to reduce the Coral Trace medicaid condition from 78 percent to 53.3 percent to reflect the subdistrict average. In 1994, at Coral Trace, 49.5 percent of total patient days were Medicaid. All three Lake County applicants have demonstrated strong compliance with Medicaid participation criterion. Comparison of Lake County Applicants On balance, the Lake County applications are all more in compliance than not with statutory review criteria, with varying strengths and weaknesses. They are financially sound, experienced nursing home owners and operators. Unicare will improve access within the planning area. The demographic data on the municipality of Lady Lake shows significant growth. Unicare also will build a better designed and larger facility, and will focus its programs on meeting the needs of Alzheimers' residents and day care participants. Unicare's weaknesses are AHCA's architect's expectation that it will experience cost- overruns and the absence of ventilator services. Unicare relies on its actual experience with Florida construction projects to support the reasonableness of its projections. Unicare also projects the lowest Medicaid per diem rate. Life Care proposes to offer a wider range of specialized programs and therapies than Unicare, a design second to Unicare's in terms of size and residential amenities. Life Care's project costs are the highest of the Lake County applicants, but Life Care, when operational, will have the highest proportion of its costs applied to patient care. Beverly offers a range of programs comparable to those offered by Life Care, with greater emphasis on subacute care, and less emphasis than Unicare on Alzheimers' services. Beverly will build the smallest nursing home at the lowest cost, but is highest in projected Medicaid per diem rate. Unicare is recommended for CON approval due to its superior design, and superior Alzheimers' and day care services, and proposed location. Because the proposed location is a factor in Unicare's favor, it is recommended that Unicare's CON be conditioned on its obtaining a site in Lady Lake. Absent Unicare's agreement to a condition on location, Beverly is recommended for approval based primarily on its lower project cost, scope and intensity of subacute of services, and higher staffing levels.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA issue CON No. 7489 to Unicare to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in District III, conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed unit for residents with Alzheimers and related dementia and an adult day care providing half day care for 20 clients, the provision of 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, and the selection of a site for the facility in the municipality of Lady Lake, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NOs. 94-2452, 94-2453, 94-2462, 94-2467 and 94-2971 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Dixie's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7-9 and 14. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 15-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 7, rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted first sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected second sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-19. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 28-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 33-34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8 and 22. 35-36. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 40-41. Accepted in part in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 42-46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 35. 47. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 22. 48-49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 50. Rejected in Findings of Fact 23. 51-52. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 53-54. Accepted. 55-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 62-63. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 9. 70-76. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 77-78. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 79-80. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Petitioner, Life Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2-4. 3-4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. Accepted, except 6, in Findings of Fact 51-53. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 56-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 58. 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 8-10 and 51-53. 12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. 14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 15. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 52. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 71. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-67. 18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 19. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 32-34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 36-38. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 43-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 45-53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70. 56-59. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 61-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. 66-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Petitioner, Hilliard Health Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 3-4. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 8-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted. 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3, 4 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16, 24 and 30. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11, 15 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 31-34. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 17-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 17-19. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 48-49. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as "lowest need" in Findings of Fact 7. 52-61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 22. 62-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-16 and 23. Accepted. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected as not at issue. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 30. 80-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31-36. Rejected except first sentence in Findings of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 88-91. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-22. 92. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 2-6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 8-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47-49. 10-12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39-41. 13-16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 42-44. Accepted. 20-23. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4-9. 24. Accepted. 25-26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. 27-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 24-30 and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 31, and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 30 and 55. 33-35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 39-40. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 56. 46-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 51-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 53-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 56. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. 57-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 21. 59. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. 60-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 49 and 70. 65-66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70 and in conclusions of law 76. 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 68-69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 70-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60, except "probable" in last sentence of proposed findings of fact 74. (See, T-p 2197.) Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Petitioner/Respondent, Beverly's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1 and 37. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 37 and 50. 16-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 52. 20,22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51 and 54. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39, 42 and 47. 25 Accepted in Findings of Fact 39, 42, 47 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 56. 28-29. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 59 and 60. 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 62, 63 and 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Rejected as speculative. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in general except conclusion in Findings of Fact 66. 40-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66 and 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 54-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 56-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Rejected, as irrelevant based on previous interpretations by AHCA, in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 62-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60. 65-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. 67. Accepted, but list not construed as exclusive in Findings of Fact 56. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in preliminary statement and subordinate to Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Petitioner, Unicare's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 37 and 39. 2-3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40, 41, and 66. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 7-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-8 and 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 39. 12-13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 14-16. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 52. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 18-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 36-39. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 40-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 44-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39 and 61. 49-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. 53-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 63-68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 71-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 51. 76-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 79. Accepted in Findings of Fact 53. 80-81. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 82-83. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. 84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 85-86. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. 89-90. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 93-94. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57, 59 and 60. 95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 96-103. Rejected as having been modified and adjusted in Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Rejected in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 67. Rejected in Findings of Fact 66 and 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57-60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Rejected as not supported by the record. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Jay Adams, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. David Watkins, Esquire Patricia Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Pennington, Haben, Wilkinson,Culpepper, Dunlap, Dunbar, Richmond & French, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Wallace Assistant Director Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Heritage Hall is a partnership, domiciled in the State of Virginia, which owns and operates ten nursing homes in that state. Heritage Hall did not, at the time of the close of this record, own or operate, nor have under completed construction, any nursing home in Florida. Heritage Hall filed a "letter of intent to construct, own and operate a 60-bed nursing home in the counties of Collier, DeSoto, Highlands, and Lee. On July 15, 1983, Heritage Hall filed the specific Certificate of Need application at issue with HRS, requesting authorization to construct a 60-bed freestanding nursing home in DeSoto County. That application was deemed complete on September 15, 1983, and a free form decision was made to grant it by HRS on December 1, 1983. The proposed nursing home would be located in the vicinity of Arcadia, in DeSoto County, a subdistrict of HRS District VIII. Diversicare Corporation, Inc. d/b/a DeSoto Manor Nursing Home (DeSoto Manor), (Diversicare), owns and operates DeSoto Manor Nursing Home, an existing 60-bed nursing home facility located in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. On November 3, 1983, Diversicare filed a Letter of Intent with HRS announcing its intention to seek a Certificate of Need for an addition to its DeSoto County facility. It ultimately filed an application seeking authorization for a 36-bed nursing home addition on January 12, 1984. No additional information was requested by HRS and the application became complete by operation of law on March 15, 1984. That application is thus in a separate and later batch for purposes of Rule 10-5.08, Florida Administrative Code, and thus was not comparatively reviewed with the application in the case at bar as a competing application. On May 1, 1984, HRS notified Diversicare of its intent to deny its application for the 36-bed addition. Heritage Hall proposes to construct a 60-bed nursing home at a total cost of $1,597,293. This specific cost of construction, not including land acquisition cost, is proposed to be $1,070,740. The nursing home's cost of construction allocated on a per bed basis would be $26,622. Heritage Hall proposes to finance this project to a tax-exempt bond issue in an aggregate amount of $1,436,075, carrying a 10 percent interest rate with a 30-year maturity. Additionally, the Heritage Hall partnership would invest $161,218. Heritage Hall projects that once it begins operation of the proposed new nursing home, that a 97 percent occupancy level for the proposed 60 beds would be reached within six months. Included within that projection, Heritage Hall projects that 49 percent of the patient revenues would come from Medicaid reimbursement, that 10 percent would come from Medicare reimbursement, and that 40 percent of its revenues would be attributable to private paying patients, not included within any relevant government entitlement programs. The remaining one per cent of its patient revenue base would be charged off and attributable to bad debt, or indigent patients. Heritage Hall proposes charges for its Medicare and Medicaid patients to constitute $62.39 per day, and its charges for private paying patients would be $68.00 a day for a private room, and $65.00 per day for a semiprivate room. It proposes to staff its facility with five registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses (LPN), 17 nurses aides, and an administrative and miscellaneous employee staff of 16, for a total staff for a 60- bed nursing home of 44 employees. DeSoto Manor's present patient population is largely composed of Medicaid and Medicare patients, such that 84 percent of its revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare sources. Its private paying patients are a small minority contributing 16 percent of its total patient revenues. DeSoto Manor has consistently experienced 99 - 100 percent occupancy for all of 1983 and 1984, upon which is earned a net income for fiscal year 1983 of approximately $15,000. DeSoto Manor presently employs on its staff 2.2 registered nurses, 5.6 LPN's, 17.1 aides, and 17.4 administrative and miscellaneous employees, those figures being expressed in terms of full-time equivalent employees in those categories. DeSoto Manor's application filed in a later batch is not at issue in this proceeding, in terms of comparative review for the purpose of determining whether Heritages Hall or DeSoto Manor is entitled to a Certificate of Need for DeSoto County nursing home beds as a result of this proceeding. Such a proposal, however, to add additional beds to an existing nursing home, is worthy of consideration as an alternative means of providing nursing home services to the public in District VIII, and specifically the subdistrict of DeSoto County, pursuant to authority cited infra. In that vein, DeSoto Manor proposes to add 36 additional beds at a total cost of $767,337, including involving a construction cost of $541,280, which is equivalent to a $21,260 cost per bed for the proposed 36-bed addition. DeSoto Manor would require the equivalent of 17.3 full time additional staff members, if such an addition (a 36-bed addition) were approved and built. DeSoto Manor charges will be (on January 1, 1985) $45.56 a day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $47.00 a day for its private pay patients. If its 36-bed addition were installed, it would charge $49.31 per day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $53.00 a day for private paying patients. DeSoto County is a relatively small county geographically, located inland from the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico in District VIII. It is a rural county in character, as that term relates to its economic base being largely agriculture, and its low population density, with its population center being in the only sizable community of Arcadia, the county seat, located approximately in the geographic center of the county. It is surrounded by Sarasota, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. Highlands and Hardee Counties are in District VI, with Sarasota, Charlotte and DeSoto Counties being in District VIII, as are Lee, Collier, Glades and Hendry Counties. In 1987, DeSoto County is expected to have a population of 3,749 persons age 65 and over. The county is not experiencing a significant rate of growth at this time, nor is it expected to through 1987, the pertinent "horizon" year. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the nursing home bed need methodology, HRS computes a need for additional nursing home beds in its health care districts and sub-districts, first by determining "actual need" or the "area specific bed need allocation." The actual need for additional nursing home beds is computed by means of a population based formula embodied in that rule. The second step of the need/availability determination process involves determining how many beds above or below the actual need determined may be added before the utilization in the district or subdistrict falls below 80 or 85 percent. The actual need or "area specific allocation" is determined by multiplying the poverty ratio for the district or subdistrict by the statewide nursing home bed need ratio of 27 per 1,000 persons age 65 and older, and the population of the district or subdistrict age 65 and older, and then subtracting from this computation the number of existing nursing home beds within the district or subdistrict. Within District VIII, the poverty ratio equals 8.61 divided by 12.70, the relevant population of the district for the applicable year being 213,561, with the population for DeSoto County, as a subdistrict, being 3,749 persons age 65 and older. There were 3,671 licensed nursing home beds in District VIII at the time of the hearing, and there were 1,130 beds approved, but not yet licensed or open in the district. There were 60 licensed and operating nursing home beds in DeSoto County. There were 3,904 actually "needed" or allocated beds in District VIII, which, when added to those beds approved but not yet licensed and operating, total an aggregate of 4,801 licensed and approved beds in the district. Thus, there are 997 excess nursing home beds over and above those actually needed in District VIII by 1987, according to the population based formula used in the first part of the need/availability determination process embodied in the above-cited rule. There is an actual need in DeSoto County alone of nine additional nursing home beds by 1987, based upon the subdistrict actual need allocation determined by the first part of the above methodology process of 69 beds. The second part of the need/availability determination process computes how many additional beds can be added to a district or subdistrict before the occupancy rates of nursing home beds in the district or subdistrict fall below the applicable rule mandated percentage. In DeSoto County, the applicable percentage is 80 per cent, because the subdistrict of DeSoto County indicates some need for additional beds, although the district as a whole has excess beds with no additional actual bed need shown. Thus, based upon the entire applicable computation, 15 beds may be added to DeSoto County before utilization of nursing home beds in the county will drop below the threshold of 80 percent. It has thus been established that if 60 beds are added to the bed supply in DeSoto County, for instance by a grant of the instant application, the utilization of nursing home beds will decline to approximately 50 percent. Under the above rule methodology, HRS, in adhering to the requirements of that rule, would not normally grant a certificate of need when only a small number of additional nursing home beds are computed to be available under that formula, that is, for a new freestanding nursing home facility. It is undisputed that construction of a new nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered to be financially feasible. That rule of thumb does not apply, however, to the addition of beds to an existing, already-built parent facility, and it is undisputed that the addition of needed beds to an existing facility is more cost-effective in terms of construction costs and staffing, than the construction of a new facility. In its review process, with regard to the instant application and proceeding, HRS did not consider the alternative of adding new needed beds to the existing facility operated by Diversicare (DeSoto Manor), since the Diversicare application was not filed in the same batching cycle as the application at bar filed by Heritage Hall. Although the nursing home bed need determination formula reveals a maximum need of 15 beds for DeSoto County by 1987, HRS proposes to approve 60 beds in conjunction with the Heritage Hall application. In its review process, HRS took into account the fact that DeSoto and surrounding counties in District VIII were experiencing high occupancy rates as to existing licensed beds, and took the position then and in this proceeding that residents of DeSoto County needing nursing home care would have difficulty finding available nursing home beds. HRS failed to take into consideration, in its review process, the additional number of nursing home beds which had been approved in surrounding counties (as pertinent hereto, the surrounding counties of District VIII), but which were not yet licensed and actually operating. Thus, at the time of hearing there were 301 approved but not yet opened beds in Charlotte County, 97 approved but not yet operating beds in Collier County, 222 approved but not yet opened beds in Lee County and 597 approved but not yet operating beds in Sarasota County. Thus, the approved but not yet licensed and operating beds will result in an increase of 1,217 beds available, when open, to the residents of DeSoto and the adjacent counties of District VIII. 1/ The applicant and HRS seek to justify the approval of 60 additional beds in DeSoto County by reference to the high utilization rates being experienced in adjacent counties. As pertinent hereto, Charlotte County was experiencing an occupancy rate of 99 percent, Sarasota was at 88 percent occupancy, Lee County at 91.5 percent, with Collier County at 64.5 percent. Those figures do not take into account the latest nursing home District VIII occupancy figures as of June 29, 1984 which reflect the above-discussed additional approved, but not yet opened beds, and which result in the occupancy rates in these counties falling substantially. Thus, Charlotte is now experiencing only an 80.4 percent occupancy, for instance, with Sarasota County falling to a 78.5 per cent occupancy, with lowered occupancy rates resulting in Lee and Collier County as well with the addition of the approved, but not yet opened beds. These lowered occupancy rates resulting from the opening of these approved, but not yet licensed beds, were not considered by HRS at the time of its initial review, and free form grant of the certificate of need at issue. The opening of these hundreds of additional beds will continue to reduce occupancy in those counties and provide available beds to residents of District VIII and to residents of DeSoto County, to the extent those beds in the other counties are deemed accessible. HRS admitted at hearing that the availability of beds has increased in the district since its first review of the application. The financial feasibility of the Heritage Hall proposal depends upon an assumed 97 percent occupancy in its sixth month of operation, and projects that 40 percent of the revenues will be derived from private, paying patients. The 97 percent occupancy is an optimistic projection however, because only nine beds are shown to be actually needed in the county by 1987, and only 15 beds can be added before occupancy will drop below 80 percent. The addition of 60 beds would drop occupancy at DeSoto Manor and the proposed Heritage Hall facility, if built, to 50 percent. The Heritage Hall projection for revenues from private, paying patients which is 40 percent, is substantially more than the current revenue source from private, paying patients experienced by DeSoto Manor of 16 percent. In order to achieve such an occupancy rate in such a short time, and such a higher percentage of private, paying patient revenues, Heritage Hall must aggressively market its new facility and nursing home service so as to attract private, paying patients. Based upon historical evidence of record, it is likely that the patient base in DeSoto County itself will not support such a high percentage of private, paying patients and such patients will doubtless have to come from other areas or counties in the district, specifically the counties lying along the coast of District VIII. There is no evidence to establish that nursing home patients in the coastal counties have any inclination to seek nursing home care in DeSoto County, particularly because those coastal counties are already experiencing lowered occupancy rates, and nursing homes there need more patients. There is thus no demonstration that residents of the coastal counties in District VIII (or other adjacent counties for that matter) would travel to DeSoto County for nursing home care when there are empty beds available to them closer to their homes or the homes of their families in those counties. Heritage Hall proposes to recruit its staff from DeSoto County and the surrounding geographical area. DeSoto Manor however, itself is currently experiencing severe problems in recruiting registered nurses for its facility, in spite of repeated advertising and recruitment attempts. Potential staff members share a reluctance in becoming employed at DeSoto Manor, which lies in an isolated, rural area, and which must compete with the many nursing homes lying in the coastal areas in the other counties of District VIII for staff, and which areas offer more living amenities in general, than does the isolated, rural, small community setting in which DeSoto Manor is located. Indeed, other District VIII nursing home administrators have contacted the administrator of DeSoto Manor, in her capacity as administrator, as well as in her capacity as president of the Florida Health Care Association for District VIII, seeking assistance in obtaining additional staff for their facilities. Approval of the Heritage Hall application will, in effect, double the competition for staff members for nursing homes in DeSoto County, and will concomitantly, increase DeSoto Manor's present difficulties in obtaining and retaining appropriate employees. In calculating the financial impact which an additional 60-bed nursing home would have on the existing DeSoto Manor facility, DeSoto Manor assumed that the number of nursing home beds said to be available before occupancy dropped below 80 per cent, which includes the proposed 15 additional beds, would be full of patients and that these patients would be evenly split between the two nursing homes in the county. Thus, each nursing home would have approximately 37.5 patients in its respective 60-bed facility. In this event, and taking into account the concomitant reduction in staff, salaries and other per patient expenses because of a reduction in the number of patients, the proposed Heritage Hall facility would likely experience a net loss of approximately $232,587 for the first year of operation of its additional facility. DeSoto Manor's Medicaid reimbursement revenues would fall $31,722 below DeSoto Manor's actual cost of providing Medicaid patient care. Thus, in order to recover lost revenues and achieve a break-even profit and loss status, a significant increase in patient charges over existing charges would be necessary. The weight of such increase in patient charges would have to fall upon the private, paying patients in the revenue mix of each nursing home, because of the inflexible nature of the current Medicaid reimbursement scheme. In evaluating the DeSoto County population's accessibility to nursing home services, HRS admittedly did not take into account the provisions of Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which is the local health plan as it relates to nursing home planning adopted in the most current HRS rules. This local health plan provides for nursing home services to be available within a one hour travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of the residents of District VIII. The president of the District VIII chapter of the Florida Health Care Association, who is the administrator of DeSoto Manor, is aware of at least ten nursing homes within a one hour drive of Arcadia and at least three others within that radius which are under construction, a significant number of which are in District VIII. Arcadia is located in the center of DeSoto County. All counties surrounding DeSoto County in District VIII have substantial numbers of approved beds which have not yet been opened and at least Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, which are adjacent to DeSoto County have occupancy rates in the neighborhood of 80 percent or less. The applicant did not establish, in furtherance of its attempted justification of 60 additional beds for DeSoto County, the lack of accessibility to DeSoto County nursing home patients of beds in the adjoining counties of District VIII, especially Charlotte and Sarasota, inasmuch as it was not established that those nursing homes in those coastal counties are more than an hour's driving time from the center of DeSoto County. Although, as witness Straughn for HRS established, Sarasota or the more westerly parts of Sarasota County, are approximately 49 miles and roughly an hour driving time from DeSoto County, it was not established that there are not nursing homes available in closer parts of Sarasota County which are accessible in less than an hour's driving time to DeSoto County residents and/or patients. Indeed, witness Porter testifying after the hearing by deposition, established that most of the nursing homes in the coastal counties involved in this proceeding, are within "40 some miles" from the present DeSoto Manor facility and the proposed Heritage Hall facility. Indeed, witness Porter established that Port Charlotte, in the immediate vicinity of which are several nursing homes, and which county is experiencing now an 80.4 percent occupancy rate (with the above-mentioned numbers of approved but not yet installed beds) is only 25 miles from the proposed Arcadia location. Thus, the criteria of the above rule which HRS witnesses failed to take into account, encompasses nursing home beds available or approved in the coastal counties referred to, which are accessible to patients in DeSoto County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the relevant legal authority, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING the application of Heritage Hall to construct a new 60-bed nursing home facility in DeSoto County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 28th day of January, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Originally, each Petitioner filed an application for a Certificate Of Need for the construction and operation of nursing home facilities in Broward County as follows: HCR - 120 beds, Richmond - 240 beds, Health Quest - 180 beds, and FPM - 240 beds. The applications were reviewed by Respondent comparatively and competitively, and they were denied in a State Agency Action Report on August 12, 1982 solely on the basis that there was no need for additional nursing home beds in Broward County. The formal hearing thereafter requested by all Petitioners was continued several times due to scheduling conflicts and due to the expected promulgation of a new methodology by which the need for nursing home beds is computed. As a result of Respondent's Quarterly Census Report dated November 30, 1983, Respondent determined that in fact there was a need for an additional 101 nursing home beds in Broward County. Accordingly, just prior to the formal hearing and by letter dated January 4, 1984, Respondent's attorney invited each Petitioner to amend its application for the purpose of being eligible to receive a Certificate Of Need for those 101 beds. Each Petitioner so complied. At the final hearing, each Petitioner proceeded on both its original application and its amended application. In spite of the singular ground for denial of each application contained in the State Agency Action Report, Respondent's attorney contended from the inception of this proceeding and into the final hearing that whether any of the applications met all statutory and rule criteria for approval was disputed by Respondent, including the financial feasibility of each proposed project. According to Respondent's only witness, Thomas F. Porter, however, all four applications meet all statutory and rule criteria for approval including financial feasibility. Accordingly, the only facts to be determined herein will relate to the issue of the number of beds needed. Since Respondent stipulated that 101 beds were available to be awarded to one of the applicants in this proceeding (Tr. 17, 36-40, 952), the threshold issue is how many beds in excess of 101, if any, are needed in Broward County. Respondent uses the most recently available information in analyzing applications for nursing home beds, including the Quarterly Census Report which it publishes, and a mathematical methodology contained in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the purpose of which methodology is to project the need for nursing home beds on a three year basis to determine the availability of those beds for award to Certificate Of Need applicants in relation to a projected need. The methodology contains several steps. The first part of the methodology projects the number of beds that will be needed based upon an adjustment of a standard of 27 beds per thousand for the population aged 65 and over to reflect the percentage of those in poverty in the HRS district in relation to those living in poverty in the state. The second part of the methodology contains the present and prospective occupancy rates. Before any of the new beds which are determined to be needed can be added, the average occupancy rate for existing homes must exceed eighty five Percent (85), as the rule is applied to Broward County, the only county in Florida constituting its own HRS district and having no sub-districts. Furthermore, the second part of the formula provides that no additional beds which have been determined to be needed can actually be added if, theoretically, the prospective occupancy rate after the beds are added will be reduced below eighty percent (80 percent). Respondent's determination as to the number of beds needed and the number of beds available for Certificate of Need applicants according to "part two" of the formula is based on its Quarterly Census Reports. The November 30, 1983 Quarterly Census Report revealed that 1,419 community nursing home beds (4,058 needed beds, less 2,789 existing and 300 previously approved but not constructed beds) will be needed in Broward county in 1986, the horizon year for these applicants. The occupancy rate of existing nursing home beds for the six months preceding that report was 91.5 percent. According to that report, since the prospective occupancy rate is 80 percent for Broward County, then the addition of more than 101 beds at the present time will theoretically reduce the prospective occupancy rate below 80 percent. Under normal circumstances Respondent will issue Certificates of Need in accordance with the need methodology set forth above. However, Respondent has discretion to approve applications for nursing home beds which do not conform to the need methodology if the existence of special circumstances can be proven. Special circumstances do exist in Broward County which warrant a determination that more nursing home beds are needed than is demonstrated by a strict application of Respondent's need methodology. One of those special circumstances is the existence in the district comprised of Broward County of an older population than in the other districts in Florida. Broward County's 65 and over population is fairly typical of Florida at the present time, but there is a significant difference in the proportion of the population which is 75 and over and which will be 75 and over in the near future. In 1980 Florida as a whole had 6.5 percent of its 65 and over population in the 75 and over category which was projected to increase to 9 percent by the year 2000. By contrast, according to studies performed by Dr. Robert Weller, in Broward County 35.4 percent of the 65 and over population was 75 and over, and by 1986 this number was projected to increase to 53.6 percent. This difference was classified by Dr. Weller as "very meaningful" to the point where he would be very "uncomfortable" with any attempt to plan for Broward County using statewide averages. This large difference in the composition of the elderly population of the state as a whole and Broward County is a significant special circumstance because the older the population the greater the demand for nursing home beds. In fact, the big predictors of need for nursing home beds are illness and age. The average age of entry into a nursing home is 81. While the population group of 85 and older utilize nursing home beds at a rate 15 times greater than the 65 and older group, the over 75 age category constitutes 70 percent of all nursing home users. Respondent's need methodology does not make an adjustment for differences in the 65 and over category between the various districts. This failure to adjust for an older population may not significantly affect districts with more normal population composition, but since Broward County's population departs substantially from the norm, it is an essential consideration. The failure to consider this situation results in a gross understatement of need in Broward County. Diagnostically Related Groups (hereinafter "DRG") regulations are amendments to the Social Security Act effective in 1983 which alter the method by which hospitals will receive reimbursement for Medicare patients. Under the DRG regulations, which hospitals are required to adhere to by the end of 1984, reimbursement for Medicare patients will be based upon an established length of stay for each type of illness. For example a hospital might be reimbursed for an eight day hospital stay for a coronary by-pass operation whether the patient actually stays in the hospital for seven or for 12 days. The effect of the DRG regulations is the earlier discharge of many patients in need of intensive nursing care. Every expert witness and professional administrator opined at the hearing in this cause that DRG regulations will result in an increased demand for nursing home beds. In addition to the effect the DRG regulations will have in a normal situation, the characteristics of the Broward County will accentuate this effect. The nationwide average for percent of Medicare funding in acute care hospitals is approximately 50 percent while the average for Broward County in last 12 months ranges from 53 percent to about 64 percent. The characteristics of Broward's elderly population also increases the effect of the DRG regulations because the population in Broward County is older than that in the remainder of the state. A study of the effects of the DRG regulations on the need for additional nursing home beds was recently conducted for Palm Beach County. That county has a high percentage of elderly (although not as high as Broward) and a high percentage of Medicaid funding. That study indicated that the DRG regulations would increase demand there by about 225 to 300 beds. Theodore J. Foti, an expert in health planning, utilized the Palm Beach study to estimate that from 325 to 400 additional beds are needed in Broward County to compensate for the DRG regulations alone. In Broward County there are three facilities which Respondent counts as nursing home facilities but which do not provide nursing home services. The Daystar Nursing Home, which contains 44 beds, is a Christian Science facility which does not provide the level of care associated with nursing homes. The Manor Oaks facility, which contains 116 beds, has a hospital license as an extended care facility and is a licensed specialty hospital, not a nursing home. St. Johns Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, which contains 100 beds, is a specialty hospital. Respondent includes the 340 beds in these facilities in computing the total of existing nursing home beds. Since these facilities are not truly nursing homes, they are displacing beds which normally provide nursing home services. The need methodology, therefore, does not include the true number of existing nursing home beds in Broward County, and, therefore, even if all other data used in the methodology be accurate, the bed need as determined by the methodology is understated by 340 beds. Barbara Palmer is employed by Respondent in its Office of Aging and Adult Services. Her job duties include writing proposed rules, manual material and legislative budget requests for Respondent's program known as Community Care for the Elderly (hereinafter "CCE"). CCE services include case management as well as CORE services, adult day care, chore, emergency alert response systems, home delivered meals, home health aid, medical transportation and personal care. Each of these programs is generally designed to provide services to the clients in the client's home. None of these services are provided to persons who are already in nursing homes. In order to compute need for CCE services, Palmer and Respondent rely on research by Dr. Carter Osterbind which identifies the incidence of "homebound" and "bedfast" individuals in the population aged 65 and over. Respondent defines bedfast as a person who, because of physical or other infirmities, remains in bed and is incapable of being in any other place. Similarly homebound individuals are those who cannot leave their homes without assistance. Respondent routinely uses Osterbind's 8 percent incidence factor to calculate the percentage of the population in the State of Florida 65 and over that can be characterized as homebound and bedfast. Subject to revisions, Palmer prepares the budget proposal for Aging and Adult Services which is then approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for submission to the Governor and which then becomes Services for part of the Governor's budget request which is ultimately submitted to the Legislature. Palmer uses two documents to prepare her budget request: Dr. Osterbind's paper "Older People in Florida" and "Florida Decade of the 80's", a technical appendix provided by the Office of the Governor as a reference for population statistics for use in developing legislative budget requests. Using these two documents, a projected need is compared with the historical data of how many people have been served with the money which was received in a previous budget year. By subtracting the historically met need from the projected need, Palmer arrives at the projected unmet need, which is presented in a table depicting the total number of homebound and bedfast clients who will not receive services. Palmer also uses a factor, developed by Respondent's Community Care for the Elderly Program, to determine how many individuals, but for the fact that their need is going to be met, are at risk of institutionalization. Respondent's Office of Evaluation has developed and published a 42 percent factor and utilizes it as a basis to determine how many of those persons in a category whose needs will be unmet because of lack of budget dollars in the future will actually end up in nursing homes if more dollars are not appropriated. In other words, Respondent utilizes a document promulgated in 1981 by its Office of Evaluation which indicates that a 42 percent factor should be applied to an 8 percent statewide percent of the population 65 and older to determine how many are at risk of institutionalization in a nursing home, and this methodology has been used routinely by Respondent to prepare Respondent's budget requests through 1985. Palmer's approach in preparing the budget request has a purpose of persuading the Legislature that unless money is provided, 42 of all homebound and bedfast individuals will have to be institutionalized but for provision for home health care services. Palmer's last budget request shows that in the decade of the 80's Respondent expects a 69.8 percent increase in the population group 65 and over. The 10 year plan for CCE and CORE services gives the estimated percentage of need which Respondent intends to meet with CCE and CORE services for various budget years through 1990. Respondent will only provide those services to 23.84 percent of those persons needing them in 1985-86 and only 26.48 percent in 1986-87. Estimated unduplicated clients that will be served in those same years are 41,448 and 47,869 respectively. Expert witness, Michael Schwartz, used Respondent's population figures for Broward County and Respondent's methodology according to Palmer to determine how many of those individuals aged 65 and over in Broward County will be homebound and bedfast in the planning horizon year of 1986. Multiplying the number of homebound and bedfast by the percentile of persons that are at risk of institutionalization yields the figure of 9,760 persons for the horizon year. The number of persons projected by Respondent's Office of Aging and Adult Services to actually receive the CCE-CORE services in that horizon year is 3,956. Thus, the number of individuals unable to obtain those services and needing a nursing home bed in that year will be 5,802. These people will need nursing home beds for an average length of stay of two and one-half years (national average). The current inventory of nursing home beds in Broward County, including approved but not built beds, is 3,089. When the existing inventory is subtracted from the number of needed beds, as computed by the Aging and Adult Services methodology, the net need is an additional 2,715. Thus, when Respondent's methodology for determining the need for nursing home beds in the absence of alternatives of CCE and CORE services is applied to Broward County for the year 1986, it yields a need for 2,715 beds in addition to existing and approved beds to accommodate the homebound and bedfast who will not receive those services. However, when Respondent's methodology in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is applied to Broward County for the year 1986 it yields a need for 1,419 beds in addition to existing and approved beds. Yet, when the theoretical prospective occupancy feature contained in that rule is applied to Broward County, only 101 beds are needed to be built in time for service in 1986. It is noteworthy that the formula used by Respondent to induce the Legislature to fund programs for the diversion of the elderly from nursing homes yields double the need for nursing home beds in Broward County in 1986 than use of the formula established by Respondent to evaluate applications for new nursing home beds. Schwartz identified the reason for the difference: The CCE funding formula takes into account those below the poverty level as well as those above the poverty level in determining the number of people who are at risk of institutionalization unless CCE services are provided. However, Respondent's bed need methodology uses a poverty ratio (number of impoverished in the county relative to number of impoverished in the state) to adjust the statewide standard of 27 beds per thousand downward to 15.5 beds per thousand in Broward County. Since the first part of the bed need methodology only measures nursing home bed need for the impoverished (by adjusting 27 beds per one thousand by a poverty ratio) while the formula used by Aging and Adult Services contemplates all persons at risk of institutionalization, whether impoverished or not, and since the Aging and Adult Services methodology yields a higher need figure, tie difference between the two figures must represent the extent to which private pay patients (not impoverished) are using, and will continue to use, nursing home beds in Broward County to the exclusion of Medicaid patients. Utilizing the first part of the bed need methodology, Respondent has determined that Broward County will need a total of 4,508 beds in 1986 and that, when licensed and approved beds are subtracted, 1,419 additional beds will be needed. However, the second part of the methodology which purports to determine the prospective utilization of nursing home beds limits the number of beds which can be added to 101. The premise behind the prospective utilization test is that the addition of more than 101 beds will result in the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County being reduced below 80 percent. Because of the particular situation existing in Broward County this premise is not valid. In November 1983, Richmond's newly-constructed Sunrise facility had 120 beds in service, but Respondent counted all 240 approved beds as being in service for determining its occupancy rate. These 240 beds were, therefore, occupied at a rate of 24.4 percent. In November 1982, the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County was 89.8 percent, while a year later after including all 240 licensed beds in Richmond's Sunrise facility, the occupancy rate had only fallen 3 points to 86.7 percent. Expert witness Schwartz concludes that if 240 beds can be added In Broward County and only drop the occupancy rate from 89.8 percent to 86.7 percent, then certainly more than 101 beds can be added before the occupancy rate will drop below 80 percent. He further concludes that when One examines what actually happened in Broward County rather than what could theoretically happen, the prospective utilization test may well be a valid predictor of future occupancy rates under normal circumstances, but it fails to be in Broward County. Rather, Schwartz concluded that approximately 1,000 nursing home beds can be added in Broward County without lowering the occupancy rate below 80. Expert witness Theodore Foti explained the effect of Respondent's bed need methodology when applied to Broward County. The methodology is based on the premise that the only people who need nursing homes in Florida are the impoverished since the standard 27 beds per one thousand is adjusted only by the poverty ratio. However, nursing home providers prefer private patients because they pay more. In Broward County there are facilities that only accept private pay patients. The provider receives about 25 percent more profit than he would if he had two individuals to care for in the same room when the difference between private and semi-private rates and the decrease in staffing that is possible with the lesser number of patients are taken into consideration. Because of the shortage of supply and the ever-growing demand in Broward County, it is economically beneficial to a 60 bed nursing home for example to take 20 beds out of service and operate with 40 beds because the owner can increase the rates and lower the costs simultaneously. According to Foti, a review of the occupancy rates in Broward County shows that beds in certain facilities have been taken out of use over a period of time by those facilities. Those providers have chosen to serve primarily the private paying individual since it is to their financial benefit to do so. The corresponding result is that the demand for nursing home beds by the medicaid recipient cannot be satisfied because the private pay patient has "squeezed out" the Medicaid patient. The existence of this phenomena in Broward County rises to the level of an exceptional circumstance since Respondent uses a formula to prescribe prospective occupancy rates which are directly controlled by the number of beds that the existing owners place in service or take out of service. Considering the "private pay phenomena" in Broward County, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in Broward County is the lowest in the state, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in the state is the lowest in the country, Foti calculates a need currently in Broward County to be an additional 800 beds as a minimum figure even without considering the DRG regulations which clearly will accentuate that need. Respondent's witness Porter acknowledged that Respondent would look favorably upon applications for Certificates of Need for additional beds in an area where indications are that Medicaid patients are being denied access to beds although Respondent's bed need methodology simultaneously shows that no new beds are needed. He explained that as an extenuating circumstance if there is evidence that a particular population group is being denied access and that Respondent would look favorably upon applications proposing substantial Medicaid beds (such as those under consideration herein) if accessibility for Medicaid clients is limited. He further acknowledged that the Medicaid program office of the division of Adult and Aging Services would be an appropriate authority upon which he would rely in making such a determination. He further acknowledged that the accessibility to Medicaid beds would be increased in Broward County by issuing Certificates of Need with a Medicaid bed condition attached to them since the Medicaid utilization rate has been increasing in Broward County even though the total number of beds has remained constant. Lynn Raichelson as the supervisor of Respondent's Adult Payments Unit for Broward County is responsible for gathering data reflecting the number of people placed in Medicaid beds during the month in Broward County for Medicaid payment purposes. Both her reports admitted in evidence and her testimony at the final hearing noted an overall difficulty in finding placements in Broward County for Medicaid patients. Her reports indicate a number of entries where all Broward County and Dade County nursing homes were contacted but there were no nursing home beds available. The number of days for placement ranged from 23 to in excess of 83 days. Most of the patients were in acute care hospital beds while awaiting nursing home beds. Several health care professionals testified as to the actual need in Broward County as opposed to the projected need based upon Respondent's mathematical formula. One hospital administrator had no problem placing private pay patients but found that Medicaid placements are extremely difficult to make in Broward County. His hospital alone holds 8 to 12 patients on any given day who should have been discharged into a nursing home. The executive director of the North Broward Hospital District which encompasses three hospitals encounters difficulty in placing Medicaid and Medicare patients in nursing homes in Broward County since the nursing homes are at full operational occupancy. Approximately 25 percent of the patients discharged from hospitals in the District are referred to and placed in nursing homes. Of this 25 percent, the District encounters difficulty in placing 10 to 15 percent of the patients. The problems persist year round but are especially difficult during the winter "peak" season. Alan Mahar is the administrator of the Primary Health Care Division of the Health and Public Safety Department for Broward County. He was the supervisor of nursing home placement from 1975 to 1981 when Broward County was making nursing home placements. Between June 1981 and September 1983 he participated in a Medicaid demonstration project called Pentastar which was sponsored by Respondent's District 10 Aging and Adult Program Office. The purpose of the project was to determine if an alternative existed to keep persons out of nursing homes. An important part of the program was the identification of persons aged 60 and over who were potentially at risk of being placed into a nursing home within one year. Those enrolled in the program had to qualify for Medicaid payments. Although he expected he would need to interview approximately 300 to find 150 persons for the program, everyone he interviewed qualified. At the conclusion of the program, none of the persons who received services through pentastar were any less at risk than they were before those services commenced. Services under that program terminated in September 1983. Since Broward County does not have a publicly operated nursing home, Mahar experienced extreme difficulty in placing Medicaid patients and found that it frequently took weeks and sometimes months to find an available nursing home bed for a Medicaid patient. Mahar's opinion that there is not a sufficient number of beds available to Medicaid patients in Broward County is also based on his identification of the trend over the last three years he has been involved in auditing Medicaid matching funds. The money which Broward County has been paying for hospital care for Medicaid persons has almost doubled in the last three years, while the Medicaid match money for nursing home care has gone up only 15 or 20 percent during that same period. The poverty ratio included in Respondent's bed need formula results in an underestimation of bed need for wealthy counties such as Broward County where the majority of nursing home patients are private pay patients. Broward County is the wealthiest county in the state and has the lowest Medicaid usage in the state. The poverty ratio results in a calculated bed-need ratio in Broward County of 15.5 beds per thousand whereas the statewide need ratio is 27 beds per thousand. There is overwhelming competent substantial evidence to show an actual need for community nursing home beds in Broward County currently and in 1986 for in excess of the 780 beds Petitioners collectively seek herein. Substantial competent evidence was presented to show several special circumstances, and respondent's sole witness acknowledged that one of those was sufficient for the grant of all applications filed by the four Petitioners in this cause. The overwhelming need proven herein was uncontroverted by Respondent, and the special circumstances prohibit Respondent from applying the bed need methodology in Broward County at this time. In view of the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence, there is no need to determine which of the applicants herein is best qualified for the award of the 101 beds in issue in this cause. Additionally, the evidence in this record is insufficient to proclaim any of the applicants to be best qualified. At the final hearing there were a few attempts at a comparative analysis, and none was credible. The attempts at comparative analysis simply resulted in a further substantiation of the fact that all of the applicants are equally qualified. Respondent's witness gave his personal opinion that one of the applicants was preferable but was unable to assign any weight to any of the factors utilized in reaching that individual opinion. Rather, the one factor that he did testify to at length in the hearing as the most important - accessibility by Medicaid patients - was the one item that that applicant would not guarantee. HCR's application for the 101 beds indicated that it would not commit to the number of Medicaid patients that it would serve. In short, the testimony at the hearing and the evidence presented provide very little basis, if any, for choosing one applicant over another. Rather, all applicants meet all criteria, and the need for the number of beds originally requested clearly exists.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Granting to Richmond Healthcare, Inc. a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America a Certificate of Need 120 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Quest Corporation a Certificate of Need for 180 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; and Granting to Federal Property Management a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 15th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire 1107 South East Fourth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jean Laramore, Esquire and Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601-1568 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Lewis State Bank Building, Suite 464 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue [Case No. 79-2407] Whether the Department is entitled to reimbursement of certain Medicaid funds previously paid to a nursing home owner in the amount of $118,061.00, based upon a recommendation by the Department and subsequent determination by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, under Section 1122, Social Security Act, that Federal reimbursement of expenses attributable to the purchase of the nursing home should be withheld due to the Owner's lack of timely notice of intent to acquire the nursing home; [Case No. 80-467] Whether, based on the Section 1122 determination, the Department wrongfully disallowed and withheld payment to the nursing home owner, certain medicaid reimbursement funds in the amount of $101,348.00. Conclusions and Recommendation: Conclusions: Here, each party has the burden of presenting a preponderance of evidence in support of its affirmative claim. Each claim rests on the propriety or impropriety of imposition of Section 1122 penalties against the nursing home. Since the Department failed to present sufficient evidence justifying the imposition of Section 1122 penalties and the nursing home failed to establish the Section 1122 penalties were erroneously imposed, neither party sustained its burden of establishing entitlement to the relief requested. Recommendation: That the Department's Medicaid overpayment claim against the nursing home owner, in the amount of $118,061.00 be DENIED, and the nursing home owner's claim against the Department for $101.348.00 in Medicaid underpayments be DENIED. Background: On April 26, 1979, and May 2, 1979, Petitioner/Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("Department") notified Respondent/Petitioners, Lakeview Nursing Home, Robert Becht and R. B. Care, Inc., d/b/a Lakeview Manor and d/b/a Intercoastal Nursing Manor ("Owner") that a desk review of the annual cost report for the Lakeview Nursing Home (a/k/a Lakeview Manor) indicated that the nursing home had been overpaid $18,900.00 by the Department's Medicaid Program during the eight months, ending June 30, 1978, and that such overpayment should be returned to the Department. On October 8, 1979, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that, pursuant to a "Notice of Determination Under Section 1122" issued by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW") the Department had recalculated the nursing home's historic per diem rates and determined that the Owner had been overpaid $61,155.00 in Medicaid funds during the period ending June 30, 1978. On November 19, 1979, the nursing home Owner requested a formal hearing, under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the validity of the Department's overpayment claim. On November 30, 1979, the Department forwarded the Owner's request for a hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. [DOAH Case No. 79-2407] On January 10, 1980, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that an additional $56,906.00 should be repaid to the State of Florida--based upon alleged overpayment to the nursing home during the period ending June 30, 1979. On February 14, 1980, the nursing home Owner filed a Petition with the Department alleging numerous wrongful and negligent Department actions resulting in the withholding and underpayment of Medicaid funds to which the nursing home was entitled, demanding full payment, and requesting a formal Section 120.57 hearing. On March 12, 1980, the Department forwarded the nursing home Owner's Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. [DOAH Case No. 80-467] By Notice of Hearing, dated April 11, 1980, Case No. 80-467 was set for final hearing on May 29, 1980. By agreement of the parties, the two cases were subsequently consolidated for final hearing. At final hearing, the Department called John T. Donaldson, and offered Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9, into evidence, each of which was received. The nursing home Owner called as its witnesses, William McCaulley, Leonard Cordes, and Linda Zarecki, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 5, (Composite) and 6, each of which was received. At the request of the nursing home, and without objection by the Department, official recognition was taken of Rule 10C-7.48(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The nursing home further stipulated that the only allegations which it would pursue in the administrative hearing concerned whether the Department wrongfully withheld from the nursing home certain Medicaid funds to which its was entitled. Neither party submitted post-hearing proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an agreement with HEW, the Department administers the Medicaid Program within Florida which includes allocation and payment of Medicaid funds to nursing homes which provide health care to patients qualifying for Medicaid benefits. (Testimony of Donaldson, Petitioners Exhibit 5; Respondent's Exhibit 9) On November 1, 1977, Robert Becht, on behalf of R. B. Care, Inc. ("Owner") purchased a nursing care facility located at 208 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida, known as Intercoastal Nursing Manor. No evidence was presented to establish the purchase price paid for the facility. Subsequent to its purchase, the name of the nursing home was changed to Lakeview Manor, although Department correspondence frequently refers to it as Lakeview Nursing Home. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 9 [Composite]) On January 9, 1978, a representative of the Regional Health Care Planning Agency--Health Planning Council, Inc.--advised the Department's Bureau of Community Medical Facilities of an apparent change in ownership of the Intercoastal Nursing Home, noted that the new owner had not "sought, applied for, or received the necessary Certificate of Need for this change of ownership transaction," and asked for Department assistance in determining the present status of the nursing facility. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In response to the Health Planning Council's letter, the Department's Office of Medical Facilities sent a letter to the Nursing Home Owner, dated January 26, 1978. That letter enclosed Department rules which provided that, when certain expenditures have been incurred by a health care facility without prior notice of such expenditure being given to the designated planning agency (Office of Medical Facilities), that agency should notify the health care facility that such obligation was subject to review, that timely notice of the proposed expenditure was not given, and that the Agency proposed to recommend to the Secretary of HEW that the expenditure be disapproved. The nursing home was given 30 days to reply, or file the necessary application for approval of the expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home). The letter closed with the following: "You should understand that we must report the purchase of Intercoastal Nursing Manor to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on a no timely notice and that it may affect depreciation, interest, and fair returns on the project and reimbursement on the project." (Respondent's Exhibit 2) By letter dated March 22, 1978 (with copy to the nursing home Owner), the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities subsequently informed the regional office of HEW that notice had been given the nursing home Owner concerning the need to file an application for review of the November 1, 1977, acquisition of and change in ownership of the nursing home, but that it had failed to respond. The recommendation of the Office of Community Medical Facilities was attached to the transmittal letter; however, that recommendation was not offered into evidence by the Department. The letter of transmittal concluded that, because no application for approval was submitted by the nursing home Owner, there was "no indication on the HRA-45 of the amount of capital expended for the acquisition." (Respondent's Exhibit 3) During April, 1978, the Regional Health Administrator of HEW issued a "Notice of Determination under Section 1122--Reimbursement to be Excluded." The Notice was addressed to the nursing home Owner and concluded that reimbursement for expenses related to the capital expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home facility) would be excluded from payment for services provided under the Social Security Act based upon the finding that (1) the expenditure was subject to Section 1122, and (2) Notice of Intent to make the expenditure had not timely been given. By way of explanation, the regional administrator added that reimbursement would be "withheld for an indefinite period" because the State had been unable to make a finding that the expenditure conformed to applicable plans, standards, and criteria due to the failure to submit an application. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) By separate agreements entered into by the Department and the nursing home Owner on November 2, 1977, October 30, 1978, and September 5, 1979 (which enabled the nursing home to participate in Florida's Medicaid Program) the nursing home Owner expressly agreed to comply with state and federal laws and rules applicable to the Medicaid Program. The Owner also agreed that Medicaid cost reporting would be governed by the procedures and methods contained in the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15). The agreements relieve the nursing home from responsibility in "those instances of overpayment due to Agency [Department] errors in eligibility investigation and determination. . ." (Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) Section 2422 of HIM-15 describes the requirements concerning approval of capital expenditures imposed by Section 1122 of the Social Security Act. The Manual cautions providers desiring to make or having made expenditures subject to Section 1122 to familiarize themselves with the regulations and direct questions concerning its implementation to the designated planning agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 8) Notwithstanding having been sent repeated notices by the Department and HEW concerning the requirements of Section 1122, the nursing home Owner has not filed an application for approval of the capital expenditure associated with acquisition of the nursing home; neither has it contended that such capital expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Section 1122 and implementing HEW and Department rules. (Testimony of McCaulley, Donaldson) Despite the Department's withholding and disallowal of payment to the nursing home of expenses relating to the acquisition of the facility (due to the federal Section 1122 determination), the nursing home continued to qualify for and participate in the Medicaid Program. The nursing home provided efficient and satisfactory medical care to Medicaid patients during 1978, and 1979, and the Department does not assert otherwise. The three Medicaid participation agreements entered into during 1977, 1978, and 1979, do not directly address or purport to relieve health care facilities from compliance with Department rules and Section 1122. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) It is probable that the nursing home received actual notice of the requirement that certain capital expenditures by health care facilities must receive Section 1122 approval. Although the nursing home Owner's secretary since June, 1978, does not recall receiving the HEW Section 1122 Notice, she was not employed by the nursing home during the time the notice was issued, and she admitted that she could not testify that the owner had not received the HEW Notice. Moreover, her testimony did not address the earlier Department correspondence to the Owner concerning the need to obtain State and Federal Section 1122 approval, including the Department's Section 1122 recommendation to HEW. (Testimony of Zarecki, Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Between 1977 and 1979, the Department overpaid the nursing home $118,061.00 (which includes the $18,900.00 claimed by the Department in its May 2, 1979, letter) in per diem patient reimbursements which the nursing home was not entitled to under the Section 1122 Notice and Penalty. This overpayment was caused by the Department's failure to exclude that portion of per diem patient reimbursements attributable to the Owner's acquisition of the nursing home property. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 7) If the Section 1122 penalty was incorrectly recommended by the Department, and imposed by the HEW, the Department has withheld between November 1, 1977, and December 31, 1979, $101,348.00 which is now due and owing to the nursing home Owner. (Testimony of McCaulley, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Since January 2, 1979, the Owner has no longer owned or operated the nursing home in question. (Testimony of McCaulley, Cordes)
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) of any one or more of five applicants for community nursing home beds in Lee County for the July 1989 planning horizon.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants Applications for certificates of need (CON) for nursing homes are accepted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) in batching cycles and are subject to competitive review. The Department comparatively reviewed and analyzed 13 individual applications for proposed nursing services for District VIII, Lee County, in the July, 1986 nursing home batching cycle. Five of those applications are at issue for purposes of this proceeding. Pertinent to this proceeding, petitioner, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America (HCR filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4746), petitioner Forum Group, Inc. (Forum), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4755), petitioner, Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4747), petitioner, Hillhaven, Inc., d/b/a Hillhaven Health Care Center Lee County (Hillhaven) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4756), and respondent, Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center (Careage) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4748). Each of these applications was timely filed. The Department's "preliminary" action The Department is the state agency charged with implementing and regulating the CON program for medical facilities and services in Florida. Within the Department, the Office of Community Medical Facilities is responsible for the review of CON applications and provides a recommendation for approval or disapproval after its analysis is concluded. The Department assigned the subject District VIII applications for the July, 1986 hatching cycle to Medical Facilities Consultant Robert May for review. Mr. May was supervised in his work by Elizabeth Dudek, an experienced Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, who has reviewed or supervised the review of approximately 1200 CON applications. Robert Nay and Elizabeth Dudek concurred in their evaluations of the applications and recommended that Hillhaven's application be approved for 60 beds in Lee County. This recommendation was forwarded to the Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, Robert E. Naryanski, who also occurred with the recommendation on or about December 20, 1986, and forwarded the recommendation to Marta Hardy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Planning and Development, for final approval. An unusual set of circumstances evolved from that approximate point in time with respect to the applications at issue. Sometime in late November 1986 Marta Hardy talked to Robert Sharpe, Administrator of the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, concerning the applications in this batching cycle and stated that she intended to involve him in the review procedure. In late December, she asked Mr. Sharpe to review the applications for four of the counties in the cycle, including Lee County. Mr. Sharpe is in a separate and distinct part of the Department, which reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary but does not, in the ordinary course of operations, review certificate of need applications. Mr. Sharpe's involvement with reviewing nursing home applications had never occurred before and has not occurred since. However, Mr. Sharpe has been involved on limited occasions with reviewing hospital CON applications in preparation for administrative hearings. Careage had a CON application in each of the four districts that Mr. Sharpe was asked to review. Mr. Sharpe was not asked to review any other districts other than the four districts in which Careage had applications pending. In Mr. Sharpe's conversation with Ms. Hardy, Ms. Hardy specifically mentioned Careage while expressing her concern about the Department's ability to discriminate the best applicants on the basis of quality of care. Ms. Hardy mentioned no other applicant by name. Mr. Sharpe, in all circumstances, recommended Careage for approval. Mr. Sharpe did not attempt to do a complete re-review the applications, and did not redo any part of the review that had been performed by the Office of Community Medical Facilities specifically the need calculations and comparing the applications to the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe did not apply statutory review criteria in his review of the applications because it had been determined that all the applicants were minimally qualified and met the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe felt that the responsibility of his office was simply to do a comparative review to determine the best applicant. Mr. Sharpe placed information in the applications into what has been termed a "matrix." The purpose of the matrix was to present the information in the applications in a format which would facilitate a comparative analysis based on a greater number of factors than had previously been considered. Traditionally, the predominant factors utilized by the Department in reviewing applications were construction costs, Medicaid participation percentages, proposed sites, and charges. The matrix developed by Mr. Sharpe included additional factors which he felt would better address the quality of care to be provided, such as the size of facility, the size of the patient rooms, the amenities available to the patients and their families, the type and level of staffing, availability of special programs, and operating costs. By including a greater number of factors in the matrix, more information was considered in selecting the best applicant. As a result, the factors that traditionally had been considered by the Department were given relatively less weight. There was no notice to the applicants of this change in practice. Further, although all the information considered by Mr. Sharpe was taken from the applications and generally required to be in the application, the applicants reported the information differently, making a direct "apples-to-apples" comparison difficult. Mr. Sharpe's review of the applications spanned approximately five to eight days. Mr. Sharpe's staff in the information on the matrix from the applications, and, although Mr. Sharpe had personally reviewed all the applications, Mr. Sharpe did not personally check the information placed on matrix for accuracy. The Office of Community Medical Facilities' initial review covered a period of approximately six months. There was no evidence that the duties and responsibilities of the Office of Community Medical Facilities were not carried out in a thorough and appropriate manner. Ms. Dudek has more experience in reviewing CON applications than Mr. Sharpe, and she took into account, among other review criteria requirements, the type programs offered by the applicant and the quality of care the applicant had demonstrated and was capable of providing. Mr. Sharpe never talked to Ms. Dudek to find out the basis for her recommendation because he felt his responsibility was to do an independent review. Robert Sharpe reported his findings with regard to Lee County to Marta Hardy who apparently accepted Mr. Sharpe's recommendation on or about January 7, 1987, approving Careage's application for 60 beds and denying all others. On or about January 23, 1987, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, it was published that Careage was approved fob a 120-bed facility in Lee County. Actually HRS approved Careage for a 60-bed facility; the 120-bed figure in the Florida Administrative Weekly was erroneous. As a result of a new administration and Bob Griffin succeeding Ms. Hardy as Deputy Secretary in the Office of Health Planning, and due to his concerns about the unique manner in which these applications were reviewed and a decision made, another review of the applications for Lee County was conducted. The Office of Community Medical Facilities, the office originally responsible for reviewing the applications, was asked to do this review. This third review was conducted during the summer of 1987 by Bob May while this case was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. In this third review, a matrix was also used, but not the identical matrix previously used by Mr. Sharpe. Indeed, the Office of Community Medical Facilities was instructed not to look at what Mr. Sharpe's office had done. The review resulted in a decision that HRS would maintain its position of supporting partial approval of the Careage application for 60 beds. By letter dated September 4, 1987, the parties were formally notified of the HRS decision and a Correction Notice was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly indicating that the notice published in January, 1987, stating that Careage had received a CON for 120 beds, should have shown a partial approval of 60 beds, and a denial of 60 beds. HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Hillhaven timely contested initial approval of the Careage application and their own respective denials. Careage and HRS are the respondents. Hillhaven, prior to final hearing, dismissed its case contesting the Careage approval for 60 beds, and in this proceeding contends that Hillhaven should be awarded a certificate of need because there is a bed need in excess of 60 beds in Lee County. Careage did not timely contest the denial of the 120 beds requested in its original application. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America HCR, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lee County, Florida. At the time its application was submitted, HCR had not selected a site on the proposed facility, but at hearing proposed to locate it in the Ft. Myers area. Currently, HCR owns and operates 92 nursing homes in 19 different states, including seven within the State of Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are Pasadena Manor Nursing Home (South Pasadena, Florida), Community Convalescent Center (Plant City Florida), Kensington Manor (Sarasota, Florida), Jacaranda Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida) Wakulla Manor (Crawfordville, Florida, Heartland of St. Petersburg (St. Petersburg, Florida, and Rosedale Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida). Each of these facilities received superior ratings on their latest licensure and certification survey with the exception of Heartland and Rosedale, which received a standard and conditional rating respectively. Significantly, the conditional rating assigned to the Rosedale facility occurred less than six months after that facility was acquired by HCR, and all deficiencies were corrected within 19 days of the survey. HCR's current proposal for a 120-bed facility will be a one-story structure containing 40,000 gross square feet, including 2,000 square feet for an ancillary adult day care center. It will have 58 semi-private rooms with half-bath (toilet and sink) and four private rooms with full bath (toilet, sink and shower) located within four patient wings, two nursing stations, two dining rooms, central bathing facilities, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, multi-purpose rooms, outdoor patio areas and the other standard functional elements required to meet licensure standards. In all, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. HCR proposes to dedicate one wing (14 semi-private and 1 private room) of its facility to the care of patients suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that results in gradual memory loss and, as such loss progresses, a need for increased personal care. Historically, Alzheimer's patients have been mixed with other patients in nursing homes, often disrupting other patients and presenting problems of control for staff separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the patient without restraint or sedation, and provides the patient with a smaller, safer and specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the needs of such patients. However, absent fill-up, HCR does not propose to limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. HCR's Alzheimer's unit is reasonably designed, equipped and minimally staffed for its intended purpose. HCR also proposes to provide, as needed, subacute care at its facility. Due to the impacts of the federal DRG (diagnostically related group) system which encourages hospitals to discharge patients earlier, there has been an increased demand for subacute services in nursing homes. Included within the subacute services HCR proposes to offer are ventilator care, IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation, and percentage and long term rehabilitation. HCR currently provides a wide variety of such subacute services at its existing facilities, and it may reasonably be expected to continue such practice at the proposed facility. As an adjunct to the proposed nursing home, HCR proposes to operate an adult day care unit for 12 Alzheimer's Disease patients. Additionally, HCR will offer respite care within the nursing home when beds available. Adult care and respite care provide alternatives to institutional long-term care in nursing homes, aid in preventing premature rising home admissions, and promote cost containment. As initially reviewed by the Department, HCR's activity would be a single story building containing 40,000 gross square feet, including the day care area, with an estimated total project cost of $3,894,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $32,450 per bed, and as designed provides 127 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 166 square feet for semi- private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $2,200,000; costs per square foot $55.00; construct cost per bed 17,417; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's estimate of project costs is reasonable. At hearing HCR updated its project costs to account for changes that arose during the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the total project cost was $4,375,500, or $36,462 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated were as follows: construction costs $2,400,000; cost per square foot $60.00; construction cost per bed $19,000, equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's updated estimate of cost is reasonable. Staffing at the proposed 120-bed facility is designed to accommodate the needs of the skilled and intermediate care patients, as well as the special needs of the Alzheimer's and subacute patients. HCR will provide 24-hour registered nurse coverage for subacute patients and a higher staffing level in the Alzheimer's unit. The nursing home will provide 3.59 hours per patient in the Alzheimer's unit and 2.73 nursing hours overall, based on the assumption that 50 percent of the Alzheimer's patients will wanderers and that 50 percent of all patients will require skilled care. Precise staffing for subacute patients will be determined by the nature of the subacute services needed. HCR's staffing levels, as originally proposed and as updated, meet or exceed state standards. The salary and benefit estimates provided by HCR in its original application reflect salary and benefit levels current at the time of application, and the salary and benefit projections provided by HCR at bearing reflect current (1987) salaries and benefits inflated to the date of opening. Both estimates are reasonable. HCR's projection of utilization by class of pay as initially proposed was as follows: Private pay 51 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Due to its experience over the intervening 17 months since submittal of its application, HCR updated its assessment of utilization as follows: Private pay 50 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 4 percent. The current Lee County Medicaid experience level is 46 percent, and HCR provides an average 71 percent Medicaid occupancy in its Florida facilities. HCR's projections for payor mix are reasonable. HCR's initial application contained estimates of expenses and revenues current as of the date of application (July 1986) but failed to include an inflation factor to accommodate anticipated increases in expenses and revenues. Initially, T. projected its per diem room charges to be $60 to $85. At hearing, HCR projected its per diem room charges in the year opening (1990) to be $90 for a private room, $75 for a semiprivate room, $76.00 for Medicare patients, and $72 for Medicaid patients. The private, semi-private and Medicare charges were determined by inflating current (1987) Lee County charges forward to the year of opening. The Medicaid charges were based on a calculation of the Medicaid reimbursement formula. These charges, when multiplied by patient days, are a reasonable estimate of the projected revenues of the facility. HCR's estimate of expenses in its initial application was based on its current experience. Intervening events have lent new insight to its evaluation of expenses, as have intervening inflationary factors. While HCR's estimate of expenses and revenues was reasonable in its initial application, its current estimates comport with the reality of a 1990 opening and are reasonable. HCR has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility. Since HCR does not propose to initially limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, its pro formas are premised on reasonable assumptions, and it has demonstrated the financial feasibility project in both the short term and long term. The proof demonstrates that HCR provides and Bill continue to provide quality care. HCR's corporate standards and guidelines regulate such areas as patient rights, staff development and orientation, physician and nurse services, pharmacy services and medication administration, social services, and infection control. HCR's manager of quality assurance, house professional services consultants, and quality assurance consultants regularly visit each HCR nursing home to implement the quality assurance standards and guidelines. Each HRC nursing home provides a staff development director who is responsible for the orientation of new employees, training new employees, and continuing training for all employees. Forum Group Inc. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Currently Forum operates 22 Lang facilities and an additional 11 retirement living centers with attached nursing facilities, including one nursing facility in Florida. Its Florida facility holds a standard rating. Other facilities owned by Forum in Texas, Kentucky and Illinois do, however, hold superior ratings. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Lee County that would consist of its proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, an adult congregate living facility, and apartments or Independent living. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen, laundry, administrative area and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum will be a single story building of wood frame and brick veneer construction containing 27,000 gross square feet. It will include 20 semi- private rooms with half bath, 16 private rooms with half bath, 3 private rooms with full bath, and one isolation room with full bath. Also included are a beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and exam-treatment room. But for the length of the corridors in the patient wings, discussed infra, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. Forum's proposal, as initially reviewed by the Department, would have a total project cost of $2,314,800. This equates to $38,580 per bed, and as designed provides 150 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 228 net square feet for semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,377,000; cost per square foot $51.00; construction cost per bed $22,950; equipment costs $200,000; and equipment costs per bed $3,333. Forum's estimate of project cost is reasonable. Forum provided a single-line drawing indicating the general arrangement of spaces for its proposed facility. As proposed, the facility would consist of two patient wings, and a central nurse's station. The corridor lengths in the patient wings exceed state standards by 40 feet. They could, however, be modified to conform to State standards without significantly affecting the cost of construction. The project would have energy conservation features such as heavy duty roof and side insulation, double-glazed windows, and high efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment. The forum facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, ventilator care, hyperalimentation, pulmonary aids, and short and long term rehabilitation. Forum would contract out for physical therapy, speech therapy, pharmacy consultation and a registered dietician. If needed, Forum would offer respite care when beds are available. The proposed staffing levels and salaries proposed by Forum in its application are reasonable and meet or exceed state standards. Forum has a staff training program, with pre-service and in-service training, and utilizes a prescreening procedure to assure it hires competent staff. Twenty-four hour coverage by registered nurses will be provided, and a staffing ratio of 2.9 will be maintained. The staffing level at the proposed facility is consistent with that experienced at Forum's existing Florida Facility. Forum provides, and will continue to provide, quality care. Forum's application projected its utilization by class of pay as follows: private pay 58.47 percent, Medicaid 37.16 percent, and Medicare 4.37 percent. Currently, Forum experiences a 48 percent Medicaid occupancy rate system-wide, although it only has 2 of 35 beds dedicated to Medicaid care in its present Florida facility. Forum estimated its revenues based on patient charges ranging from $50.64 per day for Medicaid/semi-private room to $75.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Based on such revenues, its pro forma, utilizing a conservative 86.25 percent occupancy rate at the end of the second year of operation, demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of the project as initially reviewed by the Department notwithstanding the fact that it had underestimated its Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. At hearing, Forum sought to demonstrate that its project was currently feasible by offering proof that intervening events had not significantly impacted the financial feasibility of its project. To this end, Forum offered proof that the contingencies and inflation factors it had built into the construction of its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction. Additionally, Forum sought to update its proposal at hearing by offering testimony that included an increase in the administrator's salary from $27,000 to $39,000, a decrease in interest in year one to $187,803, an increase in interest in year two to $250,790, and an increase in revenues based on patient charges ranging from $69.19 per day for Medicaid/semi private room to $90.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Some of the applicants objected to Forum's proof directed at the current financial feasibility of its project because it had not previously provided them with a written update of its application as ordered by the Hearing Officer. The applicants' objection was well founded. Further, the proof was not persuasive that any contingencies and inflation factors it had built into its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction, nor that salaries, benefits and other expenses that would be currently experienced were appropriately considered in addressing the present financial feasibility of Forum's project. While Forum has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for initial capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishments and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility, it has failed to demonstrate that its proposal, as updated, is financially feasible in the long term. Health Quest Corporation Health Quest is a privately held corporation which owns, develops and operates health care facilities and retirement centers on a national basis. Health Quest has been in business for approximately 20 years, and currently operates 11 long-term care facilities and three retirement centers in Indiana, Illinois, and Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are located in Jacksonville, Boca Raton, and Sarasota. It also has facilities under construction in Winter Park and Sunrise, Florida. Health Quest also held a number of other certificates of need to construct nursing facilities in Florida. Recently, however, it decided to transfer or sell 3-4 of those certificates because its initial decision to develop nine new projects simultaneously would have, in its opinion, strained its management staff and commitment to high quality standards. HCR is, however, currently proceeding with several projects in Florida, and anticipates that the proposed Lee County facility will be brought on line thereafter. Pertinent to this case, Health Quest proposes to develop a retirement center in Lee County that would consist of a 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, and 124 assisted living studio apartments (an ACLF). 4/ The two components which comprise Health Quest's retirement center are physically connected and share some operational functions such as a common kitchen, laundry, therapy areas, maintenance areas, and administrative areas. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. In addition to providing an economical distribution of costs, the two components of the retirement center are mutually supportive. The nursing care unit supports the ACLF by making sure that health care services are available to the assisted living people. The ACLF supports the nursing unit as a source of referral and as an alternative to nursing home placement. The nursing facility proposed by Health Quest will be a single story building of masonry and concrete construction. It will include 6 private rooms and 27 semi-private rooms with half-bath attached, central nurse's station, central bathing facilities, beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, central dining area, physical and occupational therapy room and outdoor patio The center, itself, will provide patios, walkways and other outdoor features to render the facility pleasant and attractive, and will provide multi-purpose areas to be used for religious services and other activities, an ice cream parlor and gift shop. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility contained 25,269 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $2,244,505. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $37,408 per bed, and as designed provides 240 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,470,333; cost per square foot $58.19; construction cost per bed $24,506; equipment costs $298,200; and equipment cost per bed $4,970. While the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable, its equipment costs are not. These costs are substantially the same as those projected in its original application for a 120-bed facility, which at an equipment cost of $300,000 derived an equipment cost per bed of $2,500. Why the same cost should prevail at this 60-bed facility was not explained by Health Quest, and its equipment cost per bed of $4,970 was not shown to be reasonable. As with most applicants, Health Quest updated its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the estimated project cost is $2,290.331, $38,172 per bed. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,507,043; cost per square foot $59.64; construction cost per bed $25,117; equipment costs $302,700; and equipment costs per bed $5,045. Again, while the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable its equipment costs are, for the reasons heretofore expressed, not shown to be reasonable. The Health Quest facility will offer skilled and intermediate nursing care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, chemotherapy, TPN therapy and tracheostomy care. Also to be offered are respite care as beds are available and, within the complex, adult day care. Health Quest will maintain a nursing staffing ratio of approximately 3.25 hours per patient day for skilled care and 2.5 for intermediate care. As originally reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Health Quest increased its staffing levels to account for an increased demand in labor intensive care, and increased its staffing expenses to account for the intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Health Quest's projection of utilization by class of pay in the application reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 51.6 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 3.4 percent. Health Quest's utilization projection, as updated at hearing, was as follows: private pay 50.9 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 4.1 percent. TAB Health Quest currently serves 30 percent Medicaid patients at its Jacksonville facility, 10 percent Medicaid patients at its Boca Raton facility, and no Medicaid patients at its Sarasota facility. It has, however, committed to serve 40 percent and 48 percent Medicaid patients at its Sunrise and Winter Park facilities, respectively. Health Quest's projections of payor are reasonable. Initially, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges to range from $52 for skilled and intermediate care Medicare patients to $57.25 for skilled care-private and Medicare patients. It did not, however, draw any distinction between private and semi-private rooms. At hearing, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges as follows: $90 for SNF/single/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/Medicare; $68 for SF/double Medicaid; $68 for ICF/single/private pay; $70.75 for ICF/double/private pay; and $68 for ICF/double/Medicaid. Health Quest's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenue and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and as updated. During the course of these proceedings, a serious question was raised as to whether Health Quest had demonstrated that it had the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, or that it was committed to the subject project. Within the past three years, Health Quest has sold three of its approved CONS and is considering the sale a fourth due to its inability to handle that number of projects, and the adverse impact it would have on its ability to deliver quality care. Notwithstanding its inability to proceed with approved projects, Health Quest proceeded to hearing in October 1987 and December 1987 for nursing home CONs in Hillsborough County and Lee County (the subject application), and also had nine such applications pending in the January 1987 batching cycle and eight such applications in the October 1987 batching cycle. Health Quest's actions are not logical, nor supportive of the conclusion that it is committed to this project or that it possesses available resources for project accomplishment. Under the circumstances, Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton currently hold superior ratings from the Department. A superior rating includes consideration of staffing ratios, staff training, the physical environment, physical and restorative therapies, social services, and other professional services. Those facilities are monitored, as would the subject facility, by Health Quest for quality care through a system of quarterly peer review, and provide extensive staff education programs that include orientation training for new staff and on-going education for regular staff. Health Quest has demonstrated that it has provided quality care. However, in light of the strain its current activities have placed on its resources, it is found that Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it could provide quality care at the proposed facility were its application approved. Hillhaven, Inc. Hillhaven is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hillhaven Corporation, which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises. The Hillhaven Corporation has been business for almost 30 years, and is currently responsible for the operation of approximately 437 nursing homes and retirement centers nationally, including 15 nursing homes which it owns or operates in the State of Florida. Hillhaven proposes to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care community nursing home in Fort Myers, Lee County, consisting of 38,323 square feet. It will include 14 private rooms and 53 semi-private rooms, a full bath attached to each room (shower, toilet and sink), central tub rooms, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and outdoor patio areas. In all, Hillhaven's proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility would be a single-story building containing 38,323 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $3,544,444. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $29,537 per bed, and as designed provides 217 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows; construction costs $2,146,000; cost per square foot $56.00; construction cost per bed $17,884; equipment costs $442,005; and equipment cost per bed $3,683.38. Hillhaven's project costs are reasonable. As with the other applicants, Hillhaven update its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing, certain oversights in its initial submission, and its decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction as originally proposed. As updated, the estimated project cost is $4,089,639, or $34,155.33 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated, were as follows: construction costs $2,446,088; cost per square foot $63.82; construction cost per bed $20,384; equipment costs $521,200; and equipment costs per bed $4,343.33. By far, the biggest factor in the increased construction costs was Hillhaven's decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction. Either type of construction would, however, meet or exceed state standards, and Hillhaven's estimates of construction and equipment costs are reasonable. The Hillhaven facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, recreational services, restorative nursing services, and social services. Hillhaven does not discriminate on admission, and would admit Alzheimer's and subacute patients as presented. Were sufficient demand experienced, Hillhaven has the ability to provide and would develop a full Alzheimer's unit, and provide day care and respite care. Currently, Hillhaven operates 36 Alzheimer's units at its facilities nation wide, but has experienced no demand for such a special unit or other special care at its existent Lee County facility. As originally reviewed by the Department, Hillhaven's staffing levels an expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Hillhaven increased its staffing levels to account for staff inadvertently omitted from its initial application, and increased its staffing expenses to account or intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Hillhaven's staffing level is 2.5, and its staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Hillhaven's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 30 percent, Medicaid 60 percent, and Medicare 10 percent. As updated at hearing, Hillhaven's utilization projection was as follows: private pay 44 percent, Medicaid 53 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Currently, Hillhaven provides, on average, 53 percent Medicaid care at its facilities in Florida. Hillhaven's estimate of payor mix was reasonable and, in light of intervening changes in circumstance, was reasonable as updated. Hillhaven's patient charges for its second year of operation as originally reviewed by the Department ranged from $58.60 to $62.00 per day. As updated, Hillhaven's patient charges ranged from $52.13 to $73.50 per day. Hillhaven's estimated charges were achievable when initially proposed and as updated, and are reasonable. Hillhaven's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and comport, as updated, with the current experience in Lee County. Hillhaven has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates are premised on reasonable assumptions, and Hillhaven has demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of its project. Currently, Hillhaven owns or operates 15 facilities in the State of Florida. Of these 15 facilities, two have opened within the past year and are not eligible for ratings. Nine of the 13 eligible facilities are operating with superior licenses. Of the remaining four facilities, two have a standard license and two have a conditional license. The two facilities with conditional ratings have both resolved their deficiencies. Hillhaven has provided and will continue to provide quality care. It ensures that quality care will be maintained within its facilities by drawing upon the professional resources four regional offices comprised of registered nurses, quality assurance monitors, regional dietitians, maintenance supervisors, employee relations specialists, and other administrative support personnel. Regional consultants visit company facilities monthly to plan, organize and monitor operations, and to conduct in-service training workshops. Overall, Hillhaven provides each facility with an in-depth quality assurance program. Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center Gene Lynn (Careage) is the president and 100 percent owner of Careage Corporation. Since 1962, Careage has developed approximately 150 nursing homes and retirement centers, as well as 100 medically related facilities, in 22 states and the Virgin Islands. Until December 1986 it did not, however, own or operate any facilities. Currently, Careage operates four nursing homes in the United States (one in the State of Washington, two in the State of California, and one in the State of Arizona) , but none in Florida. The home office of Careage is located in Bellevue, Washington. Careage proposed to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Lee County with specialty units for subacute and Alzheimer's care, consisting of 45,500 square feet. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 2 isolation rooms and 7 private rooms with full bath and 45 semiprivate rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semiprivate rooms with half bath, central dining area, beauty-barber shop, quiet lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, outdoor patio areas, and exam-treatment room. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Careage's proposed facility was a single-story building containing 45,500 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $4,150,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to 34,583 per bed, and as designed provides 184-227 net square feet of living space for isolation/private rooms, and 227-273 net square feet of living space or semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: construction costs $2,583,125; cost per square foot $56.77; construction cost per bed $21,526; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipment costs, are reasonable. The Careage facility would offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, physical therapy, recreational services and social services. Additionally, the proposal includes a special 21-bed unit dedicated solely to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients, and a dedicated 10-bed unit for subacute care which will accommodate technology dependent children care. Among the subacute services to be offered are hyperalimentation, IV therapy, ventilators, heparin flush, and infusion pumps for administration of fluids. Careage will offer respite care as beds are available, and will offer day care in a separate facility. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 49 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 3 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patients charges for its facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $63.86, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $59.23, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $108.15, and private (other) /subacute (room rate only) $128.75. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, for its 120-bed facility were not shown to be reasonable. First, in light of the fact that there was no quantifiable demand for a dedicated Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, as discussed infra at paragraphs 126-129, no reliable calculation of fill-up and occupancy rates or revenues and expenses could be derived that was, as the Careage application is, dependent on such revenue stream. Second, the Careage pro forma was predicated on average rates experienced in Lee County. Since Careage proposes heavier nursing care than that currently experienced in Lee County, its estimates of patient charges are not credible. At hearing, Careage updated its 120-bed application to account for inflationary factors that had affected the project since it was first reviewed, and to correct two staffing errors. These updates did not substantially change the project. Careage has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates were not, however, premised on reasonable assumptions, and Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 120-bed project. Following the Department's initial review of the applications in this batching cycle, it proposed to award a certificate of need to Careage for a 60- bed facility, premised on its conclusion that there was insufficient numeric need to justify an award of beds exceeding that number, notwithstanding the fact that the application of Careage was for 120 beds and did not request or propose a 60-bed facility. Notably, all financial, staffing, construction, equipment and other projections described in the Careage application were based on a 120- bed facility, and no information was provided regarding a 60- bed facility. Also notable is the fact that the other applicants were not accorded equal consideration. Not surprisingly, the proposed award of a CON for 60-beds to Careage was timely challenged, but Careage did not protest the Department's denial of its application for 120 beds but appeared as a respondent to defend the Department's decision to award it 60 beds. At hearing, Careage offered proof of the reasonableness of its 120- bed proposal over the objection of the other applicants. /5 Careage contends that its proposed 60-bed facility is a scaled down version of its 120-bed proposal Careage proposes to offer the same services in its 60-bed facility as it proposed in its 120-bed facility, including the 21-bed Alzheimer's unit and 10-bed subacute care unit. Its proposed 60- bed facility is not, however, an identifiable portion of its initial project. As proposed, the 60-bed facility would contain 26,900 gross square feet, and meet or exceed state standards. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 1 isolation room and 4 private rooms with full bath, 17 semi- private rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semi-private rooms with half-bath, together with the same amenities offered by the 120-bed facility, but on a reduced scale. As proposed, the total project cost for the 60-bed facility is $2,475,000, which equates to $41,250 per bed. As designed, the facility would provide the same net square footage of living space for private and semi-private rooms as the 120-bed facility. Construction equipment costs would be as follows: construction costs $1,431,750; cost per square foot $53.22; construction cost per bed $23,863; equipment costs $210,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipments costs, are reasonable. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay in its 60-bed facility was as follows: private pay 47 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 5 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patient charges for its 60-bed facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $66.00, Medicaid (all Inclusive rate) $63.50, Medicare (all inclusive rate) $120.00, private (other)/subacute (room rate only) $130.00. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections, its projections of revenue and expenses, and its pro forma estimates for its 60-bed facility suffer the same deficiencies as those for its proposed 120-bed facility. Under the circumstances, Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 60-bed facility. While Careage has only owned and operated nursing homes for a short time, the proof demonstrates that it has and will continue to provide quality care for its residents. The Alzheimer's unit and subacute care units are reasonably designed, equipped and staffed for their intended functions. Staffing ratios in the subacute unit will be 6.0, and in the other areas of the facility 3.0. Careage currently utilizes a quality assurance program at each facility which includes a utilization review committee, safety committee, infection control committee, and pharmaceutical committee. Each facility also has a resident advisory council, community advisory council, and employee advisory council. Presently, Careage is developing a company level quality assurance program, and has initiated announced and unannounced site visits by a quality assurance expert to evaluate resident care, operations, maintenance and physical environment. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The opinions expressed by the witnesses offered by the Department were premised on information available to them while these applications underwent "preliminary" review. The information available to them at that time, and represented by the State Agency Action Report (SAAR), was incomplete and inaccurate in many respects, including the services to be provided by some of the applicants and the approved bed inventory and occupancy rates utilized in the need methodology. These witnesses were not made privy to, and expressed no opinions, regarding the relative merits of the applications in light of the facts developed at hearing. Throughout the hearing, counsel for the Department objected to evidence from any applicant regarding "updates" (changes) to their applications as they were deemed complete by the Department prior to its initial review. It was the position of the Department's counsel, but otherwise unexplicated, that the only appropriate evidence of changed conditions after the date the application was deemed complete were those changes which relate to or result from extrinsic circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as inflation and other current circumstances external to the application. The majority of the "updated" material offered by the applicants at hearing did result from the effects of inflation, the passage of time between the application preparation and the dates of final hearing, changes in the market place regarding nursing salaries, changes in the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement system and typographical errors in the application. Some changes in design were offered as a result of the applicant's experience with other construction projects and in order to comply with licensing regulations. There were also some changes which resulted from better information having been secured through more current market surveys. None of the applicants attempted to change their planning horizon, the number of beds proposed, the proposed location of the facility or the services to be offered except Careage. The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2), Florida Administrative Code; formerly, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b) Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology... The Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i. The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict in the horizon year. In this case, the applicable district is District 8, and the applicable subdistrict is Lee County. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 65-74 in the district. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB), as well as the subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is calculated based on the number of community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986. The Department's Semi-Annual Nursing Home Census Report and Bed Need Allocation prepared for the July 1986 review cycle (July 1989 planning horizon) listed 4,193 licensed community nursing home beds in District 8 and 996 in Lee County. However, that count taken on May 1, 1986, did not include 120 new beds which were licensed in Charlotte County on May 8, 1986. The count also excluded 287 beds at four other facilities in the district, including 60 beds at Calusa Harbor in Lee County, because they were listed as sheltered beds according to Department records at that time. After passage of Section 651.118(8), Florida Statutes, the Department surveyed the facilities and found that the beds at these four facilities were operated as community beds rather than sheltered beds. Under the circumstances, the proof demonstrates that as of June 1, 1986, there were 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds in district 8 (LB) and 1,056 in Lee County (LBD). The formula mandated by the rule methodology or calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Some of the applicants contend that the current population" for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated or the July batching cycle, OR based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. Under this theory, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that period, is the appropriate date to calculate "current population" to derive PCPC and POPD. The Department contends that "current population" for POPC and POPD should be calculated as of July 1986, the filing deadline for applications in this review cycle. The Department's position is, however, contrary to its past and current practice. The need reports issued by the Department between December 1984 and December 1986, routinely used a three and one- half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population." In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one-half spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to deviate from its past and current practice. Under the circumstances, January 1, 1986, is the appropriate date on which the "current population" is to be calculated when deriving POPC and POPD. The parties are also in disagreement as to whether population estimates developed after the application deadline can used to establish the current population. Rule 10- 5.011(k)2h, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that population projections shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor, but does not limit such proof to any particular estimate. The Department advocates the use of population estimates existent at the application deadline. Accordingly, it would apply the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1986. Other parties would apply the more recent estimates adopted by the Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1987. In this case, the use of either estimate would have no significant effect on the result reached under the rule methodology; however, since all population estimates and projections are only approximations rather than actual counts, it would be more reasonable from a health planning perspective to use the latest estimates of the 1987 population than the estimates available at the time of application. In this case, this means using July 1, 1987, estimates of January 1986 populations. These estimates are still "current" as of January 1986, since It is still the January 1986 population that is to be measured, and more reliable from a health planning perspective than the prior projection. In the same manner, July 1, 1987, estimates of horizon year 1989 populations (PCPA and POP), infra, would also be used rather than July 1, 1986, estimates of that population. Accordingly, Forum's calculation POPC (128,871), POPD (77,194), POPA (149,645), and POPB (95,748) is appropriate. (Forum Exhibit 10, Appendix A) Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 26 to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA 4,600/(128,871 + (6 x 77,194) BA 4,600/(128,871 + 463,164) BA 4,600/592,035 BA .0077698 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over in the district. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB 6 x BA BB 6 x .0077698 BB .0466188 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A", the district's age adjusted number of community nursing homes beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant department district projected three years into the future. POPR is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: A (149,645 x .0077698) + (95,748 x .0466188) A 1,162.7117 + 4,422.4086 A 5,585.12 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA", the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds;" gross need in the case. 7/ This calculation is defined by subparagraphs 2d as follows: SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed, however, occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept contemplated by subparagraph 2d. Accordingly, the parties concur that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d of the current rule, but, rather, defined by former rule 1C--5. 11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In calculating the occupancy rate (OR) for the licensed community nursing homes in the subdistrict (Lee County) the Department derived a figure of 91.91. The Department arrived at this figure based on the first day of the month patient census of each facility considered to have community beds (LBD=1,056), which included the 60 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion; assumed that such census was maintained throughout the entire month; and then divided such patient days by the actual number of beds available. The Department's methodology is an accepted health planning technique, and comports with its previous practice. Some of the parties disagree with the technique utilized by the Department to calculate OR, and advocate the use of actual patient day occupancy to derive OR. This technique differs from the "first of the month" technique by utilizing the actual number of patient days experienced by the facility, as opposed to assuming a constant census based on first of the month data. This alternative methodology is, likewise, an accepted health planning technique, and if proper assumptions are utilized will yield a more meaningful result than the Department's methodology. In this case, the proponents of the "actual patient day occupancy" methodology, erroneously assumed that 160 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion were community nursing homes beds, as opposed to 60 beds; and, based on an erroneous LBD of 1,156, derived a subdistrict occupancy rate of 92.97. Under such circumstances, these proponents calculations are not reliable, and the subdistrict occupancy rate derived by the Department is accepted. Applying the facts of this case to the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2d produces the following gross need calculation for the subdistrict: 5A 5,585.12 x (1,056/4,600) x (.9191/.9) SA 5,585.12 x .2295652 x 1.0212222 SA 1309.36 The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant department subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. unless the subdistrict's average occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The number of approved and licensed nursing home beds for the second batching cycle in 1987 shall be based on the number of approved and licensed beds as of August 1, 1987, in subsequent nursing home batching cycles, the number of licensed and approved beds to be used in establishing net need for a particular batching cycle shall be determined as of the agency's initial decision for the immediately preceding nursing home batching cycle. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" In the subdistrict from the cross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated when, as here, the batching cycle at issue predates its enactment. In the face of this dilemma, the parties rely on the provisions of former rule 10-5.11(21)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, which was existent when their applications were filed to resolve their dispute. Under the circumstances, reference to former rule 10-5.11(21)(b), is appropriate. Former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 provides: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subaragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8).... (Emphasis added) While the former rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need calculated under subparagraphs (b)1-8, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule as the data base for calculating LB and LBD, and the number of approved beds as of December 18, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). The other parties would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no reasonable evidentiary basis for its interpretation of the date at which the total number of licensed and approved beds are to be calculated under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and the other parties for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. The Inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule, as well as subparagraph 2i of the current rule, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's interpretation of the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational, since it could result in some beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed on June 1, 1986, but licensed before the consultant supervisor signed the SAAR (state agency action report), they would not be counted in either inventory. On the other hand, the other parties' approach would ignore all beds licensed or approved from previous batching cycles after June 1, 1986 which beds were intended to serve at least a portion of the future population. The fundamental flaw in the parties' approach to establishing an inventory date under subparagraph (b)9, was the assumption that subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule defined licensed bed inventory for purposes of subparagraph (b)9. The Department's rule must be construed in its entirety, and all parts of the rule must be construed so as to work harmoniously with its other parts. So construed, the only logical conclusion to be drawn, as hereinafter demonstrated, is that subparagraph (b)7 defines LB and LBD ("current" licensed beds) for the cross need calculation under the methodology defined by subparagraphs (b)1-4, and does not presume to define licensed beds for the net need calculation under subparagraph (b)9. Subparagraphs (b)1-4 and 7 of the numeric need methodology prescribed by the former rule is designed to yield a gross bed need for the horizon year. The keys to this methodology are the calculation of a current bed rate (BA) and current occupancy rate (OR) for the current using population, and the projection of those rates on the population to be served in the horizon year. A meaningful calculation of the current bed rate cannot, however, be derived without a current inventory of licensed beds (LB and LBD). Accordingly, the relationship between subparagraph (b)7, which defines the data base (June 1, 1986 in this case) for defining LB and LBD (the "current" licensed bed inventory) to the gross bed need calculation is apparent. The parties' suggestion that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9 not only ignores the inextricable link between subparagraph (b)7 and the gross bed need methodology, but also the language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9. The purpose of that subparagraph is to derive a realistic estimate of actual (net) bed need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles were intended to serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it would be illogical to ignore any of those beds when calculating net need. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable in this case not to count any beds that were licensed or approved from previous batching cycles between June 1, 1986, and the date a decision is rendered on these applications. Indeed, subparagraph (b)9 speaks to "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not beds existent on June 1, 1986. In sum, subparagraph (b)7 cannot be read to define licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9, and the parties' suggestion that it can is rejected as contrary to the clear language of the rule methodology. See: Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 493 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Since the purpose of subparagraph (b)9 is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures to the greatest extent possible that the horizon population will not be over or undeserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing there were 1,056 licensed beds and 120 approved beds in the subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a net need of 145 community nursing home beds for the July 1989 planning horizon. Special Circumstances. The Department will not normally approve an application for new or additional nursing home beds in any service district in excess of the number calculated by the aforesaid methodology. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Succinctly, the need for nursing home services, whether they be general or special, is a product of the rule methodology, and not relevant to a calculation of need absent a demonstration of special circumstances. The Department has adopted by rule the methodology to be utilized in demonstrating special circumstances that would warrant a consideration of factors other than the numeric need methodology in deciding the need for nursing home services. That rule, 10-5.011(1)(k)2; Florida Administrative Code, provides: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained at Section 10-5.011. Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under the provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special 505 home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. In the instant case, some of the applicants have proposed special services, including an Alzheimer's unit, subacute care unit, and beds for technology dependent children. They offered, however, no proof that any person with a documented need for such services had been denied access to available beds that the number of persons with a documented need exceeded the number of available beds. Succinctly, there is no credible proof that the need for nursing home services in Lee County exceeds that calculated pursuant to the numeric need methodology. While there are no special circumstances existent in this case that would justify an award of beds in excess of that calculated by the rule methodology, that does not mean that consideration of the Alzheimer's, subacute and technology dependent children services offered by some of the applicants is not relevant to the comparative review of the subject applications. Rather, it means that the need for such services will presumptively be met within the need calculated by the rule methodology. How the applicants propose to address that need is, however, a matter for consideration in a comparative review of their applications. Each of the applicants propose to provide subacute care, with Careage proposing a special 10-bed subacute care unit which would accommodate technology dependent children. HCR and Careage propose special Alzheimer's care units; a 15-bed unit by HCR and a 21-bed unit by Careage. Hillhaven will admit Alzheimer's disease patients as presented, and will develop a dedicated Alzheimer's unit if demand should subsequently develop. The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and the increased demand for subacute services brought about by DRGs, demonstrates that there will be a demand for such services within existing and proposed facilities. There was, however, no persuasive proof of any demand for technology dependent services in Lee County. While there is a demand for Alzheimer's disease care, and the preferred mode of care is in a separate unit specifically designed, staffed, and equipped to deal with this degenerative disease, there was no persuasive proof that the demand is such as to warrant the creation of a separate unit such as proposed by HCR and Careage. 10/ Absent such quantifiable demand, the application of Hillhaven more realistically addresses the need for Alzheimer's disease patients than does that of the other applicants. With regard to subacute care services, the proof likewise fails to quantify the demand for such services. Under such circumstances, Careage's proposed 10-bed subacute care unit is not objectively warranted, and does not serve to better its proposal to provide such services over the proposals of the other applicants. Consistency with district plan and state plan The District 8 health plan contains the following pertinent standards and criteria: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county, 4 within District Eight. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: a. pharmacy h. occupational therapy b. laboratory i. physical therapy c. x-ray j. speech therapy c. dental care k. mental health counseling e. visual care l. social services f. hearing care m. medial services g. diet therapy New and existing community nursing bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds... Each nursing facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same county. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs. ... The State Health Plan contains the following pertinent goals: GOAL 1: TO DEVELOP AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LONG TERM CARE SERVICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA. GOAL 2: TO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE LONG TERM, CARE SERVICES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA. Each of the applicants demonstrated that their proposal would conform, at least minimally, with the foregoing provisions of the state and local health plans. Of particular significance to Lee County is, however, an applicant's commitment to Medicaid service. The District 8 Council has reported that hospitals in Lee County are having difficulty placing Medicaid patients in nursing homes due to the unavailability of Medicaid beds. The current Medicaid experience is 46 percent. Therefore, the local council has directed that new and existing community nursing home developments should dedicate at least 33-1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. While all applicants propose to meet this standard, Hillhaven's proposal to dedicate 53 percent of its beds to Medicaid care is substantially greater than the commitment of the other applicants, and is consistent with its current experience in meeting a community's need for nursing home care. Availability, appropriateness, and extent of utilization of existing health care services Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires Consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. When the subject applications were filed, there were 1,056 licensed beds in Lee County with an occupancy rate of 91.91 percent. The nursing home bed supply in Lee County is obviously strained, and there exist no reasonable alternatives to the addition of new beds to the subdistrict. To coordinate with existing health facilities, each applicant proposes to establish appropriate transfer agreements and affiliations with local physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers. While some of the applicants have proposed an Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, the proof failed to demonstrate any quantitative need for such units in the subdistrict. Some applicants also proposed to provide day care in conjunction with their nursing home. Currently, there exists adequate day care in Lee County at little or no expense to the patient, and there was no persuasive proof of a need for additional day care services. Economies derived from joint health care resources HCR and Hillhaven each proposed 120-bed facilities which would provide for a more efficient and economical operation than a 60-bed facility. The 60-bed facilities proposed by Forum and Health Quest are, however, part of a larger complex which likewise lends itself to an efficient and economical operation. HCR, Hillhaven, Forum and Health Quest are major operators of nursing home facilities, and are thereby able to negotiate and obtain bulk prices for food, medical and nursing supplies. These savings are ultimately passed on to the residents. Additionally, by drawing upon a broad spectrum of expertise existent within their corporate networks, these applicants are best able to maintain and improve the services they offer. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. As between the competing applicants, consideration of those criteria demonstrates that Hillhaven is the superior applicant whether it is evaluated on its application as initially reviewed by the Department or as updated at hearing. Among other things, the Hillhaven facility is spacious with large and well appointed patient rooms, its project costs are most reasonable (whether type 5 or type 4 construction), its programmatic proposal and staffing levels are most reasonable in light of existing demand, its provision for Medicaid services is the highest, and its patient charges are the lowest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Hillhaven's application for a certificate of need to construct a new 20-bed community nursing home in Lee County, and denying the applications of HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Careage. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of November, 1987.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether proposed Rules 10-5.002, 10-5.0025, 10-5.003, 10-5.004, 10-5.005, 10-5.008, 10-5.0085, 10-5.010, 10-5.0105, 10-5.020, and 10- 5.024, published in Volume 16, Number 13, Florida Administrative Weekly, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact 10-5.002(1) Proposed Rule 10-5.002(1) defines the term "acquisition" to mean "the act of possessing or controlling, in any manner or by any means, a health care facility, major medical equipment, an institutional health service or medical office building as one's own." The proposed rule is HRS's attempt to clarify the term's meaning as used in Section 381.706, Florida Statutes. It is based on dictionary definitions, primarily, Webster's Dictionary, Ninth Edition, but also Black's Law Dictionary. Armond Balsano, an expert in health planning, did not believe the definition to be reasonable and thought it was unclear, ambiguous, and open ended. However his opinion in this regard was not persuasive. Proposed Rule 10-5.002(1) is reasonable and sufficiently clear to withstand this challenge. 10-5.002(13) and 10-5.008(2)(d)--Skilled Nursing Issues Proposed Rule 10-5.002(13) defines "community nursing home beds" as relevant to this proceeding to include "acute care beds licensed pursuant to Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., but designated as skilled nursing beds, which are reviewable pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [the nursing home bed need methodology]." Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) relates to fixed need pools and states: (d) Skilled Nursing Units in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units which are a distinct part of a hospital will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as acute care beds. Essentially, proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) requires that skilled nursing beds in a distinct unit in a hospital be categorized as hospital "general" beds on the hospital license, but that they be carried at the same time on the inventory of community nursing home beds for purposes of projecting need under "pool" projections utilized by HRS for evaluating need for new beds. Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) attempts to codify what has been HRS's policy. This rule proposes that licensed acute care beds, which form a distinct part of a hospital-based skilled nursing unit, be counted in the nursing home bed inventory to project future need with respect to the nursing home bed need formula. Thus, these beds will no longer be counted or used in the acute care bed need formula to project the acute care bed need. From a health planning standpoint, several reasons exist for and against the inclusion of these hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. A hospital cannot use its acute care beds as skilled nursing beds without a certificate of need. However, pursuant to this rule, to obtain these distinct unit beds a hospital is forced to compete with nursing home applicants for those beds. Skilled nursing beds in hospitals are "general" beds set up in a special category for which there is no specialty hospital bed methodology. Applications are reviewed under the nursing home bed methodology. A skilled nursing unit in a hospital is a unit, certified under the Health Care Finance Administration program, to identify a distinct part of the hospital as being a service in which there is 24-hour nursing with an RN nurse on the day shift. There also must be skilled nursing multi-disciplinary treatments and therapy services provided. The Health Care Finance Administration categorizes such beds as hospital beds, a distinct part of a hospital. Skilled nursing facility (SNF) beds in a hospital are used to treat acutely ill patients with an average length of stay of 20 days, who are different from the extended care patients found in community nursing homes, who have lengths of stay of one year or longer. Hospital skilled nursing patients are overwhelmingly Medicare patients, whereas community nursing home patients are overwhelmingly Medicaid patients. In Florida, Medicaid does not reimburse for care provided in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. Hospital-based skilled nursing units are reimbursed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) on a cost-based method. This system of reimbursement is also used with respect to non-hospital-based skilled nursing facilities. Furthermore, this means that hospital-based units are no longer reimbursed under the DRG (Diagnosis Related Groups) system. Medicare limits the patient benefit period to 100 days, regardless of the patient setting. Except for hospitals having higher allowable costs, federal guidelines do not differentiate between hospital and non-hospital-based skilled nursing units. The level of staffing is higher in a hospital nursing unit than in any community nursing home. Specialized equipment and services are offered in the hospital skilled nursing unit which are not offered in the community nursing homes. There are different conceptual approaches to care in the skilled nursing unit in a hospital as compared to those provided in community nursing facilities. Acutely ill patients on intravenous feeding or hyperalimentation, and those with multiple diagnoses require the hospital level nursing care. These units are not intended to provide residential care. Hospital beds are licensed under Rule 10D-28, whereas nursing home beds are licensed under Rule 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Although the proposed rule requires skilled nursing beds in distinct units of hospitals to be comparatively and competitively reviewed with community nursing home applications, the two types of beds are not comparable. This creates an unfair comparison. As a matter of good health planning, these skilled units in hospitals should be reviewed differently and separately from regular community nursing home beds. By their nature, SNF beds in distinct units in hospitals are in fact "hospital" beds under Chapter 395 and not nursing home beds under Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Hospital-based skilled nursing units are not considered special care units as defined in Rule 10D-28, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, special care units deal with very specialized intensive care settings. However, pursuant to some federal guidelines and state licensing requirements, a skilled nursing unit is considered a custodial type setting. For example, special care units are surveyed about once every two years and skilled nursing facilities once every year. However, failure to conduct a survey is not a determinative factor for special care units continuing under the Medicaid/Medicare programs. Skilled nursing units are not as fortunate. In fact, failure to survey a skilled nursing unit leads to the expiration of its enrollment in the Medicaid/Medicare programs. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds and states that beds not covered under any specialty bed need methodology, which a skilled nursing unit is not, shall be considered general beds. This is why these hospital-based skilled nursing units are licensed as general acute care beds. The proposed rule amendments also present logistical problems. Hospitals and nursing homes are licensed under different chapters of the Florida Statues and the Florida Administrative Code, and those standards do not match. Their projects are in different planning cycles. HRS intends that hospitals apply for skilled nursing units on the nursing home application currently in use, but admits that the application does not really fit this type of project. The proposed rule amendments regarding skilled nursing units will be costly and burdensome. Although skilled nursing units offer valuable services and few currently exist, under the nursing home need rule it will be difficult to prove need for these projects. A hospital desiring to establish one will likely find itself having either to challenge the fixed need pool for nursing home beds or litigate the almost inevitable denial of its application for lack of need. Either course of action would involve time and expense over and above those usually encountered in the CON process, particularly because such an application would likely draw the opposition of existing nursing homes, even though their services are not really comparable. The proposed rule amendments do not comport with the basic health planning policy of reducing over-bedding by encouraging conversion to other services. It is unlikely a hospital could get a skilled nursing unit by showing a numeric need under the nursing home need methodology, and any attempt to show exceptional circumstances would be hampered by the lack of utilization data. Such beneficial conversions will probably also be chilled by the difficulty in converting a skilled nursing unit back to general acute care use, should it not be successful. Given the extreme acute care over-bedding which exists throughout the state, it is not anticipated that there will be any need for additional acute care beds for the foreseeable future. Since a skilled nursing unit would not be counted in the acute care bed inventory, the reconversion to acute care use would have to undergo CON review and would almost certainly be denied. 10-5.002(52) Proposed Rule 10-5.002(52) defines refinancing costs, which Rule 10- 5.004(2)(c) states are subject to expedited review under Section 381.706(2). The purpose of this definition is to provide guidance to applicants by identifying examples that are often encountered in either bond refunding or refinancing. The definition is straightforward in nature and encompasses the elements common in refinancing. Mr. Balsano, testifying for Adventist, readily acknowledged the preciseness of this definition, but faulted the definition for its absence of any discussion as to the potential benefit of refinancing. However, Mr. Balsano's concerns were misplaced. Distinctions exist between the benefits of refinancing and the meaning of refinancing. Indeed, the benefits of refinancing go to the merit of whether or not the certificate of need should be granted. Since every applicant is required to address the review criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, the proper forum for addressing the benefits of refinancing is in the CON application itself. Proposed Rule 10- 5.002(52) is simply a definition. 10-5.004(2)(g)--Projects Subject to Expedited Review: Capital Expenditure Projects This proposed rule allows applicants who propose a capital expenditure project to improve, repair, or correct their existing facility to apply for a certificate of need on an expedited basis. This proposed rule is conducive to encouraging existing facilities to make needed improvements by seeking approval of the expenditure expeditiously and without the delays associated with batching cycles. It is important for a provider to make and complete corrections or improvements quickly in order to minimize the disruption of patient care. Some of the more common capital expenditures include expansion of emergency departments or emergency rooms and the renovation or expansion of other patient care areas. An application to relocate a hospital is also considered a capital expenditure. Under extreme circumstances of pervasive physical plant deficiencies, coupled with a lack of practical renovation options to overcome plant deficiencies, an existing health care facility might apply for a replacement facility. Only when such replacement facility would (1) involve no new beds or changed bed use (e.g., from general acute care to comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds), (2) involve no substantial change in services, and (3) involve no substantial change in service area would HRS consider such an application to be solely reviewable as a capital expenditure and thus entitled to expedited review under the proposed rule. HRS reviews replacement facility applications by carefully assessing the applicants' claims of pervasive physical plant problems. HRS sends a team of experts, including architects, to the existing facilities to independently judge whether the physical plant is in such a condition as would warrant replacement and whether renovations could serve as a practical alternative from a physical standpoint. HRS also performs an economic assessment to compare the alternatives of replacement versus renovation in order to determine the most cost-effective alternative. Replacement facility applications typically involve a determination not of whether dollars will be spent, but rather, how they are best spent--by replacement or by renovation. As such, HRS helps to contain health care costs without participation by competitors in these institution- specific decisions. Pursuant to Section 381.709(5)(b), Florida Statutes, competitors do not have standing to challenge a proposed capital expenditure and, therefore, there is no adequate reason to defer review of these projects until a future application cycle. Further, when a capital expenditure approval is sought to replace or relocate an existing facility, no one other than the applicant/existing facility can apply to spend or make those expenditures. An unrelated entity cannot compete to replace another entity's existing facility. Conducting a comparative review with respect to a capital expenditure project for the replacement of a hospital is illogical, unworkable, and futile. 10.5.008(1)(c)3 and 10-5.008(3)(b)--Capitalized Costs Proposed Rule 10-5.008(1)(c) requires that a letter of intent describe the proposal with specificity. Subsection (1)(c)3 sets forth the following requirement: 3. A proposed capital expenditure must be rounded to the nearest dollar . . . . If no capital expenditure is proposed, the applicant must so indicate. If the actual capital expenditure has already been incurred, either wholly or in part, and the project will account for such expenditures as capitalized costs, regardless of the purpose, then the total capital expenditure of the project shall be indicated. As related to this same subject, proposed Rule 10-5.008(3)(b) states: (b) Capital expenditures incurred for projects not originally subject to Certificate of Need review must be identified as a proposed expenditure when such expenditure will be capitalized in a project for which a Certificate of Need is required. HRS asserts that this proposed rule codifies HRS's existing policy and that the purpose of this provision is to develop consistency in how applicants treat an already incurred capital expenditure. It is also allegedly intended that this proposed rule give uniformity concerning how project costs are calculated and allocated. For example, if an applicant is going to convert space from one use to another, the value of the space must be included in the applicant's capital expenditure estimate. While Ms. Gordon-Girvin, HRS's health planning expert, opined that this proposed rule is consistent with current practices in the health care market place concerning how capital expenditures are treated and that it forms a common basis of comparison for comparing the applicants' treatment of capitalized costs, the greater weight of the credible evidence does not support these opinions. Actually, the effect of these proposed rules is that a certificate of need applicant, who has previously made capital expenditures and later pursues a certificate of need project utilizing such prior capitalized costs, must identify and include those prior capital expenditures as a portion of the certificate of need project, even though no actual incremental funds will be necessary or spent in connection with the project. One of the problems with proposed Rules 10-5.008(1)(c)3 and (3)(b) is that they both ignore a distinction between fixed costs and variable costs which is fundamental to a financial evaluation of any project. Specifically, it is inappropriate to require an applicant who will have no incremental costs in implementing a project to allocate a portion of prior capital expenditures, where such an application is measured against a competing application in which the entire outlay for capital costs will be necessary. This distorts the evaluation due to inappropriately comparing prior fixed costs to future variable costs. An example of the illogical result of the proposed rules provides guidance. If a hospital has already spent one million dollars to add a CON- exempt outpatient cardiac cath lab, and later seeks to establish an inpatient cardiac cath program, under these proposed provisions, that hospital would have to represent a cost of one million dollars in its application to convert the outpatient cardiac cath lab to an inpatient project. From a health planning and financial standpoint, this is inappropriate. Having to include capital costs which have already been incurred and viewing those costs in the context of the decision to approve or reject a CON project is misleading. Ultimately, the purpose and objective of the CON process is to minimize duplication of health care resources. The proposed rules work in conflict with that goal. Conversion of underutilized resources to resources that could be more beneficially utilized is a policy that is encouraged by HRS. This policy is encouraged in the various need methodologies. One of the reasons to encourage a conversion is that often zero dollars are involved to convert a project from one CON-approved use to another CON-approved use. Proposed Rules 10-5.008(1)(c)3 and (3)(b) would eliminate consideration of the minimal cost involved in a conversion project and are therefore unreasonable. Moreover, the proposed rules could end up creating excess resources in the system simply because they would eliminate the preference for conversion as opposed to new construction. With respect to allocating prior capital expenditures, the proposed rules, as alleged by HRS, are intended to codify existing HRS policy as well as provide uniformity to the process of ascertaining project costs. These proposed rules do neither. In point of fact, HRS has accepted, within the last three years, conversion projects indicating a zero project cost in the application. The proposed rules are thus inconsistent with current HRS policy of accepting and evaluating these applications and are contrary to HRS's stated intention in this proceeding. However, with respect to providing uniformity to the process of ascertaining project costs, the proposed rules provide no methodology by which prior capital cost allocations are to be determined. Indeed, there is no uniformity proposed regarding how a health care facility or applicant accounts for capital expenditures. Generally, a capital expenditure is one that is "material" and the useful life of the item capitalized exceeds one year. What is material to one applicant may be entirely different from that which would be material to another applicant. Thus, the uniformity of presentation of prior capitalized costs contained in CON applications submitted to HRS for review will not and cannot exist as envisioned by HRS in its proposed rules. 10-5.005(2)(e) Proposed Rule 10-5.005 relates to exemption from CON review and Subsection (2)(e) states as follows: (e) Failure to initiate the exemption within twelve months after it appears in the Florida Administrative Weekly will result in the notice of exemption being void. The alleged basis for this proposed rule is to protect those persons pursuing an exemption by ensuring that they are still eligible for it under the same facts and circumstances. Additionally, HRS has encountered problems in the past when entities have received a determination of exemption for a project but have failed to implement the project. In one case, HRS gave a nursing home an exemption to replace a facility on site. After discharging the patients, the nursing home took no further action. However, these beds are still licensed and are included in the bed inventory. Such a situation artificially suppresses the need for nursing home beds in that district for the planning horizon. The proposed rule is an attempted response to this problem. The laws implemented by the proposed rules are Section 381.706 and 381.713(1). Pursuant to these sections, HRS must grant an exemption if the applicant meets the statutory definitions. Further, if a project is exempt, it is not subject to review. Exemption requests may be made at any time and are not subject to batching requirements. Once a project is deemed to be exempt and not subject to review, HRS ceases to have jurisdiction over the project and HRS, accordingly, has no jurisdiction to void an exemption. 10-5.008(2)(f) Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(f) establishes a procedure for HRS and applicants to follow when a departmental need methodology does not exist for a proposed project. The proposed rule attempts to clarify for applicants how best to present themselves when applying for a project for which no methodology has been adopted in an existing rule. This is particularly useful to applicants in addressing the need component required by statute. Policy utilized but not yet adopted by HRS will be provided to applicants in addressing the need component required by statute; however, applicants are not bound by that policy and may tender their need calculations. This proposed rule gives credence to the fact that there may be different methodologies and allows applicants the opportunity to make all the necessary arguments to demonstrate the nature and extent of entitlement to a certificate of need. 10-5.0085(4) Proposed Rule 10-5.008(4) describes shared service arrangements and delineates the procedures applicants must follow to initiate or terminate a shared service. The part of the proposed rule challenged by FHA and the area on which it focused concerned the termination of a shared service arrangement. Proposed Rule 10-5.008(4) provides in pertinent part: (4)(a) The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services where none of the applicants are currently authorized to provide the service: * * * Any of the parties providing a shared service may seek to dissolve the arrangement. This action is subject to review as a termination of service. If termination is approved by the department, 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. * * * 6.b. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services when one of the applicants has the service: * * * e. 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. (Emphasis added) The basis for requiring CON review for a termination of a shared service as delineated above is found in Section 381.706(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). If a shared service arrangement terminates, the party who originally had the service would retain the service. This is reasonable because the entity would have already been granted a certificate of need for the service, singularly offered. The party would be placed back in the same situation it was in prior to the shared service. Conversely, in situations where neither party originally had the service, the remaining parties would have to apply for the service in a batched review. This, too, is reasonable in that the service would no longer be shared and the ability to provide it singularly would be evaluated anew. Here, the party would also be placed back in the same situation it was in prior to the shared service. Additionally, a shared service arrangement (and approval of it) is based on certain benefits present within that arrangement. Upon termination the same benefits may not be present. The identity of the parties and their relationships to each other will have changed. Review at this point provides an applicant the opportunity to compete again to establish the service in its own right under a different set of circumstances, and it allows other providers to compete either for the service in their own right or through another shared arrangement. Such a policy is prudent because the very reason for the shared service was to produce benefits that were not otherwise obtainable singularly. Indeed, even FHA's own witness, Mr. Bebee, acknowledged that certain advantages to a shared services arrangement might not be present when such an arrangement terminates. 10-5.010(2) Proposed Rule 10-5.010(2) concerns what local health plan is to be used and addressed in a CON application, and it provides as follows: The applicable local health plan is the most current plan adopted by the appropriate local health council and which has been accepted and approved in writing by the Department at the time letters of intent are due or, if not accepted by the Department, as reviewed and commented on by the Department. The agency will provide to all prospective applicants those items of the local health plan which must be addressed in the application. HRS asserts that the purpose of this amendment to existing Rule 10- 5.010 is to assist applicants by identifying various components of the plan to which they should address their application and thereby maximize their time and effort and, ultimately, their chances for approval and that this proposed rule codifies current departmental practice of providing those items of the local health plan which must be addressed by the applicant. Contrary to HRS's assertion that this proposed rule is clarifying in nature, the rule in fact goes far beyond those parameters. "Reviewed and commented on by the Department" means that the local health council's adopted plan has been reviewed for consistency with existing need methodologies and has been commented on by HRS. HRS maintains that "commented on" does not mean verbal comments. The proposed rule does not, however, specify that only written comments were intended. Indeed, HRS admitted that the way the rule is drafted it takes into account oral as well as written comments. Statutorily, HRS is required to adopt as a rule the local health plans or portions thereof to be used in the CON review regulatory process. Local health plans generally contain allocation factors, preferences, and policies with respect to the particular district. Within the last several months, HRS has sought to adopt as a rule preferences and policies set forth in the various local health plans around the state of Florida. HRS withdrew those proposed rules. Proposed Rule 10-5.010(2) does not make reference to or account for the fact that the local health plans must be adopted as rules by HRS. HRS cannot circumvent statutory requirements by proposing that an applicant address "approved plans," nor can it require an applicant to address local health plans with which HRS is not in full agreement with the local health council as to whether the plan is consistent with statutory guidelines. Indeed, where HRS and the local health council are in disagreement, an applicant is pulled between HRS and the local council. This proposed rule allows HRS to simply reject the expressed wants of the local health council and to insert its own comments and views, thereby inserting itself into a province exclusively reserved to the local health councils. 10-5.020 Proposed Rule 10-5.020 involves addition of one sentence to the existing rule. The added language provides that HRS will issue a license to the CON holder in accordance with the CON and will not issue a license for fewer beds than the total on the CON. The proposed addition to this rule addresses a problem currently facing the Department, and it reflects a change in agency policy for HRS. Basically, the added language clarifies for an applicant or certificate of need holder that the Office of Licensure and Certification shall only issue a license consistent with the terms of the certificate of need. The proposed rule addition conforms to several health planning goals. First, it requires the implementation of a project in accordance with the certificate of need. Second, the language addresses HRS's current problem of need suppression by industry members. Third, it seeks to ensure uniform development of services. This proposed rule does not penalize hospitals who want to do phase-in type projects. On the contrary, the language seeks to ensure that needed beds and services will be implemented in the horizon year in accordance with the application and entitlement demonstrated by the applicant. Economic Impact Statement The Summary of the Estimate of the Economic Impact states in relevant part: The proposed amendments are expected to have no adverse impact either on existing and new applicants for certificate of need, or on small and minority businesses . . . . The Economic Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the cost to the agency of implementing the proposed rules, an estimate of the cost to persons directly affected by the proposed rules, an estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition, a statement of the date and method used in making those estimates, and an analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Specifically, the EIS states that the proposed rules "will have a minimal economic impact on current or future certificate of need applicants and the public at large." There is no competent, substantial evidence to establish with specificity the existence of any defects in the EIS which impaired the fairness of the rulemaking proceeding or the correctness of the agency actions related to the EIS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: 1. Proposed Rules 10-5.002(1) and (52), 10-5.004(2)(g), 10-5.008(2)(f), 10-5.0085(4), and 10-5.020 are valid. 2. Proposed Rules 10-5.002(13); 10-5.008(1)(c)3, (2)(d), and (3)(b); 10- 5.005(2)(e); and 10-5.010(2) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE FINAL ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in these cases. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners Venice Hospital and Adventist Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(3); 5(5); 6(6); 10(14); 12(15 and 16); 15-17(25-27); and 19(28). Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed finding of fact 2 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 14, 20, 23, and 26 are unsupported by the credible, competent, and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner FHA Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(7); 5(10); 6(11); 8-12(12- 16); and 13-17(19-23). Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, 18, 19, and 21-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order Proposed finding of fact 7 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 20 is unsupported by the credible, competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Humana Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(34, 35, and 38). Proposed findings of fact 2, 5, and 7-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, 4, and 14-19 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners NME and PIA Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2(34, 35, and 38); 3-6(39- 42); 8(53); and 9(54 and 55). Proposed findings of fact 1 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 10 and 11 are irrelevant because these Petitioners dismissed their challenge to the EIS in the Stipulation of the parties admitted as Joint Exhibit 2. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Sarasota Proposed findings of fact 1-4, 6, 7, and 13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed finding of fact 5 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 17, 18, and 20 are unsupported by the credible, competent, and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent HRS Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 and 2); 2(28); 3(46); 4(47-49); 5(51); 7(29); 8(32 and 33); 9(33); 11(8); 13(17); 14(18); 15(23); 16(23 and 24); 17(36); 19(37); 21(57); and 22(58). Proposed findings of fact unnumbered paragraph re: 10-5.005(2)(e); 10; 12; 18; 20; and unnumbered paragraph re: Economic Impact Statement are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1A and 6 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor HCA DOCTORS Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(30) and 7(31). Proposed findings of fact 2-5 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 9-11 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 8 is irrelevant. *NOTE: THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER'S EXHIBIT "A" [RULE 10-5.002, 10-5.004(2), 10-5.005(2), 10-2.008(1)(n), 10-5.008(5)(h), 10-5.010(2), 10-5.020] IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE DIVISION'S CLERK'S OFFICE. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffery A. Boone, Attorney at Law Robert P. Mudge, Attorney at Law 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, FL 34284 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Attorney at Law 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 James C. Hauser, Attorney at Law 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 C. Gary Williams, Attorney at Law Stephen C. Emmanuel, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Theodore C. Eastmoore, Attorney at Law 1550 Ringling Boulevard Post Office Box 3258 Sarasota, FL 34230 Robert A. Weiss, Attorney at Law John M. Knight, Attorney at Law The Perkins House, Suite 101 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Thomas R. Cooper, Attorney at Law Edward G. Labrador, Attorney at Law Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Radey, Attorney at Law Elizabeth W. McArthur, Attorney at Law Suite 1000, Monroe-Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, FitzGerald & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House--Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Liz Cloud, Chief Bureau of Administrative Code Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
