The Issue Whether there is need for a new 60-bed general acute care hospital in Seminole County? If so, to which of two applicants should a CON be awarded to construct and operate the hospital: Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. (CON 9496), or Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital (CON 9497)?
Findings Of Fact The Battleground: District 7 At the heart of the conflict in this proceeding is that the two corporate combatants are the dominant providers of hospital services in major metropolitan Orlando and both are providers of very high quality acute care hospital services. Each seeks authority to construct and operate a 60-bed general acute care hospital in the fast-growing community of Oviedo, Florida. The Agency for Health Care Administration, arbiter of the conflict, has introduced a quarrel of its own by its determination that there is no need for the hospital in Oviedo, a determination with which the hospitals decidedly take issue. Oviedo is an incorporated area in east Seminole County. Seminole County, in turn, is a county that with two other counties makes a contribution by suburb or city center to the conurbation in and around Orlando, Florida's largest non-coastal city. Seminole County is also one of four counties that comprise District 7, one of eleven health service planning districts into which the Legislature has partitioned the state. See Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. The other three counties in the District are Orange, Osceola and, removed from the controversy in this case, Brevard. The four counties are each considered by rule of AHCA to constitute a sub-district of District 7. Brevard is Sub-district 1; Orange, sub-district 2; Seminole, sub-district 3; and, Osceola, sub-district 4. The parties consider parts of Seminole and Osceola Counties to constitute the major metropolitan area of the City of Orlando together with, of course, parts of Orange County, the county that contains incorporated Orlando. As indicated above and by its irrelevance to this proceeding, no part of Brevard County is considered by the parties to make up any of metropolitan Orlando. There is also one county outside District 7 about which the parties introduced evidence, Lake County in District 3. Nonetheless, District 7 remains the primary battleground with a focus on sub-district 3 as the site of the CON sought by the parties. The Parties AHCA The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. ORHS One of the two dominant health care providers in the Orlando area, Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates eight facilities in the four-county area of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Lake Counties, "the only market" (tr. 22) that it serves. Half of ORHS's facilities are in Orange County. These four facilities are: Orlando Regional Medical Center, a 517-bed general acute care hospital that provides tertiary services in addition to routine acute care hospital services and that is the site of a trauma center; Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children and Women, a 281-bed specialty hospital that provides women's and children's services including neonatal services; Orlando Regional Sand Lake Hospital, a 153-bed general acute care facility that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation services; and Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital, a 267-bed general acute care hospital that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation and skilled nursing unit services. In Seminole County, ORHS wholly owns and operates Orlando Regional South Seminole Hospital ("South Seminole"), a 206-bed general acute care facility that provides adult/child psychiatric and adult substance abuse services as well as general acute care services. In Osceola County, ORHS owns Orlando Regional St. Cloud Hospital, an 84-bed general acute care facility. In Lake County, ORHS jointly owns and operates two health care facilities under joint venture business arrangements: South Lake Hospital, a 68-bed general acute care facility and Leesburg Regional Medical Center, a 294-bed general acute care facility. The wholly owned facilities operate under a single license and are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations ("JCAHO"). One of six statutory teaching hospitals in the state, ORHS has been in continuous existence since 1918. Its mission is to be a local, unaffiliated health care provider, providing health care services to the citizens of Central Florida. Recognized as one of the top 100 hospitals in the United States by US News and World Report, ORHS has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions. As but one example, it was the winner of a Consumer Choice Award from the National Research Corporation for the years 1999 through 2001. Orlando Regional Healthcare System provides outstanding health care of the highest quality to patients at its eight facilities in three of the four counties in AHCA's Health Care Planning District 7. Florida Hospital The other dominant health care provider in the Orlando area is Florida Hospital. Founded as a sanitarium, Florida Hospital has been in existence and a presence in the Orlando medical community since 1908. Florida Hospital is part of the Adventist Health System, a not-for-profit hospital organization that operates hospitals throughout the country. In the Orlando area, Florida Hospital has seven acute care campus systems operated under a single license in a three- county area: Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties. The original and main campus is located in downtown Orlando. A second campus is in East Orlando. The five other facilities are in Altamonte Springs, to the northwest of Orlando; Apopka, further northwest; Winter Park, just north of Orlando; and Celebration and Kissimmee, both southwest of the city. Florida Hospital also operates Florida Hospital Waterman under a separate license in Lake County in District 3. The seven campuses in District 7 are unified by more than just licensure. Consistent with their operation under a single license, all seven operate under a single provider number with Medicare/Medicaid. They have a single medical staff and a single accreditation with JCAHO. The seven Florida Hospital campuses operate under a single leadership structure; all policies, procedures and matters that pertain to the operation of the hospital are part of the single body of operational guidelines and procedures that are provided by the organization. The seven campuses also operate under a single price structure, a single charge master that runs across the entire organization. The goal of operating the seven campuses in a unified manner is to maintain continuity and promote one standard of care so that when a patient enters any of the facilities, the patient can rely on receiving the same high standard of care as would be received at any other Florida Hospital facility. Operation under a single structure also provides a patient with the coverage of physicians and staff throughout the system to cover any and all needs of the patient. From its inception, the mission of Florida Hospital has been to extend a religious ministry of healing to the community consistent with Adventist principles. Among these principles are awareness of the eternal nature of the moment at which care is extended to the patient as well as recognition of each patient as a child of God, entitled to the highest possible quality of care embodied in "whole person health" (tr. 876) composed of physical, mental and spiritual well-being. Florida Hospital carries out its mission with "a strong sense of stewardship for providing care in the communities that [the hospital] serve[s] . . . ." (Tr. 875). The success of Florida Hospital's philosophy of care is evident in recognition bestowed by others. For example, Florida Hospital was recognized as being among the top 50 hospitals in the country for nine specialties in the July 2002 edition of U.S. News & World Report's "America's Best Hospitals." To take but one of the nine, "Heart & Heart Surgery," Florida Hospital is ranked 12th in the nation in the company of those ranked just above: Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic (Rochester), Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Duke University Medical Center, Johns Hopkins, Texas Heart Institute-St. Luke's in Houston, Emory University Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and the UCLA Medical Center. Well-Matched Applicants In its state agency action report ("SAAR"), AHCA noted that ORHS and Florida Hospital are two large, well-matched hospital systems. Both operate over 1,500 beds in the Orlando area. Both generate approximately two billion dollars of gross charges annually. Both deliver over 300,000 patient days of patient care. Together, they are the overwhelmingly dominant providers of health care in the major metropolitan Orlando area. In the SAAR, the Agency discussed distinctions between the two applicants. Had AHCA determined that there was need for the facility, it would have had a difficult time deciding which corporation should be awarded the CON. None of the distinctions between the two were found by AHCA to be substantial enough to serve as a basis for choosing either applicant over the other. Other District 7 Hospitals Besides the two applicants, the dominant providers of hospital services in District 7 by virtue of number of facilities (13 hospitals in the District and three hospitals in Lake County immediately adjacent to the District), among other reasons, there are three other hospitals in the District. Health Central is a hospital operated by a statutorily created tax district in the City of Ocoee, in Orange County. Central Florida Regional Hospital is owned and operated by Hospital Corporation of America ("HCA") located in the City of Sanford in Seminole County. It is approximately 14 miles from the proposed locations of the applicant's facilities. Osceola Regional Medical Center, another HCA facility, is located in Kissimmee in Osceola County, not far from Florida Hospital's Kissimmee and Celebration facilities. Stipulation The parties stipulated to the following: The applicable fixed-need is zero. Both applications complied with the requirements of Sections 408.037, 408.038 and Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 408.039, Florida Statutes, and the requirements of Rules 59C-1.008 and 59C-1.010, Florida Administrative Code. Both applications meet the review criteria contained in Subsections 408.035 (3),(6),(8),(10) and (11), Florida Statutes and the review criteria in Subsections 408.035(4),(5) and (12), Florida Statutes, are not applicable in this case. The statutory review criteria at issue in this case are Subsections 408.035(1), (2), (7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need Numeric need for general acute care beds is determined pursuant to Agency rule, Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code. The rule's methodology for the calculation of numeric need for general acute care beds is by sub-district. Since "there really is no longer a future projection methodology in the rule . . . it was stricken out two or three years ago," Gene Nelson, one of ORHS' experts in health planning, refers to the rule as containing a "retrospective occupancy model." (Tr. 619). Under the methodology, additional beds are not normally approved in any sub-district where historic occupancy is less than 75%. If occupancy exceeds 75%, beds will be awarded to bring occupancy down to 75%. In other words, instead of projecting forward as it once did to determine need, the rule looks back to occupancy. If occupancy in the sub- district has met the threshold, then positive numeric need is established. Criticism has been leveled at the methodology. Not taking into account future population growth or occupancy rates at times other than midnight, are but two examples. Criticism, however, of the rule is of little moment in this case since the case is a challenge to agency action not to the rule that contains the methodology. Whatever the appropriateness or validity of the criticism, the calculations pursuant to the methodology have not yielded a fixed-need pool above zero for any of the many sub- districts in the eleven districts of the state for some years now. Nor is numeric need for general acute care beds expected by the Agency to exceed zero anywhere in the state for the foreseeable future. During this time of numeric need "drought," AHCA, nonetheless has awarded CONs for new general acute care beds and even new hospitals on a number of occasions. For example, "[d]espite the fact that there was an applicant proposing to relocate beds within the subdistrict, which wouldn't have affected the bed inventory at all, the state elected to approve [another] applicant . . . that applied for a brand-new 60 bed hospital" (tr. 635) in the community of Lady Lake in District 3. The application in that instance had been filed in the fall of 1998. In a second example, in the fall of 2001, a few years later, Osceola Regional and Florida Hospital Celebration were each approved to add beds to existing facilities despite the fact that there was no numeric need and the hospitals did not meet the statutory occupancy levels for additional beds. Mr. Nelson also testified about a third recent example where a new hospital was built when the subdistrict occupancy was low, the facts of which compare favorably, in his view, with the facts in this case. As he tells it, these three cases, compared to this case, produce inconsistency: In the fall of 1999, Sacred Heart Hospital applied to build a new 60-bed hospital in the southern portion of Walton County. That particular subdistrict is actually a two-county subdistrict consisting of Okaloosa and Walton counties, has some existing hospitals, current subdistrict occupancy in that area is 56.3 percent. Despite . . . the low occupancy . . . the state recognized the validity of the arguments about a growing population, about accessibility, many of the same issues that you have here and approved Sacred Heart to build a new 60-bed hospital in that location. * * * I am not criticizing any of these approvals. I . . . am criticizing [that the state was] presented with a similar set of circumstances in this case [and] the applications were all denied. And I think there is an inconsistency here. (Tr. 637-8). During the same period, moreover, beds have been added to existing hospitals without CON review, accomplished by way of Section 408.036(n), Florida Statutes. The statute allows 10 beds or 10% of licensed bed capacity to be added to a hospital's acute bed inventory upon certification "that the prior 12-month average occupancy rate for the category of licensed beds being expanded at the facility meets or exceeds 80% . . . ." Section 408.036(n)(1)a., Florida Statutes. See also Rule 59C-1.038(5), Florida Administrative Code. The bed additions made with and without CON review contribute to current numeric need determinations of "zero" and the continued reasonable expectation that AHCA's methodology for determining acute care bed numeric need will not yield numeric need in excess of zero for years to come. Most pertinently to this case, these additions erode AHCA's position advanced in hearing in this case for a preference to keep open the option for a future competitor, a competitor other than one of the two dominant providers, presumably when numeric need has been determined to exist, a condition not likely to come into play for the foreseeable future. However the future plays itself out and the effect on AHCA's current methodology, there remains one point central to consideration in this case. In light of a numeric need of "zero" for the applicable batching cycle, for a CON to be awarded as a result of this proceeding, as a first step, the applicants must demonstrate the existence of "not normal" circumstances that support an award. The two applicants attempt that step in tandem. Both ORHS and Florida Hospital contend that rapid population growth, problems of access to acute care and emergency services in the Oveido area, and mal-distribution of beds in the sub-district and district constitute circumstances that justify need for their proposed facilities. In other words, they are "not normal" circumstances. Not Normal Circumstances - Population Growth A rural farm community not long ago with a population of about 7,500, the City of Oviedo, in the last 15 years, has grown into an Orlando bedroom community. The population increase within the city limits is proof of the city's metamorphosis from countryside to suburb. During this period of time, the municipal population has nearly quadrupled to 28,000 with no end in sight to continued growth in the area as explained by ORHS' expert, Dr. Rond: The special circumstances . . . that drive this application are, first, the unprecedented population growth. As we have seen, we are experiencing population growth in excess of a hundred percent in the east Seminole area. In the adjacent Winter Springs area, we are experiencing a rate in excess of 51 percent. We are talking about a population that is going to reach almost 200,000 people by the year 2006. (Tr. 377-8). The area is projected for an additional 18.2% growth by 2006, when as testified to by Dr. Rond, the population will reach nearly 200,000. The municipal population is not the only population of a political entity in the area to quadruple in modern memory. Over the past three decades Seminole County has grown fourfold - from 83,692 in 1970 to 365,196 in 2000. As a result, the county is the third most densely populated of the state's 67 counties. Until the mid-1990's, population growth was concentrated in the western half of the county as Orlando area development spread north into Seminole County along the I-4 and U.S. Highway 17/92 corridors. Since then the rate of population growth has been dramatic in east Seminole County in part because of the opening of another major transportation corridor, the "Greenway," Highway 417. Between 1990 and 2001, east Seminole County more than doubled in size (24,840 to 51,287; a 107% increase) while West Seminole grew by only 22%. East Seminole County is expected to remain the fastest growing portion of the county into the foreseeable future. With approximately 43% of the total land area of the county but only about 16% of the population, it remains much less densely populated than the remainder of the county, affording greater opportunities for future growth. Seminole County is unique in the state from the perspective of bed-to-population ratios. The three hospitals in Seminole County with a combined total of 575 licensed beds, yield a ratio of 1.55 beds per 1,000 population; tied for lowest bed to population ratio of the sub-districts in the state. The only area with a comparable ratio is Sub-district 8-4, comprised of Glades and Hendry Counties, located southwest of Lake Okeechobee, "a very rural area." (Tr. 625). While these two sub-districts are similar in bed to population ratio, they are at opposite extremes in terms of population density. The population of Seminole County, at 371,000 is nearly nine times the combined populations of Glades and Hendry Counties at slightly more than 42,000. Sub-district 8-4 is "totally unlike Seminole County from the standpoint of population demographics; and yet in terms of resource availability, . . . it has a comparable amount of resources per thousand population." (Id.) Thus, Seminole County occupies a unique place in the state for its low bed-to- population ratio considering its overall population. Population forecasts for the next five-year period support the expectation of continued strong growth in east Seminole County. For example, the downtown area of Oviedo plans a residential area with a density up to 50 dwellings per acre, at least one of the highest in the County. In the City of Oviedo vicinity, median densities are increasing from 4 homes per acre to 10, to allow for townhouses. East Seminole County is reasonably expected to have 60,597 residents by the year 2006, an 18.2% increase over 2001. By comparison, West Seminole County is expected to experience only a 6.3% rate of growth. Projected growth in the City of Oviedo, moreover, is in all likelihood understated due to significant residential developments currently underway that alone are expected to add up to 6,238 new residents to the city's population. One need only look to actual growth in the area for support for such a prediction. Actual growth has consistently outpaced projected growth governed by methodologies that have repeatedly failed to reflect the reality of population growth in Oviedo. Related to population growth are utilization projections by the applicants' health planning experts for an Oviedo hospital. Judy Horowitz, Florida Hospital's expert health care planner, explained Florida Hospital's: [W]e looked at historically what had come out of the service area as we defined it. We projected that that volume would grow in proportion to population growth. We looked at a subset of services, those that were likely to be provided at a community hospital as was being proposed by Florida Hospital Oviedo. We looked at what we thought a reasonable market share would be; and our overall forecast is that within two years of opening this facility, that we would reach 77 percent occupancy at a 60-bed facility. So our year two, which is the 12 months ending June of 2007, . . . . we would already be at 77 percent occupancy. Then our first year we would be at approximately 68 percent occupancy. * * * [T]here is clearly sufficient demand to support the hospital as proposed; and the fact that we are projecting a relatively high utilization very quickly shows the magnitude of that demand. (Tr. 1352, 1353). With the high level of population growth and the demand for hospital services that such growth generates, the citizens of Oviedo expect access to hospital care within the community. In keeping with citizen expectation, the City of Oviedo has adopted a resolution that urges AHCA to approve a new hospital in the Oviedo community. It has been joined in its resolve by the Board of County Commissioners for Seminole County through a resolution of its own. To underscore the force of the two resolutions, the corporate parties presented the testimony of representatives of both the City Council and the County Commission. Grant Malloy, the County Commissioner for County District I who grew up in the area with fond childhood memories of "being overcome by the orange blossom smells, they were so intense," (tr. 802) described the growth observed first-hand by him during his lifetime as "phenomenal." (Tr. 806). In answer to the question whether his constituents would benefit by a new 60-bed hospital, Commissioner Malloy testified I do believe so. There is . . . the growth that's occurring there. And I heard . . . discussion about getting to some of the other hospitals. And once you get out of Seminole County . . . the roads are very, very difficult to travel on especially getting into Orlando. Especially rush hour . . . . . . . [T]he growth . . . would support such a facility. I know our board passed a resolution, along with the City of Oviedo[.] [O]ur board, and all the commissioners are unanimously supportive of a hospital in the area. I haven't heard from any residents or constituents that have said it was a bad idea. . . . [P]eople are pretty excited about it. (Tr. 807-8). Tom O'Hanlon, Chairman of the City Council, in the company of three other members of the council, unequivocally backed up Commissioner Malloy's appeal for a new hospital. The changes he has seen in Oviedo, he described as: Dramatic changes. When I moved there, [Oviedo] was a very rural area, and it is no longer . . .; it’s a highly compacted urban area. [W]e are working on a new master plan for downtown, which will have higher densities than we have in our city today. (Tr. 812). Chairman O'Hanlon went on to describe how the pace of the growth continuously outstrips population projections that are the product of the City's best efforts to follow appropriate methodologies for making such projections: [T]he city continually makes population projections. I have always been involved with them[.] [T]here are guidelines . . .; and everytime we make them, the city grows far in excess of th[e] projections. The area is such a dynamic area because we have got the University of Central Florida there, which is just growing as fast as the city is, maybe even faster. You have the Research Park there and you have got excellent schools. And for that combination . . . everybody wants to move there. (Tr. 812-3). The university is just south of the city limits. It has minimal dormitory facilities on campus. The result is that "a vast majority [of students] live off campus in housing and apartments [and they are impacting all the services that must be provided in Oviedo.]" (Tr. 814). Following this testimony of Chairman O'Hanlon, the following colloquy ensued between him and counsel for ORHS: Q Is it fair to say, Councilman O'Hanlon, that the City of Oviedo and surrounding area is in growing urban area that has everything but a hospital? A That is a true statement. Q Are you familiar, Councilman O'Hanlon, with the proposals of Orlando Regional Healthcare System and Florida Hospital to locate a 60-bed hospital in the City of Oviedo? A Yes. Q Do you support that effort? A A hundred percent. Q Do you believe, Councilman O'Hanlon, it would be of benefit to your constituents to have that [hospital] in the city of Oviedo? A Absolutely. People approach me every week wanting to know where our hospital is. Q Can't understand why it's not there already?A Well what they understand is that there is a tremendous need for a hospital and they don't understand why it's not in the process. (Tr 816-7). Residents of Oviedo also do not understand why they have to drive for such a long time to reach a hospital particularly when their goal is the emergency department. This concern about which Councilman O'Hanlon hears from a constituent "at least once a month" (tr. 819) also made its way into the resolutions of the two political bodies in the form of an identical introductory clause, as follows: "WHEREAS, there are increasing problems with timely access to care especially for emergencies," (Joint ORHS/Florida Hospital Nos. 8 and 10). It is, moreover, a concern that takes up the second prong of the applicants' case for "not normal" circumstances: issues of access. - Access The Oviedo Service Area Although similarities exist between the two, the Oviedo Service Areas defined by the two applicants are somewhat different. The service area selected by ORHS is larger than the service area selected by Florida Hospital. The Primary Service Area ("PSA") for ORHS' proposed hospital is composed of four zip codes: 32765, 32732, 32766, and 32708. Of the four, the first three are in eastern Seminole County, that is, east of Highway 417, the Greenway, and south of Lake Jessup. The fourth, 32708 in the Winter Springs area, is just west of the Greenway. The Winter Springs zip code was included in ORHS' PSA in part because it is adjacent to the Greenway. It has also experienced tremendous population growth and is very close to the proposed site for ORHS' hospital. A secondary service area proposed by ORHS is composed of a zip code in Seminole County north of Lake Jessup, 32773, and three zip codes in Orange County, 32817, 32820, and 32826. Located in the midst of the three Orange County zip codes is zip code 32816. It appears on ORHS exhibits as part of the secondary service area. As the zip code for the University of Central Florida, it has a very low residential population so that there are only a few students who might live in a dorm that would list it as their residence when receiving hospital services. There are actually "very few" (tr. 302) discharges from zip code 32816. If one does not include zip code 32816 then ORHS' service area is a comprised of eight zip codes. The April 1, 2001, population for the primary and secondary service areas or the service area designated by ORHS is 170,774. This service area has more than doubled in population over the last decade. Over the next five years, the service area is expected to reach 193,408 residents, of which 45% will be of prime child bearing age (15-44), "a dominant position for that age cohort within the population." (Tr. 315). The Oviedo service area is defined by Florida Hospital as four zip codes in Seminole County, 32708, 32732, 32765, and 32766 and one in Orange County: 32826 (all zip codes in ORHS' service area) with a population of more than 100,000. Florida Hospital's service area does not include Zip Code 32773 (the zip code north of Lake Jessup) that is in ORHS' service area nor, with the exception of 32826, does it include any of the Orange County zip codes that are in ORHS' service area. Thus, there are five zip codes in what Florida Hospital regards as the Oviedo Service Area and eight in what ORHS regards as the Oviedo Service Area if zip code 32816 is excluded. Although somewhat different, for purposes of examining travel distance and time between Oviedo and area hospitals, the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants are similar enough to be considered to be the same. Or, as William E. Tipton, an expert in traffic transportation and civil engineering, testified at hearing, the results of his study entitled "Travel Time Analysis Proposed ORHS Oviedo Campus, Oviedo, Florida" (ORHS Ex. 14) would not be substantially different if he had focused on the Florida Hospital site instead of the ORHS site. Travel Time Analysis Mr. Tipton prepared a travel time analysis to evaluate the differences in travel time that could be anticipated with the development of a hospital campus in Oviedo. Mr. Tipton's study concluded that there would be a reduction of average daily travel time from the ORHS PSA to a hospital by 64% or 18 minutes. The maximum reduction will be 75% of the time or 21 minutes. In the critical peak afternoon hour, there will be a maximum reduction of 79% or 22 minutes in time from that which exists today. The reductions in drive distance for Oviedo area residents if a hospital were in Oviedo would be significant especially in the arena of emergency services. Emergency Services Access to emergency services at a hospital emergency department ("ED") is one of the most important factors in making sure people have reasonable access to community hospitals. "[Y]ou really need . . . immediate care for emergencies, and so it's important to be able to get to the emergency department quickly and to receive care rapidly once you get there." (Tr. 336). Between 1997 and 2001, the hospitals experiencing the highest percentage of ED visit increase, other than Health Central, were Florida Hospital East in Orange County and South Seminole Hospital in Seminole County. During the period between 1997 and 2001, although the population of Seminole County grew less than Orange County, Seminole County had a larger percentage of ED visits. Specifically, the population of Seminole County grew 12% but its ED visits increased 23%, twice its population growth. During the same period, the population of Orange County grew by 15% but its ED visits only increased by 17%. Closer examination of these statistics reveals that ED visits in the downtown area of Orlando, to include Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, were below the county average. However, suburban hospitals, or those in outlying areas, particularly near Oviedo, had much greater ED visit growth: ED visits grew 27% at Florida Hospital Apopka and 37% at Florida Hospital East. Florida Hospital East is the closest hospital in Orange County to the Oviedo area. Of the hospitals in Seminole County, South Seminole was the most severely affected by ED visit increase with a 38% increase of ED visits between 1997 and 2001. (ED visits in excess of 27,000 by area residents are projected in 2006.) In the Oviedo area there are unfortunate but not uncommon delays in emergency transport. More than 20% of emergency transports involve delays of in excess of 45 minutes after arrival at the hospital. These delays are serious because patient outcomes decline dramatically if definitive care is not delivered within the "golden hour," a concept that: reflects the fact that patient outcomes decline [dra]matically in terms of . . . mortality rates if definitive care is not delivered within one hour of the traumatic injury that has been sustained. In cardiology, they tend to . . . say "time is muscle," * * * the longer it takes for a patient to get definitive care following a major cardiovascular event, the more muscle mass is likely to be damaged. . . . [Y]ou can go on and talk about stroke victims, cerebral vascular patients and just a whole array of patients who [fare] much better in terms of morbidity and mortality if they receive definitive care within an hour of the episode. (Tr. 336). Part of the delay for patients in need of prompt emergency services is due to ambulance standing time. Standing time is the time a patient waits in the ambulance or hallway of the emergency department before the patient is seen by medical staff. This standing time does not include the time it takes the ambulance to respond to the call or the time the EMS personnel spend at the scene to stabilize the patient. Nor does it include the travel time to the hospital from the scene. Ambulance standing time for patients from the Oviedo area on average is between 42 and 47 minutes. When average travel times established in Mr. Tipton's study are combined with the standing times, there is not one existing provider of emergency services that can provide a patient from Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area or ORHS' PSA with emergency care within the "golden hour." This combination, moreover, as stated above, does not take into account the dispatch time and time of the ambulance at the scene. The typical types of emergency calls EMS personnel see in Oviedo include difficulty breathing, auto accidents, kids falling off bicycles, heart attacks, and drug overdoses. The largest majority of calls would go to a local community hospital as opposed to trauma center in downtown Orlando. Jeffrey M. Gregg, Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, which includes the Certificate of Need Program for the Agency for Health Care Administration, testified that emergency room access is a problem that has gotten worse over time. Mr. Gregg also stated that a new hospital in the area will improve emergency access for people in the immediate area. A new hospital in Oviedo service area would also benefit and improve emergency access for patients in Orange County emergency rooms by lessening the emergency patient loads they experience. Wayne Martin, Fire Chief, Emergency Management Director, City of Oviedo, testified that the standing times and delays at the area hospital emergency rooms tie up Oviedo area ambulance services for an extended period of time. Emergency Medical Service ("EMS") staff must stay with their patient until the patient is taken into the emergency room and given medical care by emergency department staff. Because of these delays, EMS staff are out of their service area for extended periods of time. This decreases the level of service for the residents of the Oviedo area. One aspect of the problem influences another so as to create a compounding effect. Dr. Robert A. Schamberger, a family practitioner in Oviedo, testified that recently a patient went to the emergency room at an area hospital and it took 16 hours from the times she arrived until she was seen by the emergency room personnel. Dr. Schamberger tried to admit another patient of his in an area hospital on a recent Friday and was informed there were no beds. The hospital said they would call when they had an available bed. The patient was finally admitted on Monday. Emergency room waiting times across the entire community are several hours, which is an unacceptable care standard. Dr. Zulma Cintron practices internal medicine in Oviedo. Dr. Cintron testified that there is a "huge need" for a hospital in the Oviedo area. "We definitely need the beds." Dr. Cintron has had patients with chest pains who ended up waiting in the emergency room for four, five, and six hours before receiving care. Patients with less imminent needs have waited 12, 16 even 24 hours. Dr. Cintron's testimony for Florida Hospital was confirmed by the testimony produced by ORHS of Scott Greenwood, M.D., a cardiologist who heads a cardiology group. The evidence provided by Drs. Schamberger, Cintron And Greenwood, anecdotal though it may be, supports the existence of a problem with emergency services access in the Oviedo area that is shown by the analysis provided by the combination of Mr. Tipton's traffic study and ambulance standing time. So does projected volume for ED visits. Projected volume at Florida Hospital Oviedo in year two would be in excess of 27,000 visits. The Oviedo area has a population that "is adequate to support a hospital at high utilization levels within [a] short period of time and also will generate a significant number of emergency visits." (Tr. 1355). A new hospital facility in the Oviedo service area would help to alleviate the delays currently being experienced in the area hospital emergency departments. The Agency is not unaware of the problem and the solution that an Oviedo hospital would provide. The issue for AHCA is "[w]ould the improvement that would result for some people justify the construction of an new hospital?" (Tr. 726). The applicants claim that the three existing Seminole County hospitals are not appropriately located to provide emergency services required by the growing population of Oviedo. Put another way, within the sub-district and District 7, ORHS and Florida Hospital assert there is a mal-distribution of beds. Mal-distribution of Beds While population growth has increased dramatically in east Seminole the opening of health care facilities in the east part of the county has lagged behind; the area has more than 100,000 people but no hospital. The three acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 7-4 are all located in the western portion of Seminole County. People tend to use hospitals closest to them especially for emergency services. Because of the north/south nature of the road corridors in Seminole County and the congestion and distances involved in east/west travel in the county, the Oviedo area population's access to existing hospital service in the district is problematic. The population has better access to resources in Orange County, a different subdistrict, and, in fact, 66% of the Oviedo population take advantage of that better access. Consistent with the pattern of transportation development in Seminole County, all three hospitals in Seminole County are located between I-4 and U.S. Highway 17-92. Florida Hospital Altamonte is situated along the 436 corridor, whereas South Seminole Hospital is located further to the north on State Road 434, while Central Florida Regional Hospital is situated at the northern border of the county along the U.S. Highway 17-92 corridor. Dr. Rond had this to say about the locations of the three Seminole County hospitals in relation to the population in east Seminole County: The resources in the western part of the county are not situated in such a way that they are being utilized effectively by residents of [ORHS'] service area. Instead, they seek to move along the north/south corridor, primarily the Greenway, to utilize the services located in Orange County or … they take other routes of access to reach Winter Park Hospital, which is . . . in Orange County. (Tr. 319). The problem of distribution of hospitals is not restricted simply to inside the county. There is a mal- distribution in District 7 as well. Overall in the district, there are 2.3 beds per thousand. Orange County enjoys a ratio that is very high when compared to Seminole County's. Orange County's bed to population ratio is 2.7 beds per thousand, whereas Seminole County's is only 1.55 beds per thousand. The average bed ratio in Florida is 2.85 per thousand. Whether measured against the state ratio or the Orange County ratio, general acute care hospital beds per thousand population in Seminole County is low. The ratio comparison between Orange County and Seminole County will improve with an Oviedo Hospital although it makes the overall ratio only "a little closer; so that Orange County has beds per thousand and Seminole County would have 1.6 beds per thousand." (Tr. 316). The applicants intend to make that improvement with their proposed projects. The Proposed Projects ORHS' Orlando Regional proposes to construct a new 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. The location was described at hearing by Karl W. Hodges, ORHS vice president of Business Development: [T]he hospital [will be built] within a two- mile radius of . . . Highway 426, also called Loma and Mitchell Hammock Road which is also called Red Bug Road. [The CON Application] further stipulates we'll be east of 417. (Tr. 20). Within that area, ORHS proposes to build a three-story 155,000 square foot facility on approximately 35 acres of land. Although a site has not yet been purchased, there is at least one parcel of 35 acres of land available in the area that can be acquired by ORHS at a price of $7,000,000 or less, as indicated in its application. The bed complement of the proposed facility will be eight ICU beds, ten labor-delivery-recovery and post-partum ("LDRP") beds serving the obstetrics department, 15 telemetry monitored beds, and 27 medical/surgical acute care beds. The proposal will add 30 beds to the inventory of beds in the sub-district but it will not add beds to the inventory of District 7. The 60 beds will be transferred by ORHS from two facilities. Thirty of the beds will come from South Seminole Hospital (in Seminole County). By itself, moving the 30 beds within the sub-district "for the stated goal of enhancing access . . . is a non-controversial project" (tr. 627) that is not subject to a certificate of need methodology but that still requires CON review and approval. The other thirty beds will come from Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital in Orange County. However attractive for its minimization of controversy, all 60 beds could not have been transferred from South Seminole because to do so would have raised its occupancy above 80%, "an untenable result." (Tr. 630). For the additional 30 beds, "Lucerne seemed like a logical choice, given its bed size and its utilization." (Tr. 628). The design of the proposed hospital is based on another ORHS facility: South Lake Hospital, a replacement facility that opened in January of 2000. Florida Hospital's Florida Hospital also proposes to construct a 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital owns the site, 15 acres at 8000 Red Bug Lake Road near an intersection with the Greenway. The site currently includes a two-story, 41,000 square foot medical office building and a one- story, 6,000 square foot urgent care center. A two-story, 161,000 square foot facility is proposed to be constructed on the remaining vacant space at the site that has been approved under the Development of Regional Impact process for a 120-bed hospital. Ownership of a DRI-approved site will save Florida Hospital time and expense entailed by permitting requirements. All 60 beds will be part of an innovative design referred to as a "universal room and universal care delivery model." For the present, Florida Hospital does not intend to provide obstetrics at the Oviedo facility but "all of the universal patient rooms are capable of being LDRP rooms" (tr. 1181) should Florida Hospital decide in the future to provide obstetric services at the hospital. Florida Hospital will transfer 60 beds from Orange County facilities so that Florida Hospital's proposal will increase the sub-district's bed inventory by 60 beds, 30 more than the increase that will be affected by ORHS' proposal. Just as with ORHS, Florida Hospital's proposal will not increase the bed inventory in District 7. Fifty beds will be transferred from Florida Hospital's Winter Park facility and 10 beds will transferred from Florida Hospital's Apopka facility. AHCA's View of the Proposals The Agency's conclusion that the applications did not demonstrate "not normal" circumstances was reached with difficulty. Review of the applications taxed the agency's decision-making process because of the challenging circumstances presented by the applicants. As Jeffrey Gregg testified for the Agency, when there is "no fixed-need pool," AHCA look[s] at applicants in terms of a unique set of circumstances that they present . . . and in this instance, The circumstances . . . in this case challenge the system, make it more difficult for [the Agency] to make a sound decision in the tradition of the CON program. (Tr. 723). However much in keeping or not with the tradition of the CON program, the determination that there were no "not normal" circumstances to justify need afforded a benefit to the Agency; it would not have to make the difficult choice between the applications. While it could have granted both applications, an option considered by the Agency (see tr. 729), no party contended in this proceeding that circumstances justify two new 60-bed hospitals in Oviedo. If need is proven for but one hospital, then a selection must be made. Yet, at every turn, AHCA has found one advantage held by an applicant to be defeated by another held by its opponent or one set of circumstances that would normally be an advantage neutralized by other considerations. For example, in view of the nature of the Orlando market, AHCA reasonably did not give much weight to ORHS' proposal to add fewer beds than Florida Hospital to the sub- district despite the fact that usually there would be advantage to a mere intra-sub-district move. In the absence of fixed need, for example, such a move would not have to be supported by "not normal" circumstances. To the contrary, however, from the point of view of practicality, it makes more sense "to take beds from a more urban setting [in Orange County, a different sub-district] where they are not being used [as proposed by Florida Hospital] and move them to a new rapidly growing area where there are not hospital beds." (Tr. 739). A sense of practicality guided AHCA throughout its CON review in this case. The Agency, in fact, approached the applications by "trying to be as practical as possible." (Id.) As explained by Mr. Gregg, again on behalf of AHCA: [The Agency] do[es] not give much weight to the fact that [the applicants] would be crossing subdistrict lines here and that one of them [ORHS] is in a position to . . . add fewer beds to the planning area. That's noted in the SAAR, but practically speaking, we are talking about a metropolitan area here. We are talking about in both cases large systems wanting to move beds from one part of their system to another part. So in many ways, . . . once again, [ORHS and Florida Hospital] are really well-matched and difficult to distinguish. (Tr. 724, emphasis supplied). The difficulty inherent in distinguishing between the applicants was repeatedly emphasized by the Agency. The point was brought home once more in questioning of Mr. Gregg by counsel at hearing: Q [W]ith regard to the minute distinctions between the applicants, at your deposition, some of the statements you made in that regard included [that ORHS and Florida Hospital] are both good citizens. All of these things in this case, coming up so close and so equal, that . . . in terms of CON analysis, it becomes very difficult . . . to make a distinction between the two of them. They are both just that good. And then also [the Agency] think[s] they compare very favorably, and very evenly, noting again and again and again that they are very, very close, very, very comparable. Is that still your position here today? A Yes. (Tr. 766-7). However close the Agency regards the two, there are differences in the applications. While some may not be of great benefit to a decision, others may serve to sustain a principled choice. Differences in the Applications Obstetrics The leading reason for hospitalization among area residents is the need for obstetrical services with births running at more than 2,000 per year. During the 12-month period ending June 2000, for example, childbirths accounted for 2,041 discharges. Of the top ten DRGs for discharges among area residents, uncomplicated vaginal delivery accounts for the most discharges, cesarean section ranks third and vaginal delivery with complications is seventh. In keeping with the demand for obstetrical services, the utilization patterns of the population in the Oviedo Service Area and the area's age composition, upon the opening of its facility, ORHS proposes to provide obstetrical services. The proposal is also due, in part, in response to the closing of the obstetric program at Florida Hospital East in May of 2001. There is physician support for ORHS' proposed obstetric services. Robert Bowles, M.D., testified by deposition that his group practice, Physician Associates of Florida, comprised of 14 obstetricians and gynecologists would cover obstetrics at an Oviedo hospital. While Dr. Bowles would not personally admit obstetrics patients at the new hospital, three of his partners would. Florida Hospital does not propose to provide obstetrics upon opening although it has designed its physical plant to provide an OB unit so that Florida Hospital would have the capability of initiating that service without a problem. In other words, Florida Hospital's proposed facility would be "OB- ready." (Tr. 725). Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital does not have physician support for providing obstetric services at its proposed facility, a part of the reason for not offering OB. The basis for Florida Hospital's lack of physician support is a malpractice insurance crisis for obstetricians. Florida Hospital's proposed facility is not projected to open for another three years. If, during that time, the malpractice crisis eases and there is greater physician coverage availability, Florida Hospital could open obstetric services at the same the hospital opens since it will be OB-ready. Another reason that Florida Hospital has decided against offering obstetrics upon opening is that most maternity patients are more comfortable delivering babies in a setting that has neonatal intensive care services available. Two such settings are ORHS-Arnold Palmer and Florida Hospital's main campus. Indeed, a significant number of maternity patients from Oviedo are choosing to travel past multiple hospitals that offer obstetric services to have their babies delivered at one or the other of these two hospitals. Arnold Palmer, in fact, is the leading provider of obstetrical services to the residents of the Oviedo area's two most populous zip codes: 32708 and 32765, both more than 30 minutes driving time away from the hospital. Medicaid and Charity Care Conditions Approval of ORHS' CON is conditioned on a minimum of 7% of total annual patient days for Medicaid patients and 1% for charity care. Florida Hospital's application offers no conditions with regard to Medicaid or charity care. Like ORHS, Florida Hospital is one of the top ten providers in the State of indigent care, and a disproportionate share Medicaid provider. The Agency's view of the difference between ORHS' provision of indigent care conditions and Florida Hospital's decision to not condition its application was explained by Mr. Gregg: Conditions [such as those for indigent care] are important when it allows us to distinguish between applicants. They are less important when we have competing applicants, both of whom has such strong track records as these two do. . . . [W]e look at evidence of past performance relative to indigent care . . . . [I]n a case like this . . . both of these applicants have such good records in th[e] area [of indigent care]. They are both in the top ten statewide. . . . [A] promise of this condition or that condition [does not] give us particular concern one way or the other. They are both very good in that area [of Medicaid and charity care] and very tough to distinguish between. (Tr. 735-6). Architectural Design and Site The architectural plans of both applicants meet all codes that apply to a new hospital in the state of Florida. The ORHS design is tried and proven at ORHS' South Lake facility and will work on a 35-acre site. The size of Florida Hospital's site, 15 acres much smaller than ORHS', led to criticism of the site from ORHS experts. But the site is large enough to incorporate growth in the future. It can accommodate 320 beds and ancillary services. The design, moreover, takes these expansion capabilities into account. Related to the size of the site, the site's conservation area, comprised of wetlands and a forested upland buffer that will remain undeveloped indefinitely also produced criticism that the site is too cramped for a new hospital. But the conservation area, with its mature tree canopy, presents advantages. The hospital was designed to incorporate the view of the conservation area from hospital rooms because such a view is beneficial to the healing process. Furthermore, the conservation area can be used to satisfy water retention requirements. Florida Hospital's site is DRI-approved and part of a DRI master storm water plan that connects many ponds and wetlands. Surrounded by three roads, it has excellent access from existing roadways. Vehicular circulation is split to provide different public, service and emergency entrances. Innovation by Florida Hospital Unlike traditional hospital care models where the patient is moved from room to room depending on type and intensity of care, all care and services are provided to the patient in one "universal" room under the "universal delivery of care model." The model was developed by Florida Hospital. "The nursing leadership of the universal room design . . . was under the direction of Connie Hamilton." (Tr. 1080). Ms. Hamilton, accepted as an expert in nursing and nursing administration, explained at hearing that under the model, the room is designed to provide any type of care the patient might need. Whether the patient is admitted in acute care and then moves to intermediate care or med-surg, all care is provided within one "universal" room. Not only does the patient stay in one place, but as Ms. Hamilton testified, "[t]he nurses stay in one place in providing that care to [the patient] and the families know where the patient is and the physician knows where the patient is [at all times]." (Tr. 933). The universal care model streamlines the interactive processes of care of a patient. The care and attention of physicians, nursing staff and families devoted to moving the patient from room to room and keeping track of the patient as type and intensity of care changes is reduced to nearly zero if not eliminated entirely. The time, energy and resources formerly devoted to all that is entailed with changes in the patient's room is then free to be re-directed to care and attention paid to the patient. The result is enhancement of Florida Hospital's ability to provide "whole person" care consistent with Adventist principles of health care. The universal care delivery model is an innovative approach to the delivery of healthcare. Pioneered by Florida Hospital at Celebration Health, the universal care delivery model has been shown there to reduce medical error, reduce length of stay, reduce pharmacy costs, reduce nursing workload, reduce housekeeping work, and probably to reduce infection rates. Following the universal care model employed at Celebration Health, Florida Hospital has designed its proposed Oviedo hospital facility with universal rooms. Consistent with the universal care delivery model, the rooms are designed to improve the healing experience during hospitalization and minimize the patient's feeling of being in a hospital setting. Another benefit of the universal care model is high physician satisfaction due to continuity of nursing care and other factors. The physicians know where the patient is, that is, in the same location every day. Physicians, moreover, are not called at all hours of the day and night to effectuate patient transfers to other rooms. Kathleen Mitchell has studied the universal care model and published and submitted articles on the model to nursing journals. She has consulted with hospitals around the country interested in the model as well as the "health care arm of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Army, Navy, Veteran's Administration." (Tr. 1084). Ms. Mitchell, accepted as an expert in nursing amplified the testimony of Ms. Hamilton. With regard to the problem the universal care delivery model is designed to address, Ms. Mitchell testified: [T]ransferring patients for different levels of care . . . fractures continuum of care. It is . . . disruptive to everyone . . . involved . . . to the patient and their families . . ., to nursing, pharmacy, the physicians . . . . It creates a great deal of anxiety for patient and the families . . . even [those] who are getting better and moving to a lower acuity of care. One of the most significant things about transferring patients for different levels of care is it involves a great deal of work. Not only bundling the patient up, but the documentation and all the communication that goes along with securing a new location for the patient and expediting a transfer. And moving patients around creates a risk of medical error. The length of stay in hospitals has gotten so short and everybody is focused on reducing the length of stay that in the traditional model of care, nurses are turning over more than half their patient assignment daily . . . . [T]here is the confusion and risk that goes along with that. (Tr. 1086-1088). The benefits of the reduction and elimination of transfers produced by the universal care model were listed by Ms. Mitchell: increase in the continuity of care, reduction in nurse workload, high physician satisfaction, reduction in emergency room waiting time, family satisfaction, connectivity between patient, family and staff. Others were elaborated on by Ms. Mitchell. For example, reduction in pharmacy costs, probable reduction in infection and reduction in housekeeping costs: When you are meeting the needs of the patient in one location, you are not leaving medications behind or sending them to the wrong place, and there is work that nurses and pharmacists do with calling each other with ['] where is it, I can't find it, I sent it[',] all that goes away. We are demonstrating a low incidence of nosocomial infections because we expose our patients to one environment of organisms. This is a very difficult one to prove; even though we have a low incidence of nosocomial infections, we also have a fairly new facility [at Celebration], but it makes common sense that if you are reducing the transfer of the patient and the exposure . . . to different environments, you are reducing their exposure to organisms and will have a lower . . . infection rate. . . . [W]e don't strip linens off the beds and clean the beds where the bed was just made three hours ago, with all the patient transfers that are involved. So there is a reduction in . . . housekeeping work and . . . linen expense. (Tr. 1089-1090). Like the housekeeping efficiencies, the nursing staff benefits from the efficiencies associated with supplies. All of the supplies the nurse needs to care for the patient are close by, so the nurse saves time otherwise retrieving supplies from down the hall or in other areas of a hospital wing. Another benefit of the design is "connectivity to the outside world. The rooms have large windows . . . patients feel connected to the outside world . . . . " (Tr. 1091). This design feature will make use of the conservation area on the Florida Hospital site and the soothing vista it will provide to the patient, and assist in the healing process. Other Design Features Design drawings are a living and continually evolving process. The planning process of Florida Hospital for the design of its new Oviedo hospital involved specialty department experts and ancillary representatives discussing delivery of quality care for a patient throughout the system. The specialty experts and ancillary representative include radiology, emergency department, lab, pharmacy, and respiratory. The involvement of these people assures optimal patient flow throughout the system. In Florida Hospital's design plans, the patient flow and interaction between departments are well designed and well laid out so as to minimize the opportunity for confusion. In order to maximize efficiency, a larger number of beds in one nursing unit works better than smaller pockets. Florida Hospital's design plans have one 40-bed unit and one 38- bed unit. This design gives more flexibility and can expand or shrink more easily as needed. You don't have to open up another unit and staff it so often, when adding only one or two patients. Florida Hospital designed its facility specifically to take advantage of the economies of scale that being a satellite hospital in a larger system provide. For example, Florida Hospital's general storage, central lab, and other areas were purposely designed smaller than one would typically find because Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central warehouse, thus greatly reducing the need for central storage areas. Likewise, Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central clinical lab, thus minimizing the space necessary within a hospital like Oviedo for lab space. ORHS did not design its facility to take advantage of the economies scale of being part of a system. Presence in Oviedo Florida Hospital has had a presence in the Oviedo community since the 1970's, when it purchased land in the Red Bug corridor area. In the 1980's, Florida Hospital built a medical office facility in Oviedo and began to recruit and encourage physicians to practice in the area. When Florida Hospital acquired Winter Park Hospital, its commitment to the community of Oviedo increased by virtue of the fact that the Winter Park Hospital organization already had property and outpatient facilities in Oviedo. The result of Florida Hospital's early presence in Oviedo is that it has a high degree of physician support in place in the Oviedo community. Many of the primary care physicians in Oviedo refer their surgical cases to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital purchased Winter Park Hospital on or about July 1, 2000. With that purchase, Florida Hospital acquired the hospital site in Oviedo. With the purchase of Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital also "purchased" Winter Park's plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. The Florida Hospital site has long been recognized as the "Hospital Site" in Oviedo. Immediately after purchasing Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital went to work on developing a plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. Florida Hospital began meeting with Oviedo city leaders in the fall of 2000 and early 2001; Florida Hospital also assembled a team of people from all areas of Florida Hospital including radiology, clinical services, marketing, finance, facilities, and engineering to work toward the development of a Certificate of Need application for a hospital on its site in Oviedo. Florida Hospital's two existing medical office buildings in Oviedo contain over 60,000 square feet of medical office space, in which are housed physicians practicing in a wide range of areas including Family Practice, Internal Medicine, General Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, Urology, Radiology, Gastroenterology, Ear, Nose and Throat, OB/GYN, and Dental and Psychological Practitioners as well. These physicians are all currently on the staff of Florida Hospital. Also included in these facilities are a Florida Hospital owned and operated radiology center, outpatient rehabilitation center, and outpatient lab. The radiology center offers general radiology services, including CT scanning and ultrasound. The larger of the two medical facilities that Florida Hospital owns in Oviedo is located on the site where the new hospital will be located. This is the facility that includes the outpatient radiology, rehabilitation and laboratory services. An urgent care center is also located on the site. As a result, residents of Oviedo are used to coming to Florida Hospital's site for medical services and already recognize it as a medical facility site. The fact that Florida Hospital has such a significant presence in the Oviedo Community, and that a large number of staff physicians are already in place in Oviedo, is a great benefit because of the existing referral patterns in place between the physicians at the existing Florida Hospital facilities in Oviedo and specialists and sub-specialists on Florida Hospital's staff. In contrast, ORHS had an outpatient surgery center in Oviedo; however, it has been closed due to lack of physician support. Likewise, ORHS originally offered radiology diagnostics at its Oviedo office building, but has since sold that business to the radiologists. Finally, ORHS does not own the medical office building in Oviedo anymore, having sold it two weeks before this final hearing commenced. Dr. Joseph Portoghese, a Board Certified Surgeon, practicing in the Orlando area for over 13 years and president- elect of the Florida Hospital medical staff, testified that his group, Surgical Associates, which is made up of six surgeons, derives approximately 20% of their patients from the Oviedo area. In his opinion, Florida Hospital knows the Oviedo population best as evidenced by its "major presence" in Oviedo with its two facilities. Dr. Portoghese also testified that his group knows most of the primary care physicians in the Oviedo area and that a good many of them send their surgical cases to his group. Dr. Portoghese is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger, a family practitioner who has practiced in Oviedo for 16 years and whose patients come primarily from the Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs and East Orlando area testified that Florida Hospital has the best infrastructure for the provision of medical care in the Oviedo area. "The physicians who provide a great bulk of the care for that Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs area practice at Florida Hospital. Their referral patterns are to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital provides us with all the specialty and sub- specialty care we need for our patients." Dr. Schamberger is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but he is not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger further testified to the disruption in continuity of care that would occur for many Oviedo area patients whose physicians are on the staff at Florida Hospital if Orlando Regional were to be the only applicant approved to build a hospital in Oviedo: "[I]ts a negative impact for continuity of care. If I have been attending a patient for many years, the first thing that happens to a patient when they get in the hospital is that they have a history and physical examination done to establish what their underlying medical conditions are. I know a lot more about that from my patients than someone who doesn't see them and doesn't know them." (Tr. 1318) Dr. Cintron, a physician practicing in the area of Internal Medicine, whose main office is in Oviedo at the Florida Hospital site, testified that she has approximately 3,000 active files and 75% to 80% of those are in the Oviedo area. She has been practicing in Oviedo since 1994. Dr. Cintron testified that approximately 85% of her patients that get admitted to a hospital are admitted to one of Florida Hospital's facilities. Also, when she makes a referral to a specialist or a sub-specialist, approximately 85% of those patients go to a Florida Hospital facility. Competition "[T]he U.S. health care system is a competitively driven market . . . with some regulatory components and based on a managed care model." (Tr. 485). Rather than every insurance plan having a contract with every provider, the managed care model uses selective contracting. Competing health insurance plans select providers with which to contract for the provision of health care services to their subscribers. The ability of the competing insurance plans to engage in selective contracting requires providers such as the two hospitals in this case to compete along a number of dimensions including price. When successful, this competitive price model holds down price and maintains quality. The State of Florida has a "fairly well developed and active managed care sector." (Tr. 507). "[M]anaged care in and of itself [however] is not really able to save much money for consumers. . . . [T]he key ingredient in the ability of managed care plans to control health care cost increases is the competitiveness of the hospital market, the structure of the market in which they are negotiating on behalf of their health plan subscribers." (Tr. 500). The parties define the "market" differently. Florida Hospital uses the Elzinga-Hogarty ("EH") Test. The test, along with appropriate supplemental information, indicates that the market is all of Orange and Seminole Counties or the tri-county area that also includes Osceola County. Whether a two county or tri-county market, Florida Hospital refers to its market as the metropolitan Orlando market or the "overall Orlando market." Orlando Regional identified a smaller area as the relevant market, one that is more local to Oviedo. The reason for this more local market was explained by Glenn Alan Melnick, Ph.D., and an expert in health care economics who testified for ORHS: [I]n order for [managed care plans] to attract subscribers, they have to have a health plan that's attractive to people. And one of the features that people look for in their health plans is the availability of local hospital services. . . . [I]n order to make their products marketable, they have to include reasonably accessible hospitals . . . [I]f there is limited local competition, then the opportunities for them to generate price competition by leveraging competitive conditions . . . are very limited and [the managed care] model will not be successful. (Tr. 489). Dr. Melnick used the five and eight zip code Oviedo Service Areas as defined by the applicants as the market. He calculated Herfandahl-Hershman Index ("HHI") valuations for each zip code in the two Oviedo Service Areas. He also calculated HHI valuations for another seven zip codes in Orange County "to provide background to [his] understanding of the allocations in [the] area . . . . ." (Tr. 516). Dr. Melnick's calculations showed that Florida Hospital has a market share between 60 and 69% for the five zip codes in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area and it showed a market share of between 25% and 59% for the three zip codes in ORHS' Oviedo Service Area that were not included in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area. In each of the seven zip codes in the area outside the Oviedo Service Area, Florida Hospital's market share was higher: in excess of 70%. The analysis led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market is highly concentrated in favor of Florida Hospital. Using the zip codes in the Oviedo Service (and it appears from the record the seven not in either applicant's Oviedo Service Area that Dr. Melnick had analyzed for background purposes), Dr. Melnick concluded that if the CON is awarded to Florida Hospital "[i]t would make an already concentrated market much more concentrated." (Tr. 524). Florida Hospital's relative market share would rise from 65.8% to 85.7%. Orlando Regional's would drop from 27.4% to 11.5%. The award of the CON to Florida Hospital would, moreover, "seal its already existing market power into the future." (Id.) Conversely, awarding the CON to ORHS led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market as he defined it would be more competitive; Florida Hospital relative market share would drop to 51% and ORHS' would rise to 44%. What Dr. Melnick's relative market shares would have been had he not used the seven zip codes he selected outside the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants does not appear to have been shown by ORHS. Including the seven zip codes outside the Oviedo Service Areas for determining the relative market share that led to Dr. Melnick's conclusions runs counter to his premise that the market should be a local one, that is, an Oviedo market. It is not clear what relevance these seven zip codes had to his analysis since their inclusion runs counter to the underpinnings of his approach to the issue. If the overall Orlando market used by Florida Hospital is considered the market, the conclusion is that, whether a CON for an Oviedo hospital is awarded to ORHS or Florida Hospital, the impact on relative market share is minimal. As for pricing, there has been no significant pricing difference between Florida Hospital and ORHS for Oviedo residents. Furthermore, both Florida Hospital and ORHS contract with managed care companies on a system-wide basis; Florida Hospital, moreover, uses a single master charge structure for all of its Orlando area campuses. It is not likely that the presence of a hospital in Oviedo would enable either Florida Hospital or ORHS to control pricing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order on the basis of the facts found in this order concluding that "not normal" circumstances exist for the construction and operation of a new 60-bed hospital in Oviedo and that Florida Hospital's CON application be approved and ORHS' be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 James M. Barclay, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer & Harbert, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone, Hines & Koda, P.A. 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Suite 310G St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Petition for Relief was not timely filed pursuant to Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Petition of Michelle C. Phillips in DOAH Case No. 00-1794; FCHR Case No. 98-0713. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Edward R. Gay, Esquire Law Firm of Edward R. Gay, P.A. 1516 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Richard A. Durose, Esquire Joseph W. Beatty, Esquire Foley & Lardner Post Office Box 2193 Orlando, Florida 32801-2386
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) does not make a "cause" or "no cause" determination, as provided in Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, but rather issues a Notice of Dismissal, pursuant to Section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes. Whether DOAH has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Petition for Relief was not timely filed pursuant to Section 760.11(6), Florida Statutes. Whether DOAH has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if Petitioner fails to name Respondent in the Petition for Relief filed with the FCHR, as required by Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Petition of Manuel Pedraza in DOAH Case No. 02-0237, and FCHR Case No. 99-0849, for failure to timely file his Petition for Relief and for failure to properly name Respondent in the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan K. W. Erlenbach, Esquire Erlenbach Law Offices, P.A. 2532 Garden Street Titusville, Florida 32796 W. Russell Hamilton, III, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 5300 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2339 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the certificate of need (CON) applications filed by New Port Richey Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Community Hospital of New Port Richey (Community Hospital) (CON No. 9539), and Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., d/b/a North Bay Hospital (North Bay) (CON No. 9538), each seeking to replace and relocate their respective general acute care hospital, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA AHCA is the single state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes (2000). The agency separately reviewed and preliminarily approved both applications. Community Hospital Community Hospital is a 300,000 square feet, accredited hospital with 345 licensed acute care beds and 56 licensed adult psychiatric beds, located in southern New Port Richey, Florida, within Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital is seeking to construct a replacement facility approximately five miles to the southeast within a rapidly developing suburb known as "Trinity." Community Hospital currently provides a wide array of comprehensive inpatient and outpatient services and is the only provider of obstetrical and adult psychiatric services in Sub-District 5-1. It is the largest provider of emergency services in Pasco County with approximately 35,000 visits annually. It is also the largest provider of Medicaid and indigent patient days in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital was originally built in 1969 and is an aging facility. Although it has been renovated over time, the hospital is in poor condition. Community Hospital's average daily census is below 50 percent. North Bay North Bay is a 122-bed facility containing 102 licensed acute care beds and 20 licensed comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, located approximately one mile north of Community Hospital in Sub-District 5-1. It serves a large elderly population and does not provide pediatric or obstetrical care. North Bay is also an aging facility and proposes to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Notably, however, North Bay has spent approximately 12 million dollars over the past three years for physical improvements and is in reasonable physical condition. Helen Ellis Helen Ellis is an accredited hospital with 150 licensed acute care beds and 18 licensed skilled nursing unit beds. It is located in northern Pinellas County, approximately eight miles south of Community Hospital and nine miles south of North Bay. Helen Ellis provides a full array of acute care services including obstetrics and cardiac catheterization. Its daily census average has fluctuated over the years but is approximately 45 percent. Mease Mease operates two acute care hospitals in Pinellas County including Mease Dunedin Hospital, located approximately 18 to 20 miles south of the applicants and Mease Countryside Hospital, located approximately 16 to 18 miles south of Community and North Bay. Each hospital operates 189 licensed beds. The Mease hospitals are located in the adjacent acute care sub-district but compete with the applicants. The Health Planning District AHCA's Health Planning District 5 consists of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. U.S. Highway 41 runs north and south through the District and splits Pasco County into Sub- District 5-1 and Sub-District 5-2. Sub-District 5-1, where Community Hospital and North Bay are located, extends from U.S. 41 west to the Gulf Coast. Sub-District 5-2 extends from U.S. 41 to the eastern edge of Pasco County. Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida and steadily grows at 5.52 percent per year. On the other hand, its neighbor to the north, Pasco County, has been experiencing over 15 percent annual growth in population. The evidence demonstrates that the area known as Trinity, located four to five miles southeast of New Port Richey, is largely responsible for the growth. With its large, single- owner land tracts, Trinity has become the area's fuel for growth, while New Port Richey, the older coastal anchor which houses the applicants' facilities, remains static. In addition to the available land in Trinity, roadway development in the southwest section of Pasco County is further fueling growth. For example, the Suncoast Highway, a major highway, was recently extended north from Hillsborough County through Sub-District 5-1, west of U.S. 41. It intersects with several large east-west thoroughfares including State Road 54, providing easy highway access to the Tampa area. The General Proposals Community Hospital's Proposal Community Hospital's CON application proposes to replace its existing, 401-bed hospital with a 376-bed state- of-the-art facility and relocate it approximately five miles to the southeast in the Trinity area. Community Hospital intends to construct a large medical office adjacent to its new facility and provide all of its current services including obstetrical care. It does not intend to change its primary service area. North Bay's Proposal North Bay's CON application proposes to replace its existing hospital with a 122-bed state-of-the-art facility and also plans to relocate it approximately eight miles to the southeast in the Trinity area of southwestern Pasco County. North Bay intends to provide the same array of services it currently offers its patients and will not provide pediatric and obstetrical care in the proposed facility. The proposed relocation site is adjacent to the Trinity Outpatient Center which is owned by North Bay's parent company, Morton Plant. The Outpatient Center offers a full range of diagnostic imaging services including nuclear medicine, cardiac nuclear stress testing, bone density scanning, CAT scanning, mammography, ultrasound, as well as many others. It also offers general and specialty ambulatory surgical services including urology; ear, nose and throat; ophthalmology; gastroenterology; endoscopy; and pain management. Approximately 14 physician offices are currently located at the Trinity Outpatient Center. The Condition of Community Hospital Facility Community Hospital's core facilities were constructed between 1969 and 1971. Additions to the hospital were made in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1992, and 1999. With an area of approximately 294,000 square feet and 401 licensed beds, or 733 square feet per bed, Community Hospital's gross area-to-bed ratio is approximately half of current hospital planning standards of 1,600 square feet per bed. With the exception of the "E" wing which was completed in 1999, all of the clinical and support departments are undersized. Medical-Surgical Beds And Intensive Care Units Community Hospital's "D" wing, constructed in 1975, is made up of two general medical-surgical unit floors which are grossly undersized. Each floor operates 47 general medical-surgical beds, 24 of which are in three-bed wards and 23 in semi-private rooms. None of the patient rooms in the "D" wing have showers or tubs so the patients bathe in a single facility located at the center of the wing on each floor. Community Hospital's "A" wing, added in 1973, is situated at the west end of the second floor and is also undersized. It too has a combination of semi-private rooms and three-bed wards without showers or tubs. Community Hospital's "F" wing, added in 1979, includes a medical-surgical unit on the second and third floor, each with semi-private and private rooms. The second floor unit is centrally located between a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit and the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) which creates security and privacy issues. The third floor unit is adjacent to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) which must be accessed through the medical-surgical unit. Neither intensive care unit (ICU) possesses an isolation area. Although the three-bed wards are generally restricted to in-season use, and not always full, they pose significant privacy, security, safety, and health concerns. They fail to meet minimum space requirements and are a serious health risk. The evidence demonstrates that reconfiguring the wards would be extremely costly and impractical due to code compliance issues. The wards hinder the hospital's acute care utilization, and impair its ability to effectively compete with other hospitals. Surgical Department and Recovery Community Hospital's surgical department is separated into two locations including the main surgical suite on the second floor and the Endoscopy/Pain Management unit located on the first floor of "C" wing. Consequently, the department cannot share support staff and space such as preparation and recovery. The main surgical suite, adjacent recovery room, and central sterile processing are 25 years old. This unit's operating rooms, cystoscopy rooms, storage areas, work- stations, central sterile, and recovery rooms are undersized and antiquated. The 12-bay Recovery Room has no patient toilet and is lacking storage. The soiled utility room is deficient. In addition, the patient bays are extremely narrow and separated by curtains. There is no direct connection to the sterile corridor, and staff must break the sterile field to transport patients from surgery to recovery. Moreover, surgery outpatients must pass through a major public lobby going to and returning from surgery. The Emergency Department Community Hospital's existing emergency department was constructed in 1992 and is the largest provider of hospital emergency services in Pasco County, handling approximately 35,000 visits per year. The hospital is also designated a "Baker Act" receiving facility under Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, and utilizes two secure examination rooms for emergent psychiatric patients. At less than 8,000 total square feet, the emergency department is severely undersized to meet the needs of its patients. The emergency department is currently undergoing renovation which will connect the triage area to the main emergency department. The renovation will not enlarge the entrance, waiting area, storage, nursing station, nor add privacy to the patient care areas in the emergency department. The renovation will not increase the total size of the emergency department, but in fact, the department's total bed availability will decrease by five beds. Similar to other departments, a more meaningful renovation cannot occur within the emergency department without triggering costly building code compliance measures. In addition to its space limitations, the emergency department is awkwardly located. In 1992, the emergency department was relocated to the front of the hospital and is completely separated from the diagnostic imaging department which remained in the original 1971 building. Consequently, emergency patients are routinely transported across the hospital for imaging and CT scans. Issues Relating to Replacement of Community Hospital Although physically possible, renovating and expanding Community Hospital's existing facility is unreasonable. First, it is cost prohibitive. Any significant renovation to the 1971, 1975, 1977, and 1979 structures would require asbestos abatement prior to construction, at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. In addition, as previously noted, the hospital will be saddled with the major expense of complying with all current building code requirements in the 40-year-old facility. Merely installing showers in patient rooms would immediately trigger a host of expensive, albeit necessary, code requirements involving access, wiring, square footage, fireproofing columns and beams, as well as floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies. Concurrent with the significant demolition and construction costs, the hospital will experience the incalculable expense and loss of revenue related to closing major portions, if not all, of the hospital. Second, renovation and expansion to the existing facility is an unreasonable option due to its physical restrictions. The 12'4" height of the hospital's first floor limits its ability to accommodate HVAC ductwork large enough to meet current ventilation requirements. In addition, there is inadequate space to expand any department within the confines of the existing hospital without cannibalizing adjacent areas, and vertical expansion is not an option. Community Hospital's application includes a lengthy Facility Condition Assessment which factually details the architectural, mechanical, and electrical deficiencies of the hospital's existing physical plant. The assessment is accurate and reasonable. Community Hospital's Proposed Replacement Community Hospital proposes to construct a six- story, 320 licensed beds, acute care replacement facility. The hospital will consist of 548,995 gross square feet and include a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit connected by a hallway to the first floor of the main hospital building. The proposal also includes the construction of an adjacent medical office building to centralize the outpatient offices and staff physicians. The evidence establishes that the deficiencies inherent in Community Hospital's existing hospital will be cured by its replacement hospital. All patients will be provided large private rooms. The emergency department will double in size, and contain private examination rooms. All building code requirements will be met or exceeded. Patients and staff will have separate elevators from the public. In addition, the surgical department will have large operating rooms, and adequate storage. The MICU and SICU will be adjacent to each other on the second floor to avoid unnecessary traffic within the hospital. Surgical patients will be transported to the ICU via a private elevator dedicated to that purpose. Medical-surgical patient rooms will be efficiently located on the third through sixth floors, in "double-T" configuration. Community Hospital's Existing and Proposed Sites Community Hospital is currently located on a 23-acre site inside the southern boundary of New Port Richey. Single- family homes and offices occupy the two-lane residential streets that surround the site on all sides. The hospital buildings are situated on the northern half of the site, with the main parking lot located to the south, in front of the main entrance to the hospital. Marine Parkway cuts through the southern half of the site from the west, and enters the main parking lot. A private medical mall sits immediately to the west of the main parking lot and a one-acre storm-water retention pond sits to the west of the mall. A private medical office building occupies the south end of the main parking lot and a four-acre drainage easement is located in the southwest corner of the site. Community Hospital's administration has actively analyzed its existing site, aging facility, and adjacent areas. It has commissioned studies by civil engineers, health care consultants, and architects. The collective evidence demonstrates that, although on-site relocation is potentially an option, on balance, it is not a reasonable option. Replacing Community Hospital on its existing site is not practical for several reasons. First, the hospital will experience significant disruption and may be required to completely close down for a period of time. Second, the site's southwestern large four-acre parcel is necessary for storm-water retention and is unavailable for expansion. Third, a reliable cost differential is unknown given Community Hospital's inability to successfully negotiate with the city and owners of the adjacent medical office complexes to acquire additional parcels. Fourth, acquiring other adjacent properties is not a viable option since they consist of individually owned residential lots. In addition to the site's physical restrictions, the site is hindered by its location. The hospital is situated in a neighborhood between small streets and a local school. From the north and south, motorists utilize either U.S. 19, a congested corridor that accommodates approximately 50,000 vehicles per day, or Grand and Madison Streets, two-lane streets within a school zone. From the east and west, motorists utilize similar two-lane neighborhood streets including Marine Parkway, which often floods in heavy rains. Community Hospital's proposed site, on the other hand, is a 53-acre tract positioned five miles from its current facility, at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in southwestern Pasco County. The proposed site offers ample space for all facilities, parking, outpatient care, and future expansion. In addition, Community Hospital's proposed site provides reasonable access to all patients within its existing primary service area made up of zip codes 34652, 34653, 34668, 34655, 34690, and 34691. For example, the average drive times from the population centers of each zip code to the existing site of the hospital and the proposed site are as follows: Zip code Difference Existing site Proposed site 34652 3 minutes 14 minutes 11 minutes 34653 8 minutes 11 minutes 3 minutes 34668 15 minutes 21 minutes 6 minutes 34655 11 minutes 4 minutes -7 minutes 34690 11 minutes 13 minutes 2 minutes 34691 11 minutes 17 minutes 6 minutes While the average drive time from the population centroids of zip codes 34653, 34668, 34690, and 34691 to the proposed site slightly increases, it decreases from the Trinity area, where population growth has been most significant in southwestern Pasco County. In addition, a motorist's average drive time from Community Hospital's existing location to its proposed site is only 10 to 11 minutes, and patients utilizing public transportation will be able to access the new hospital via a bus stop located adjacent to the proposed site. The Condition of North Bay Facility North Bay Hospital is also an aging facility. Its original structure and portions of its physical plant are approximately 30 years old. Portions of its major mechanical systems will soon require replacement including its boilers, air handlers, and chillers. In addition, the hospital is undersized and awkwardly configured. Despite its shortcomings, however, North Bay is generally in good condition. The hospital has been consistently renovated and updated over time and is aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, its second and third floors were added in 1986, are in good shape, and structurally capable of vertical expansion. Medical Surgical Beds and ICU Units By-in-large, North Bay is comprised of undersized, semi-private rooms containing toilet and shower facilities. The hospital does not have any three-bed wards. North Bay's first floor houses all ancillary and support services including lab, radiology, pharmacy, surgery, pre-op, post-anesthesia recovery, central sterile processing and supply, kitchen and cafeteria, housekeeping and administration, as well as the mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance and engineering. The first floor also contains a 20-bed CMR unit and a 15-bed acute care unit. North Bay's second and third floors are mostly comprised of semi-private rooms and supporting nursing stations. Although the rooms and stations are not ideally sized, they are in relatively good shape. North Bay utilizes a single ICU with ten critical care beds. The ICU rooms and nursing stations are also undersized. A four-bed ICU ward and former nursery are routinely used to serve overflow patients. Surgery Department and Recovery North Bay utilizes a single pre-operative surgical room for all of its surgery patients. The room accommodates up to five patient beds, but has limited space for storage and pre-operative procedures. Its operating rooms are sufficiently sized. While carts and large equipment are routinely stored in hallways throughout the surgical suite, North Bay has converted the former obstetrics recovery room to surgical storage and has made efficient use of other available space. North Bay operates a small six-bed Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Nurses routinely prepare patient medications in the unit which is often crowded with staff and patients. The Emergency Department North Bay has recently expanded its emergency department. The evidence demonstrates that this department is sufficient and meets current and future expected patient volumes. Replacement Issues Relating to North Bay While it is clear that areas of North Bay's physical plant are aging, the facility is in relatively good condition. It is apparent that North Bay must soon replace significant equipment, including cast-iron sewer pipes, plumbing, boilers, and chillers which will cause some interruption to hospital operations. However, North Bay's four-page written assessment of the facility and its argument citing the need for total replacement is, on balance, not persuasive. North Bay's Proposed Replacement North Bay proposes to construct a new, state-of-the- art, hospital approximately eight miles southeast of its existing facility and intends to offer the identical array of services the hospital currently provides. North Bay's Existing and Proposed Sites North Bay's existing hospital is located on an eight-acre site with limited storm-water drainage capacity. Consequently, much of its parking area is covered by deep, porous, gravel instead of asphalt. North Bay's existing site is generally surrounded by residential properties. While the city has committed, in writing, it willingness to assist both applicants with on-site expansion, it is unknown whether North Bay can acquire additional adjacent property. North Bay's proposed site is located at the intersection of Trinity Oaks Boulevard and Mitchell Boulevard, south of Community Hospital's proposed site, and is quite spacious. It contains sufficient land for the facilities, parking, and future growth, and has all necessary infrastructure in place, including utility systems, storm- water structures, and roadways. Currently however, there is no public transportation service available to North Bay's proposed site. Projected Utilization by Applicants The evidence presented at hearing indicates that, statewide, replacement hospitals often increase a provider's acute care bed utilization. For example, Bartow Memorial Hospital, Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center, Lake City Medical Center, Florida Hospital Heartland Medical Center, South Lake Hospital, and Florida Hospital-Fish Memorial each experienced significant increases in utilization following the opening of their new hospital. The applicants in this case each project an increase in utilization following the construction of their new facility. Specifically, Community Hospital's application projects 82,685 total hospital patient days (64,427 acute care patient days) in year one (2006) of the operation of its proposed replacement facility, and 86,201 total hospital patient days (67,648 acute care patient days) in year two (2007). Using projected 2006 and 2007 population estimates, applying 2002 acute care hospital use rates which are below 50 percent, and keeping Community Hospital's acute care market share constant at its 2002 level, it is reasonably estimated that Community Hospital's existing hospital will experience 52,623 acute care patient days in 2006, and 53,451 acute care patient days in 2007. Consequently, Community Hospital's proposed facility must attain 11,804 additional acute care patient days in 2006, and 14,197 more acute care patient days in 2007, in order to achieve its projected acute care utilization. Although Community Hospital lost eight percent of the acute care market in its service area between 1995 and 2002, two-thirds of that loss was due to residents of Sub- District 5-1 acquiring services in another area. While Community Hospital experienced 78,444 acute care patient days in 1995, it projects only 64,427 acute care patient days in year one. Given the new facility and population factors, it is reasonable that the hospital will recapture half of its lost acute care market share and achieve its projections. With respect to its psychiatric unit, Community Hospital projects 16,615 adult psychiatric inpatient days in year one (2006) and 17,069 adult inpatient days in year two (2007) of the proposed replacement hospital. The evidence indicates that these projections are reasonable. Similarly, North Bay's acute care utilization rate has been consistently below 50 percent. Since 1999, the hospital has experienced declining utilization. In its application, North Bay states that it achieved total actual acute care patient days of 21,925 in 2000 and 19,824 in 2001 and the evidence at hearing indicates that North Bay experienced 17,693 total acute care patient days in 2002. North Bay projects 25,909 acute care patient days in the first year of operation of its proposed replacement hospital, and 27,334 acute care patient days in the second year of operation. Despite each applicant's current facility utilization rate, Community Hospital must increase its current acute care patient days by 20 percent to reach its projected utilization, and North Bay must increase its patient days by at least 50 percent. Given the population trends, service mix and existing competition, the evidence demonstrates that it is not possible for both applicants to simultaneously achieve their projections. In fact, it is strongly noted that the applicants' own projections are predicated upon only one applicant being approved and cannot be supported with the approval of two facilities. Local Health Plan Preferences In its local health plan for District 5, the Suncoast Health Council, Inc., adopted acute care preferences in October, 2000. The replacement of an existing hospital is not specifically addressed by any of the preferences. However, certain acute care preferences and specialty care preferences are applicable. The first applicable preference provides that preference "shall be given to an applicant who proposes to locate a new facility in an area that will improve access for Medicaid and indigent patients." It is clear that the majority of Medicaid and indigent patients live closer to the existing hospitals. However, Community Hospital proposes to move 5.5 miles from its current location, whereas North Bay proposes to move eight miles from its current location. While the short distances alone are less than significant, North Bay's proposed location is further removed from New Port Richey, is not located on a major highway or bus-route, and would therefore be less accessible to the medically indigent residents. Community Hospital's proposed site will be accessible using public transportation. Furthermore, Community Hospital has consistently provided excellent service to the medically indigent and its proposal would better serve that population. In 2000, Community Hospital provided 7.4 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.8 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. Community Hospital provided the highest percentage and greatest number of Medicaid patient days in Sub-District 5-1. By comparison, North Bay provided 5.8 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.9 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. In 2002, North Bay's Medicaid patients days declined to 3.56 percent. Finally, given the closeness and available bed space of the existing providers and the increasing population in the Trinity area, access will be improved by Community Hospital's relocation. The second local health plan preference provides that "[i]n cases where an applicant is a corporation with previously awarded certificates of need, preference shall be given to those which follow through in a timely manner to construct and operate the additional facilities or beds and do not use them for later negotiations with other organizations seeking to enter or expand the number of beds they own or control." Both applicants meet this preference. The third local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that provide AHCA with documentation that they provide, or propose to provide, the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in the sub-district." Community Hospital provides the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in Sub-District 5-1, and therefore meets this preference. The fourth local health plan preference applies to "Certificate of Need applications that demonstrate intent to serve HIV/AIDS infected persons." Both applicants accept and treat HIV/AIDS infected persons, and would continue to do so in their proposed replacement hospitals. The fifth local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that commit to provide a full array of acute care services including medical-surgical, intensive care, pediatric, and obstetrical services within the sub-district for which they are applying." Community Hospital qualifies since it will continue to provide its current services, including obstetrical care and psychiatric care, in its proposed replacement hospital. North Bay discontinued its pediatric and obstetrical programs in 2001, does not intend to provide them in its proposed replacement hospital, and will not provide psychiatric care. Agency Rule Preferences Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038(6) provides an applicable preference to a facility proposing "new acute care services and capital expenditures" that has "a documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so." As the largest Medicaid provider in Sub-District 5-1, Community Hospital meets this preference better than does North Bay. North Bay's history demonstrates a declining rate of service to the medically indigent. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed in relation to the applicable district health plan District 5 includes Pasco and Pinellas County. Pasco County is rapidly developing, whereas Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida. Given the population trends, service mix, and utilization rates of the existing providers, on balance, there is a need for a replacement hospital in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes: The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant Community Hospital and North Bay are both located in Sub-District 5-1. Each proposes to relocate to an area of southwestern Pasco County which is experiencing explosive population growth. The other general acute care hospital located in Sub-District 5-1 is Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, which is located further north, in the Hudson area of western Pasco County. The only other acute care hospitals in Pasco County are East Pasco Medical Center, in Zephyrhills, and Pasco Community Hospital, in Dade City. Those hospitals are located in Sub-District 5-2, east Pasco County, far from the area proposed to be served by either Community Hospital or North Bay. District 5 includes Pinellas County as well as Pasco County. Helen Ellis and Mease are existing hospital providers located in Pinellas County. Helen Ellis has 168 licensed beds, consisting of 150 acute care beds and an 18-bed skilled nursing unit, and is located 7.9 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 10.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. Access to Helen Ellis for patients originating from southwestern Pasco County requires those patients to travel congested U.S. 19 south to Tarpon Springs. As a result, the average drive time from Community Hospital's existing and proposed site to Helen Ellis is approximately 22 minutes. Helen Ellis is not a reasonable alternative to Community Hospital's proposal. The applicants' proposals are specifically designed for the current and future health care needs of southwestern Pasco County. Given its financial history, it is unknown whether Helen Ellis will be financially capable of providing the necessary care to the residents of southwestern Pasco. Mease Countryside Hospital has 189 licensed acute care beds. It is located 16.0 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 13.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. The average drive time to Mease Countryside is 32 minutes from Community Hospital's existing site and 24 minutes from its proposed site. In addition, Mease Countryside Hospital has experienced extremely high utilization over the past several years, in excess of 90 percent for calendar years 2000 and 2001. Utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital has remained over 80 percent despite the addition of 45 acute care beds in April 2002. Given the growth and demand, it is unknown whether Mease can accommodate the residents in southwest Pasco County. Mease Dunedin Hospital has 189 licensed beds, consisting of 149 acute care beds, a 30-bed skilled nursing unit, five Level 2 neonatal intensive care beds, and five Level 3 neonatal intensive care beds. Its former 15-bed adult psychiatric unit has been converted into acute care beds. It is transferring its entire obstetrics program at Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease Dunedin Hospital is located approximately 18 to 20 miles from the applicants' existing and proposed locations with an average drive time of 35-38 minutes. With their remote location, and the exceedingly high utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital, neither of the two Mease hospitals is a viable alternative to the applicants' proposals. In addition, the construction of a replacement hospital would positively impact economic development and further attract medical professionals to Sub-District 5-1. On balance, given the proximity, utilization, service array, and accessibility of the existing providers, including the applicants, the relocation of Community Hospital will enhance access to health care to the residents. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes: The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care As stipulated, both applicants provide excellent quality of care. However, Community Hospital's proposal will better enhance its ability to provide quality care. Community is currently undersized, non-compliant with today's standards, and located on a site that does not allow for reasonable expansion. Its emergency department is inadequate for patient volume, and the configuration of the first floor leads to inefficiencies in the diagnosis and treatment of emergency patients. Again, most inpatients are placed in semi-private rooms and three-bed wards, with no showers or tubs, little privacy, and an increased risk of infection. The hospital's waiting areas for families of patients are antiquated and undersized, its nursing stations are small and cramped and the operating rooms and storage facilities are undersized. Community Hospital's deficiencies will be effectively eliminated by its proposed replacement hospital. As a result, patients will experience qualitatively better care by the staff who serve them. Conversely, North Bay is in better physical condition and not in need of replacement. It has more reasonable options to expand or relocate its facility on site. Quality of care at North Bay will not be markedly enhanced by the construction of a new hospital. Sections 408.035(4)and(5), Florida Statutes, have been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes: The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds available for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that both Community Hospital and North Bay have available health personnel and management personnel for project accomplishment and operation. In addition, the evidence proves that both applicants have sufficient funds for capital and operating expenditures. Community Hospital proposes to rely on its parent company to finance the project. Keith Giger, Vice-President of Finance for HCA, Inc., Community Hospital's parent organization, provided credible deposition testimony that HCA, Inc., will finance 100 percent of the total project cost by an inter-company loan at eight percent interest. Moreover, it is noted that the amount to be financed is actually $20 million less than the $196,849,328 stated in the CON Application, since Community Hospital previously purchased the proposed site in June 2003 with existing funds and does not need to finance the land acquisition. Community Hospital has sufficient working capital for operating expenditures of the proposed replacement hospital. North Bay, on the other hand, proposes to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group which includes Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc.; Mease; and several other hospital entities. Its proposal, while feasible, is less certain since member hospitals must approve the indebtedness, thereby providing Mease with the ability to derail North Bay's proposed bond financing. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The evidence proves that either proposal will enhance geographical access to the growing population in the service district. However, with its provision of obstetrical services, Community Hospital is better suited to address the needs of the younger community. With respect to financial access, both proposed relocation sites are slightly farther away from the higher elderly and indigent population centers. Since the evidence demonstrates that it is unreasonable to relocate both facilities away from the down-town area, Community Hospital's proposal, on balance, provides better access to poor patients. First, public transportation will be available to Community Hospital's site. Second, Community Hospital has an excellent record of providing care to the poor and indigent and has accepted the agency's condition to provide ten percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid recipients To the contrary, North Bay's site will not be accessible by public transportation. In addition, North Bay has a less impressive record of providing care to the poor and indigent. Although AHCA conditioned North Bay's approval upon it providing 9.7 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients, instead of the 9.7 percent of gross annual revenue proposed in its application, North Bay has consistently provided Medicaid and charity patients less than seven percent of its total annual patient days. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes: The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal Immediate financial feasibility refers to the availability of funds to capitalize and operate the proposal. See Memorial Healthcare Group, Ltd. d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville vs. AHCA et al., Case No. 02-0447 et seq. Community Hospital has acquired reliable financing for the project and has sufficiently demonstrated that its project is immediately financially feasible. North Bay's short-term financial proposal is less secure. As noted, North Bay intends to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group. As a member of the group, Mease, the parent company of two hospitals that oppose North Bay's application, must approve the plan. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of the project to reach a break-even point within a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable achievable point in the future. Big Bend Hospice, Inc. vs. AHCA and Covenant Hospice, Inc., Case No. 02-0455. Although CON pro forma financial schedules typically show profitability within two to three years of operation, it is not a requirement. In fact, in some circumstances, such as the case of a replacement hospital, it may be unrealistic for the proposal to project profitability before the third or fourth year of operation. In this case, Community Hospital's utilization projections, gross and net revenues, and expense figures are reasonable. The evidence reliably demonstrates that its replacement hospital will be profitable by the fourth year of operation. The hospital's financial projections are further supported by credible evidence, including the fact that the hospital experienced financial improvement in 2002 despite its poor physical condition, declining utilization, and lost market share to providers outside of its district. In addition, the development and population trends in the Trinity area support the need for a replacement hospital in the area. Also, Community Hospital has benefited from increases in its Medicaid per diem and renegotiated managed care contracts. North Bay's long-term financial feasibility of its proposal is less certain. In calendar year 2001, North Bay incurred an operating loss of $306,000. In calendar year 2002, it incurred a loss of $1,160,000. In its CON application, however, North Bay projects operating income of $1,538,827 in 2007, yet omitted the ongoing expenses of interest ($1,600,000) and depreciation ($3,000,000) from its existing facility that North Bay intends to continue operating. Since North Bay's proposal does not project beyond year two, it is less certain whether it is financially feasible in the third or fourth year. In addition to the interest and depreciation issues, North Bay's utilization projections are less reasonable than Community Hospital's proposal. While possible, North Bay will have a difficult task achieving its projected 55 percent increase in acute care patient days in its second year of operation given its declining utilization, loss of obstetric/pediatric services and termination of two exclusive managed care contracts. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness Both applicants have substantial unused capacity. However, Community Hospital's existing facility is at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the market place. In fact, from 1994 to 1998, Community Hospital's overall market share in its service area declined from 40.3 percent to 35.3 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' overall market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 7.2 percent to 9.2 percent. From 1995 to the 12-month period ending June 30, 2002, Community Hospital's acute care market share in its service area declined from 34.0 percent to 25.9 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' acute care market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 11.7 percent to 12.0 percent. In addition, acute care average occupancy rates at Mease Dunedin Hospital increased each year from 1999 through 2002. Acute care average occupancy at Mease Countryside Hospital exceeded 90 percent in 2000 and 2001, and was approximately 85 percent for the period ending June 30, 2002. Some of the loss in Community Hospital's market share is due to an out-migration of patients from its service area to hospitals in northern Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Market share in Community's service area by out-of- market providers increased from 33 percent in 1995 to 40 percent in 2002. Community Hospital's outdated hospital has hampered its ability to compete for patients in its service area. Mease is increasing its efforts to attract patients and currently completing a $92 million expansion of Mease Countryside Hospital. The project includes the development of 1,134 parking spaces on 30 acres of raw land north of the Mease Countryside Hospital campus and the addition of two floors to the hospital. It also involves the relocation of 51 acute care beds, the obstetrics program and the Neonatal Intensive Care Units from Mease Dunedin Hosptial to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease is also seeking to more than double the size of the Countryside emergency department to handle its 62,000 emergency visits. With the transfer of licensed beds from Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital, Mease will also convert formerly semi-private patient rooms to private rooms at Mease Dunedin Hospital. The approval of Community Hospital's relocated facility will enable it to better compete with the hospitals in the area and promote quality and cost- effectiveness. North Bay, on the other hand, is not operating at a distinct disadvantage, yet is still experiencing declining utilization. North Bay is the only community-owned, not-for- profit provider in western Pasco County and is a valuable asset to the city. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes: The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods or energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that the project costs in both applications are reasonable to construct the replacement hospitals. Community Hospital's proposed construction cost per square foot is $175, and slightly less than North Bay's $178 proposal. The costs and methods of proposed construction for each proposal is reasonable. Given Community Hospital's severe site and facility problems, the evidence demonstrates that there is no reasonable, less costly, or more effective methods of construction available for its proposed replacement hospital. Additional "band-aide" approaches are not financially reasonable and will not enable Community Hospital to effectively compete. The facility is currently licensed for 401 beds, operates approximately 311 beds and is still undersized. The proposed replacement hospital will meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.081, and will meet current building codes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospitals and Health Care Facilities, developed by the American Institute of Architects. The opponents' argue that Community Hospital will not utilize the 320 acute care beds proposed in its CON application, and therefore, a smaller facility is a less- costly alternative. In addition, Helen Ellis' architectural expert witness provided schematic design alternatives for Community Hospital to be expanded and replaced on-site, without providing a detailed and credible cost accounting of the alternatives. Given the evidence and the law, their arguments are not persuasive. While North Bay's replacement cost figures are reasonable, given the aforementioned reasons, including the fact that the facility is in reasonably good condition and can expand vertically, on balance, it is unreasonable for North Bay to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes: The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Community Hospital has consistently provided the most health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital agreed to provide at least ten percent of its patient days to Medicaid recipients. Similarly, North Bay agreed to provide 9.7 percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. North Bay, by contrast, provided only 3.56 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients in 2002, and would have to significantly reverse a declining trend in its Medicaid provision to comply with the imposed condition. Community Hospital better satisfies the criterion. Section 408.035(12) has been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Historical figures demonstrate that hospital market shares are not static, but fluctuate with competition. No hospital is entitled to a specific or historic market share free from competition. While the applicants are located in health planning Sub-District 5-1 and Helen Ellis and the two Mease hospitals are located in health planning Sub-District 5- 2, they compete for business. None of the opponents is a disproportionate share, safety net, Medicaid provider. As a result, AHCA gives less consideration to any potential adverse financial impact upon them resulting from the approval of either application as a low priority. The opponents, however, argue that the approval of either replacement hospital would severely affect each of them. While the precise distance from the existing facilities to the relocation sites is relevant, it is clear that neither applicants' proposed site is unreasonably close to any of the existing providers. In fact, Community Hospital intends to locate its replacement facility three miles farther away from Helen Ellis and 1.5 miles farther away from Mease Dunedin Hospital. While Helen Ellis' primary service area is seemingly fluid, as noted by its chief operating officer's hearing and deposition testimony, and the Mease hospitals are located 15 to 20 miles south, they overlap parts of the applicants' primary service areas. Accordingly, each applicant concedes that the proposed increase in their patient volume would be derived from the growing population as well as existing providers. Although it is clear that the existing providers may be more affected by the approval of Community Hosptial's proposal, the exact degree to which they will be adversely impacted by either applicant is unknown. All parties agree, however, that the existing providers will experience less adverse affects by the approval of only one applicant, as opposed to two. Furthermore, Mease concedes that its hospitals will continue to aggressively compete and will remain profitable. In fact, Mease's adverse impact analysis does not show any credible reduction in loss of acute care admissions at Mease Countryside Hospital or Mease Dunedin Hospital until 2010. Even then, the reliable evidence demonstrates that the impact is negligible. Helen Ellis, on the other hand, will likely experience a greater loss of patient volume. To achieve its utilization projections, Community Hospital will aggressively compete for and increase market share in Pinellas County zip code 34689, which borders Pasco County. While that increase does not facially prove that Helen Ellis will be materially affected by Community Hospital's replacement hospital, Helen Ellis will confront targeted competition. To minimize the potential adverse affect, Helen Ellis will aggressively compete to expand its market share in the Pinellas County zip codes south of 34689, which is experiencing population growth. In addition, Helen Ellis is targeting broader service markets, and has filed an application to establish an open- heart surgery program. While Helen Ellis will experience greater competition and financial loss, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it will experience material financial adverse impact as a result of Community Hospital's proposed relocation. In fact, Helen Ellis' impact analysis is less than reliable. In its contribution-margin analysis, Helen Ellis utilized its actual hospital financial data as filed with AHCA for the fiscal year October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002. The analysis included total inpatient and total outpatient service revenues found in the filed financial data, including ambulatory services and ancillary services, yet it did not include the expenses incurred in generating ambulatory or ancillary services revenue. As a result, the overstated net revenue per patient day was applied to its speculative lost number of patient days which resulted in an inflated loss of net patient service revenue. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Helen Ellis' analysis incorrectly included operational revenue and excluded expenses related to its 18-bed skilled nursing unit since neither applicant intends to operate a skilled nursing unit. While including the skilled nursing unit revenues, the analysis failed to include the sub-acute inpatient days that produced those revenues, and thereby over inflated the projected total lost net patient service revenue by over one million dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Community Hospital's CON Application No. 9539, to establish a 376-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub- District 5-1, be granted; and North Bay's CON Application No. 9538, to establish a 122-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub-District 5- 1, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Richard J. Saliba, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2001),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, Dr. Rivera was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0054619. Dr. Rivera is an anesthesiologist. On May 11, 2002, Patient A.V., an 82-year-old male, presented to the emergency room of Gulf Coast Hospital (Gulf Coast) with complaints of shortness of breath. A.V. had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A.V. was admitted to the hospital by Michele Candelore, D.O. Gulf Coast is a small community hospital with approximately 150 beds. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center (Southwest), a larger tertiary care hospital, is located three to five miles away from Gulf Coast. On May 16, 2002, Dr. Rivera provided anesthesia services to A.V. in association with a bronchoscopy. As a result of providing services to A.V., Dr. Rivera was familiar with A.V.’s medical conditions and risk factors for anesthesia. On May 18, 2002, Tracy Vo, D.O., was the physician on call at Gulf Coast. She was providing coverage for A.V.’s physician, and, around noon on that date, she discharged A.V. Dr. Vo left Gulf Coast and received a call between 5:00 and 5:15 p.m. that A.V. was complaining of abdominal pain and nausea. Dr. Vo ordered tests for A.V., including an abdominal ultrasound. Dr. Vo arrived at Gulf Coast between 5:15 and 5:30 p.m. She found A.V. to be hypotensive with rapidly decreasing systolic blood pressure. The results of the ultrasound showed that A.V. had a 5.3 centimeter abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with a surrounding collection of fluid. An AAA is a life- threatening condition. Dr. Vo transferred A.V. to the intensive care unit (ICU), where she began infusions of fluids and dopamine in an attempt to elevate A.C.’s blood pressure and to resuscitate him. Dr. Vo requested a surgical consult. Dr. Harry Black, the on-call surgeon was not available, and the consult was referred to Dr. DeMoya, a general surgeon who was covering for Dr. Black. Dr. DeMoya was in surgery at another hospital and could not come to Gulf Coast. He was advised that A.C. had an AAA. Dr. DeMoya recommended that A.C. be transferred to Southwest, which was better equipped to handle an AAA. Dr. Vo felt that A.C. was too unstable to transfer at that time. In order to rapidly pump fluids into A.C., Dr. Vo asked the supervising nurse to contact the on-call anesthesiologist for a consult for placing a central line. A central line is a catheter that is passed through a vein, ending up in the thoracic portion of the vena cava or in the right atrium of the heart. Dr. Rivera was an employee of Dr. John Patrick, who was the chief of Anesthesiology at Gulf Coast. Dr. Patrick was out of town on May 18, 2002, and Dr. Rivera was the on-call anesthesiologist. Being on call means that the physician gets called when anesthesia services are needed. Dr. Rivera was contacted concerning the placement of a central line for A.V. Dr. Rivera got to Gulf Coast between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. He went to the bedside of A.V. and recognized A.V. from having provided anesthesia services to A.V. earlier in A.V.'s admission. Dr. Rivera told Dr. Vo that he did not feel comfortable placing a central line and refused to do so. Although he had been taught as a resident to place a central line, he had not placed a central line since his residency in 1983. Dr. Vo asked the supervising nurse, Ellen Haviland, to continue her efforts to locate a vascular surgeon. Nurse Haviland contacted Dr. Brian Kurland, a vascular surgeon. Dr. Kurland agreed to come to Gulf Coast. Nurse Haviland told Dr. Rivera that Dr. Kurland was on his way to the hospital, and Dr. Rivera said that if Dr. Kurland was on his way that Dr. Kurland could place the central line. Dr. Kurland told the nurse to make sure that the patient and his family wanted the patient to undergo the surgery because of the severity of the operation and the risk of not having a successful outcome. He also ordered that the operating team be mobilized. After speaking with Dr. Kurland, Nurse Haviland went to the surgical supply room to make sure that the grafts needed for the operation were available. Dr. Vo told Dr. Rivera that Dr. Kurland was coming and that she was going to transfer A.V. to the operating room. General anesthesia is necessary for an AAA repair. Dr. Rivera recommended that A.C. be transferred to another hospital and refused to provide anesthesia to A.C. because he felt that the risk of giving anesthesia at Gulf Coast was unacceptable. Dr. Rivera noted his recommendation in the progress notes for A.V. at 7:00 p.m. Dr. Rivera then left the hospital and went home. He did not attempt to contact Dr. Kurland directly to advise Dr. Kurland of his concerns and that he was not going to provide anesthesia services. Dr. Kurland arrived at the hospital and went directly to the operating room, where he expected to find the patient and the operating team. However, no one was in the operating room. Dr. Kurland went to the ICU, where A.C. was. Dr. Kurland was advised that A.V. was not in the operating room because Dr. Rivera had refused to do the anesthesia. Dr. Kurland telephoned Dr. Rivera and told Dr. Rivera that although A.V. was a high-risk patient and would probably die, the best chance for saving A.V.’s life was to perform the surgery at Gulf Coast rather than transferring A.V. to another hospital. Dr. Rivera refused to come to the hospital to provide the anesthesia services. Dr. Kurland told the nursing staff to try to get another anesthesiologist and the chief of surgery. Dr. Kurland spoke with Dr. Patrick and told him that A.V. needed to have emergency surgery. Dr. Kurland placed a central line in A.V. to facilitate the giving of medications and fluids. Dr. Kurland told A.V.’s family that because they could not get an anesthesiologist that they had two options, either not to operate and let A.V. pass away or transfer him to another hospital for surgery. It was decided to transfer A.V. to Southwest. The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel were called to transfer the patient. When the EMS staff arrived, A.V. was intubated. Shortly thereafter, A.V. went into cardiac arrest and unsuccessful efforts were made to resuscitate A.V. A.V. was pronounced dead at 8:16 p.m. After talking with Dr. Kurland, Dr. Patrick called Dr. Rivera and told him to go to the hospital and provide the anesthesia because Dr. Kurland had declared an emergency and was going to perform surgery. Dr. Rivera obeyed Dr. Patrick because Dr. Patrick “was paying his paycheck” and left his home to go to the hospital. Shortly after his conversation with Dr. Rivera, Dr. Patrick was advised that A.V. had died. Dr. Patrick called Dr. Rivera and told him not to go to the hospital because A.V. had died. John Downs, M.D., testified as an expert witness for Dr. Rivera. He is a professor at the University of South Florida. Dr. Downs is a nationally recognized expert in anesthesiology, but the last time that he was an on-call anesthesiologist in a small community hospital similar to Gulf Coast was in 1985. It was Dr. Down’s opinion that Dr Rivera did not violate the standard of care by leaving the hospital, by refusing to perform anesthesia services, and by not telling Dr. Kurland that he was not going to do the anesthesia prior to Dr. Kurland’s telephone call to him. It was Dr. Down’s opinion that Dr. Rivera was not required to give the anesthesia because the patient would die. Dr. Down’s opinion misses the mark. A.V. was in a life or death situation. Without surgery, A.V. was going to die. A.V. was not stable enough to transfer to another hospital; thus, emergent surgery was necessary if there was going to be any chance for survival. Dr. Down’s opinion that Dr. Rivera was not required to perform the anesthesia services is not credited. Minnea B. Kalra, M.D., testified as the Department’s expert. Dr. Kalra has practiced for approximately 30 years and has practiced as an on-call anesthesiologist in small community hospitals similar to Gulf Coast. In 2002, she was practicing as an on-call anesthesiologist in a 150-bed community hospital comparable to Gulf Coast. She has been the on-call anesthesiologist called to treat emergency AAA’s in small facilities such as Gulf Coast. It was Dr. Kalra’s opinion that Dr. Rivera should have tried to get someone else to place the central line if he was unable to do so. Dr. Kalra opined that Dr. Rivera violated the standard of care by not staying at the hospital when he knew that Dr. Kurland, a vascular surgeon, was on his way to the hospital. An AAA calls for surgery, and it was Dr. Rivera’s duty to stay with the patient and provide the necessary anesthesia. Dr. Kalra testified that Dr. Rivera’s last chance to do his duty and agree to provide anesthesia was when Dr. Kurland advised Dr. Rivera by telephone that he was taking A.V. to surgery. Dr. Rivera failed to perform his duty when he told Dr. Kurland that he was not going to do the anesthesia. Dr. Kalra opined that Dr. Rivera had a duty to remain at the hospital until Dr. Kurland arrived so that he could discuss his concerns and the risks of providing anesthesia to A.V. directly with Dr. Kurland. Dr. Rivera failed to perform his duty. Dr. Kalra opined that Dr. Rivera had a duty to help find someone to provide anesthesia services such as placing the central line when Dr. Rivera could not place the central line because of lack of competence and would not provide surgical anesthesia services. Dr. Rivera was the on-call anesthesiologist, and it was his responsibility to provide the services or assist in finding an anesthesiologist who could provide the services. Dr. Rivera failed to do his duty. Dr. Kalra’s opinions that Dr. Rivera did not provide care to A.V. at a level a reasonably prudent physician under similar conditions and circumstances is expected to meet are credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Rivera violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes; suspending his license for one year followed by a two- year probation on whatever terms the Board of Medicine sees fit; imposing a fine of $10,000; requiring that Dr. Rivera complete three hours of continuing medical education in medical ethics and five hours in risk management; and requiring that Dr. Rivera complete 100 hours of community service. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact On July 30, 1981, Petitioner filed an application with the Health Systems Agency of Northeast Florida, Area III, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct an enclosure on the fifth floor of the south wing of Petitioner's hospital. The purpose of that enclosure was in contemplation of future available bed space at a time when need for those beds had been documented and approved by the local health system's agency. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2) In response to a request for further information which was made by the Executive Director of the local health system's agency, Rudolph Nudo, Director of Engineering for the Petitioner, answered that inquiry in writing by correspondence dated September 24, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3) Through the course of that correspondence Nudo indicated that the temporary use of the fifth floor would be for storage, and the fifth floor would be used in a permanent way for storage and expansion of the hospital's wellness and physical fitness programs should a determination be made in the future that additional beds are not needed in the review area of the local HSA. On November 23, 1981 the local HSA wrote to advise Herbert E. Straughn, Medical Facilities Consultant, Community Medical Facilities for Respondent, that the Northeast Florida Area III Health Systems Agency was recommending the denial of the proposed Certificate of Need. That correspondence had as an attachment the legal notices publicizing the public hearing related to the project, staff briefing memoranda and papers involved in the review process. (Respondent's Exhibits 4 through 4d) On January 27, 1982, Thomas J. Conrad, Administrator, Community Medical Facilities of the Office of Health Planning and Development, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, wrote to Charles Vadakin, President-General Manager of Petitioner, to advise Petitioner that the request for a Certificate of Need was being denied. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) This indication of denial had as an attachment the State agency action report. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) On February 5, 1982, in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to consider its entitlement to be granted a Certificate of Need to "shell-in" the fifth floor at its facility. On February 17, 1982, the Division of Administrative Hearings received Respondent's request that the Division conduct the formal hearing. That hearing de novo was held on April 8 and 9, 1982. The evidence presented in the course of the hearing addressed the question of whether the proposal for construction by the applicant meets the criteria established in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes and Rule 10- 5.11, Florida Administrative Code, in particular Rule 10-5.11(1),(3),(4),(6) and (12), Florida Administrative Code. (Those other criteria set forth in Rule 10- 5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have satisfactorily been addressed by the application process or are inapplicable in terms of the subject matter of the given criteria.) Evidence presented also dealt with the subject of whether this Certificate of Need could be granted due to extenuating and mitigating circumstances which exist, notwithstanding the applicant's failure to successfully meet the criteria discussed above. Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville is an acute general care hospital with a 309 bed capacity. The hospital is located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Petitioner has been granted Certificates of Need allowing the construction of an educational floor, perinatal center on a second floor and the third and fourth floors above those. The third and fourth floors would house an additional thirty-four beds, bringing the total bed count in the hospital to 343 beds. The construction is referred to as the south wing and is depicted at a certain point in the construction through Petitioner's Exhibit 1, a photograph of the area of construction. Memorial's present request for a Certificate of Need would allow the construction of an additional floor, or fifth floor, above the, four floors that have been granted. Memorial Hospital provides critical care, to include trauma cases treated in its emergency room and open heart surgery. In addition, there is a cardiac catheterization laboratory and other general cardiac care, an intensive care unit, a perinatal (birthing) center and other hospital services. The fifth floor, if constructed, would not immediately contain additional beds and would be left with interior partition walls and would be used for storage space in the interim period prior to the grant of any further beds to the Petitioner. The construction on the south wing which had been approved has its origins in Certificates of Need which were the topic of separate applications filed in 1979 and 1980. Specifically, in November, 1979, Memorial filed separate applications for its educational floor, first floor, in the amount of $2,991,000.00 and at the same time, an application for a perinatal unit, second floor, in the amount of $4,352,000.00. The applications were granted in 1980 in the amounts requested. At a later date in 1980, Petitioner filed a separate application for three additional stories; floors three, four and five, and for 106 additional beds, all in the cost amount of $10,656,000.00. This request came about at approximately the same time as a request by St. Luke's Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, to move its hospital operations to an area in the vicinity of Memorial Hospital. Memorial and St. Luke's, together with the local HSA, resolved the problem of the competing certificate requests by entering into a stipulation and agreement in 1981. By the terms of that agreement, Memorial limited its expansion to two floors instead of three, leaving floors three and four intact. It reduced its bed request from 106 to 34 additional new beds to be installed on one of the two additional floors, with the second additional floor receiving 34 beds from another part of the hospital which was not subject to the Certificate of Need. The second set of beds would be gained by the process of converting existing semi-private rooms to private rooms. Petitioner also agreed not to apply for additional beds until at least six months after the perinatal unit and 34 new medical/surgical beds had been opened. St. Luke's reduced its number of obstetric beds by 20 and it agreed that it would not "shell-in" space for additional beds in its proposed facility. The results of the agreement caused the abandonment by Memorial of its fifth floor request and the reduction of bed requests by 72 beds. The new terms are set out in Certificate of Need No. 1488 pertaining to floors three and four. The project costs were left as originally requested, and that monetary amount was granted. The agreement reached between the local HSA, Petitioner and St. Luke's was premised upon extenuating and mitigating circumstances, especially the possibility of the cost of protracted litigation had the parties not come to an agreement. Following the stipulation and agreement with the local HSA and St. Luke's Hospital, the Petitioner filed the present request for Certificate. The general purpose of that project has been discussed before. The rationalization on the subject of consistency of the project with the local Health Systems' plan and the local annual implementation plan was as follows: The proposed enclosure project is consistent with Health Systems' plan and annual implementation plan for 1980, in that it provides a mechanism for assuring available health care resources at the lowest possible cost consistent with quality service delivery. The proposal guarantees no additional beds will be added until approved by the Health Systems Agency and yet safeguards the most effective option of maximizing current capital investment dollars. This project will allow Memorial Hospital to continue to meet the area's acute health care needs for the next ten years. The project contemplates the expenditure of $1,200,000.00 for cost of construction of "shell-in" space. Need for the subject project was discussed in terms of a reference to "Certificate of Need #1488" which is that Certificate relating to floors three and four of the south wing. The Certificate of Need No. 1488 was based upon an application which included a study concluded in August, 1980, which set forth primary and secondary service areas, census tracts and preliminary 1980 Federal census figures for Duval County gathered by the "Research Department, Florida Publishing Company" and a document to the effect that Memorial had a firm market position, and that health care consumerism was emerging and that there was a strong consumer loyalty-to Memorial. The present application was reviewed by the local Health Agency and the Health Needs and Priorities Committee voted to recommend denial of the proposed project; its Executive Committee also recommended denial of the project. During this review cycle, concerns were expressed about the application in view of the 1981 agreement with St. Luke's and the local HSA in which Memorial agreed not to apply for additional beds for at least six months after the 34 beds which had been approved were in operation. While the present application does not violate the terms of that agreement, it does allow for a large portion of the capital expenditure, i.e., that part devoted to the construction of the "shell-in" of the floor to be achieved and thereby allows for a portion of the capital expenditure related to future beds to be approved. With St. Luke's relocation to south Jacksonville, some time in late 1984 or early 1985, and with the addition of Memorial's construction program that has been approved, 323 beds will be added to the south side area of Duval County in the next few years. In the local HSA staff's opinion, which opinion is accurate, from a community planning basis, there will not be a demonstrated community need for additional beds in the south side any sooner than 1985 and it is more likely that there would be no further bed need before 1990. The local HSA is also concerned that the project would set a precedent for future "shell-in" applications. This concern is borne out by interviews conducted through staff members of that HSA which revealed that seven hospital administrators planned major construction projects in the HSA area, and six administrators indicated that they would ask for "shell-in" space if they thought it would be approved. In specific terms, the local HSA recommended disapproval of the project and did so by written findings alluded to before. In summary, those findings indicated: The Health System's Plan did not address expansion projects which do not directly result in an increase in licensed beds or service but the primary purpose of the fifth floor would be for bed spaces. The Health System's Plan called for a regional rate of 4.3 beds per 1,000 population. Excluding Nemour's Children and St. Johns River Hospital, there were approximately 4.1 beds on the south side and beaches area of Jacksonville. When St. Luke's Hospital (289 beds) relocates to the south side and Memorial opens its 34 new beds, the rate will be approximately 5.2 beds per 1,000 population in 1985. In 1990 the estimated rate would be 5.0 beds per 1,000 population. It was HSA's staff's opinion that there will not be a need on a community planning basis to approve more beds for the south side until the 1990s. The local HSA also indicated that Memorial could be more effective in its specialization. Its recommendation in that regard was that after the current construction of four stories had been completed, Memorial could still have the capability to add additional licensed beds within its presently approved structures, even though it would mean reducing the ratio of private beds to semi-private beds. Specifically, it was recommended by the HSA that: Petitioner reconvert the 34 rooms previously used for semi-private back to semi-private --34 beds Modify the 34 private rooms on the third floor of the new building to semi-private, and --34 beds Modify the 34 private rooms on the fourth floor of the new building to semi-private. --34 beds TOTAL 102 beds These observations and findings are correct, except as they relate to modification of rooms on the third and fourth floors of the new construction. The above-stated suggestion by the local HSA related to the modification to semi-private rooms on the third and fourth floors of the south wing would not comport with the design specifications of those beds as now contemplated by Memorial, in that the private rooms contemplated on those floors did not provide sufficient space to be modified into semi-private rooms. Analysis by HRS adopted and confirmed the majority of the analysis by the local Health Planning Agency. HRS also pointed out in its analysis, and the HRS analysis is accurate, that in view of the fact of excess bed capacity in the planning area through 1985, the adding of potential beds would give Petitioner an undue advantage over facilities should the fifth floor be constructed as "shell-in" space. Furthermore, according to Respondent, construction economies to be realized by Memorial Hospital can only be recognized as legitimate, if there is a community need for the project. Based upon the analysis conducted by Respondent, the project from a community-wide standpoint, under the terms of Section 381.493, Florida Statutes, there is an excess of 238 hospital beds in Duval County through 1985, and possibly into early 1990. Respondent having in mind the bed need situation, concluded that the proposed project was not consistent with bed need standards at the time of review or in the planning future and that the community need to add "shell-in" bed space did not exist absent a recognized bed need, which would not occur before 1985. All of these comments by HRS are correct accounts. It was also concluded by Respondent that there were alternatives for converting private bedrooms to semi-private rooms, increasing capacity without major construction. This is a true understanding of the circumstances except as it relates to the third and fourth floors in the new construction. Based upon the overall analysis, the project application was denied. The conditions at Memorial Hospital are such that it would benefit from an expansion to add a fifth floor at the south wing. Those benefits pertain to the availability of storage and administrative space. The occupancy rate for patients in the hospital during the last year have averaged approximately 90 percent (Petitioner's Exhibit 16), causing both emergency and planned health care services to be delayed due to overcrowding. Federal, State and HSA guidelines call for 80 percent occupancy of nonfederal, short-term care beds, such as provided by Petitioner. There is a need for administrative office space. At the present time some administrative offices are placed in lobbies and hallways and the files for those offices are located in hallways. Intravenous solutions are stored in hallways at present. Testimony by the hospital engineer established a need of 15,000 square feet of space to accommodate storage problems more comfortably. The application seeks 17,500 square feet of space. The alternatives to the construction of the fifth floor related to future bed need and short and long-term storage space would be to forego the expansion, construct the project at a future date, or construct a new building. Construction at a later date could cost as much as an additional $7,000,000.00, constituted of approximately $813,000.00 in construction cost and $6,000,000.00 in loss of gross revenue. These costs are related to completion of the "shell-in" structure after the initial four floors had been completed and assumes loss of revenue related to beds in the third and fourth floors of the hospital, which floors would have to be closed during the construction of the fifth floor at a subsequent time. Construction costs at the present, as set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, at the last sentence of the first page, is estimated to be $.31 per-patient day. There is precedent for granting the "shell-in" space as may be found in Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 8, 9, and 10, related to projects in the Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency, Inc. area of responsibility. Respectively, those projects refer to Women's Hospital in Tampa, Florida; St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Florida; and L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital in Bradenton, Florida. In the situation of Women's Hospital, Respondent allowed the construction by installation of necessary structural equipment and fixtures needed to establish 34 single occupancy rooms as double occupancy rooms as a hedge against construction costs for any additional beds approved at a future date. St. Joseph's Hospital was allowed to construct two floors in which 45 beds had been requested, but only 36 beds were granted per floor, leaving additional "shell-in" space which would accommodate nine additional beds per floor, for a total of 18 beds. In the situation at Blake Memorial Hospital in Bradenton, Florida, that hospital was allowed to "shell-in" a fifth floor on condition that the structural framework would be completed and that the floor would be left in an unfinished state, that is to say, that the improvements necessary for the utilization of that fifth floor for patient rooms were not allowed to be added. In each instance in which some form of "shell-in" space was granted, the HSA area was overbeded at the time of the grant of certificate. The project is not consistent with the local health systems plan, annual implementation plan, and Florida State Health Systems Plan. (Petitioner's Exhibits 11 through 14 respectively)
The Issue Whether Florida Hospital Medical Center is entitled to reimbursement in the amount preliminarily determined by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, in a reimbursement dispute regarding bills submitted by Florida Hospital Medical Center to Macy’s Claims Services and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company for medical services provided to two individuals involved in work-related accidents; and Whether Macy’s Claims Services and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company properly adjusted those bills of Florida Hospital Medical Center in accordance with the requirements of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation law and applicable rules.
Findings Of Fact Florida Hospital is a full-service, not-for-profit hospital system located in Orlando, Florida, that operates a smaller satellite hospital in Winter Park, Florida. Florida Hospital is a “health care provider” within the meaning of Section 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Macy’s and Amerisure are “carriers” within the meaning of Sections 440.02(4) and 440.02(38), Florida Statutes. The Department has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes between carriers and health care providers regarding payments for services rendered to injured workers, pursuant to Sections 440.13(7) and 440.13(11)(c), Florida Statutes. Qmedtrix is a medical bill review company.3/ Case No. 09-6871 R. P., an employee of Macy’s, slipped and fell at work on May 20, 2009, and presented to Florida Hospital Winter Park for evaluation and treatment where medical personnel documented vomiting, brain attack, and brain trauma. After evaluation and treatment, patient R. P. was diagnosed with a bruise to the head and released the same day. On September 16, 2009, Florida Hospital submitted its bill for services provided to R. P. totaling $5,547.20 to Macy’s for payment, utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. Macy’s forwarded the bill to its workers’ compensation medical bill review agent, Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix reviewed the bill by comparing the procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by Florida Hospital with examples in the CPT book for billing of emergency department services. Florida Hospital reported ICD diagnosis code 920, which reads “contusion of face, scalp, or neck.” Use of this code means R. P. presented with a bruise or hematoma, but not a concussion. Florida Hospital also reported ICD diagnosis code 959.01 (“head injury, unspecified”) which also means that R. P. did not present with a concussion, loss of consciousness, or intracranial injuries. Florida Hospital’s bill included a charge of $2,417 with CPT code 99285 for emergency department services. The bill also included separate charges for a head CT, and various lab tests, drugs, and IV solutions. According to Mr. von Sydow, the bill was sent through Qmedtrix’s computer program for review, and was flagged for review by a physician. Mr. von Sydow further testified that one of Qmedtrix’s medical director’s suggested that the CPT code of 99285 be reduced. The medical director, who Mr. von Sydow said reviewed the bill, however, did not testify and no documentation of his recommendation was submitted at the final hearing. Qmedtrix determined that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99284 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99285. Qmedtrix found that, while the hospital billed $2,417 with CPT code 99285, its usual charge for an emergency department visit billed with CPT code 99284 is $1,354. Macy’s paid Florida Hospital a total of $2,683.55, which amount included $1,010.24 for the emergency department visit based on [approximately] 75 percent of Florida Hospital’s usual charge for CPT code 99284. The payment was accompanied by an EOBR. The EOBR Macy’s (or its designated entity)4/ issued to Florida Hospital for services rendered to R. P. identifies the amount billed by Florida Hospital as to each line item in a column designated “Billed,” and has columns designated as “BR Red,” “PPO Red,” “Other Red,” and “Allowance,” each containing an amount for each line item in the “Billed” column. There is also a column entitled “Reason Code” which sets forth codes, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(o)3., that are supposed to explain the reason for adjustment of any line item.5/ The “reason code” set forth adjacent to the $2,417.00 billed by Florida Hospital for emergency department services is “82,” which means “Payment adjusted: payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” There is also another code, “P506” listed in the “Reason Code” column adjacent to the same line item, which, according to the key provided on the EOBR, means “[a]ny questions regarding this Qmedtrix review, please call (800)-833-1993.” “P506,” however, is not a “reason code” listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 68L- 7.602(5)(o)3. The EOBR does not advise that the bill was adjusted because of a determination that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99284 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99285 as originally billed. Upon receipt of the payment and the EOBR, Florida Hospital timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute with the Department pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Rule 69L-31, contending that payment should be at 75 percent of its total charges, and citing the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Qmedtrix timely filed a response to Florida Hospital’s petition on behalf of Macy’s pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, asserting that correct payment should be determined based on, first, whether the hospital in fact billed its usual charge for the services and, second, whether the hospital’s charges are in line with the charges of other hospitals in the same community, citing One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 958 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) for the proposition that “SB-50 amended section 440.13 . . . [revealing] legislative intent to eliminate calculation of a “usual and customary charge” based on the fees of any one provider in favor of a calculation based on average fees of all providers in a given geographic area.” Qmedtrix’s response on behalf of Macy’s also contended that “upcoding” and “unbundling” were additional grounds for adjustment or disallowance that were not identified on the EOBR. The response explained that “upcoding” refers to billing with a procedure code that exaggerates the complexity of the service actually provided; that CPT codes 99281 through 99285 describe emergency department services; that the CPT book includes examples of proper billing with these codes; that the hospital billed $2,417 with CPT code 99285; and that the CPT book describes an “emergency department visit for a healthy, young adult patient who sustained a blunt head injury with local swelling and bruising without subsequent confusion, loss of consciousness or memory deficit” as an example of proper billing with CPT code 99283. The response requested a determination by the Department that Macy’s payment equaled or exceeded the amount usual and customary for CPT code 99283. On November 13, 2009, the Department, through its Office of Medical Services (OMS) issued a determination (Determination in 09-6871) which found, in pertinent part: The petitioner asserts that services provided by Florida Hospital Medical Center to the above-referenced injured employee on May 20, 2009, were incorrectly reimbursed. Florida Hospital Medical Center billed $5,547.20 and the carrier reimbursed $2,683.55. The petition does not address a contract and does not reflect a contract discount in the calculation of requested reimbursement. The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges”, maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, references a manual not incorporated by rule, and provides CPT codes that the respondent alleges are correct. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5-DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5-DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition conforms to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or other methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Florida Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on May 20, 2009. Based on the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $4,160.40 ($5,547.20 x 75% [Hospital Manual]=$4,160.40). The carrier shall reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $4,160.40 for services rendered to the above-referenced employee; and submit proof of reimbursement of the amount determined by the OMS within thirty days of the date the Determination is received. . . . The difference between what Petitioner Macy’s paid Florida Hospital for services rendered to R. P., and the amount the Department determined that Petitioner Macy’s is required to pay for such services, equals $1,476.85. The Determination in 09-6871 did not directly address Macy’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding.” The Determination in 09-6871 provided a 21-day notice for request of an administrative hearing and, as noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Macy’s timely requested a hearing. Case No. 09-6872 J. L., an employee of Major League Aluminum, was injured in a work-related accident on the evening of May 3, 2009, and visited the emergency department of Florida Hospital Orlando. After evaluation and treatment, J. L. was diagnosed with a bruise to the knee and released the next morning. On September 23, 2009, Florida Hospital submitted its bill for services provided to J. L. totaling $2,851 to Amerisure, Major League Aluminum’s workers’ compensation insurer, for payment, utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. Amerisure forwarded the hospital bill to its medical bill review agent, Qmedtrix for review. Qmedtrix’s medical bill review in this case, as in the companion case, entailed comparing the procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by the hospital with examples in the CPT book. The hospital reported ICD diagnosis code 924.11, which reads “contusion of . . . knee.” The hospital also reported ICD diagnosis codes 724.2 (“lumbago”), E888.1 (“fall on or from ladders or scaffolding”) and 959.7 (“injury, other and unspecified . . . knee, leg, ankle, and foot.”). Florida Hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 9924 for emergency department services and also billed for X-rays and various drugs and IV solutions. Comparing procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by the hospital with examples in the CPT book, Qmedtrix concluded that billing with CPT code 99284 was not appropriate, but that billing with CPT code 99282 was. Qmedtrix also found that, while the hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 99284, the average charge in the community for a visit to the emergency department billed with CPT code 99282 is $721. Qmedtrix determined the “usual and customary charge” in the community from its own database compiled by entering all of particular hospital bills into Qmedtrix’s database, along with data from the American Hospital Directory. Qmedtrix derives the average charge in the community based upon zip codes of the hospitals. Amerisure paid Florida Hospital a total of $1,257.15, which amount included $524.70 for the emergency department visit codes based on 75 percent of what Qmedtrix determined to be the average charge in the community for CPT code 99282. The payment was accompanied by an EOBR. The EOBR Petitioner Amerisure (or its designated entity)6/ issued to Florida Hospital for services rendered to J. L. identifies the amount billed by Florida Hospital as to each line item in a column designated “Billed Charges,” and has columns designated as “FS/UCR Reductions,” “Audit Reductions,” “Network Reductions,” and “Allowance,” each containing an amount for each line item in the “Billed Charges” column. There is also a column entitled “Qualify Code” which sets forth reason codes that are supposed to explain the reason for adjustment of any line item.7/ The code set forth adjacent to the $1,354.00 billed by Florida Hospital for emergency department services is “82,” which means “Payment adjusted: payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” The EOBR does not advise that the bill was adjusted because of a determination that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99282 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99284 as originally billed. Upon receipt of the payment and the EOBR, Florida Hospital timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute with the Department pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, contending that payment should be at 75 percent of its total charges, and citing the Hospital Manual. Qmedtrix timely filed a response to Florida Hospital’s petition on behalf of Amerisure pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, asserting that correct payment should be determined based on, first, whether the hospital, in fact, billed its usual charge for the services and, second, whether the hospital’s charges are in line with the charges of other hospitals in the same community, citing One Beacon, supra. Qmedtrix’s response on behalf of Amerisure contended “upcoding” as an additional ground for adjustment or disallowance that was not identified on the EOBR. As in the companion case, the response explained “upcoding,” that CPT codes 99281 through 99285 describe emergency department services, and that the CPT book includes examples of proper billing with these codes. The response further stated that the hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 99284, and that the CPT book describes an “emergency department visit for a patient with a minor traumatic injury of an extremity with localized pain, swelling, and bruising” as an example of proper billing with CPT code 99282. The response requested a determination by the Department that Amerisure’s payment equaled or exceeded the usual and customary charge for CPT code 99282. On October 20, 2009, the Department’s OMS issued a determination (Determination in 09-6872) which found, in pertinent part: The petitioner asserts that services provided by Florida Hospital Medical Center to the above-referenced injured employee on May 3, 2009, and May 4, 2009, were incorrectly reimbursed. Florida Hospital Medical Center billed $2,851.00 and the carrier reimbursed $1,257.15. The petition does not address a contract and does not reflect a contract discount in the calculation of requested reimbursement. The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges”, maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, and references a manual not incorporated by rule. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. Therefore, the charges, as billed by the hospital, did not constitute billing errors. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition conforms to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or other methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Florida Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on May 3, 2009, and May 4, 2009. Based on the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $2,138.25 ($2,851.00 x 75% [Hospital Manual]=$2,138.25). The carrier shall reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $2,138.25 for services rendered to the above-referenced employee; and submit proof of reimbursement of the amount determined by the OMS within thirty days of the date the Determination is received. . . . The difference between what Petitioner Amerisure paid Florida Hospital for services rendered to J. L. and the amount the Department determined that Petitioner Amerisure is required to pay for such services equals $881.10. The Determination in 09-6872 did not directly address Amerisure’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding.” The Determination in 09-6872 provided a 21-day notice for request of an administrative hearing and, as noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Amerisure timely requested a hearing. Alleged “Upcoding” for Emergency Department Services The Petitioners’ responses in both cases allege that Florida Hospital “upcoded” its bill for emergency department evaluation and management services. Neither EOBR submitted to Florida Hospital, however, reported alleged “upcoding” as an explanation for the Petitioners’ adjustment or disallowance of reimbursement. While the Dispute Determinations by the Department do not directly address the carrier’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding” raised in the Petitioners’ responses, they found that “Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment[, and that] [o]nly through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill.” According to Mr. von Sydow, who was offered by Petitioners as an expert in billing, coding, reimbursement, and payment issues,8/ the “reason codes” that workers’ compensation carriers are to use pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602, do not mention “upcoding,” and therefore an EOBR could not be generated with a reason code explaining reduction or disallowance based on “upcoding.” The following reason codes, however, are included in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602: 23 – Payment disallowed: medical necessity: diagnosis does not support the services rendered. – Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: documentation does not substantiate the service billed was rendered. – Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: level of evaluation and management service not supported by documentation. Neither EOBR submitted to Florida Hospital includes reason code 23, 40, or 41. And neither EOBR explains or otherwise suggests that that Florida Hospital’s level of billing was not supported by medical necessity, services rendered, or sufficient documentation. In fact, Petitioners did not disallow reimbursement and do not contend that reimbursement should be denied for any services rendered by Florida Hospital to R. P. and J. L. on the grounds that the billed services were not medically necessary for the injured employees’ compensable injuries. In addition, Petitioners did not adjust or disallow payment for any of the billed procedures on the grounds that the procedures were not provided. In sum, the EOBR’s did not give Florida Hospital notice that alleged “upcoding” was an issue. Even if Petitioner’s EOBR’s gave Florida Hospital notice that it was asserting “upcoding” as a reason to reduce or adjust the hospital’s bill, the evidence does not support a finding that Florida Hospital utilized the wrong code in its billing for emergency department evaluation and management services. The CPT® 2009 Current Procedural Terminology Professional Edition, (Copyright 2008), (CPT book), is adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(3)(d) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-7.020(2). The CPT book sets forth the procedure codes for billing and reporting by hospitals and physicians. The CPT book sets forth CPT codes ranging from 99281 through 99285 used to report evaluation and management services provided in a hospital’s emergency department, described as follows: 99281: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A problem focused history; A problem focused examination; and Straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self limited or minor. 99282: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; and Medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. 99283: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; and Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate severity. 99284: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; and Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high severity, and require urgent evaluation by the physician but do not pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function. 99285: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high severity and pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function. Mr. von Sydow testified that a Qmedtrix “medical director,” reviewed Florida Hospital’s bill for services rendered to R. P., but not the medical records, and recommended that the hospital’s charge for emergency department services under CPT 99285 be “re-priced” to Qmedtrix’s determination of the “usual and customary charge” for CPT 99284. Mr. von Sydow acknowledged the need for physician review for some cases (as opposed to review by non-physician coders) by testifying, “The more complicated the medicine, the more likely it is that he [a medical director at Qmedtrix] wants to see it.” Despite Qmedtrix’s original determination to “reprice” the bill from CPT code 99285 to CPT code 99284 (reflected in the reduced payment but not explained in the EOBR), Mr. von Sydow opined that the correct CPT code for emergency department services provided to patient R. P. was 99283, as opposed to 99285 billed by the hospital. Mr. von Sydow testified that his opinion was based upon his own review of the medical records, without the assistance of a medical director or medical expert, and review of examples for the CPT codes for emergency department services from the CPT book, and various provisions of ICD-9 and CPT book coding resources. Aside from the fact that Mr. von Sydow’s opinion differed from the purported recommendation of a Qmedtrix “medical director,” Mr. von Sydow is not a physician. Moreover, Qmedtrix failed to provide the testimony of the medical director, or anyone else with medical expertise to evaluate the medical records and services provided or to validate either the opinion of Mr. von Sydow or the original recommendation to “re- price” Florida Hospital’s use of CPT Code 99285 in its bill for emergency department services rendered to patient R. P. Mr. von Sydow offered similar testimony and examples to explain Qmedtrix’s “re-pricing” of Florida Hospital’s bill from CPT code 99284 to CPT code 99282 for emergency services rendered to patient J. L. on behalf of Amerisure. According to Mr. von Sydow, an internal Qmedtrix coder (not a medical director) reviewed the bill for emergency services rendered to J. L. and determined it should be re-priced to the usual and customary charge, as determined by Qmedtrix, using that CPT code 99282. While knowledgeable of the various codes and their uses, given the manner in which preliminary diagnostics under emergency circumstances drives Florida Hospital’s determination of the appropriate CPT code for billing emergency department services, without the testimony of a medical expert familiar with the medical records generated in these cases in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the emergency care rendered to patients R. P. and J. L., Mr. von Sydow’s testimony was unpersuasive. Ross Edmundson, M.D., an employee, vice-president, and medical manager for Florida Hospital, explained that, unlike other settings, hospitals generally do not have the medical histories of patients presenting for emergency hospital services. When a patient comes to Florida Hospital for emergency services, they are triaged by a nurse to determine the level of urgency, then a doctor sees the patient, conducts a differential diagnosis to rule out possible causes, obtains the patient’s history, and then performs a physical examination. While emergency room physicians at Florida Hospital do not decide which CPT code is utilized for the evaluation and management services provided by its emergency department, the various tests and procedures they undertake to evaluate and treat emergency department patients do. James English, the director of revenue management for Florida Hospital explained the process through his deposition testimony. Florida Hospital, like over 400 other hospitals, uses the “Lynx System” – a proprietary system for creating and maintaining medical records electronically. The program captures each medical service, supply, and physician order that is inputted into the electronic medical record. The hospital’s emergency evaluation and management CPT code is generated from the electronic record. A “point collection system” in the Lynx System translates physician-ordered services, supplies it to a point system, and then assigns the CPT code that is billed based upon the total number of “points” that are in the system at the time the patient is discharged from the emergency department. The level of the evaluation and management CPT code (99281 to 99285) that is reported on Florida Hospital’s bill is a direct reflection of the number and types of medical services that a patient receives from his or her arrival through discharge. In light of evidence showing the manner in which emergency services are provided and the importance of medical records in generating the appropriate billing code for emergency evaluation and management services, it is found that Petitioners failed to provide an adequate analysis of the medical records of either R. P. or J. L. to show that the appropriate CPT codes were not utilized by Florida Hospital in billing for those services. On the other hand, both Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute filed by Florida Hospital with the Department attached appropriately itemized bills utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. In addition, medical records for the evaluation and treatment provided by Florida Hospital for both patients R. B. and J. L. supporting the itemized bills were submitted to the Department. These documents were also received into evidence at the final hearing. Florida Hospital’s bills at issue correctly identified the hospital’s usual charges for each individual and separately chargeable item, service or supply, with the corresponding code assigned to such billable items as maintained in Florida Hospital’s “charge master.” In addition, Petitioners concede the compensability of both patients’ work-related injuries and do not dispute whether any service or supply rendered and billed by Florida Hospital for these two cases were “medically necessary.”9/ Unbundling As noted above, in Case No. 09-6871, Qmedtrix’s response to Florida Hospital’s petition for resolution of reimbursement dispute contended “unbundling” as a ground for adjustment or disallowance of reimbursement. At the final hearing, Arlene Cotton, the nurse who issued the Dispute Determinations, explained that reason code 63 regarding “unbundling” is inapplicable to hospital billing, as there is no rule that requires hospitals to bundle bill for its services. Mr. von Sydow agreed that reason code 63 was inapplicable. In addition, footnote 2 of Petitioners’ Proposed Recommended Order states, “they did not pursue the allegations of unbundling.” Therefore, it is found that Petitioners did not prove and otherwise abandoned their claim of “unbundling” as a ground to adjust or disallow reimbursement to Florida Hospital. Usual and Customary Charges The Dispute Determinations issued by the Department found that correct payment in both cases equaled 75% of billed charges, citing “Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., [which] incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Both Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Hospital Manual provide that hospital services provided to patients under the workers’ compensation law “shall be reimbursed at 75 percent of usual and customary charges.” The Department interprets the term “usual and customary charges” as set forth in the Hospital Manual and Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, quoted above, to mean a hospital’s usual charges of the hospital, whereas Petitioners contend that “usual and customary charges” means the average fee of all providers in a given geographical area. While apparently not contending that Petitioners failed to raise the issue of “usual and customary” charges in their EOBR’s,10/ at the final hearing, the Department argued that “nowhere in [either Macy’s or Amerisure’s] response is the issue of customary charges raised.” A review of the responses filed by Qmedtrix to Florida Hospital’s reimbursement dispute petitions filed with the Department reveal that both raise the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mr. von Sydow’s letter attached to both responses state: As you may know, the proposed adoption of Medicare’s Outpatient Prospective Payment System as a methodology for reimbursing hospitals 60% and 75% of “usual and customary charges” follows from the decision of the First District Court of Appeals in One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, No. 1D05-5459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (SB-50 amended section 440.13 to remove all reference to the charges of any individual service provider; this amendment reveals the legislative intent to eliminate calculation of a “usual and customary charge” based on the fees of any one provider in favor of a calculation based on average fees of all providers in a given geographical area). This court decision requires DFS to define payment rates for out patient service that are uniformly applicable to all hospitals in a given geographic area. In addition, at the final hearing, the Department argued that the petitions for administrative hearing did “not raise as a disputed issue of fact or law whether or not usual and customary charges should apply in this case.” Indeed, a review of the request for relief set forth in the petitions for administrative hearings filed by Petitioners do not mention the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Rather, the relief requested by both petitions for administrative review of the Dispute Determinations, as summarized in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, is: Petitioner[s] seeks reversal of OMS’ Determination(s) and the matters remanded for the Department to: direct payment based upon the actual treatment required/provided and pursuant to the correct CPT code; find that the hospital upcoded and that Petitioner properly reimbursed (or exceeded amount due); and determine that the hospital has the burden of proof to substantiate its billing and the use of the chosen CPT code. Contrary to the Department’s argument, however, both petitions for administrative hearing raise the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Page 9 of Macy’s petition, in pertinent part states: Petitioner submits that in issuing the above findings OMS failed to consider the holding in One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration (wherein the Court determined that reimbursement should not be based solely upon a mathematical equation [as found within the Reimbursement Manual] and applying it to the fee charged by a particular provider; and that by eliminating the reference to any one facility’s charges, the legislature intended that the charges be based on average fees of all providers in a geographical area as opposed to the fees of the particular provider in question). Likewise, review of Amerisure’s petition for administrative hearing reveals that the issue of “usual and customary charges” was raised. Pages 7 and 8 of Amerisure’s petition state, in pertinent part: Further, if the Hospital is permitted to utilize incorrect revenue codes it would be impossible to determine whether the charges are consistent with the Hospital’s own [usual and customary] charges for the service, procedure or supplies in question and, further, whether such charges are consistent with charges by other like facilities (in the same geographical area) for the same services, procedures, or supplies. See One Beacon Insurance, supra. In addition, Amerisure’s petition on page 12 states with regard to the Department’s determination: Such finding was issued without consideration of . . . the amounts charged for the same services in the Orlando area where this hospital is located. Petitioners further preserved the issue of “usual and customary charges” in the first paragraph of their statement of position on page 3 of the Joint Prehearing Statement, as follows: Petitioners, Macy’s and Amerisure, take the position that the Determinations must be reversed as the Department has the duty to scrutinize the bills in question in order to determine, first, whether the hospital, in fact, charged its usual charge for the services provided, and second, whether the billed charges are in line with the customary charges of other facilities in the same community (for the same or similar services) and that the Department failed to do so. As such, Petitioners contend that payment for services provided by Florida Hospital should have been based upon 75% of usual and customary charges, not 75% of billed charges. Therefore, it is found that Petitioners have preserved the issue of “usual and customary charges” for consideration in this administrative proceeding. Although preserved, Petitioners failed to demonstrate that their interpretation of “usual and customary charges” should prevail. The Department has consistently interpreted the term “usual and customary charges” as used in the Hospital Manual, Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, and rules related to hospital reimbursement under the workers’ compensation law as the “usual and customary charges” of the hospital reflected on the hospital’s “charge master.” The Hospital Manual requires each hospital to maintain a charge master and to produce it “when requested for the purpose of verifying its usual charges. . . .” (Emphasis added). Petitioners did not conduct or request to conduct an audit to verify whether the charges billed by Florida Hospital corresponded with the Florida Hospital’s charge master. In fact, Mr. von Sydow conceded at the final hearing that Florida Hospital’s bills at issue were charged in accordance with Florida Hospital’s charge master. Nor did Petitioners institute rule challenge proceedings against the Department regarding the Hospital Manual, incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 38F-7.501. Instead, Petitioners assert that they should be able to reduce Florida Hospital bills based upon a different interpretation of the phrase “usual and customary charges” to mean the average charge in the community as determined by Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix is not registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, and does not employ any Florida-licensed insurance adjuster, physician, or registered nurse. Qmedtrix earns 12 to 15 percent of “savings” realized by carriers utilizing their bill review services. For example, if a bill is reduced by $100, Qmedtrix is paid $12.11/ Qmedtrix uses a proprietary bill review system called “BillChek.” According to Qmedtrix’s website: BillChek reviews out-of-network medical charges for all bill types in all lines of coverage, including group health, auto, medical, and workers’ compensation. BillChek is a unique specialty cost- containment service that determines an accurate and reasonable reimbursement amount for non-network facility and ancillary medical charges. BillChek incorporates historical data to help determine reasonable payment recommendations across all sectors of the health care industry. All BillCheck recommendations are backed by extensive medical and legal expertise, and supported by Qmedtrix’s experienced Provider Relations and Dispute Resolution teams. According to the testimony of Mr. von Sydow, Qmedtrix collects and maintains data from various sources, including Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the American Hospital Directory (AHD.com), and HCFA 2552’s (data reported to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services on HCFA 2522) in order to construct a database of health care providers’ usual charges. Mr. von Sydow advised that AHD.com data was a principle source for constructing the database. He also advised that AHCA data was included in the database even though Qmedtrix found the AHCA data defective. Examples of data downloaded from AHD.com for Florida Hospital showing a profile of the facility was received into evidence as P-5. The data did not, however, show usual charges for the CPT codes for emergency department services at issue in this case. Petitioners also introduced into evidence Exhibits P-6 and P-7, which contained AHD.com data showing average charges for Florida Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, respectively, for Level 1 through Level 5 emergency room visits (corresponding to CPT codes 99281 through 99285). Mr. von Sydow explained that the data was part of the information Qmedtrix used to construct the average charge in the community. Petitioners failed to provide similar AHD.com data for other hospitals in the area Qmedtrix determined to be the “community.” In addition, Petitioners introduced AHCA’s Florida Health Finder Web-site, as Exhibit P-8, which ostensibly included average charges for all hospitals in Florida for the subject emergency department CPT codes (99281 through 99285). Mr. von Sydow explained, however, “[w]e find that [the AHCA data] is not refreshed very often, unfortunately, and some other defects in the scrubbing of the data by the agency, which they know, I will say. But this is incorporated in our database to a large extent.” The exhibit was received into evidence for the purpose of helping to explain how Qmedtrix constructed its database, with the recognition that it was largely composed of hearsay. In sum, while Petitioners showed their methodology of constructing the database, other than the AHD.com data for Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, Petitioners failed to introduce reliable evidence sufficient to show the “usual and customary charge” of all providers in a given geographical area as determined by Qmedtrix. In addition, the AHCA data, though characterized by Mr. von Sydow as unreliable, indicates that there is a wide range of differences in emergency room charges between hospitals in Florida. Petitioners’ interpretation of “usual and customary charge” to mean the average fee of all providers in a given geographical area does not take into account an individual hospital’s indigent care, cost of labor, overhead, number of beds, size, age, or various other differences between facilities that could affect amounts each hospital charges for emergency department and other services; the Department’s interpretation does.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a Final Order consistent with this Recommended Order that: Directs Macy’s Claims Services to reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $4,160.40 for services rendered to patient R. P., and to submit proof of reimbursement of that amount within 30 days from the date the Final Order is received; Directs Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company to reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $2,138.25 for services rendered to patient J. L., and submit proof of reimbursement of that amount to the Department within 30 days from the date the Final Order is received. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2010.
