Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the Agency For Health Care Administration (the "Agency") concerning Certificate of Need ("CON") Application No. 10131 filed by The Shores Behavioral Hospital, LLC (hereinafter “The Shores”) to establish a 60-bed adult psychiatric hospital and CON Application No. 10132 The entity is a limited liability company according to the Division of Corporations. Filed March 14, 2012 2:40 PM Division of Administrative Hearings to establish a 12-bed substance abuse program in addition to the 60 adult psychiatric beds pursuant to CON application No. 10131. The Agency preliminarily approved CON Application No. 10131 and preliminarily denied CON Application No. 10132. South Broward Hospital District d/b/a Memorial Regional Hospital (hereinafter “Memorial”) thereafter filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the Agency’s preliminary approval of CON 10131, which the Agency Clerk forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”). The Shores thereafter filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to challenge the Agency’s preliminary denial of CON 10132, which the Agency Clerk forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH”). Upon receipt at DOAH, Memorial, CON 10131, was assigned DOAH Case No. 12-0424CON and The Shores, CON 10132, was assigned DOAH Case No. 12-0427CON. On February 16, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order of Consolidation consolidating both cases. On February 24, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction based on _ the _ parties’ representation they had reached a settlement. . The parties have entered into the attached Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1). It is therefore ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Agency will approve and issue CON 10131 and CON 10132 with the conditions: a. Approval of CON Application 10131 to establish a Class III specialty hospital with 60 adult psychiatric beds is concurrent with approval of the co-batched CON Application 10132 to establish a 12-bed adult substance abuse program in addition to the 60 adult psychiatric beds in one single hospital facility. b. Concurrent to the licensure and certification of 60 adult inpatient psychiatric beds, 12 adult substance abuse beds and 30 adolescent residential treatment (DCF) beds at The Shores, all 72 hospital beds and 30 adolescent residential beds at Atlantic Shores Hospital will be delicensed. c. The Shores will become a designated Baker Act receiving facility upon licensure and certification. d. The location of the hospital approved pursuant to CONs 10131 and 10132 will not be south of Los Olas Boulevard and The Shores agrees that it will not seek any modification of the CONs to locate the hospital farther south than Davie Boulevard (County Road 736). 3. Each party shall be responsible its own costs and fees. 4. The above-styled cases are hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this 2. day of Meaich~ , 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELIZABETH DEK, Secretary AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
The Issue Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Long Term Care Hospitals Of the four classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals," includes: General acute care hospitals with an average length of stay of 25 days or less for all beds; Long term care hospitals, which meet the provisions of subsection 59A-3.065(27), F.A.C.; and, Rural hospitals designated under Section 395, Part III, F.S. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.252(1)(a). This proceeding concerns CON applications for the second of Florida's Class I or general hospitals: LTCHs. A critically ill patient may be admitted and treated in a general acute care hospital, but, if the patient cannot be stabilized or discharged to a lower level of care on the continuum of care within a relatively short time, the patient may be discharged to an LTCH. An LTCH patient is almost always "critically catastrophically ill or ha[s] been." (Tr. 23). Typically, an LTCH patient is medically unstable, requires extensive nursing care with physician oversight, and often requires extensive technological support. The LTCH patient usually fits into one or more of four categories. One category is patients in need of pulmonary/respiratory services. Usually ventilator dependent, these types of LTCH patients have other needs as well that requires "complex comprehensive ventilator weaning in addition to meeting ... other needs." (Tr. 26). A second category is patients in need of wound care whose wound is life-threatening. Frequently compromised by inadequate nutrition, these types of LTCH patients are often diabetic. There are a number of typical factors that may account for the seriousness of the wound patient's condition. The job of the staff at the LTCH in such a case is to attend to the wound and all the other medical problems of the patient that have extended the time required for care of the wound. A third category is patients with some sort of neuro-trauma. These patients may have had a stroke and are often elderly; if younger, they may be victims of a car accident or some other serious trauma. They typically have multiple body systems that require medical treatment, broken bones and a closed head injury for example, that have made them "very sick and complex." (Tr. 27). The fourth category is referred to by the broad nomenclature of "medically complex" although it is a subset of the population of LTCH patients all of whom are medically complex. The condition of the patients in this fourth category involves two or more body systems. The patients usually present at the LTCH with "renal failure ... [and] with another medical condition ... that requires a ventilator ..." Id. In short, LTCHs provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions that usually require care for a relatively extended period of time. To meet the definition of an LTCH a facility must have an average length of inpatient stay ("ALOS") greater than 25 days for all hospital beds. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065(34). The staffs at general acute care hospitals and LTCHs have different orientations. With a staff oriented toward a patient population with a much shorter ALOS, the general acute care hospital setting may not be appropriate for a patient who qualifies for LTCH services. The staff at a general acute care hospital frequently judges success by a patient getting well in a relatively short time. It is often difficult for general acute care hospital staff to sustain the interest and effort necessary to serve the LTCH patient well precisely because of the staff's expectation that the patient will improve is not met in a timely fashion. As time goes by, that expectation continues to be frustrated, a discouragement to staff. The LTCH is unlike other specialized health care settings. The complex, medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient may be beyond the capability of the traditional comprehensive medical rehabilitation ("CMR") hospital, nursing home, skilled nursing facility ("SNF"), or, the skilled nursing unit ("SNU"). CMR units and hospitals are rarely, if ever, appropriate for the LTCH patient. Almost invariably, LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three (3) hours of therapy per day associated with CMR. The primary focus of LTCHs, moreover, is to provide continued acute medical treatment to the patient that may not yet be stable, with the ultimate goal of getting the patient on the road to recovery. In comparison, the CMR hospital treats medically stable patients consistent with its primary focus of restoring functional capabilities, a more advanced step in the continuum of care. Services provided in LTCHs are distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Most nursing and clinical personnel in SNFs and SNUs are not experienced with the unique psychosocial needs of long-term acute care patients and their families. An LTCH is distinguished within the healthcare continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Medicare has long recognized LTCHs as a distinct level of care within the health care continuum. The federal government's prospective payment system ("PPS") now treats the LTCH level of service as distinct with its "own DRG system and ... [its] own case rate reimbursement." (Tr. 108). Under the LTCH PPS, each patient is assigned an LTC- DRG (different than the DRG under the general hospital DRG system) with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based on the patient diagnosis and acuity. The Parties The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON Program and licensing LTCHs and other hospital facilities pursuant to the authority of Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. Select-Palm Beach is the applicant for a free-standing 60-bed LTCH in "east Central Palm Beach County," Select Ex. 1, stamped page 12, near JFK Medical Center in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9661, was denied by the Agency. Select-Palm Beach is a wholly owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation, which provides long term acute care services at 83 LTCHs in 24 states, four of which are freestanding hospitals. The other 79 are each "hospitals-in-a- hospital" ("HIH" or "LTCH HIH"). Kindred is the applicant for a 70-bed LTCH to be located in the north central portion of Palm Beach County in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9662, was denied by the Agency. Kindred is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 73 LTCHs, 59 of which are freestanding, according to the testimony of Mr. Novak. See Tr. 56-57. Kindred Healthcare has been operating LTCHs since 1985 and has operated them in Florida for more than 15 years. At the time of the submission of Kindred's application, Kindred Healthcare's six LTCHs in Florida were Kindred-North Florida, a 60-bed LTCH in Pinellas County, AHCA District 5; Kindred-Central Tampa, with 102 beds, and Kindred-Bay Area- Tampa, with 73 beds, both in Hillsborough County, in AHCA District 6; Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale with 64 beds and Kindred- Hollywood with 124 beds, both in Broward County, ACHA District 10; and Kindred-Coral Gables, with 53 beds, in Dade County, AHCA District 11. The Applications and AHCA's Review The applications were submitted in the first application cycle of 2003. Select-Palm Beach's application is CON No. 9661; Kindred's is CON No. 9662. Select-Palm Beach estimates its total project costs to be $12,856,139. Select-Palm Beach has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH, but did include in its application a map showing three priority site locations, with its preferred site, designated "Site 1," located near JFK Medical Center. At $12,937,419, Kindred's estimate of its project cost is slightly more than Select-Palm Beach's. The exact site of Kindred's proposed LTCH had not been determined at the time of hearing. Kindred's preference, however, is to locate in the West Palm Beach area in the general vicinity of St. Mary's Hospital, in the northern portion of Palm Beach County along the I-95 corridor. This is approximately 15 to 20 miles north of Select's preferred location for its LTCH. There is no LTCH in the five-county service area that comprises District 9: Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. There are two LTCHs in adjacent District 10 (to the south). They have a total of 188 beds and an average occupancy of 80 percent. The Agency views LTCH care as a district-wide service primarily for Medicare patients. At the time of the filing of the applications, the population in District 9 was over 1.6 million, including about 400,000 in the age cohort 65 and over. About 70 percent of the District 9 population lives in Palm Beach County. More than 70 percent of the District's general acute care hospitals are located in that county. Kindred's preferred location for its LTCH is approximately 40 to 50 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH; Select-Palm Beach is approximately 25 to 35 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH. The locations of Select Palm-Beach's and Kindred's proposed LTCHs are complementary. The SAAR Following its review of the two applications, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). Section G., of the report, entitled "RECOMMENDATION," states: "Deny Con #9661 and CON #9662." Agency Ex. 2, p. 43. On June 11, 2003, the report was signed by Karen Rivera, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Certificate of Need, and Mr. Gregg as the Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. It contained a section entitled "Authorization for Agency Action" that states, "[a]uthorized representatives of the Agency for Health Care Administration adopted the recommendations contained herein and released the State Agency Action Report." Agency Ex. 2, p. 44. The adoption of the recommendations is the functional equivalent of preliminary denial of the applications. In Section F. of the SAAR under the heading of "Need," (Agency Ex. 2, p. 40), the Agency explained its primary bases for denial; it concluded that the applicants had not shown need for an LTCH in AHCA District 9. The discussions for the two, although not precisely identical, are quite similar: Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc.(CON #9661): The applicant's two methodological approaches to demonstrate need are not supported by any specific discharge studies or other data, including DRG admission criteria from area hospitals regarding potential need. The applicant also failed to provide any supporting documentation from area physicians or other providers regarding potential referrals. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. (CON #9662): The various methodological approaches presented are not supported by any specific DRG admission criteria from area hospitals suggesting potential need. The applicant provided numerous letters of support for the project from area hospitals, physicians and case managers. However, the number of potential referrals of patients needing LTCH services was not quantified. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Id. At hearing, the Agency's witness professed no disagreement with the SAAR and continued to maintain the same bases contained in the SAAR for the denials of the two applications The SAAR took no issue with either applicant's ability to provide quality care. It concluded that funding for each applicant was likely to be available and that each project appeared to be financially feasible once operating. The SAAR further stated that there were no major architectural concerns regarding Kindred's proposed facility design, but noted reservations regarding the need for further study and revision of Select Palm-Beach's proposed surgery/procedure wing, as well as cost uncertainties for Select Palm Beach because of such potential revisions. By the time of final hearing, however, the parties had stipulated to the reasonableness of each applicant's proposed costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated to the satisfaction of a number of the statutory CON criteria by the two applicants. The parties agreed that the applications complied with the content and review process requirements of sections 408.037 and 409.039, Florida Statutes, with one exception. Select reserved the issue of the lack of a Year 2 of Schedule 6, (Staffing) in Kindred's application. The form of Schedule 6 provided by AHCA to Kindred (unlike other schedules of the application) does not clearly indicate that a second year of staffing data must be provided. The remainder of the criteria stipulated and the positions of the parties as articulated in testimony at hearing and in the proposed orders that were submitted leave need as the sole issue of consequence with one exception: whether Kindred has demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the long term. Kindred's Long Term Financial Feasibility Select-Palm Beach contends that Kindred's project is not financially feasible in the long term for two reasons. They relate to Kindred's application and are stated in Select Palm Beach's proposed order: Kindred understated property taxes[;] Kindred completely fails to include in its expenses on Schedule 8, patient medical assistance trust fund (PMATF) taxes [citation omitted]. Proposed Recommended Order of Select-Palm Beach, Inc., p. 32, Finding of Fact 97. Raised after the proceeding began at DOAH by Select- Palm Beach, these two issues were not considered by AHCA when it conducted its review of Kindred's application because the issues were not apparent from the face of the application. AHCA's Review of Kindred's Application Kindred emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on April 20, 2001, under a plan of reorganization. With respect to the events that led to the bankruptcy proceeding and the need to review prior financial statements, AHCA made the following finding in the SAAR: Under the plan [of reorganization], the applicant [Kindred] adopted the fresh start accounting provision of SOP 90-7. Under fresh start accounting, a new reporting entity is created and the recorded amounts of assets and liabilities are adjusted to reflect their estimated fair values. Accordingly, the prior period financial statements are not comparable to the current period statements and will not be considered in this analysis. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30. The financial statements provided by Kindred as part of its application show that Kindred Healthcare, Kindred's parent, is a financially strong company. The information contained in Kindred's CON application filed in 2003 included Kindred Healthcare's financial statements from the preceding calendar year. Kindred Healthcare's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2002, showed "Income from Operations" to be more than $33 million, and net cash provided by operating activities (cash flow) of over $248 million for the period. Its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2002, showed cash and cash equivalents of over $244 million and total assets of over $1.6 billion. In light of the information contained in Kindred's CON application, the SAAR concluded with regard to short term financial feasibility: Based on the audited financial statements of the applicant, cash on hand and cash flows, if they continue at the current level, would be sufficient to fund this project as proposed. Funding for all capital projects, with the support of its parent, is likely to be available as needed. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30 (emphasis supplied). The SAAR recognized that Kindred projected a "year two operating loss for the hospital of $287,215." Agency Ex. 2, p. Nonetheless, the SAAR concludes on the issue of financial feasibility, "[w]ith continued operational support from the parent company, this project [Kindred's] is considered financially feasible." Id. The Agency did not have the information, however, at the time it reviewed Kindred's application that Kindred understated property taxes and omitted the Public Medicaid Trust Fund and Medical Assistance Trust Fund ("PMATF") "provider tax" of 1.5 percent that would be imposed on Kindred's anticipated revenues of $11,635,919 as contended by Select-Palm Beach. Consistent with Select Palm-Beach's general contentions about property taxes and PMATF taxes, "Kindred acknowledges that it likely understated taxes to be incurred in the operation of its facility." Kindred's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 50, p. 19. The parties agree, moreover, that the omitted PMATF tax is reasonably projected to be $175,000. They do not agree, however, as to the impact of the PMATF tax on year two operating loss. The difference between the two (approximately $43,000) is attributable to a corporate income tax benefit deduction claimed by Kindred so that the combination of the application's projected loss, the omitted PMATF tax, and the deduction yields a year two operating loss of approximately $419,000. Without taking into consideration the income tax benefit, Select-Palm Beach contends that adding in the PMATF tax produces a loss of $462,000. Kindred and Select-Palm Beach also disagree over the projection of property taxes by approximately $50,000. Kindred projects that the property taxes in year two of operation will be approximately $225,000 instead of the $49,400 listed in the application. Select-Palm Beach projects that they will be $50,000 higher at approximately $275,000. Whether Kindred's or Select-Palm Beach's figures are right, Kindred makes two points. First, if year two revenues and expenses, adjusted for underestimated and omitted taxes, are examined on a quarterly basis, the fourth quarter of year two has a better bottom line than the earlier quarters. Not only will the fourth quarter bottom line be better, but, using Kindred's figures, the fourth quarter of year two of operations is profitable. Second, and most importantly given the Agency's willingness to credit Kindred with financial support from its parent, Kindred's application included in its application an interest figure of $1.2 million for year one of operation and $1.03 million for year two. Kindred claims in its proposed recommended order that "[i]n reality ... this project will incur no interest expense as Kindred intends to fund the project out of cash on hand, or operating capital, and would not have to borrow money to construct the project." Id., at paragraph 54, p. 20. Through the testimony of John Grant, Director of Planning and Development for Kindred's parent, Kindred Healthcare, Kindred indicated at hearing that its parent might, indeed, fund the project: A ... Kindred [Healthcare] would likely fund this project out of operating capital. Like I said, in the first nine months of this year Kindred had operating cash flow of approximately $180 million. So it's not as if we would have to actually borrow money to complete a project like this. Q And what was the interest expense that you had budgeted in Year Two for this facility? A $1,032,000. Q ... so is it your statement then that this facility would not owe any interest back to the parent company? A That's correct. Tr. 221-222 (emphasis supplied). If the "financing interest" expense is excluded from Kindred's statement of projected expenses in Schedule 8 of the CON application, using Kindred's revised projections, the project shows a profit of approximately $612,0002 for the second year of operation. If Select-Palm Beach's figures and bottom line loss excludes the "finances interest" expense, the elimination of the expense yields of profit for year two of operations in excess of $500,000. If the support of Kindred's parent is considered as the Agency has signaled its willingness to do and provided that the project is, in fact, funded by Kindred Healthcare rather than financed through some other means that would cause Kindred to incur interest expense, Kindred's project is financially feasible in the long term. With the exception of the issue regarding Kindred's long term financial feasibility, as stated above, taken together, the stipulation and agreements of the parties, the Agency's preliminary review contained in the SAAR, and the evidence at hearing, all distill the issues in this case to one overarching issue left to be resolved by this Recommended Order: need for long term care hospital beds in District 9. Need for the Proposals From AHCA's perspective prior to the hearing, the only issue in dispute with respect to the two applications is need. This point was made clear by Mr. Gregg's testimony at hearing in answer to a question posed by counsel for Select-Palm Beach: Q. ... Assuming there was sufficient need for 130 beds in the district is there any reason why both applicants shouldn't be approved in this case, assuming that need? A. No. (Tr. 398). Both applicants contend that the application each submitted is superior to the other. Neither, however, at this point in the proceeding, has any objection to approval of the other application provided its own application is approved. Consistent with its position that both applications may be approved, Select-Palm Beach presented testimony through its health care planner Patricia Greenberg3 that there was need in District 9 for both applicants' projects. Her testimony, moreover, rehabilitated the single Kindred methodology of three that yielded numeric need less than the 130 beds proposed by both applications: Q ... you do believe that there is a need for both in the district. A I believe there's a need for two facilities in the district. Q It could support two facilities? A Oh, absolutely. Q And the disagreement primarily relates to the conservative approach of Kindred in terms of not factoring in out-migration and the narrowing the DRG categories? A Correct. ... Kindred actually had three models. Two of them support both facilities, but it's the GMLOS model that I typically rely on, and it didn't on the surface support both facilities. That's why I reconciled the two, and I believe that's the difference, is just the 50 DRGs and not including the out-migration. That would boost their need above the 130, and two facilities would give people alternatives, it would foster competition, and it would really improve access in that market. Tr. 150-51. Need for the applications, therefore, is the paramount issue in this case. Since both applicants are qualified to operate an LTCH in Florida, if need is proven for the 130 beds, then with the exception of Kindred's long term financial feasibility, all parties agree that there is no further issue: both applications should be granted. No Agency Numeric Need Methodology The Agency has not established a numeric need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs. Nor does the Agency have "any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)1. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2), which governs "Fixed Need Pools" (the "Fixed Need Pools Rule") states that if "no agency policy exist" with regard to a needs assessment methodology: [T]he applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The Fixed Need Pools Rule goes on to elaborate in subparagraph (e)3 that "[t]he existence of unmet need will not be based solely on the absence of a health service, health care facility, or beds in the district, subdistrict, region or proposed service area." Population, Demographics and Dynamics The first of the four topics to be addressed when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology is "population, demographics and dynamics." The Agency has not defined service areas for LTCHs. Nonetheless, from a health planning perspective, it views LTCH services as being provided district-wide primarily for Medicare patients. Consistent with the Agency's view, Select-Palm Beach identified the entire district, that is, all of AHCA District 9, as its service area. It identified Palm Beach County, one of the five counties in AHCA District 9, as its primary service area. In identifying the service area for Select-Palm Beach, Ms. Greenberg drew data from various sources: population estimates for Palm Beach County and surrounding areas; the number of acute care hospital beds in the area; the number of LTCH beds in the area; the types of patients treated at acute care hospitals; and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. AHCA District 9 has more elderly than any other district in the State, and Palm Beach County has more than any other county except for Dade. Palm Beach County residents comprise 71% of the District 9 population. It is reasonably projected that the elderly population (the "65 and over" age cohort) in Palm Beach County is projected to grow at the rate of 8 percent by 2008. The "65 and over" age cohort is significant because the members of that cohort are most likely to utilize hospital services, including LTCH services. Its members are most likely to suffer complications from illness and surgical procedures and more likely to have co-morbidity conditions that require long- term acute care. Persons over 65 years of age comprise approximately 80 percent of the patient population of LTCH facilities. Both Select-Palm Beach and Kindred project that approximately 80 percent of their admissions will come from Medicare patients. Since 90 percent of admissions to an LTCH come from acute care facilities, most of the patient days expected at Select-Palm Beach's proposed LTCH will originate from residents in its primary service area, Palm Beach County. When looking at the migration pattern for patients at acute care facilities within Palm Beach County, the majority (90 percent) come from Palm Beach County residents. Thus, Select- Palm Beach's projected primary service area is reasonable. Just as Select-Palm Beach, Kindred proposes to serve the entire District. Kindred proposes that its facility be based in Palm Beach County because of the percentage of the district's population in the county as well as because more than 70% of the district's general acute care hospitals are in the county. Its selection of the District as its service area, consistent with the Agency's view, is reasonable. Currently there are no LTCHs in District 9. Availability, Utilization and Quality of Like Services The second topic is "availability, utilization and quality of like services." There are no "like" services available to District residents in the District. Select-Palm Beach and Kindred, therefore, contend that they meet the criteria of the second topic. There are like services in other AHCA Districts. For example, AHCA District 10 has at total of 188 beds at two Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood. The Agency, however, did not present evidence of their quality, that they were available or to what extent they are utilized by the residents of AHCA District 9. Medical Treatment Trends The third topic is medical treatment trends. Caring for patients with chronic and long term care needs is becoming increasingly more important as the population ages and as medical technology continues to emerge that prolongs life expectancies. Through treatment provided the medically complex and critically ill with state of the art mechanical ventilators, metabolic analyzers, and breathing monitors, LTCHs meet needs beyond the capability of the typical general acute care hospitals. In this way, LTCHs fill a niche in the continuum of care that addresses the needs of a small but growing patient population. Treatment for these patients in an LTCH, who otherwise would be cared for without adequate reimbursement to the general acute care hospital or moved to an alternative setting with staff and services inadequate to meet their needs, is a medical trend. Market Conditions The fourth topic to be addressed by the applicant is market conditions. The federal government's development of a distinctive prospective payment system for LTCHs (LTC-DRG), has created a market condition favorable to LTCHs. General acute care hospitals face substantial losses for the medically complex patient who uses far greater resources than expected on the basis of individual diagnoses. Medicare covers between 80 and 85 percent of LTCH patients. The remaining patients are covered by private insurance, managed care and Medicaid. LTCH programs allow for shorter lengths of stay in a general acute care facility, reduces re-admissions and provide more discharges to home. These benefits are increasingly recognized. Numeric Need Analysis Kindred presented a set of needs assessment methodologies that yielded numeric need for the beds applied for by Kindred. Select-Palm Beach did the same. Unlike Kindred, however, all of the needs assessment methodologies presented by Select-Palm Beach demonstrated numeric need in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applications. Select-Palm Beach's methodologies, overall, are superior to Kindred's. Select-Palm Beach used two sets of needs assessment methodologies and sensitivity testing of one of the sets that confirmed the methodology's reasonableness. The two sets or needs assessment methodologies are: (1) a use rate methodology and (2) length of stay methodologies. The use rate methodology yielded projected bed need for Palm Beach County alone in excess of the 130 beds proposed by the two applicants. For the year "7/05 - 6/06" the bed need is projected to be 256; for the year "7/06 - 6/07" the bed need is projected to be 261; and, for the year "7/07 - 6/08" the bed need is projected to be 266. See Select Ex. 1, Bates Stamp p. 000036 and the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 114. If the use rate analysis had been re-computed to include two districts whose data was excluded from the analysis, the bed need yielded for Palm Beach County alone was 175 beds, a numeric need still in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applicants. The use rate methodology is reasonable.4 The length of stay methodologies are also reasonable. These two methodologies also yielded numeric need for beds in excess of the 130 beds proposed. The two methodologies yielded need for 167 beds and 250 beds. Agency Denial The Agency's general concerns about LTCHs are not without basis. For many years, there were almost no LTCH CON applications filed with the Agency. A change occurred in 2002. The change in the LTCH environment in the last few years put AHCA in the position of having "to adapt to a rapidly changing situation in terms of [Agency] understanding of what has been going on in recent years with long-term care hospitals." (Tr. 358.) "... [I]n the last couple of years long-term care hospital applications have become [AHCA's] most common type of application." (Tr. 359.) At the time of the upsurge in applications, there was "virtually nothing ... in the academic literature about long- term care hospitals ... that could [provide] ... an understanding of what was going on ... [nor was there anything] in the peer reviewed literature that addressed long-term care hospitals" id., and the health care planning issues that affected them. Two MedPAC reports came out, one in 2003 and another in 2004. The 2003 report conveyed the information that the federal government was unable to identify patients appropriate for LTCH services, services that are overwhelmingly Medicare funded, because of overlap of LTCH services with other types of services. The 2004 report gave an account of the federal government decision to change its payment policy for a type of long-term care hospitals that are known as "hospitals-within- hospitals" (tr. 368) so that "hospitals within hospitals as of this past summer [2004] can now only treat 25 percent of their patients from the host hospital." Id. Both reports roused concerns for AHCA. First, if appropriate LTCH patients cannot be identified and other types of services overlap appropriately with LTCH services, AHCA cannot produce a valid needs assessment methodology. The second produces another concern. In the words of Mr. Gregg, The problem ... with oversupply of long-term care hospital beds is that it creates an incentive for providers to seek patient who are less appropriate for the service. What we know now is that only the sickest patient ... with the most severe conditions are truly appropriate for long-term care hospital placement. * * * ... [T]he MedPAC report most recently shows us that the greatest indicator of utilization of long-term care hospital services is the mere availability of those services. Tr. 368-369. The MedPAC reports, themselves, although marked for identification, were not admitted into evidence. Objections to their admission (in particular, Kindred's) were sustained because they had not been listed by AHCA on the stipulation required by the Pre-hearing Order of Instructions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration that: approves Select-Palm Beach's application, CON 9661; and approves Kindred's application CON 9662 with the condition that financing of the project be provided by Kindred Healthcare. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 April, 2005.
The Issue Whether Rule 59C-1.038, the acute care bed need rule, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether this rule challenge should be dismissed as an untimely attack on a published fixed need pool.
Findings Of Fact In August 1994, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") published a numeric need of zero for additional acute care beds in AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 5, for southern Palm Beach County. Pursuant to Subsection 408.034(3), Florida Statutes, AHCA is the state agency responsible for establishing, by rule, uniform need methodologies for health services and facilities. In September 1994, NME Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Delray Community Hospital, Inc. ("Delray") applied for a certificate of need ("CON") to add 24 acute care beds for a total construction cost of $4,608,260. AHCA published its intent to approve the application on January 20, 1995, in Volume 21, No. 3 of the Florida Administrative Weekly. By timely filing a petition, Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc. ("Bethesda") challenged AHCA's preliminary decision in DOAH Case No. 95-0730. Bethesda is also located in AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 5. On May 24, 1995, Bethesda also filed the petition in this case challenging Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code, the acute care bed need rule. Pursuant to the acute care bed need rule, AHCA's August 1994 notice published its finding that zero additional acute care beds will be needed in the southern Palm Beach County subdistrict by July, 1999. The data, formulas, and calculations used in arriving at the number zero were not published. AHCA and Delray argue that the publication put persons on notice to inquire into the population data, occupancy rates, or the calculations leading to the published need number. An AHCA rule bars a person from seeking, and AHCA from making, any adjustments to the fixed need pool number if the person failed to notify AHCA of errors within ten days of publication. Still another rule defines "fixed need pool" as the " . . . numerical number, as published. " Bethesda is not contesting and, in fact, agrees that the fixed need pool number as published, zero, is correct. Using AHCA's definition of the fixed need pool, Bethesda's challenge is not barred because it failed to notify AHCA of an error in the fixed need pool number within 10 days of publication. Bethesda is challenging as irrational and invalid subsections (5), (6), and (7) of the acute care bed need rule. Subsection (5) directs the local health councils to determine subdistrict bed need consistent with the methodology for determining district bed need. Under that provision, total projected patient days of acute care needed in a district is calculated by adding together the projected patient care days needed in medical/surgical, intensive care, coronary care, obstetric, and pediatric beds. Each of these separate bed need projections is computed, in general, by multiplying projected population in the district for the appropriate age or gender group times a factor which is the product of the statewide discharge rate and the average length of stay for that particular type of care. After the total projected acute care patient days for district residents is computed, the number is adjusted to reflect historical patient flow patterns for acute care services, for out-of-state residents served in the district, for residents of other districts served in the district, and for residents of the district served outside the district. The rule includes specific percentages to apply for each patient flow group for each of the eleven districts. After the total number of beds needed in the district is derived, that number is decreased by the number of existing licensed or approved beds to get the number of additional acute care beds needed in the district, if any. Bethesda is challenging subsections (7)(a), (b), and (c) of the acute care rule, which authorize adjustments to the calculations from subsections (5) and (6) to achieve desired occupancy levels, based on historic utilization of acute care beds in a district. Bethesda is also seeking a determination that subsections 7(d) and (e) are invalid. Each of those subsections of the rule refer to (5)(b), although AHCA's expert witness testified that they should refer to (6)(b). Subsection (7)(d) requires at least 75 percent occupancy in all hospitals in the district before new acute care beds normally are approved, regardless of the net need projected by the formulas. Subsection (7)(e) allows approvals under special circumstances if net need is projected by the formulas and the applicant facility's occupancy rate equals or exceeds 75 percent. Subsection (7)(e), the provision directly related to the Delray application, is as follows: (e) Approval Under Special Circumstances. Regardless of the subdistrict's average annual occupancy rate, need for additional acute care beds at an existing hospital is demonstrated if a net need for beds is shown based on the formula described in paragraphs (5)(b), (7)(a), (b), (c), and (8)(a), (b), (c), and provided that the hospital's average occupancy rate for all licensed acute care beds is at or exceeds 75 percent. The determination of the average occupancy rate shall be made based on the average 12 months occupancy rate made available by the local health council two months prior to the beginning of the respective acute care hospital batching cycle. Phillip C. Rond, III, Ph.D., was the primary architect of the rule, beginning in 1981. The rule was initially published in 1982, and adopted in 1983. Constants in the rule formulas, including use rates, average lengths of stay, occupancy standards and patient flow patterns were taken from a 1979 survey of some state hospitals. Because data used for the constants in the formulas was expected to change, subsection (6) also provides, in pertinent part, that: Periodic updating of the statewide discharge rates, average lengths of stay and patient flow factors will be done as data becomes available through the institution of statewide utilization reporting mechanisms. Patient flow factors were updated in March 1984 to reflect a change in the realignment of counties in Districts 5 and 8. No other constants have been updated since the rule was adopted in June 1983. More current data is available. The Hospital Cost Containment Board ("HCCB") began collecting statewide hospital inpatient discharge data in the fourth quarter of 1987, which became available by the fall of 1988. AHCA now collects the data. Using the rule, the projected net need for acute care beds in 1999 in District 9 is 1,442 additional beds. By contrast, with the factors updated by Dr. Rond, the projected net need is a negative 723 or, in other words, District 9 has 723 more acute care beds than it will need in 1999. The updated formulas show a need for a total of 3,676 beds in District 9, which already has 4,399 licensed or approved acute care beds. Since 1983, hospital utilization has declined in both rates of admissions or discharges, and in average lengths of stay. Although the occupancy goals in the rule are 75 to 80 percent, depending on the type of hospital service, the occupancy rate achieved by using the number of beds projected by the rule methodology is 45 to 52 percent. The statewide occupancy rate in acute beds is approximately 50 percent in 49,215 licensed beds. The formulas in the rule show a statewide net need for 6,000 more beds in 1999, but updated constants in the same formulas result in a total statewide need for approximately 36,000 acute care beds in 1999, or 13,000 fewer beds than currently exist. Statewide utilization of acute care hospital beds declined from 1187.2 days per 1000 population in 1983 to 730.5 days per 1,000 in 1993, despite increases in the percentage of the elderly population. By 1987, AHCA's predecessor realized that the need methodology in the rule was grossly overestimating need and inconsistent with its health planning objectives. Subsection (7)(d) was added to the rule to avoid having a published fixed need based on the outdated methodology in subsections (5), (6) and 7(a)- (c). The occupancy data is also, as the 1987 amendment requires, that reported for the most recent 12 months, available 2 months before the scheduled application cycle. In August 1994, AHCA published a numeric need of zero for District 9, Subdistrict 5, rather than 1,442, the calculated net need predicted by the formulas in the rule, because all subdistrict hospital occupancy rates did not equal or exceed 75 percent. Elfie Stamm of AHCA, who is responsible for the publication of fixed need pools, confirmed that the 1987 amendment to the rule was an efficient and cost-effective way to avoid publishing need where there was no actual need. She confirmed Dr. Rond's conclusions that the formulas are no longer valid and produce excessive need numbers, as in projecting a need for 6,000 or 7,000 more acute care beds in the state. She also confirmed that none of the constants in the formula have been updated as required by subsection 6. Ms. Stamm claims that the information needed to update the formulas cannot be obtained easily from any statewide utilization reporting mechanism. One problem, according to Ms. Stamm, is the possibility of including patients in acute care beds with comprehensive rehabilitation, psychiatric, or substance abuse problems, although it is not lawful for acute care providers to place patients with these primary diagnoses in licensed acute care beds and all data bases have some miscoding of diagnoses. She also testified that some factors required in the formulas are not included in HCCB data base. In addition, she testified that AHCA is in the process of filing a notice to repeal the acute care bed need rule. The filing of the notice of repeal, published in Volume 21, Florida Administrative Week, pp. 4179-4180 (6/23/95) was confirmed by Bethesda's Request For Official Recognition, which was filed on July 20, 1995, and is granted. Ms. Stamm also noted that rules for other need-based health services have facility-specific special circumstances provisions, which are not tied to numerical need, otherwise the special circumstances are not really facility- specific. Need rules make no sense, according to Ms. Stamm, without an exception in the absence of a determination of need. Subsection (7)(e) of the acute care rule requires a finding of numeric need and a 75 percent occupancy rate at the applicant facility. Ms. Stamm's records indicate that AHCA's predecessor adopted the facility-specific provisions tied to net need at the same time it adopted the 75 percent average district occupancy standard to overcome the problems with the net need formula. AHCA asserts that the admittedly irrational need methodology when combined with the 1987 amendment achieves a rational result. Because the need methodology always over estimates numeric need, facilities exceeding 75 percent occupancy have an opportunity to demonstrate special circumstances. Daniel Sullivan, Delray's expert, also testified that problems exist in extracting acute care bed from specialty bed utilization data, in hospitals which have both. He also agreed with Ms. Stamm that the 1987 amendment corrects the erroneous projections of the formula to give a rational outcome from the rule as a whole when not all hospitals in a subdistrict equal or exceed 75 percent occupancy and when one hospital, over 75 percent occupancy, attempts to establish a special circumstance, despite the fact that the need methodology itself is always wrong in projecting numeric need. Ms. Stamm testified that one district is approaching 75 percent occupancy in all hospitals. Mr. Sullivan testified that, if and when that occurs, then the formula is intended to, but does not, reflect the number of additional beds needed. An alternative methodology is required to determine bed need. AHCA, with its responsibility for the data base formerly collected by the HCCB, receives discharge data and financial worksheets from every hospital in the state. The claim that AHCA cannot update the formulas because its data may be unreliable is rejected as not credible. The data now available is more reliable than the 1979 data used in developing the rule, which was not collected from a formalized statewide reporting system, but from a sample of hospitals. The claim that AHCA cannot use its data base from mandatory statewide reporting mechanisms to extract the data needed to update the formulas is also rejected. The rule contemplated ". . .the institution of statewide utilization reporting mechanisms." Dr. Rond's work to update the formulas before the final hearing began on May 23, 1995. Dr. Rond used a total of approximately 1.5 million acute care discharges from the AHCA (formerly, HCCB) data base for the 1992 calendar year. At the time of the final hearing, Dr. Rond had not separated days of care for medical/surgical, intensive and coronary care. The data can be taken from hospital financial data, including detailed budget worksheets which are submitted to AHCA. Separate data are anticipated in the formula because the computation of need for the different bed categories is based on different occupancy goals. For medical/surgical and intensive care beds, the goal is 80 percent occupancy, but it is 75 percent for coronary care for persons age 0 to 64. For persons 65 and older, the rule applies a combined occupancy standard of 79.7 percent for all three bed categories, which assumes that approximately 4 percent of the combined days of older patients will be spent in coronary care. Dr. Rond reasonably applied the 79.7 percent occupancy standard to the combined days for persons under 65, in arriving at the total district bed need for 3,676 beds. To check these results and to assume a worse case scenario of all patient days attributable to coronary care beds, for which more beds are needed to maintain a lower occupancy, Dr. Rond worked the formula using 75 percent occupancy as the goal for medical/surgical, intensive and care coronary care beds combined. Although the base number increased by 100, the calculations and adjustments in the rule yielded the same number of total acute care beds needed in the district, 3,676. That reliably confirms that the maximum number of acute care beds needed in District 9 is 3,676 by 1999. AHCA could use its data base to update formulas and achieve rational results in the rule by using the hospital financial data to distinguish coronary care days for patients 0-64 to include in the formula, or by using a rational blended occupancy standard in a rule amending the existing methodology. AHCA demonstrated that the 1987 amendment overrides the exaggerated numeric need number to yield a rational published fixed need pool in the absence of 75 percent occupancy in all acute care beds in a subdistrict. AHCA also demonstrated that because the projected need is always excessive under the formula, hospitals are allowed to demonstrate special circumstances, although it is absurd to include a requirement of numeric need in a provision for special circumstances. AHCA's claim that the excessive need projection is, therefore, irrelevant is rejected. Net need under the rule formula fails to give any rational indication of the number of beds needed when all hospitals in a subdistrict reach 75 percent occupancy.
Findings Of Fact Harbour Shores Hospital is a 60-bed short-term psychiatric facility, with 36 adult beds and 24 adolescent beds. The facility opened in October 1985, and had an occupancy of 62 percent at the time of the final hearing in March 1986. T. 14, 20. The hospital is an integral part of Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., located in Ft. Pierce, Florida, and Lawnwood is owned by Hospital Corporation of America. T. 13-14. Hospital Corporation of America now operates 5,000 psychiatric beds in the United States. T. 18. Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. (Lawnwood), submitted an application for certificate of need number 3363 on June 14, 1984, for the conversion of 12 short-term psychiatric beds to 12 short-term inpatient hospital substance abuse beds. T. 15. No construction is needed to convert these 12 beds. T. 16. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) initially denied the application. T. 106. All references in this order to Harbour Shores Hospital shall include the Petitioner, Lawnwood, unless specifically stated otherwise. The parties stipulated that the only issue in this case is need and any ancillary issue which is based upon need. T. 4-5. HRS has a rule governing short and long-term hospital inpatient hospital substance abuse beds, which is rule 10-5.11(27), Florida Administrative Code. Subparagraph (f)1 of the rule contains what HRS calls bed allocations" and calculates need for a health service district as a whole. Harbour Shores Hospital is located in St. Lucie County in Health District IX. District IX is composed of St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach Counties. HRS Ex. 2, p.7. The District IX Local Health Council has identified two subdistricts for purposes of allocating short term psychiatric and substance abuse beds. Subdistrict 1 is St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties, and subdistrict 2 is Palm Beach County. HRS Exhibit 2, p. 7; T. 110. HRS proposes to determine need as of January 1989 using the date of the application as the starting point for the five year period specified in rule 10- 5.11(27)(f)1, Florida Administrative Code. T. 107-6. The basis of this decision is a new policy by HRS to implement the Gulf Court decision. There is a need for only 1 additional short-term substance abuse bed in District IX by January 1989 based upon Rule 10-5.11(27)(f)1, Florida Administrative Code. T. 109. HRS Exhibit 1. HRS proposes also to refer to such need for short term substance abuse beds as indicated by local health council plans, relying upon rule 10- 5.11(27)(h)3, Florida Administrative Code. T. 110. The local health plan for District IX allocates needed beds based upon the subdistricts described above. HRS Exhibit 2, p. 6. Further, the local health plan has adopted the method of HRS found in rule 10-5.11(27), supra, for calculating need, and calculates such need using the HRS rule factor of .06 substance 3. All references in this order to Harbour Shores Hospital shall include the Petitioner, Lawnwood, unless specifically stated otherwise. The parties stipulated that the only issue in this case is need and any ancillary issue which is based upon need. T. 4-5. HRS has a rule governing short and long term hospital inpatient hospital-substance abuse beds, which is Rule 10-5.11(27), Florida Administrative Code. Subparagraph (f)1 of the rule contains what HRS calls bed "allocations" and calculates need for a health service district as a whole. Harbour Shores Hospital is located in St. Lucie County in Health District IX. District IX is composed of St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach Counties. HRS Ex. 2, p.7. The District IX Local Health Council has identified two subdistricts for purposes of allocating short-term psychiatric and substance abuse beds. Subdistrict 1 is St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties, and subdistrict 2 is Palm Beach County. HRS Exhibit 2, p.7; T. 110. HRS proposes to determine need as of January 1989 using the date of the application as the starting point for the five-year period specified in Rule 10-5.11(27)(f)1, Florida Administrative Code. T. 107-8. The basis of this decision is a new policy by HRS to implement the Gulf Court decision. There is a need for only 1 additional short-term substance abuse bed in District IX by January 1989 based upon Rule 10-5.11(27)(f)1, Florida Administrative Code. T. 109. Exhibit 1. HRS proposes also to refer to such need for short term substance abuse beds as indicated by local health council plans, relying upon rule 10- 5.11(27)(h)3, Florida Administrative Code. T. 110. The local health plan for District IX allocates needed beds based upon the subdistricts described above. HRS Exhibit 2, p. 6. Further, the local health plan has adopted the method of HRS found in rule 10-5.11(27), supra, for calculating need, and calculates such need using the HRS rule factor of .06 substance abuse beds per 1,000 population in each of the two subdistricts. HRS Exhibit 2, pp. 5 and 8, paragraph II. Using current estimates of the populations of each subdistrict in January 1909, HRS projects that subdistrict 1 will have a surplus of 15 substance abuse beds in 1989, and all net need (16 beds) will be in subdistrict 2, which is Palm Beach County. T. 111; HRS Exhibit 1. HRS has not adopted these subdistricts by rule. T. 128-29. There was no evidence to substantiate the reasonableness of the subdistricts adopted in the local health plan. T. 131. The following is a summary of the existing and approved short-term substance abuse beds in District IX, showing county of location, and occupancy rates for 1985: Humana Hospital 16 Licensed Indian River 8509 Sebastian Lake Hospital 16 Licensed Palm Beach 3558 Palm Beaches Fair Oaks 17 Licensed Palm Beach 3807 Savannas 20 Approved St. Lucie Hospital Beds Status County Patient Days Occupancy 145.7% 60.7% 60.7% The number of patient days at Fair Oaks, however, is for four months, August, October, November, and December 1985. Thus, the actual number of patient days, 1269, has been multiplied by 3 to obtain an estimate for an entire year. T. 23- 24, 61-62. The occupancy rate is the number of patient days divided by the product of the number of days in the year (365) and the number of licensed beds. Using the statistics in paragraph 10, the average occupancy rate for the three existing facilities in District IX was 88.8 percent. If one assumes, as did Petitioner's expert, that the utilization rates for short-term substance abuse beds will at least remain the same as in 1935, with the addition of the 20 new beds at Savannas Hospital, District IX may have an occupancy rate of 63.8 percent and subdistrict 1 may have an occupancy rate of 64.8 percent . The 20 new beds at the Savannas Hospital are those granted to Indian River Community Mental Health Center, Inc., and are projected to open in November 1986. T. 83. As discussed above, Harbour Shores Hospital had been in operation about five months by the time of the March 1986 hearing, and its 60 short term psychiatric beds were averaging 62 percent occupancy, which is about 15 percent above the occupancy projected in its certificate of need application. T. 38. Harbour Shores serves patients from the four counties of subdistrict 1, St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee, and serves a significant number of patients from Palm Beach County as well; three to four percent of its patients also come from Brevard and Broward Counties. T. 19. About 80 percent of the patients at Harbour Shores in the first five months of its operation had a substance abuse problem secondary to the primary diagnosis of mental illness. T. 30, 50, 63. This is consistent with experience throughout Florida. T. 63. Most of these "dually diagnosed" patients have been through a detoxification program before entering Harbour Shores Hospital. T. 30. In its beginning months of operation, Harbour Shores has had patients referred from the courts, law enforcement agencies, community and social agencies, physicians, and from HRS. T. 21-22, 59. Harbour Shores can expect to obtain substance abuse referrals from these agencies. Staff at Harbour Shores works with the DWI Board, Students Against Drunk Driving, and school administrative personnel. T. 39-40. In October and November 1985, Harbour Shores received 38 requests from physicians, the courts, law enforcement agencies, and social agencies, for admission of patients for substance abuse treatment. T. 22, 49. There is no evidence that Harbour Shores had any such requests in December 1985 or January 1986. In February 1986, it had 14 such requests, and in March to the date of the hearing, it had 5 requests. T. 48. There is no evidence as to whether these requests were for short or long-term substance abuse services, or whether these were requests from different patients or multiple requests from the same patient. There is also no evidence that the persons requesting substance abuse treatment were not adequately treated at existing facilities. Thus, the data from these few months is not an adequate basis for determining future need for short term substance abuse beds. Ms. Peggy Cioffi is the coordinator for the Martin County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program. Deposition, Ms. Peggy Cioffi, p. 2. Ms. Cioffi testified as to the need for substance abuse services in her area. She did not testify as an expert witness. Her program is primarily designed to assist the County Court in referrals of misdemeanants and others within the Court's jurisdiction who need substance abuse services. Id. Ms. Cioffi has difficulty placing persons needing inpatient or residential treatment. Id. at p. 3. She related an example of a county prisoner who asked to be detained in jail three months for lack of an alcohol program. Id. at p. 4. Ms. Cioffi did not state whether this person needed residential or inpatient hospital care. She also had recently reviewed a 14 page county court docket and determined that 67 percent of those charged represented alcohol or drug related offenses. Id. Ms. Cioffi did not clearly show how she was able to infer this fact. Further, Ms. Cioffi was unable to tell from this statistic how many of these defendants needed short term inpatient hospital substance abuse treatment. Id. at p. 6. She stated that a very high percentage of these could benefit from some kind of services, but did not separate the kinds of services, Id. at p.7. Ms. Cioffi stated that she often had to wait to find a place for a person in the following facilities: Dunklin, CARP, and Alcohope. Id. at p. 5. Ms. Cioffi stated that these were "residential" facilities, but she did not state whether these facilities were the equivalent of short-term inpatient hospital substance abuse facilities. These facilities are located in District IX, Id. at p. 7, but are not short-term in patient hospital substance abuse beds licensed as such. See paragraph 10 above. See also T. 96-99. In summary, although Ms. Cioffi identified a generalized need for residential or hospital substance abuse treatment, she did not draw any distinction between the two services. If there was a similarity, she did not provide evidence of the similarity. Lacking evidence in the record that need for residential treatment programs can be used to show need for inpatient hospital beds, Ms. Cioffi's testimony is insufficient to show need for the services sought by the Petitioner. The Honorable Marc Cianca is a County Judge in St. Lucie County. Deposition, Judge Marc Cianca, p. 2. Judge Cianca was of the opinion that his area attracted semi-young people with substance abuse problems in greater numbers than the retirement population. Id. at 17-18. He frequently was frustrated in his efforts to find substance abuse services for defendants in his Court. Id. at 3-5. Judge Cianca felt that most of the people he saw needed long-term therapy, beginning with inpatient services, followed by long-term follow-up programs. Id. at 12-14. Like the testimony of Ms. Cioffi (which concerned the same group of persons before the County Court), Judge Cianca did not clearly distinguish need for short-term inpatient hospital substance abuse services from need for all other forms of substance abuse treatment, and the record on this point is silent as well. For this reason, Judge Cianca's opinion that 100 short-term inpatient hospital substance abuse beds are needed must be rejected. The testimony of Ms. Cioffi and Judge Cianca is insufficient as a predicate for determining need for the inpatient hospital beds sought by the Petitioner for another reason, and that is the lack of evidence that the persons identified as needing substance abuse services will have the ability to pay for such services at Petitioner's facility, or that third party payment will be available for them. The people in need in Ms. Cioffi's testimony normally do not have funds to pay for treatment. Cioffi, p. 8. Similarly, a substantial number of the people in need seen by Judge Cianca do not have insurance coverage and would not be able to use Harbour Shores unless they qualified for Medicaid and unless Harbour Shores took all of those qualified for Medicaid. Id. at 7, 15-16. A substantial number of the persons needing substance abuse treatment do not have jobs or insurance and must rely upon "welfare" for services. Id. at 15, 17. These persons cannot afford certain programs, and must rely upon state aid through programs such as those provided by Indian River Community Mental Health Center, and for these programs there is always a waiting list. Id. at There is no evidence that any of these persons are eligible for Medicaid. Ms. Sharon Heinlen, Director of Planning and Development for Harbour Shores Hospital, who testified for the Petitioner as an expert in health planning and hospital administration, had not studied the Medicaid population in the area to determine need. T. 76. Although Harbour Shores had about 15 percent of its psychiatric patient days devoted to Medicaid patients, T. 33, the validity of this percentage for substance abuse patients, or for the reasonably near future, was not established by other evidence. Petitioner's formal application for this certificate of need projects 5 percent of its gross revenues from Medicaid and another 5 percent devoted to bad debt, indigents, and Baker Act cases. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 5. But the application does not state whether this percentage will be evenly distributed among psychiatric and substance abuse patients. In any event, the percentages of indigent care and Medicaid care are too small to satisfy the need identified by Judge Cianca and Ms. Cioffi. Stated another way, the need identified by those two witnesses is not relevant to Petitioner's application except with respect to a small percentage. Harbour Shores plans to have after care for substance abuse patients. T. 40. The Savannas Hospital is the name of the hospital to be completed in November 1986 to provide, among other services, 20 short term inpatient hospital substance abuse beds under the certificate of need granted to Indian River Community Mental Health Center, Inc. T. 82-83. The primary service area of the Savannas Hospital will be the same four counties as now served by Harbour Shores Hospital, as well as Palm Beach County. T. 84. The Savannas Hospital intends to be licensed. T. 84. The Savannas Hospital is located in Port St. Lucie, in St. Lucie County. T. 95-96. The service proposed is a comprehensive substance abuse service. T. 87. Five of the twenty substance abuse beds will be devoted to detoxification. T. 92. The Savannas Hospital will be operated by the Mediplex Group in partnership with Indian River Community Mental Health Center, Inc. T. 82. The land will be owned by Mediplex. T. 95. The Savannas Hospital will be a private, for profit, hospital, while the Mental Health Center will be a not-for- profit facility. T. 86. The Savannas Hospital publicly states that it will take five percent indigent patients, which does not include Medicare. T. 87. There is no commitment to provide more indigent care. T. 89. All other patients acre expected to be fully paying. T. 93. The actual figure for free or nonpaying patients has not yet been calculated. T. 94. The Savannas Hospital will not serve Medicaid substance abuse patients because it is a freestanding facility. T. 36, 86. Humana Hospital Sebastian is the closest facility to Harbour Shores currently in operation providing inpatient short-term hospital substance abuse services, and Humana Sebastian can accept Medicaid patients. T. 59. Ms. Elizabeth Dudek testified for HRS as an expert in health planning and certificate of need review in Florida. Ms. Dudek has reviewed all of the applications made in District IX for substance abuse beds since November 1983, and as a supervisor, has reviewed all of the applications in the state for substance abuse beds. T. 104. She has been in contact with the District Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Program Office and has attended public hearings, as well as administrative hearings, concerning substance abuse beds in District IX. T. 104-05. She also listened to all of the evidence presented at the final hearing. It was Ms. Dudek's opinion that there was no need for the substance abuse beds sought by the Petitioner. T. 127-28. Ms. Sharon Heinlen was also qualified as an expert in health planning, as well as hospital administration. T. 13. Ms. Heinlen has only recently moved to Florida, T. 11, 66, and stated that she did not know Florida well enough to know what might be the best thing to advocate in Florida with respect to whether all hospitals should provide all services. T. 65-66. She had conducted studies of District IX, however. T. 66. The average occupancy rates for District IX testified to by Ms. Heinlen were mathematically incorrect, and the correct lower rates do not support her opinion that additional short term substance abuse beds are needed. See FF 11. The fact that about 80 percent of the psychiatric patients now are at Harbour Shores Hospital also have a substance abuse problem does not necessarily support Ms. Heinlen's opinion as to need. See FF 12. This statistic is consistent with experience in all of Florida, and therefore should be accommodated by the HRS numeric need methodology. Moreover, it must be inferred that hospitalization of these patients as psychiatric patients was proper, rather than as substance abuse patients, and that even if additional substance abuse beds were available, these patients still would need to be in a psychiatric bed for treatment of the primary diagnosis. As discussed in FF 14, the data concerning recent requests for substance abuse services at Harbour Shores Hospital is not sufficient to conclude that a need exists for additional beds. As discussed in FF 17, Ms. Heinlen did not have an adequate basis for any opinion as to the need for short-term substance abuse beds for Medicaid patients in District IX. Finally, Ms. Heinlen testified that there was a waiting list for patients to be admitted to licensed short-term substance abuse beds at Fair Oaks and Lake Hospital, but the testimony was hearsay. T. 28. Since this evidence conflicts with the relatively low occupancy rates at these same facilities, and has not otherwise been corroborated by non-hearsay evidence, it must be rejected as a basis for a finding of fact. Further, due to the conflict with the low occupancy rates, it is rejected as a basis for Ms. Heinlen's expert opinion. In summary, Ms. Heinlen's expert opinion that there is a need for short-term, inpatient hospital substance abuse beds in District IX must be rejected. It is the position of HRS that even if the rule showed a need, the occupancy factor would be a factor in showing no need. T. 134. Conversely, if the rule showed no need, the occupancy factor would be one factor among others which night show need. Id.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Petitioner, Leesburg Regional Medical Center ("Leesburg"), is a 132-bed acute care private, not-for-profit hospital located at 600 East Dixie Highway, Leesburg, Florida. It offers a full range of general medical services. The hospital sits on land owned by the City of Leesburg. It is operated by the Leesburg hospital Association, an organization made up of individuals who reside within the Northwest Taxing District. By application dated August 13, 1982 petitioner sought a certificate of need (CON) from respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to construct the following described project: This project includes the addition of 36 medical/surgical beds and 7 SICU beds in existing space and the leasing of a CT scanner (replacement). The addition of the medical/surgical beds is a cost effective way to add needed capacity to the hospital. Twenty-four (24) beds on the third floor will be established in space vacated by surgery and ancillary departments moving into newly constructed space in the current renovation project. A significant portion of this area used to be an obstetric unit in the past; and therefore, is already set up for patient care. The 7 bed SICU unit will be set up on the second floor, also in space vacated as a result of the renovation project. Twelve additional beds will be available on the third and fourth floors as a result of changing single rooms into double rooms. No renovation will be necessary to convert these rooms into double rooms. It is also proposed to replace the current TechniCare head scanner with GE8800 body scanner. Based on the high demand for head and body scans and the excessive amount of maintenance problems and downtime associated with the current scanner, Leesburg Regional needs a reliable, state-of-the-art CT scanner. The cost of the project was broken down as follows: The total project cost is $1,535,000. The construction/renovation portion of the project (24 medical/surgical and 7 SICU beds) is $533,000. Equipment costs will be approximately $200,000. Architectural fees and project development costs total $52,000. The CT scanner will be leased at a monthly cost of $16,222 per month for 5 years. The purchase price of the scanner is $750,000 and that amount is included in the total project cost. The receipt of the application was acknowledged by HRS by letter dated August 27, 1982. That letter requested Leesburg to submit additional information no later than October 10, 1982 in order to cure certain omissions. Such additional information was submitted by Leesburg on October 5, 1982. On November 29, 1982, the administrator for HRS's office of health planning and development issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter advising Leesburg its request to replace a head CT scanner (whole body) at a cost of $750,000 had been approved, but that the remainder of the application had been denied. The basis for the denial was as follows: There are currently 493 medical/surgical beds in the Lake/Sumter sub-district of HSA II. Based upon the HSP for HSA II, there was an actual utilization ratio of existing beds equivalent to 2.98/1,000 population. When this utilization ratio is applied to the 1987 projected population of 156,140 for Lake/Sumter counties, there is a need for 465 medical/surgical beds by 1987. Thus, there is an excess of 28 medical/surgical beds in the Lake/Sumter sub-district currently. This action prompted the instant proceeding. At the same time Leesburg's application was being partially denied, an application for a CON by intervenor-respondent, Lake Community Hospital (Lake), was being approved. That proposal involved an outlay of 4.1 million dollars and was generally described in the application as follows: The proposed project includes the renovations and upgrading of patient care areas. This will include improving the hospital's occupancy and staffing efficiencies by reducing Med-Surg Unit-A to 34 beds and eliminating all 3-bed wards. Also reducing Med-Surg Units B and C to 34 beds each and eliminating all 3-bed wards. This will necessitate the construction of a third floor on the A wing to house the present beds in private and semi-private rooms for a total of 34 beds. There is also an immediate need to develop back-to-back six bed ICU and a six-bed CCU for shared support services. This is being done to fulfill JCAH requirements and upgrade patient care by disease entity, patient and M.D. requests. Another need that is presented for consideration is the upgrading of Administrative areas to include a conference room and more Administrative and Business office space. However, the merits of HRS's decision on Lake's application are not at issue in this proceeding. In addition to Lake, there are two other hospitals located in Lake County which provide acute and general hospital service. They are South Lake Memorial Hospital, a 68-bed tax district facility in Clermont, Florida, and Waterman Memorial Hospital, which operates a 154-bed private, not-for-profit facility in Eustis, Florida. There are no hospitals in Sumter County, which lies adjacent to Lake County, and which also shares a subdistrict with that county. The facilities of Lake and Leesburg are less than two miles apart while the Waterman facility is approximately 12 to 14 miles away. South Lake Memorial is around 25 miles from petitioner's facility. Therefore, all three are no more than a 30 minute drive from Leesburg's facility. At the present time, there are 515 acute care beds licensed for Lake County. Of these, 493 are medical/surgical beds and 22 are obstetrical beds. None are designated as pediatric beds. The Proposed Rules Rules 10-16.001 through 10-16.012, Florida Administrative Code, were first noticed by HRS in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 12, 1983. Notices of changes in these rules were published on September 23, 1983. Thereafter, they were filed with the Department of State on September 26, 1983 and became effective on October 16, 1983. Under new Rule 10-16.004 (1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, subdistrict 7 of district 3 consists of Lake and Sumter Counties. The rule also identifies a total acute care bed need for subdistrict 7 of 523 beds. When the final hearing was held, and evidence heard in this matter, the rules were merely recommendations of the various local health councils forwarded to HRS on June 27, 1983 for its consideration. They had not been adopted or even proposed for adoption at that point in time. Petitioner's Case In health care planning it is appropriate to use five year planning horizons with an overall occupancy rate of 80 percent. In this regard, Leesburg has sought to ascertain the projected acute care bed need in Lake County for the year 1988. Through various witnesses, it has projected this need using three different methodologies. The first methodology used by Leesburg may be characterized as the subdistrict need theory methodology. It employs the "guidelines for hospital care" adopted by the District III Local Health Council on June 27, 1983 and forwarded to HRS for promulgation as formal rules. Such suggestions were ultimately adopted by HRS as a part of Chapter 10-16 effective October 16, 1983. Under this approach, the overall acute care bed need for the entire sixteen county District III was found to be 44 additional beds in the year 1988 while the need within Subdistrict VII (Lake and Sumter Counties) was eight additional beds. 2/ The second approach utilized by Leesburg is the peak occupancy theory methodology. It is based upon the seasonal fluctuation in a hospital's occupancy rates, and used Leesburg's peak season bed need during the months of February and March to project future need. Instead of using the state suggested occupancy rate standard of 80 percent, the sponsoring witness used an 85 percent occupancy rate which produced distorted results. Under this approach, Leesburg calculated a need of 43 additional beds in 1988 in Subdistrict VII. However, this approach is inconsistent with the state-adopted methodology in Rule 10- 5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, and used assumptions not contained in the rule. It also ignores the fact that HRS's rule already gives appropriate consideration to peak demand in determining bed need. The final methodology employed by Leesburg was characterized by Leesburg as the "alternative need methodology based on state need methodology" and was predicated upon the HRS adopted bed need approach in Rule 10-5.11(23) with certain variations. First, Leesburg made non-rule assumptions as to the inflow and outflow of patients. Secondly, it substituted the population by age group for Lake and Sumter Counties for the District population. With these variations, the methodology produced an acute care bed need of 103 additional beds within Lake and Sumter Counties. However, this calculation is inconsistent with the applicable HRS rule, makes assumptions not authorized under the rule, and is accordingly not recognized by HRS as a proper methodology. Leesburg experienced occupancy rates of 91 percent, 80 percent and 73 percent for the months of January, February and March, 1981, respectively. These rates changed to 86 percent, 95 percent and 98 percent during the same period in 1982, and in 1983 they increased to 101.6 percent, 100.1 percent and 95.1 percent. Leesburg's health service area is primarily Lake and Sumter Counties. This is established by the fact that 94.4 percent and 93.9 percent of its admissions in 1980 and 1981, respectively, were from Lake and Sumter Counties. Although South Lake Memorial and Waterman Memorial are acute care facilities, they do not compete with Leesburg for patients. The staff doctors of the three are not the same, and there is very little crossover, if any, of patients between Leesburg and the other two facilities. However, Lake and Leesburg serve the same patient base, and in 1982 more than 70 percent of their patients came from Lake County. The two compete with one another, and have comparable facilities. Leesburg has an established, well-publicized program for providing medical care to indigents. In this regard, it is a recipient of federal funds for such care, and, unlike Lake, accounts for such care by separate entry on its books. The evidence establishes that Leesburg has the ability to finance the proposed renovation. HRS's Case HRS's testimony was predicated on the assumption that Rule 10-16.004 was not in effect and had no application to this proceeding. Using the bed need methodology enunciated in Rule 10-5.11(23), its expert concluded the overall bed need for the entire District III to be 26 additional beds by the year 1988. This calculation was based upon and is consistent with the formula in the rule. Because there was no existing rule at the time of the final hearing concerning subdistrict need, the witness had no way to determine the bed need, if any, within Subdistrict VII alone. Lake's Case Lake is a 162-bed private for profit acute care facility owned by U.S. Health Corporation. It is located at 700 North Palmetto, Leesburg, Florida. Lake was recently granted a CON which authorized a 4.1 million dollar renovation project. After the renovation is completed all existing three-bed wards will be eliminated. These will be replaced with private and semi-private rooms with no change in overall bed capacity. This will improve the facility's patient utilization rate. The expansion program is currently underway. Like Leesburg, the expert from Lake utilized a methodology different from that adopted for use by HRS. Under this approach, the expert determined total admissions projected for the population, applied an average length of stay to that figure, and arrived at a projected patient day total for each hospital. That figure was then divided by bed complement and 365 days to arrive at a 1988 occupancy percentage. For Subdistrict VII, the 1988 occupancy percentage was 78.2, which, according to the expert, indicated a zero acute care bed need for that year. Lake also presented the testimony of the HRS administrator of the office of community affairs, an expert in health care planning. He corroborated the testimony of HRS's expert witness and concluded that only 26 additional acute care beds would be needed district-wide by the year 1988. This result was arrived at after using the state-adopted formula for determining bed need. During 1981, Lake's actual total dollar write-off for bad debt was around $700,000. This amount includes an undisclosed amount for charity or uncompensated care for indigent patients. Unlike Leesburg, Lake receives no federal funds for charity cases. Therefore, it has no specific accounting entry on its books for charity or indigent care. Although Leesburg rendered $276,484 in charity/uncompensated care during 1981, it is impossible to determine which facility rendered the most services for indigents due to the manner in which Lake maintains its books and records. In any event, there is no evidence that indigents in the Subdistrict have been denied access to hospital care at Lake or any other facility within the county. Lake opines that it will loose 2.6 million dollars in net revenues in the event the application is granted. If true, this in turn would cause an increase in patient charges and a falling behind in technological advances. For the year 1981, the average percent occupancy based on licensed beds for Leesburg, Lake, South Lake Memorial and Waterman Memorial was as follows: 71.5 percent, 58.7 percent, 63.8 percent and 65.7 percent. The highest utilization occurred in January (81 percent) while the low was in August (58 percent). In 1982, the utilization rate during the peak months for all four facilities was 78 percent. This figure dropped to 66.5 percent for the entire year. Therefore, there is ample excess capacity within the County even during the peak demand months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Leesburg Regional Medical Center for a certificate of need to add 43 acute care beds, and renovate certain areas of its facility to accommodate this addition, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1983.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether either applicant's request for a CON for IRTP beds should be granted. LORTC's allegation that La Amistad plagiarized portions of another PIA facility's CON application was deemed at hearing to be irrelevant. Likewise, it was determined at hearing and in a post- hearing order entered on November 1, 1988, that the sale of La Amistad to UHS of Maitland, Inc. had no material bearing on the La Amistad application under review here. In the parties' prehearing statement filed on September 26, 1988, the following were agreed: Consideration of the applications at issue is governed by the statutory criteria contained in section 381.705, Florida Statutes and Rule 10- 5.011(1)(b)(1)-(4), Florida Administrative Code. These criteria are either satisfied or are inapplicable: Section 381.705(1)(g), (h), (only as to the following clauses: "the effects the project will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in the service district; the extent to which the services will be accessible to schools for health professions in the service district for training purposes if such services are available in a limited number of facilities"), (j), Florida Statutes (1987) As to LORTC, the parties stipulated that the criteria in Section 381.705(1)(h) as to availability of funds for capital and operating expenditures is satisfied. This is not a stipulation that the application satisfies the financial feasibility criterion contained in Section 381.705(1)(i). Rule 10-5.011(1)(b)(4)(b) , Florida Administrative Code. Each applicant argues that its application, and not that of the other, should be approved. HRS and West Lake both argue that neither application should be approved.
Findings Of Fact La Amistad is a not-for-profit corporation providing a variety of mental health services to children, adolescents and young adults on campuses in Maitland and Winter Park, Florida since 1970. At the time of hearing La Amistad operated 27 licensed IRTP beds at its Maitland campus. At the time of hearing La Amistad had a contract to sell its residential treatment program, including the beds that are the subject of this proceeding, to Universal Health Services, Inc. The contract was entered into after this CON application was filed. LORTC is a wholly owned subsidiary of PIA, Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA), which in turn is wholly owned by NME Hospitals, Inc. PIA owns or operates approximately three residential treatment centers (RTCs) and 58 psychiatric hospitals throughout the country, including Laurel Oaks Hospital in Orange County, Florida, an 80-bed licensed hospital providing short term psychiatric and substance abuse services to children and adolescents. HRS is the state agency charged with the responsibility of implementing and enforcing the CON program, pursuant to Section 381.701-381.715, Florida Statutes. The Intervenor, West Lake, is an 80-bed licensed psychiatric hospital in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. West Lake has allocated 16 beds to its children's program and 24 beds to its adolescent programs. West Lake is licensed for both long and short-term psychiatric beds. THE APPLICATIONS La Amistad's application requests the conversion of 13 existing beds (currently licensed as child caring beds) to licensed IRTP beds, the demolition of several old buildings and the construction of a new building which will contain a total of 16 IRTP beds. The 13 additional beds would bring La Amistad's IRTP total to 40 beds. The total project cost of La Amistad's proposal is $500,000.00 or $38,462.00 per bed. La Amistad's Maitland facility is located in a residential area and is itself designed to be residential in nature, rather than institutional. The patients prepare their own food under the supervision of a dietician and other staff. They also do their own housekeeping. La Amistad is not a "locked unit". A maximum of 16 patients reside in each "house" on the La Amistad campus. The houses are staffed on a 24-hour a day basis. Like other similar facilities, La Amistad utilizes a multi-discipline team approach to treatment. That is, psychiatrists, nurses, social workers and other staff work together. The treatment team meets weekly to discuss the program and treatment of each patient. Family members may visit and stay at the campus on weekends. Families are encouraged to participate in the treatment process. La Amistad has a full-time school on campus with teachers provided by the Orange County School System. The average length of stay for patients is in excess of Il to 12 months. This is consistent with HRS' understanding that 9-14 months is an average length of stay for an intensive residential treatment program. LORTC's application is for CON approval of a 40-bed IRTP located on the grounds of its existing freestanding psychiatric hospital, Laurel Oaks. The facility is currently under construction and will be operated as a residential treatment center if its IRTP CON is denied. LORTC anticipates serving two out of three of the following groups: adolescents who need long-term care, older children (8 years to 13 years) who need long-term care, and chemically dependent adolescents. The projected average length of stay is 120 days, which stay is consistent with that of other PIA residential treatment centers in Florida. The LORTC facility will be "locked". Meals will be prepared at Laurel Oaks Hospital and will be transported in some, as yet undetermined, manner to the separate building. The geographical area in which LORTC will be located is not residential. The capital cost of the 40 bed facility is projected at $3,291,000.00. The funds, provided by the parent company, NME, will be expended, regardless of CON approval. LORTC also uses a multi-discipline team approach to treatment. Each patient's treatment program will consist of psychiatric support services, educational services and family services. Students will attend academic classes four hours a day at the facility. THE APPLICABLE DISTRICT PLAN AND STATE HEALTH PLAN The District Seven Health Plan does not address needs, policies, or priorities for IRTP facilities for children and adolescents. The State Health Plan addresses very generally the need for mental health and substance abuse services. Goal 1 seeks to: "Ensure the availability of mental health and substance abuse services to all Florida residents in the least restrictive setting." Goal 2 seeks to: Promote the development of a continuum of high quality, cost effective private sector mental health and substance abuse treatment and preventive services". Goal 3 seeks to: "Develop a complete range of essential public mental health services in each HRS district." (Laurel Oaks Exhibit #20). The applications neither violate nor materially advance these goals. In both instances the beds will exist for the provision of mental health services, with or without the certificate of need. La Amistad's proposal clearly presents a "less restrictive alternative" to the more institutional psychiatric hospital. Laurel Oaks is also an alternative, although more institutional than homelike in character. NEED, INCLUDING THE AVAILABILITY OF LIKE OR ALTERNATIVE SERVICES AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY IRTP beds are a statutorily defined class of specialty hospital beds: Intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents means a specialty hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals which provides 24-hour care and which has the primary functions of diagnosis and treatment of patients under the age of 18 having psychiatric disorders in order to restore such patients to an optimal level of functioning. Section 395.002(8), Florida Statutes. Because an IRTP is a hospital, a certificate of need is required. This alone distinguishes an IRTP from a residential treatment program (RTP). In spite of its name, HRS considers an IRTP as a service that is less intensive than a long or short term psychiatric hospital. Generally, the RTP and IRTP have a longer average length of stay than a psychiatric hospital and provide a more homelike setting. No HRS rule further defines the IRTP, and as evidenced by the La Amistad and LORTC proposals, the projected average length of stays vary widely (120 days for LORTC, versus 12-14 months for La Amistad). Long term psychiatric hospitals have an average length of stay of over 90 days. West Lake has treated adolescents in its psychiatric beds as long as a year, although this has not occurred recently. HRS has no rule methodology for calculating the need for IRTP's. However, HRS considers there is a need for at least one reasonably-sized IRTP in each HRS service district. In HRS district VII there are currently two IRTPs: Devereaux, a 100-bed facility in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, licensed on February 26, 1988; and La Amistad, with 27 IRTP beds in Orange County, licensed in August, 1988. Although HRS clearly does not limit its approval to only one IRTP per district, it has a policy of waiting to see what the need and demand are before it authorizes an additional program with a CON. Its deviation from this policy regarding approval of the La Amistad beds was adequately explained as a settlement based on the acknowledgment of a prior administrative error. Utilization of the Devereaux beds was not a consideration in that unique case. HRS also uses as a reasonable non-rule policy the requirement that existing programs be 80 percent occupied before additional programs are authorized. This is modeled after the promulgated rule in effect for long-term psychiatric beds. At the time the applications were considered, La Amistad was not licensed and Devereaux had a less than 50 percent occupancy. Conflicting evidence was presented with regard to the accessibility of both La Amistad's 27 beds and Devereaux' 100 beds. Devereaux is approximately one to two hours from the three counties identified as LORTC's primary service area: Seminole, Osceola and Orange. LORTC argues that families who need to actively participate in the patients' treatment are discouraged by the travel distance. However, Laurel Oak Hospital currently refers patients to its sister facilities in Manatee and Palm Beach counties, which are more distant than Devereaux. No patient origin studies of Devereaux were done and LORTC's expert in health and planning conceded that it takes a while for people to become aware of a new facility and its services, and a new facility can stimulate patient migration. The credible weight of evidence is that a travel time of two hours or less would not significantly influence decisions to use the facility. La Amistad is noted for its treatment of schizophrenics. It sponsors seminars attracting participants from a wide geographical area. It does not, however, limit its beds to patients with that diagnosis. In the past approximately 48 percent of La Amistad's beds (its entire facility, not just the IRTP beds) have been utilized by schizophrenics. This does not alone evidence non-accessibility of its IRTP beds. The statutory definition of an IRTP, cited in paragraph 17, above, is broad enough to include the type of care provided in long-term psychiatric hospitals, such as West Lake. The programs described in the applications of both LORTC and La Amistad are similar to the programs currently operated at West Lake for children and adolescents. The multi-disciplinary team monitors the patient's progress with a goal toward reintegration into the community. The patients attend school and receive a wide variety of therapies, with varying intensity: individual and group counseling, activity and occupational therapy, family therapy, vocational planning, and the like. When the patient is admitted, an evaluation is done to determine an anticipated length of stay. Some require a shorter stay, with more intensive therapy; others are more appropriately treated for a longer period, with less intensity. West Lake's program is not full. There are myriad alternative programs for the treatment of children and adolescents in the tri-county area. Seagrave House, the Charlie Program and Boystown are residential programs for children and adolescents who may have received treatment in a hospital but who are not ready to return home and could progress further in a residential program. Mainstream, a partial hospitalization program, is also available to this age group. A partial hospitalization program provides structured daytime treatment with the same therapies offered in a hospital or full residential program, but the patients are able to return home at night. Other existing facilities and programs available in the service district include Parkside Lodge, the Care Unit, the Center for Drug-free Living, Glenbeigh Hospital and Rainbow. Laurel Oaks has referred patients to Rainbow, a residential treatment program for youths with substance abuse problems. La Amistad presented anecdotal testimony from its clinical and other staff regarding the numbers of patients they could refer to La Amistad if the application were approved. In no instance did these witnesses eliminate the other available programs as appropriate alternatives. Several other witnesses testified on behalf of LORTC regarding the need for additional long-term treatment programs for children and adolescents. It is clear, however, that these individuals from the Orange County Public Defender's office, the Orange County Public Schools and the Seminole County Mental Health Center were descrying the need for services for economically disadvantaged youths and those without insurance. Neither La Amistad nor LORTC propose to materially serve that population. Medicaid funds are not available to licensed speciality hospitals and both La Amistad and LORTC will serve patients referred and paid for by HRS, with or without an IRTP CON. The projected percentage of non-pay patient days in both applications is negligible. Any consideration of alternatives in this case must consider the alternatives of the applicants themselves. In both cases, the beds will be available with or without the CON, and the treatment programs are substantially the same with or without the CON. Denial of these applications will not decrease the potential supply of beds in District VII. Indeed, LORTC candidly argues that it is asking only that HRS assist in enhancing financing access to its beds, that CON approval and subsequent licensure will provide increased access to patients with insurance which will not reimburse non- hospital based care. LORTC, and to a lesser degree, La Amistad, insist that approval will positively impact access for privately insured patients. The weight of evidence does not support that basic contention in this case. PIA's non-hospital RTCs in Palm Beach and Manatee County claim to have a 60-70 percent commercial insurance pay or mix. LORTC projects only 67 percent commercially insured patients after its first year of operation. This does not represent an increase. According to its financial experts La Amistad is not projecting any increase in insurance reimbursement because of licensure as an IRTC. Two trends in insurance reimbursement practices were described at length in this proceeding. First, companies are willing to negotiate an "out-of- contract" reimbursement when a non-covered facility is able to show that its services are more appropriate and in the long term, more cost effective than the covered services for a particular patient. Second, insurance companies are carefully scrutinizing long term treatment reimbursement and are limiting coverage in expensive residential programs. Neither trend weighs in favor of approval of these applications. AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES Nursing costs in health care institutions usually comprise more than 50 percent of the operating costs. It is the largest single budget item in a hospital or health care facility. Throughout the country and in District VII, there is a shortage of nurses and trained allied health personnel. Although Laurel Oaks Hospital is staffed, maintaining its staff of registered nurses is a day-to-day problem. West Lake also experiences difficulty in maintaining qualified staff. No doubt LORTC, with aggressive recruitment will initially attract the personnel it needs. Financial incentives will have to be provided and West Lake's problems will be exacerbated. The additional costs will be passed on to the consumer, thus perpetuating the upward inflation spiral of health care costs. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AND EFFECTS ON COMPETITION La Amistad states it intends to finance $450,000.00 of its $500,000.00 total project cost through bank loans, fund raising efforts and personal commitments from board members. Its pro forma, as corrected and updated at the hearing is reasonable, based upon the facility's actual experience in staffing and filling beds. However, the ability of the applicant itself to complete construction for the replacement beds is questionable in light of an admission at hearing by Walter Muller, M.D., the founder and Medical Director of La Amistad. Dr. Muller conceded that one of the reasons for the sale to Universal Health is to obtain adequate funds for the new building. (transcript pages 271-272). LORTC contends that no capital expenditure is relevant here as the facility is being constructed as a non-hospital RTC. For the transfer to IRTC status no additional expenses will be incurred. Regardless of the validity of that contention, the parties have stipulated that funds are available for capital and operating expenditures. LORTC's pro forma is reasonable based on the extensive experience of its parent company with similar facilities, the RTCs in Manatee County and Palm Beach County, and Laurel Oaks Hospital. That experience has not been tested in an area, where, as here, there are existing unfilled IRTPs. As provided in the discussion of need, above, LORTC cannot dismiss West Lake, Devereaux, La Amistad and other facilities offering similar programs. LORTC did not establish conclusively that it could maintain its projected utilization in the face of the potential draw of those other facilities. PIA has been highly successful in marketing its services in the past. If its success prevails and LORTC proves financially feasible, there is substantial evidence that it will be at the expense of West Lake, Devereaux, and the others. There is no evidence that LORTC or La Amistad evaluated the impact of their proposals on other service providers in the area. OTHER REVIEW CRITERIA, INCLUDING QUALIFY OF CARE Both applicants enjoy a reputation for providing good quality mental health services and there is no substantial evidence that this quality will deteriorate if the applications are approved. No competent evidence was presented regarding the failure of either applicant to meet the remaining relevant criteria.
The Issue Whether the Department should issue certificate of need number 4502 to construct and operate a fifty-bed long-term psychiatric hospital in Leon County, Florida, to HCAC?
Findings Of Fact HCAC is a corporation formed by Anthony Estevez for the purpose of developing and operating a long-term psychiatric facility in Leon County, Florida. The facility was to be known as HCAC psychiatric Hospital of Leon County. Mr. Estevez owns 100 percent of the stock of HCAC. The Department is the state agency in Florida authorized to issue certificates of need for long-term psychiatric facilities. TMRMC is a general acute care hospital located in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. TMRMC operates a free- standing short-term psychiatric facility in a two-story, approximately 45,000 square foot, structure located within a block and a half from the main hospital. TMRMC's psychiatric facility is licensed for sixty beds. At present, forty-five of its beds are actually open, with fifteen beds in each of three units. One unit is available for adult patients (including geriatric patients), one is available for adolescent patients and one is available for an open adult unit. The other fifteen beds are available but are not staffed because of a lack of patients. Apalachee is a private, non-profit corporation. Apalachee provides comprehensive community mental health services to Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor and Wakulla Counties. Apalachee was established consistent with State and federal guidelines to provide a variety of mental health Services. On March 17, 1986, a Letter of Intent was filed with the Department notifying the Department of Mr. Estevez's intent to apply for a certificate of need in the March 16, 1986, batching cycle. This Letter of Intent was filed within the time requirements of Florida law. On April 15, 1986 Estevez filed an application for a certificate of need for a comprehensive, free-standing, ninety-bed long-term psychiatric facility to be located in Leon County, Florida. Leon County is located in the Department's District 2. District 2 is made up of Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Holmes, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor, Wakulla and Washington Counties. Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor and Wakulla Counties make up Subdistrict 2B. The other Counties make up Subdistrict 2A. HCAC's application was filed with the Department and the District 2 local health council. In a letter dated May 15, 1987, the Department requested additional information from HCAC. The information requested by the Department was provided by HCAC on or about June 19, 1986 and June 23, 1986. On September 23, 1986, the Department issued a State Agency Action Report partially approving HCAC's certificate of need application. HCAC was notified of the Department's decision and was issued certificate of need #4502 by letter dated September 30, 1986. HCAC had sought approval to construct a ninety-bed facility providing specialty long-term psychiatric services for the chronically mentally disturbed; patients with a ninety-day average length of stay. The facility was to provide care to adolescents, adults and geriatrics. Certificate of need #4502 authorized HCAC to construct a fifty-bed long-term adult, geriatric and adolescent psychiatric hospital in Leon County. The Department approved the facility because of its perception that there is no long-term psychiatric facility serving the geographic area proposed by HCAC to be served. By letter dated November 13, 1987, the Department issued an amended certificate of need #4502 to HCAC restricting the services to be provided to adult and geriatric long-term psychiatric services. HCAC intends on using thirty-six beds for adults and fourteen beds for geriatric patients. HCAC did not contest the Department's reduction in the size of the approved facility or the limitation of the scope of services to adult and geriatric patients. At the formal hearing HCAC presented evidence to Support the approved fifty-bed facility Serving only adults and geriatrics. HCAC has not contested the Department's decision to only partially approve HCAC's application. Supporting documentation took into account the smaller size of the approved facility. No substantial change in the scope or emphasis of the facility was made by HCAC other than the elimination of adolescent Services. HCAC has projected an average occupancy rate of 80 percent for the third year of operation. Because of the failure to prove that there is a need for an additional fifty long-term psychiatric beds for District 2, HCAC has failed to prove that this projection is reasonable. As of the date of the Department's initial decision and at the time of the formal hearing of these cases Rivendell Family Care Center (hereinafter referred to as "Rivendell") an eighty-bed long-term-psychiatric free-standing hospital located in Panama City, Bay County, Florida, had been open for approximately six weeks. Rivendell's occupancy rate at the time of the formal hearing was approximately twenty-four percent. Long-term psychiatric services mean hospital based inpatient services averaging a length of stay of ninety days. Long-term psychiatric services may be provided pursuant to the Department's rules in hospitals holding a general license or in a free-standing facility holding a specialty hospital license. Generally, the chronically mentally ill constitute an under-served group. In order to provide a complete continuum of care for the mentally ill, in-patient hospital treatment, including twenty-four hour medical care and nursing services and intensive resocialization or teaching of resocialization skills, should be provided. The Department has not established a standard method of quantifying need for long-term psychiatric beds in Florida. The Department's approval of the additional long- term psychiatric beds and facility at issue in this proceeding and the Department's and HCAC's position during the formal hearing that there is a need for HCAC's facility was based generally upon their conclusion that there is a "lack of such a facility to serve the geographic area." During the formal hearing, the Department further justified the need for the facility as follows: Basically it was felt that given the geographic distance or distances between this area, the eastern portion of District II, and the closest facilities, meaning licensed hospitals or facilities authorized by a Certificate of Need to offer long-term adult psychiatric services in a Chapter 395 licensed hospital, that there probably should be one here of a minimal size because we were not firm in, or in surety of the number of patients who might need the service in this area. But we thought that there should be at least a minimally sized long-term psychiatric hospital in this area to serve this area. HCAC and the Department failed to prove that there is a need for an additional fifty long-term psychiatric beds in District 2. At best, HCAC and the Department have relied upon speculation and assumptions to support approval of the proposed facility. In order to prove need, the characteristics of the population to be served by a proposed health service should be considered. A determination that there is a need for a health service should be based upon demographic data, including the population in the service area, referral sources and existing services. HCAC and the Department did not present such evidence sufficient enough to Support the additional fifty beds at issue in this proceeding. HCAC did not use any need methodology to quantify the gross need for long-term psychiatric beds in District 2. Nor did HCAC or the Department present sufficient proof concerning existing services, the population to be served, the income or insurance coverage of the Service area population or actual service area referral patterns. In its application. HCAC premised its proposal, in part, on the assumption that "the Leon County area is an undeserved area with residents being referred to facilities long distances away." HCAC exhibit 2. The evidence does not support this assumption. HCAC also premised its proposal upon its conclusion that it would receive patient referrals from existing institutions. The evidence failed to support this conclusion. HCAC also premised its proposal upon the fact that long-term psychiatric services have been designated as a licensure category by the Department. This does not, however, create a presumption that there is a need for such services in a particular area. Based upon the evidence presented at the formal hearing concerning one methodology for quantifying the need for long-term psychiatric beds, there may already be a surplus of long-term psychiatric beds in District 2. Such a surplus of beds may exist whether State hospital beds and ARTS and GRTS program beds are considered. The methodology is based upon national length of stay data for 1980 which was obtained from the National Institute of Mental Health. The methodology did not take into account more current data or Florida specific data. Therefore, use of the methodology did not prove the exact number of long- term psychiatric beds needed for District 2. Although the weight of the evidence concerning the use of the methodology failed to support a finding as to the exact number of long-term psychiatric beds needed in District 2, its use was sufficient to support a finding that there may be a surplus of beds already in existence. The methodology further supports the conclusion that HCAC and the Department have failed to meet their burden of proving that there is a need for the proposed facility. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether long-term inpatient psychiatric services, other than those provided at State hospitals, are "within a maximum travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the service area's [District 2] population." The closest long-term inpatient psychiatric facility [other than a State hospital], Rivendell, is located in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. This facility is located in Subdistrict 2A. There is no facility located in Subdistrict 2B. Rivendell is located on the western edge of Subdistrict 2B, however. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this facility is not within a maximum travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of District 2's population. On page seven of the State Agency Action Report approving Rivendell, the Department indicated that "[t]he proposed location insures that 90 percent of the District I and District II population will have access within two hours travel time." This determination was made prior to the initial approval by the Department of HCAC's proposed facility. If the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"), which is located in District 2, is taken into account, long-term psychiatric services are available within a maximum travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for a least 90 percent of District 2's population. Chattahoochee provides long-term inpatient psychiatric hospital care to indigent and private pay patients. The quality of cafe at Chattahoochee is good and a full range of therapeutic modalities typically available at other psychiatric hospitals are available. HCAC and the Department have suggested that there is need for the additional fifty beds at is sue in these cases because of their conclusion that 90 percent of the population of District 2 is not within two hours under average travel conditions of long-term psychiatric services. The failure to prove this conclusion further detracts from their position as to the need for the proposed facility. HCAC exhibit 8 is a copy of the goals, objectives and recommended actions contained in the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan relating to mental health facilities. The evidence in this proceeding failed to support a finding that HCAC's proposed facility will enhance these goals, objectives and recommended actions. Goal 1 of the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan is to "[e]nsure the availability of mental health and substance abuse services to all Florida residents in a least restrictive setting." Objectives 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4, and the actions recommended to achieve these objectives are not applicable to HCAC's proposed facility. Objective 1.3 provides that additional long-term inpatient psychiatric beds should not be approved in any district which has "an average annual occupancy of at least 80 percent for all existing and approved long-term inpatient psychiatric beds." Goal 2 of the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan is to "[p]romote the development of a continuum of high quality, cost effective private sector mental health and substance abuse treatment and preventive services." The objectives and recommended actions to achieve this goal are not applicable to HCAC's proposed facility. Goal 3 of the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan is to "[d]evelope a complete range of essential public mental health services in each HRS district." The objectives and recommended actions to achieve this goal are not applicable to HCAC's proposed facility. The Florida State Plan for Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services does not specifically deal with private long-term psychiatric services. Instead, it relates specifically to treatment in the state mental health treatment facilities. The applicable district mental health plan does not specifically address long-term psychiatric services. The plan does, however, recommend that new facilities should indicate a commitment to serving the medically indigent. HCAC has agreed to provide 5.6 percent of its patient days for indigent care. HCAC's commitment to provide 5.6 percent of its patient days for indigent care is consistent with this objective. Mental Health District Boards have been abolished. The District 2 Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Planning Council, however, has published the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health 1986-89 Provisional District Plan. It is acknowledged in this Plan that deinstitutionalization and the provision of the least restrictive means of treatment should be promoted. The use of long- term psychiatric inpatient beds does not promote this philosophy. If a patient is not admitted as part of the 5.6 percent indigent commitment of HCAC and cannot pay the $10,500.00 per month admission charges, HCAC will not admit the patient. Additionally, if a patient is admitted and runs out of funds to pay the daily charges and is not part of the 5.6 percent indigent commitment, the patient will be transferred to another facility. HCAC's facility will be accessible to all residents who can pay for their services or who are part of the 5.6 percent indigent commitment of HCAC. The provision of 5.6 percent indigent care is adequate. HCAC will provide non- discriminatory health care services, to those indigent patients who are covered by HCAC's 5.6 percent commitment. The Counties which make up Subdistrict 2B, other than Leon County, are below the average national and State poverty levels. In most of the Counties, twenty percent of the population have incomes below the poverty level. HCAC has not managed any type of psychiatric hospital and currently has no employees. The proposed facility is to be managed by Flowers Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Flowers"). Flowers is a psychiatric management company that has been in operation since 1984. Mr. Estevez owns fifty-one percent of the stock of Flowers and is the Chairman of the Board. Flowers is operating five Psychiatric/substance abuse facilities: three hospital based and two free-standing pychiatric/chemical dependency facilities. The staff and faculty of Flowers has a strong background in the management of psychiatric facilities. Flowers has no experience in the management of a long-term psychiatric facility. Mr. Nelson Elliot Rodney, Flowers' Regional Vice President, will be ultimately responsible for the management of the proposed facility. The administrator of the facility will report to Mr. Rodney. Mr. Rodney will seek to implement the goals outlined in HCAC's certificate of need application for the proposed facility. Mr. Rodney has not designed a psychiatric hospital. Nor has Mr. Rodney worked at or administered a long- term psychiatric hospital. The overall treatment plan as presented in HCAC's certificate of need application and as presented at the formal hearing lends itself to the development of a good program for long-term psychiatric care. HCAC has associated itself with experts in long-term psychiatric care in order to develop a detailed plan specifically addressing the treatment needs of long-term psychiatric patients. HCAC has the ability to, and will, provide good quality patient care. Apalachee provides certain programs in Subdistrict 2B which provide alternatives to long-term psychiatric hospitalization: the Geriatric Residential Treatment System (hereinafter referred to as "GRTS") and the Adult Residential Treatment System (hereinafter referred to as "ARTS"). Apalachee's GRTS program, which serves Individuals fifty-five years of age and older, contains a residential component with a total capacity of Seventy geriatric beds. A wide variety of services are provided as part of the GRTS program, including day treatment and case management components. When Apalachee's ARTS program is fully implemented there will be a total of one hundred sixty-three beds available for the care on long-term mentally ill adults and geriatrics within Subdistrict 2B. The ARTS program serves adults who are eighteen to fifty-four years of age. Apalachee's GRTS and ARTS programs do not provide the identical services provided in a free-standing long-term psychiatric hospital. The programs do provide some identical or similar services, and, to that extent, the programs complement the continuum of psychiatric care available. To the extent that they provide the same type of services, Apalachee's GRTS and ARTS programs serve as alternatives to HCAC's proposed facility. There is a national shortage of registered nurses. This shortage is particularly acute with regard to psychiatric nurses. TMRMC has a current shortage of three registered psychiatric nurses, three part-time psychiatric registered nurses, seven flex positions for psychiatric nurses, one full- time nurse technician position and one mental health worker. TMRMC has had difficulty, despite adequate efforts to recruit, recruiting for its psychiatric facility since it opened. It has never been fully staffed with psychiatric nurses. There is also a shortage of occupational therapists. TMRMC has had an occupational therapist vacancy for seven months. Mr. Rodney will be responsible for the recruitment of the necessary personnel for the proposed facility. Mr. Rodney indicated that he would utilize recruitment methods similar to those used by TMRMC. Mr. Rodney will also use his experience and contacts in the Dade County, Florida area. HCAC's salary package is reasonable and HCAC will provide adequate in- service training programs. Although HCAC will have difficulty in attracting qualified staff, just as TMRMC has had, it will be able to obtain adequate staff for the proposed facility. HCAC may do so, however, at the expense of existing health care providers. Apalachee provides the following programs in District 2: Wateroak--A sixteen-bed long-term psychiatric hospital for the treatment of children and adolescents. It is a licensed Specialty hospital; In November of 1987, Apalachee began construction of an acute care facility, which will provide inpatient short- term psychiatric services; Case Management Services--Case management services, which include supportive counseling, medication therapy, assistance with transportation and home visitation, are provided to the chronically mentally ill on an outpatient basis. The Services are to be provided where the patients reside; Hilltop--A sixteen-bed residential treatment center. Hilltop is a group home living facility for adults eighteen to fifty-four years of age; Chemical Dependency Program--Individual, group and family counseling and educational services on an outpatient basis for Individuals with suspected substance abuse problems; Emergency Services--Year-round, twenty-four hour a day telephone or face-to-face evaluations to persons with an acute disturbance or who are in need of evaluation for determination of the proper level of care; PATH--Positive Alternative to Hospitalization Program, a crises stabilization unit developed as an alternative to short-term psychiatric care; PPC--Primary Care Center, a nonhospital medical detoxification unit providing short-term detoxification care to alcohol abusers; Gerontological Programs--Made up of the GRTS program and an outpatient component. Through the outpatient component, Apalachee uses its outpatient clinics in each County in its service area to provide linkage for therapy and medication and supportive counseling to geriatrics; ARTS Program; and Designated Public Receiving Facility--Apalachee is the designated public receiving facility for Subdistrict 2B. It screens and evaluates every person admitted to Chattahoochee. Apalachee's adult mental health programs which are available to indigent patients, directly impact both long and short-term hospital utilization, lowering such utilization. For example, before establishing the services provided to suspected substance abusers, many patients were placed in long-term psychiatric hospitals. Referrals to TMRMC of patients under the Baker Act have been reduced from an average of fifteen to eighteen patients per day to an average of one-half to one person per day. There has also been a decrease in admissions to Chattahoochee since Apalachee established the GRTS and ARTS programs. At the time of the formal hearing of these cases TMRMC had a census of only twenty-eight adult patients in its short-term psychiatric facility. TMRMC's census has been low for the past two years. TMRMC's short-term psychiatric facility is operating at a loss. Any further loss of patients would have a serious impact on the facility. From October 1, 1986 to July 31, 1987, TMRMC lost $127,337.00 on its short-term psychiatric facility. For the twelve-month period from October 1, 1986 to October 1, 1987, it is reasonably estimated that TMRMC will lose $139,722.00. TMRMC would like to open the fifteen-bed unit (which is presently closed) of its short-term psychiatric facility. It must increase its census before it can do so. It has been attempting to increase its census by sending out mail-outs and newsletters, sponsoring educational programs advertising, inviting health care professionals to the facility and initiating clinical affiliations with university programs. Rivendell is an eighty-bed long-term psychiatric facility. Forty of its eighty beds are licensed for adults and geriatric patients. The other forty beds are licensed for children and adolescent patients. Rivendell's census at the time of the formal hearing of these cases was six to eight patients. Chattahoochee has a total of 823 long-term psychiatric beds for adults and geriatrics. There are no like and existing long-term psychiatric beds for adults and geriatrics located in Subdistrict 2B. The only like and existing long-term psychiatric beds for adults and geriatrics available to residents of District 2 are located in Subdistrict 2A at Rivendell. The proposed HCAC facility will result in increased competition in District 2. This increase in competition will have an adverse impact on suppliers of inpatient psychiatric services. Admissions to the proposed facility will likely include patients who would be more appropriately hospitalized in a short-term facility. Although HCAC has no plans to admit short-term patients and will attempt to prevent such admissions, mental health professionals cannot accurately predict the length of a patient's stay upon admission. The determination will often require an in- hospital evaluation of the patient. Therefore, patients more appropriately treated in a short-term facility such as TMRMC will end up spending some tide in HCAC's proposed facility. TMRMC will lose patient days if the HCAC facility is constructed. This will adversely affects TMRMC's occupancy rate, which is already low, and cause further losses in revenue. Given the surplus of long-term psychiatric beds in District 2 and the low occupancy of short-term beds in Subdistrict 2B, it will difficult for HCAC to continue in existence without admitting short-term psychiatric patients. The operation of the proposed HCAC facility will also adversely affect the availability of nurses to staff Apalachee's acute care facility and other Apalachee operations and TMRMC's ability to staff its short-term psychiatric facility. Even the loss of one more full-time registered nurse at TMRMC could cause critical staffing problems. Because of the lack of need for fifty additional long-term psychiatric beds in District 2, HCAC's proposed facility would also have an adverse affect on Rivendell. The proposed facility will provide internships, field placements and semester rotations for psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses and counselors. The facility will work closely with community agencies and community personnel in developing, operating and providing resources for training for community groups, patient groups and personnel. In- service training will be open to selected professionals in the community. HCAC's proposed facility will have a positive effect on the clinical needs of health professional training programs and schools for health professions in District 2. The-total estimated cost of the proposed project approved by the Department is $4,108,000.00. HCAC plans on financing 100 percent of the cost of the project with a mortgage loan at 13 percent interest. Mr. Estevez has had experience in obtaining financing for health care and other commercial projects. In 1987 alone, Mr. Estevez was personally involved in over $20,000,000.00 of financing. Short-term financial feasibility means the ability to successfully fund a project to ensure that the project will succeed in the short-term. To achieve short-term financial feasibility, there must be sufficient funds to cover any losses incurred during the initial operating period and to cover any short fall in working capital necessary to fund the project. NCNB, a financial institution with which Mr. Estevez has had, and continues to have, a long and profitable association, has indicated interest in financing the proposed project. A financing letter to this effect has been provided. Although the letter does not specifically refer to the proposed project, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that NCNB would be willing to finance the project. In light of Mr. Estevez's experience in obtaining commercial financing and his relationship with NCNB, it is reasonable to conclude that 100 percent financing of the project can be obtained at 13 percent interest. The proposed project will have a negative cash balance at the end of its first and second year of operation. Given Mr. Estevez's commitment to the project, sufficient funds for capital and operating expenses will be available to cover these negative cash balances. Although Mr. Estevez did not provide a separate audited financial statement, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Estevez has the ability to provide the necessary capital. In the short-term, HCAC's proposal is financially feasible. HCAC has projected that it will operate at an average length of stay of ninety days. It will charge an all-inclusive $350.00 per day for its long- term psychiatric services, including all ancillary services. Initially, HCAC projected the following payor mix: Medicaid of 30 percent; Medicare of 20 percent; and insurance and private pay of 50 percent. HCAC was informed by the Department that Medicaid reimbursement was not available for psychiatric services in private free-standing psychiatric hospitals. Consequently, HCAC modified its payor mix by eliminating Medicaid from its payor mix. At the formal hearing of this case, HCAC projected the following payor mix: Medicare of 3.3 percent; indigent of 5.6 percent; and insurance and private pay of 91.1 percent. Medicare reimburses for psychiatric care in a limited fashion. That is why HCAC reduced its projected Medicare reimbursement to 3.3 percent of its total revenue. Medicare patients generally use the majority of their lifetime reserve Medicare reimbursable days for other types of care, including short-term psychiatric care and acute care. Persons in need of long-term psychiatric care generally have a poor work history because of their illness interferes with their ability to obtain and maintain employment. Patients have few economic resources of their own. A patients family structure is often disorganized as a result of the patient's episodes of illness. These episodes strain the family relationship. Persons in need of long-term psychiatric care are often unable to pay for needed services and their family members are either unable or unwilling to support the person. There is no facility in Florida with a payor mix of 91 percent insurance and private pay. HCAC's projection of 91.1 percent insurance and private pay is not a reasonable projection. This finding of fact is based upon the high poverty levels within Subdistrict 2B, the lack of need for additional long-term psychiatric beds and the failure to prove that insurance benefits for long-term care are available in District 2. The State of Florida, Employees Group Health Self-Insurance Plan does not provide coverage for specialty hospitals, such as HCAC's proposed facility. The State of Florida provides 42 percent of the employment in Leon County. Insurance provided by other employers in the area limits coverage for inpatient psychiatric care to thirty to thirty-one days. These benefits are often exhausted before long- term care becomes necessary. In order to achieve a 91.1 percent insurance and private pay payor mix, 80 percent to 100 percent will have to be private pay patients. Such a high percentage of private pay patients is not reasonable. The effective buying income in Leon County in 1986 was approximately $22,600.00. In District 2 it was $18,700.00. Madison County and Jefferson County are among the counties heading Florida's poverty rate. Taylor County is the ninth poorest county in the State. HCAC has projected a 95 percent occupancy rate for its proposed facility within six months of its opening. HCAC has failed to prove that this occupancy rate can be achieved. In light of the high poverty rate in the area, the lack of need for long-term psychiatric services and the inability of patients to pay for such services, this projected occupancy rate is not reasonable. In light of HCAC's failure to prove that there is a need for the proposed facility or that its payor mix is reasonable, HCAC has failed to demonstrate that its occupancy projection is achievable. HCAC has projected that 7.3 percent of its gross revenue will be deducted as revenue deductions. Included in this amount are contractual allowances, charity care and bad debts. Medicare reimburses hospitals for total costs rather than revenue or charges. HCAC, therefore, gas projected approximately $6,000.00 for the first year and $24,000.00 for second year as contractual allowances. HCAC's projection of deductions from revenue are not reasonable. Bad debt of 1.6 percent is unreasonable compared to the experience at other long- term psychiatric facilities in Florida. The $350.00 all-inclusive charge is not reasonable. This charge will not be sufficient to cover the proposed facility's costs. HCAC's projected costs for "Supplies and other" and for taxes are reasonable. HCAC has failed to prove that its proposed facility is financially feasible in the long-term. The projected and approved cost of construction is $3,965,456.00. HCAC has indicated that the facility will consist of two, one-story buildings connected by a hallway. The facility will have approximately 40,563 gross square footage. The actual site for the project has not been selected or purchased. The floor plan calls for twenty-five, semi-private rooms for patients. The patient-care building will contain four independent and secure living/program areas connecting to a central core which will contain an atrium open to the outdoors. There will be approximately 811 gross square feet per bed, which is adequate. The proposed design is reasonable. The projected completion forecast of HCAC is reasonable. The projected costs of completing the building are reasonable. The building will be built by Project Advisers Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "PAC"). PAC is a health care, commercial and residential construction company. Mr. Estevez owns 100 percent of PAC. Since 1978, PAC has been involved in the construction of St. John's Rehab Center and Nursing Home, South Dade Nursing Home, Hialeah Convalescent Center, South Dade Rehab Hospital and two psychiatric/chemical dependency hospitals for Glenbeigh Hospital. Generally, there are no differences in the construction requirements between short-term and long-term psychiatric facilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department enter a Final Order denying the application of HCAC for a certificate of need to construct and operated a fifty-bed long-term psychiatric facility in Leon County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4373 and 864374 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact it has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommend Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. HCAC's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 5-6. The third through fourth sentence are hereby accepted. 1 and 6. 3 1 and 39. 4 6 and 9 5 7. 6 8-10, 34 and 97. 7 11. 8 11, 14 and 76. The last Sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence 6. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 10 10 and 69. 11 Hereby accepted. 12 39-40. 13 These proposed findings of fact are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. They deal with the weight to be given to other evidence. 14 42. 15-19 Although these proposed findings of fact- are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the-evidence. The rest of the proposed findings of fact are hereby accepted. Although the proposed finding of fact contained in the first sentence is generally true, it is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. The rest of the proposed findings of fact deal with the weight to be given to other evidence. These proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 23-26 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 27 Although this proposed finding of fact is generally true, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that HCAC will be able to achieve its plans. 28-33 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 34 43. 35 51. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 36 52. 37 53. 38 69-70. 39 72. 40 73. 41 74. 42 67. 43 68. 44 34 and 37. 45 104. 46. The first sentence is law. The last sentence is accepted in 105. 47 97 and 99-100. 48 101. 49 103. 50 102. 51 Hereby accepted. 52-53 These proposed findings of fact deal with the weight to be given other evidence. 54 78. 55 79-80. 56 79. 57-58 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 76. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally correct, these proposed findings of fact do not support HCAC's projected utilization. Irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 65 92. 66 93. 67 94. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 68 95. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. HCAC's proposed facility and TMRMC are not comparable. 71-75 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 54 and 59. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 79-83 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 84-85 Statement of law. Hereby accepted. 6 and 25. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 88-90 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 91-92 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 93 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. The last two sentences are conclusions of law. 94-95 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. The first sentence is a conclusion of law. The second sentence is hereby accepted. The last sentence is irrelevant. 13. The last two sentences are conclusions of law. Irrelevant. 100-102 Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. 44. The last sentence is irrelevant. 47. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 16. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 108 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. See 23. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Conclusions of law. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 114 34. 115 29. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115a 30. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115b-e 30. The next to the last sentence of e is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115f Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 116-117 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 118 Hereby accepted. 119-120 35. 121 Irrelevant. 122 33. 123-124 Irrelevant. 125-129 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 130 3. 131 Hereby accepted. 132 64. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 133 See 49 and 65. 134 54. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Hereby accepted. 2-3 8-9. 4 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5 13 and 25. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Conclusion of law. 8 31. 9 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 10-12 Irrelevant. 13 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 14-16 Conclusions of law. TMRMC's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1, 6 and 9-11. 2 See 6 and 9. 3 6-10. 4 76. 5 77-78. 6 79. 7 79-80. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 81. 10 82-83. 11 34 and 36. 12 36. 13 6. 14-15 39. 16 41-42. 17 2. 18 3. 19 4 and 6. 20-21 54. 22 Not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 23 54. 24 46 and 54. 25-26 54-55. 27-29 54. 30 54-55. 31 44-45, 47 and 54. 32 Hereby accepted. 33 54-55. 34 55. 35 Irrelevant. 36 56. 37 58. 38 49. 39 48. 40 50. 41-44 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 45-46 65. 47-48 57. 49 58. 50 63-64. 51 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52 63-64. 53 63-64. 55 Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 56 65. 57 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 58 25 and 59. 59 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 60-62 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 63 25 and 59. 64-68 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 69 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 70-71 27. Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 74 18 and 96. Irrelevant. Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 77-81 Although generally true, these proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 82 Hereby accepted. 83 84. 84 Hereby accepted. 85-86 Irrelevant. 87 See 69 and 72. 88 94. 89 Hereby accepted. 90 74. 91 94. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 92-93 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 94-96 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 97 19. 98-99 18. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant. Hereby accepted. 103 19. 104 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 105 20. 106 21. 107 Hereby accepted. 108-110 See 23. 111 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 112 85. 113 86. 114 88. 115 89. 116-118 Although these proposed findings of fact are generally true, they are cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. 119 91. 120 90. 121 96. 122-126 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 127 Hereby accepted. 128-129 Irrelevant. 130 22. 131 97-98. 132 99. 133-139 Not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 140 95. 141 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 142 97. 143-146 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Apalachee's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 6 and 8-9 2 4. 3(a)-(i)(1) 54. 3(i)(2) 44-45. 3(j) 44 and 54. 3(k) 54. 4 3. 5 1. 6 104. 7 39 and 41. 8 27 and 60. 9 25 and 59. 10(a) Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 10(b) 27. 10(c) 26. 10(d) Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11 13. 12(a) 81. 12(b) 82-83. 13 6 76 and 87. The second, third, fifth- eighth sentences, the Second Paragraph and the last Paragraph are not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 71 and 74. Other than the first two Sentences of the first Paragraph and the first two sentences of the third Paragraph, these Proposed findings of fact are not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 16(a) 90. The Second Paragraph is not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 16(b) 88. 16(c) 94. 16(d) 76 and 95. Other than the first three sentences of the first Paragraph and the last Paragraph, these Proposed findings of fact are not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 17 48-49 and 65. The Sixth and eighth Sentences and the last Paragraph are not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 44-47 and 54. The last Sentence of the first Paragraph and the last four Sentences of the last Paragraph are irrelevant. 19 62. 19(a) 3, 23, 56-57 and 64. The Second and third Paragraph are Cumulative and unnecessary. 19(b) 63. The Second Paragraph is Cumulative and unnecessary. 19(c) Cumulative and unnecessary, 19(d) 25, 59, 62 and 66. 19(e) 65. 20 Not Supported by the Weight of the evidence or Cumulative and unnecessary, 21 39 and 41. The last Paragraph is not Supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald W. Brooks, Esquire 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Darrell White, Esquire Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration has a policy regarding the determination of the need for long term care beds which constitutes a rule and, if so, whether rulemaking is feasible and practicable.
Findings Of Fact Vencor Hospitals South, Inc. (Vencor), applied for a certificate of need (CON No. 8614) to establish a 60-bed long term care hospital in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) District 8, for Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. AHCA is the state agency authorized to administer the CON program for health care services and facilities in Florida. AHCA reviewed and preliminarily denied Vencor's application for CON No. 8614. The reasons for AHCA's actions on this or any other CON application are memorialized in documents called State Agency Action Reports (SAARs). Vencor alleges that the following statement generally describes AHCA's policy in regard to the review of CON applications for long term care hospitals: Long term care is not a separate category of health service, but is instead merely an allowable form of reimbursement pursuant to Medicare regulations. The care provided in acute care hospitals, hospital based skilled nursing beds, "subacute" care in nursing homes, and care at rehabilitation facilities, are all equivalent to the care provided at long term care hospitals. Therefore, in evaluating the need for long term care hospital beds, AHCA will assess the availability of other categories of beds and services to meet the need for the services proposed by the applicant for long term care hospital beds. Need for long term care beds is determined on a regional basis. Prior to 1994, long term care hospitals were not regulated separately and were considered comparable to general acute care hospitals. In 1994, AHCA amended the CON rules to establish long term care beds and hospitals as separate categories of health care providers. In 1994, AHCA defined and continues to the present to define long term care hospital as follows: "Long term care hospital" means a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., which meets the requirements of Part 412, subpart B, paragraph 412.23(e), [C]ode of Federal Regulations (1994), and seeks exclusion from the Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services. Rule 59C-1.002(29), Florida Administrative Code. In the federal regulations referenced by the AHCA rule, long term care hospital is more specifically defined as a hospital with an independent governing structure, an average length of stay greater than 25 days, referral of at least 75 percent of total patients from separate hospitals, and which meets the requirements for Medicare participation. 42 CFR Ch. IV, Subch. B, Pt. 412, Subpt. B, s. 412.23. AHCA also distinguishes long term care in its rules governing the conversions from one type of health care provider to another. The applicable conversion rules provide: "Conversion from one type of health care facility to another" means the reclassification of one licensed facility type to another licensed facility type, including reclassification from a general acute care hospital to a long term care hospital or specialty hospital or from a long term care hospital or specialty hospital to a general acute care hospital. Rule 59C-1.002(14), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added); and "Conversion of beds" means the reclassification of licensed beds from one category to another including, for facilities licensed under Chapter 395, F.S., conversion to or from acute care beds, neonatal intensive care beds, hospital inpatient psychiatric beds, comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, hospital inpatient substance abuse beds, distinct part skilled nursing facility beds, or beds in a long term care hospital; and, for facilities licensed under Chapter 400, Part I, F.S., conversion to or from skilled beds and intermediate care beds in a facility that is not certified for both skilled and intermediate nursing care if such conversion effects a change in the level of care of 10 beds or 10 percent of the total bed capacity of the facility within a 2-year period, or conversion to or from sheltered beds and community beds. Rule 59C-1.002 (15), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added). AHCA also defined "substantial change in health services" to include: The conversion of a general acute care or specialty hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., to a long term care hospital. Rule 59C-1.002(41)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Taken together AHCA's rules recognize long term care hospitals or beds as a separate and distinct category. Elfie Stamm was responsible for the development of the rules and is currently the chief of the CON and Budget Review Office at AHCA. Ms. Stamm testified in a 1994 rule challenge case, when AHCA was drafting a rule with a numeric need methodology for long term care beds, that: long term care hospitals serve patients who cannot be cost effectively treated in an acute care hospital, who do not have the same needs for the same types of service; it would not be fair for an applicant for the new construction of a long term care hospital to be compared to an acute care hospital; comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) services are different than services in a long term care hospital; a long term care hospital with an average length of stay of 25 days or more is different from an acute care hospital that generally has a length of stay of 5 to 6 days but provides a full range of services; the patient populations in long term care hospitals are different from those in an acute care hospital in terms of overall patient characteristics, including older than average age, higher percentage of patients with particular diagnoses, such as ventilator dependency, higher overall mortality rates than acute care hospitals, and a much higher percentage of admissions by referrals from acute care hospitals. [T. 262-283]. See also Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, etc. v. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 94-0958RU (R.O. 8/2/94). On behalf of AHCA, Ms. Stamm testified in this proceeding that: AHCA has changed its mind on whether or not it is appropriate to leave a patient in an acute care setting rather than transfer to long term care, specifically with regard to cost-effectiveness. [T. 373]. AHCA has not changed its mind and still says acute care hospitals and long term care hospitals should be reviewed separately, because if they would be reviewed comparatively, . . . there would be no chance for any [long term] beds ever because we don't show any need for acute care beds anywhere in the state. [T. 376]. But in evaluating Vencor's application for long term care hospitals in District 8 that would be located in Lee County, the Agency viewed hospital-based skilled nursing units, community nursing home subacute beds and comprehensive medical rehab beds throughout the entire district as existing and like potential alternatives to the proposed project. [T. 389]. AHCA does not necessarily agree that CMR services are different from long term care hospital services. [T. 265]. AHCA does not have a clearly identified population group for whom long term care would be more cost-effective, or to determine a numeric need methodology. [TR. 324]. Although there is a population that does need services that exceed 25 days or prolonged ventilator service, AHCA is not sure what is the most appropriate setting for their care because of inadequate data on comparative costs and outcomes. [TR. 327-8]. AHCA attributes its change in position to the publication titled Subacute Care: Policy Synthesis And Market Area Analysis, submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, on November 1, 1995, by Lewin-VHI, Inc. The document is commonly referred to as the Lewin Report. The Lewin Report concludes that long term care hospitals serve patients who are also served in other subacute settings, including CMR beds and hospitals, acute care hospital skilled nursing units, and skilled nursing units in freestanding nursing homes. As a result of the conclusions in the Lewin Report, AHCA maintains that it is unable to develop a numeric need methodology without an identifiable patient population. AHCA has not, however, repealed the rules establishing long term care as a separate type of health care service. Rather, the agency intends to wait for additional studies, including one being conducted for Vencor. The Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for acute care hospitals created the market for subacute and long term care. Under the PPS, acute care hospitals receive a fixed payment based on the patient's diagnosis or diagnostic related group (DRG). Upon discharge to a subacute or long term setting, the patient's care is no longer reimbursed on a fixed basis, but at actual, reasonable costs. AHCA maintains that financial pressures created the current system, but without cost/benefit or outcomes analyses to demonstrate the appropriateness of using long term care hospitals. Therefore, AHCA considered the occupancy levels of acute care hospitals and available nursing home beds in determining the need for Vencor's project. AHCA has no rule defining subacute care, no inventory of subacute care units in nursing homes, and no reporting requirements from which it can determine the level of care or services provided in hospital based skilled nursing units. AHCA has no reports on specific levels or types of services provided in CMR beds. AHCA, nevertheless, presumed that the services are like those provided in long term care beds based on the Lewin Report. In rejecting Vencor's attempts to distinguish itself from other types of health care providers, AHCA relied, in part, on its finding that 1995 District 8 acute care hospital occupancy averaged 47.69 percent and peaked at 60.26 percent. By not adopting rules for determining the numeric need for long term care, AHCA also failed to establish the appropriate service area for determining need. AHCA considers the need for long term care services on a regional basis. In support of AHCA's decision to deny a long term care hospital application in District 9, Ms. Stamm's predecessor, Elizabeth Dudek, testified that long term care is a regional service. As further evidence of AHCA's position, the SAARs issued by AHCA on long term care hospital applications, have examined available services beyond the limits of the district. AHCA contends that long term care is regional, but determines its need by comparison to available hospital based skilled nursing units and subacute beds in community nursing homes, which are evaluated on a subdistrict basis, and CMR services which are tertiary but evaluated on a district-wide basis. See Finding of Fact 22. Since November 1995, AHCA has preliminarily denied all CON applications for long term care hospitals. Its policy of comparing the need for long term care to available beds in nursing homes and other types of hospitals is consistently repeated in the portions of the SAARs which address need. In analyzing the need for long term care hospitals in AHCA District 1, the SAAR dated January 10, 1997, includes the following statements: Vencor Hospitals South, Inc. defines its patient population as those currently being treated in ICUs and belonging to roughly 10 DRGs (which account for approximately 83% of Vencor patients. . . .) However these DRGs could also [be] appropriate for acute care, hospital based freestanding skilled nursing care, skilled nursing facility care and comprehensive medical rehabilitation care and the applicant does not demonstrate that these services are not available to residents of District 1. and The applicant [Baptist Health Affiliates Inc.] also discusses the differences between its proposed patient population and that of an acute care hospital, nursing home and those treated at home. However, there is no documentation provided which demonstrates the applicant's potential patients could not receive appropriate care in the District's existing rehabilitation facility, hospital based or nursing home skilled subacute nursing units. . . . Vencor Exhibit 12, pages 3-4 and 8. AHCA reviewed a CON application filed by Columbia of Pinellas County, Inc., to convert acute care beds to a long term care hospital in District 5, and concluded: The patient population represented by the DRGs listed above (by the applicant) are typical of freestanding nursing home with subacute units and hospital based SNUs in the state. There appear to be strong similarities between the subacute patient population of nursing homes/units and those of a long term care hospital. Vencor Exhibit 13, page 8. The SAAR issued on the Columbia of Pinellas County CON application continued with an extensive discussion of the Lewin Report. The SAAR reported AHCA's finding that CMR hospitals are alternatives since they admit patients who do not fit federal guidelines for CMR admissions (being able to tolerate three hours of therapy a day), and who might otherwise be in long term care hospitals. In the SAAR issued after the review of long term care applications for District 7, the same statement appears: The patient population represented by the DRGs listed above [by Orlando Regional Hospital] are typical of freestanding nursing home with subacute units and hospital based SNUs in the state. There appear to be strong similarities between the subacute patient population of nursing homes/units and those of a long term care hospital. Vencor Exhibit 14, page 11. Finally, in reviewing applications from Palm Beach County in District 9, AHCA concluded again: The applicant states that generally speaking the long term care hospital patients have respiratory complications, . . . tracheostomies, . . . chronic diseases, an infectious process requiring antibiotic therapy, . . . skin complications . . . need a combination of rehabilitation and complex medical treatment or are technology dependent individuals requiring high levels of nursing care. However, these patients could also [be] appropriate for acute care, hospital based skilled nursing care, skilled nursing facility care and comprehensive medical rehabilitation care and the applicant does not demonstrate that these services are not available to the residents of District IX. Vencor Exhibit 15, page 4. AHCA relies on the statutory review criteria in Subsection 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as authority for its consideration of all beds and facilities which may serve the same patients. That provision requires consideration of: (b) The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. The expert witness for AHCA, however, distinguished between "like and existing" services for purposes of determining numeric need and the statutory criteria. She noted that once numeric need is established and published for nursing beds or CMR beds, for example, that same category of beds outside the appropriate health service planning subdistrict or district is not considered "like and existing." Similarly, within the district or subdistrict, there is a factual issue in each case but no presumption that beds of a different category are "like and existing." AHCA contends that it has no policy related to long term care and any comparable services. Since 1995, long term care CON applicants, according to AHCA, have failed to meet the requirements of Rule 59C-1.008(e), which provides in pertinent part: If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. (Emphasis added). AHCA's argument ignores the fact that its expert witness provided competent, substantial evidence that it has redefined and expanded the meaning of "like services" for purposes of demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology. It also ignores the fact that AHCA has expanded the comparison of need beyond the geographical limits of the district. AHCA's argument that it is waiting for additional data before adopting a need methodology, including data from a Vencor study, is to no avail since AHCA has already changed its policy. After reviewing a total of eighteen CON applications for long term care hospitals, AHCA has issued two CONs, one as part of a settlement agreement and the other approving an application filed by St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. (St. Petersburg), for CON 8213. The St. Petersburg application demonstrated need using an identical methodology prepared by the same health planner as Vencor in this case. Referring to CON 8213, AHCA's expert witness candidly admitted . . . "I want to make clear that particular application was actually submitted and approved prior to the Lewin study." (T. 393). Subsequent to the Lewin study, AHCA has consistently denied applications for long term care beds or hospitals.
The Issue Which, if any, of the four certificate of need applications for short-term psychiatric beds in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 9 should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Description of the Parties The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") is the agency charged under Chapter 381, Florida Statutes (1991), to make decisions regarding certificate of need ("CON") applications. HRS issued its intent to approve the CON applications of Glenbeigh Hospital of Palm Beach, Inc. ("Glenbeigh"), for 45 beds, and Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. ("Boca"), for 15 beds, pursuant to a published fixed need for 67 beds for HRS District IX. HRS also issued its intent to deny the CON applications of Wellington Regional Medical Center, Incorporation ("Wellington") to convert 15 acute care beds to 15 short term adult psychiatric beds, and Savannas Hospital Limited Partnership ("Savannas") to convert 20 substance abuse beds to 20 short term adult psychiatric beds and to add 10 new short term adult beds. District IX includes Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee and Indian River Counties. As a result of Glenbeigh's Notice of Withdrawal filed on April 6, 1993, CON No. 6438 is no longer under consideration in this case. Boca is an existing 394-bed acute care hospital, located one mile north of the Broward County line, and is the applicant for CON No. 6442, to convert 15 medical/surgical beds to 15 adult psychiatric beds, and to delicense an additional 6 medical/surgical beds. Wellington is an existing acute care hospital in Palm Beach County, with 104 acute care medical/surgical beds and 16 substance abuse beds, and is the applicant for CON No. 6441 to convert 15 acute care beds to 15 short term adult psychiatric beds. Savannas is an existing 70 bed child/adolescent and adult psychiatric and substance abuse hospital in St. Lucie County, about 40 miles north of Palm Beach, and is the applicant for CON No. 6444, to convert its 20 substance abuse beds to 20 adult short-term psychiatric beds, and to add 10 new adult short-term psychiatric beds. Lake Hospital and Clinic, Inc., d/b/a Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches ("Lake"), at the time of hearing, was a 98-bed psychiatric and substance abuse hospital, with 46 adult psychiatric beds, 36 child/adolescent psychiatric beds and 16 substance abuse beds, located in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, between Boca Raton and West Palm Beach. The parties stipulated that Lake had standing to challenge the Boca application. Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, Inc., d/b/a Humana Hospital Palm Beaches ("Humana") is an existing 250-bed acute care hospital, with 61 adult and 27 child/adolescent psychiatric beds, and is a Baker Act receiving facility, located directly across the street from Glenbeigh in Palm Beach. Florida Residential Treatment Centers, Inc., d/b/a Charter Hospital of West Palm Beach ("Charter") is an existing 60-bed psychiatric hospital with 20 beds for children and 40 beds for adolescents, located approximately 15 minutes travel time from Glenbeigh. Martin H.M.A., Inc., d/b/a SandyPines Hospital ("SandyPines") is an existing 60 bed child and adolescent psychiatric hospital, and a Baker Act receiving facility, located in Martin County, less than one mile north of the Palm Beach County line. By prehearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the statutory review criteria applicable to the CON application of Boca are those listed in Subsections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (d), (f), (i) - (l) and (n). If Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o) is applicable, the parties stipulated that the disputed criteria are those in Subsections 4.g. and 5.g. Background and Applicability of HRS Rules and Florida Statutes Rule 10-5.011(o) and (p), Florida Administrative Code, was in effect at the time HRS published the fixed need pool and received the applications at issue in this proceeding, the September 1990 batching cycle. The rule distinguished between inpatient psychiatric services based on whether the services were provided on a short-term or long-term basis. Similarly, Rule 10- 5.011(q), Florida Administrative Code, distinguished between short-term and long-term hospital inpatient substance abuse services. On August 10, 1990, HRS published a fixed need pool for 19 short-term psychiatric beds in HRS District IX, with notice of the right to seek an administrative hearing to challenge the correctness of the fixed need pool number. See, Vol. 16, No. 32, Florida Administrative Weekly. On August 17, 1990, HRS published a revised fixed need pool for a net need of 67 additional short-term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in HRS District IX, based on the denial of a certificate of need application, subsequent to the deadline for submission of the August 10th publication. The local health plan formula, which has not been adopted by rule, allocates 62 of the additional 67 beds needed to the Palm Beach County subdistrict. The revised pool publication did not include notice of the right to an administrative hearing to challenge the revised pool number. See, Vol. 16, No. 33, Florida Administrative Weekly. There were no challenges filed to either the original or revised fixed need pool numbers. On December 23, 1990, HRS published new psychiatric and substance abuse rules, subsequently renumbered as Rule 10-5.040 and 10-5.041, Florida Administrative Code. These new rules abolished the distinction between short- term and long-term services, and instead distinguished psychiatric and substance abuse services by the age of the patient. Pursuant to Section 14 of the new psychiatric rule, that rule does not apply to applications pending final agency action on the effective date of the new rule. HRS will, however, license any applicant approved from the September 1990 batching cycle to provide services to adults or children and adolescents, using the categories in the new rule, not based on the distinction between short and long term services which existed at the time the application was filed. Approved providers will receive separate CONs for adult and child/adolescent services. Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the fixed need pool shall be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly at least 15 days prior to the letter of intent deadline and . . . shall not be changed or adjusted in the future regardless of any future changes in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors which would lead to different projections of need, if retroactively applied. Humana, Lake, Charter and SandyPines allege that HRS incorrectly determined need under the old rule, by failing to examine occupancy rates pursuant to that rule. The rule provided, in relevant part, No additional short term inpatient hospital adult psychiatric beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds in a service district is at or exceeds 75 percent for the preceding 12 month period. No additional beds for adolescents and children under 18 years of age shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adolescent and children short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in the Department district is at or exceeds 70 percent for the preceding 12 month period. Hospitals seeking additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds must show evidence that the occupancy standard defined in paragraph six is met and that the number of designated short term psychiatric beds have had an occupancy rate of 75 percent or greater for the preceding year. (Emphasis added.) Rule 10-5.011(o)4(e), Florida Administrative Code. HRS' expert witness, Elizabeth Dudek, testified that the fixed need pool for 67 additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds was calculated pursuant to the formula in Rule 10-5.011(l)(o), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Dudek also testified that since calculation resulted in a positive number, according to HRS policy, the publication of the fixed need pool indicates that the occupancy prerequisites must have also been met. To the contrary, the State Agency Action Report and the deposition of Lloyd Tribley, the HRS Health Facilities consultant who collected the data to support the publication of the fixed need pool, indicate that he did not determine existing occupancy separately for adults and for children/adolescents, as required by subsection (e) of the old rule. Rather, he determined, pursuant to subsection (f), that overall occupancy rates for licensed short-term psychiatric beds exceeded 75 percent. With the August 10, 1990 publication of the need for 19 additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds, HRS provided a point of entry to challenge the published need, including the agency's apparent failure to make a determination of existing occupancy rates for separate age categories. No challenge was filed. In the August 17, 1990 publication, HRS failed to provide a point of entry, when it added 48 more beds to the pool as a result of the issuance of a final order denying a prior CON application. The August 10th publication of numeric need, according to HRS' representative should have been based on an analysis of separate and combined occupancy rates. There was no challenge to that publication, therefore the number of beds in the fixed need pool is not at issue in this proceeding. Like and Existing Facilities Humana, Lake and Charter assert that, as a result of the new rule abolishing separate licensure categories for short-term and long-term beds, all psychiatric providers within an applicant's service district are like and existing facilities. These parties also assert that there was not, even under the old rule, any practical difference between these categories of providers, particularly for children/adolescents. In support of this position, the evidence demonstrated that the average lengths of stay in short-term and long- term adolescent psychiatric beds in 1989 were 48.1 days and 53.02 days, respectively. In 1990, the average lengths of stay in short and long-term beds were 41.8 days and 41.9 days, respectively. The parties asserting that the effect of the new rule is to create an additional group of like and existing providers point to HRS' response to the application of Indian River Memorial Hospital in Vero Beach, Florida ("Indian River"). According to the testimony of HRS expert witness Elizabeth Dudek, Indian River was another District 9 applicant in this same batching cycle. Indian River applied for a CON to convert long-term psychiatric beds to short- term psychiatric beds. HRS denied the CON application of Indian River because, under the new rule, which had taken effect before the decisions on the batch were made, Indian River would receive a new license permitting it to treat psychiatric patients regardless of their projected lengths of stay. Glenbeigh asserted that the numeric need for 67 additional short term psychiatric beds cannot be challenged in this proceeding based on the failure of any party timely to challenge the August 10, 1990, publication of need. Similarly, Glenbeigh asserted that the comparison of "like and existing" facilities must be limited to those used in the inventory to compute need. Glenbeigh relied generally on Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.011(o), the old rule governing short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services, for the proposition that "like and existing" in Subsection 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is equivalent to the inventory of licensed and approved beds for short term psychiatric services, which was used in the computation of need. However, the rule also provides, in a list of "other standards and criteria to be considered in determining approval of a certificate of need application for short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds," the following, Applicants shall indicate the availability of other inpatient psychiatric services in the proposed service area, including the number of beds available in crisis stabilization units, short term residential treatment programs, and other inpatient beds whether licensed as a hospital facility or not. In light of the rule directive that the consideration of like and existing services is not limited to licensed provider hospitals, Glenbeigh's assertion that the statutory review criteria is more restrictive and limited to the licensed and approved beds that were used to compute numeric need is rejected. The like and existing facilities are the hospitals or freestanding facilities which are authorized to provide the same psychiatric services, as the applicants seek to provide as a result of this proceeding. It was established at hearing that the following list of District 9 facilities provide psychiatric services comparable to those which the three remaining applicants seek to provide in these consolidated cases: DISTRICT 9 Hospital PSYCHIATRIC BEDS SUBSTANCE ABUSE BEDS Adult Child and Adult Child and Adolescent Adolescent Lic. App. Lic. App. Lic. App. Lic. App. Bethesda Hospital 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charter Palm (IRTF) 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 Fair Oaks 36 0 49 0 14 0 3 0 Forty Fifth Street 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glenbeigh Palm Beach 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 0 Humana Palm Beach 61 0 27 15 0 0 0 0 Humana Sebastian 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Indian River Mem. 16 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 J.F. Kennedy Mem. 14 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 Lake Hospital 46 0 36 0 16 0 0 0 Lawnwood Regional 36 Res. Treat. Palm 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 (IRTF) 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 Sandy Pines 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 Savannas 35 0 15 0 20 0 0 0 St. Mary Hospital 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wellington Regional 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Vol. 16, No. 52, Florida Administrative Weekly, (December 28, 1990) (Humana Exhibit 26). Need For Additional Beds An analysis of need beyond that of the numeric need, requires an analysis of the availability and accessibility of the like and existing facilties. One reliable indicator of need is the occupancy levels in the like and existing facilities. In addition to providing guidelines for the publication of need, Rule 10-5.011(o)(4)(e) also mandates a consideration of occupancy levels to determine if applicants are or are not required to demonstrate "not normal circumstances" necessitating the issuance of a CON. For all child/adolescent psychiatric programs in District 9, the expert for Lake and Humana calculated total average occupancy rates at 57.6 percent in 1988, 64.2 percent in 1989, and 53.2 percent in 1990. In support of the accuracy of the expert's calculations, the District 9 Annual Report for 1990 (Lake Exhibit 4) shows occupancy at 46.80 percent in general hospitals, 88.22 percent in specialty hospitals then categorized as short term and 38.22 percent in specialty hospitals then categorized as long term. In addition, during this same period of time, average lengths of stay in District 9 child/adolescent beds also declined by approximately 10 percent. Using the guidelines of the old rule, new short term psychiatric beds should not normally be approved when the child/adolescent rate is below 70 percent. In the new rule, child/adolescent beds should not normally be approved if occupancy is below 75 percent. Therefore, under either rule, applicants who will be licensed for child/adolescent beds, must demonstrate not normal circumstances for their CON applications to be approved. The expert for Lake and Humana, also computed the adult occupancy rates for 1988-1990 in District 9 as follows: 1988- 66.5 percent; 1989 - 73.1 percent; 1990 - 68.5 percent. The occupancy rates for adult beds for the 12- month period ending March, 1990 was 70.6 percent and 69.2 percent for the twelve months ending June, 1990. In evaluating the accuracy of the expert's calculations of occupancy rates for adult beds, a comparison can be made to the District 9 Annual Report for 1990 (Lake Exhibit 4). Occupancy rates were 57.75 percent in general hospitals and 79.45 percent in specialty hospitals. This data does not include Indian River Memorial or Lawnwood Regional which were also listed on the December 1990 inventory of licensed adult beds, nor St. Mary's Hospital which was listed as having 40 approved adult beds. The comparison indicates the accuracy of concluding that the highest occupancy level for District 9 adult psychiatric beds during the period 1988 to 1990 was approximately 70 percent. Using the guidelines of the old rule, 75 percent occupancy is required before new adult beds can be approved unless there is a not normal circumstance. Boca's Proposal Boca Raton Community Hospital ("Boca") is a 394-bed not-for-profit acute care hospital, accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals and Health Organizations, which proposes to convert 21 of its medical/surgical to 15 adult psychiatric beds and to delicense an additional 6 acute care beds. Boca's CON would be conditioned on the provision of 10.8 percent total annual patient days to Medicaid patients and a minimum of 5 percent gross revenues generated, or 2 percent total annual patient days to medically indigent patients. Boca has proposed this alternative so that, if it fails to provide direct care to indigents, it may donate the revenues to further the objectives of the state and district mental health councils. Boca Raton Community Hospital Corporation has control and manages the Boca's property, policies and funds. The Boca Raton Community Hospital Foundation raises funds for Boca and has the funds necessary to accomplish the proposed project at a cost of $932,531. Boca's application asserts that a not normal circumstance exists in the need to serve Medicaid patients in the district, and that a need exists to serve geriatric psychiatric patients in an acute care hospital, due to their general medical condition. Medicaid reimbursement for psychiatric care is only available in acute care hospitals. Boca Historically serves in excess of 70 percent Medicare (geriatric) patients. In 1990, 72 percent of Medicaid psychiatric patients residing in Boca's service area sought psychiatric services outside District 9, as compared to the outmigration of 14.7 percent Medicare patients, and 11 percent commercial insurance patients. Boca supported its proposed 10.8 percent Medicaid CON condition, with evidence that 10.8 percent of all psychiatric discharges in its market area were for Medicaid patients. Boca's opponents dispute the claim that a disproportionate outmigration of District 9 Medicaid patients is, in and of itself, a not normal circumstance. Using the travel time standard for inpatient psychiatric services of 45 minutes under average driving conditions, the opponents argue that District 10 facilities should be considered as available alternatives to additional psychiatric beds in District 9. In fact, the parties stipulated that there are no geographic access problems in District 9. In contrast to the opponents position, Subsections 381.705(a), (b)(, (d), (f) and (h), Florida Statutes (1991), indicate that need, available alternatives and accessibility are evaluated within a district, as defined by Subsection 381.702(5). Therefore, using the statutory criteria as indicative of the situation which is normal, the disproportionate outmigration of medicaid patients can be considered a not normal circumstance with a showing of access hardships for this payor group. Boca's opponents also assert general acute care adult beds are adequate. In August 1991, the occupancy rate was 56.9 percent in the 171 licensed adult psychiatric beds in District 9 general acute care hospitals which are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Finally, Boca's opponents argue that Boca historically has not, and will not serve Medicaid patients in sufficient number to alter the outmigration. In 1990, Boca reported 671 Medicaid inpatient days from a total of 99,955. That is equivalent to 92 of the 16,170 admissions. Because Boca has a closed medical staff, only the psychiatrists on staff would be able to admit patients to a psychiatric unit. From the testimony and depositions received in evidence, Boca's psychiatrists who discussed their service to Medicaid patients treated less than 12 Medicaid patients a year. One psychiatrist, who had previously treated Medicaid patients at a mental health center, has been in private practice since 1983-84, but was not sure he had treated a Medicaid patient in his private practice and has received a new Medicaid provider number a few weeks prior to hearing. One Boca psychiatrist does not treat Medicaid patients on an inpatient basis. Two other Boca psychiatrists reported seeing 10 and "a couple" of Medicaid patients a year, respectively. The latter of these described the Medicaid billing procedure as cumbersome. Given the unavailability of Medicaid eligible beds in the District and the nature of the practices of its closed staff of psychiatrists, Boca has failed to establish that its CON application will alleviate the outmigration for psychiatric services of District 9 Medicaid patients. This conclusion is not altered by the subsequent closure of Lake's 46 adult psychiatric beds, because Medicaid reimbursement would not have been available at Lake which was not an acute care hospital. In fact, HRS takes the position that there are no not normal circumstances in this case. Wellington's Proposal Wellington, a 120 bed hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida, proposed to convert 15 acute care beds to 15 short term adult psychiatric beds which, if approved, will be licensed as adult psychiatric beds. Wellington's acute care beds are only 28 percent occupied. Wellington is located in the western portion of Palm Beach County, where no other inpatient psychiatric facilities are located. Wellington is a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. ("UHS"), accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals and Health Organizations (JCAHO) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), and offers clinical experience for students of the Southeastern College of Osteopathic Medicine (SECOM). Internships and externships for osteopathic students are also provided at Humana's psychiatric pavilion. Wellington proposes to fund the total project cost of $920,000 from funds available to UHS and intends to become a Baker Act receiving facility. Wellington is not a disproportionate share hospital, and projects 1 percent Medicaid service in its payor mix. Wellington proposes to serve adult psychiatric patients in 15 beds, and projects 53.3 percent and 70 percent occupancy in those beds in years one and two, but does not make a third year projection of at least 80 percent occupancy as required by Paragraph 4(d) of Rule 10-5.011(o). Because the average annual adult occupancy rate in the district is less than 75 percent, any applicant proposing to serve adults must demonstrate that a not normal circumstance exists for approval of its CON application. In addition, there appears to be no shortage of psychiatric beds in acute care hospitals in District 9. See Finding of Fact 39, supra. Not Normal Circumstance Wellington has not alleged nor demonstrated that any of the factors related to its current operations, location or proposed services are not normal circumstances in support of its CON application. Absent the showing of a not normal circumstance, Wellington's proposal cannot be approved, pursuant to Paragraph 4(e) and Rule 10-5.011(o), Florida Administrative Code. Savannas Proposal Savannas Hospital Limited partnership d/b/a Savannas Hospital ("Savannas") is a JCAHO accredited 70 bed psychiatric and substance abuse hospital located in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida, approximately 40 miles north of Palm Beach. Savannas, a Baker Act facility, proposes to convert all 20 of its licensed substance abuse beds to psychiatric beds and to add 10 new psychiatric beds, at a total project cost of $1,444,818. Savannas also proposes to commit to providing 7 percent indigent care. While not specifically describing its circumstances as not normal, Savannas does indicate that it is (1) the only applicant in the northern sub- district of District 9, and (2) could readmit to a segregated unit low functioning neurogeriatric patients of the type it previously served. Savannas also indicated that Medicare reimbursement is not available for patients who have substance abuse, rather than psychiatric primary diagnoses. As a freestanding provider, Savannas is not eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Savannas demonstrates what services it would provide, if its CON is approved, but fails to identify a need for the services by District 9 psychiatric patients. Within the northern sub-district, the only other facility in St. Lucie County, Lawnwood, reported an occupancy rate of 65 percent in 1989. AHCA also argued that the substance abuse beds at Savannas are needed and should not be converted to psychiatric beds. That position is supported by the fact that Savannas substance abuse beds had a higher occupancy level than its psychiatric beds in 1989. Savannas' application and the evidence presented do not support the need for the services proposed by Savannas, nor does Savannas assert that any not normal circumstances exist.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Certificate of Need Number 6438 to Glenbeigh Hospital of Palm Beach, Inc.; Certificate of Need Number 6442 to Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc.; Certificate of Need Number 6441 to Wellington Regional Medical Center, Inc.; and Certificate of Need Number 6444 to Savannas Hospital Limited Partnership. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of June 1993. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June 1993. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Humana Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 2. 3-6. Issues not addressed. 7-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 44 and 46. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 10. 11-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 13-15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 & 29. Issue not addressed. 20-21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 22. Issue not addressed. 23-24. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12 and Conclusions of Law 4. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected in Findings of Fact 12 and 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. Rejected in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. 38-47. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 44 and 47. Issue not addressed. Rejected in Finding of Fact 46. Issue not addressed. 52-54. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46 and 47. 55-57. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 54 Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 26, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 48, 54, 55 and 57. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 74-75. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 27. 76-77. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 82. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 82. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 37. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 39. Issue not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27 and 30. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27, 29 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 42. Issue not addressed. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 1. 95-99. Issues not addressed Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 102-114. Issues not addressed Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Issue not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 37. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10. 121-122. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 4 and 47. Issue not addressed. Irrlevant. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10 Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 10, 25, 47 and 48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 11. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47, 48 and 49. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 46. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47 and 48. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47 and 48. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 15. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47, 48 and 49. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 11. Lake Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 43. 11-12. Issues not addressed. 13-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27-43. 20-21. Issues not addressed. 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 27-28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 29-31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 32. Rejected in relevant part in Finding of Fact 13. 33. Issue not addressed. 34. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 35. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 36-37. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 38-39. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 40. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 41. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 30. 42-43. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. 44. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 45. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 46-47. Issues not addressed. 48. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 49-52. Issues not addressed. 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 42. 54-56. Issues not addressed. 57. Accepted in relevant part in Conclusions of Law 4. 58-59. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26 and in Conclusions of Law 4. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 65-66. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18, 27 and 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 39 and 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 39 and 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47, 48, 49, 53 and 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 84-89. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 92-97. Issues not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 37. 100-102. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47 and 48. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 111-113. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Adopted. Adopted. Accepted in relevant part. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 3 and 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. Issue not addressed. 128-132. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 133-135. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32 and 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. 150-151. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 152-156. Issues not addressed. 157-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 159. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. 160. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 161. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 162. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 163. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 164. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 165. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 166. Charter Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 1. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Adopted. 4-10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 12-15. Issues not addressed. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 18-19. Issues not addressed. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 21-25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 8. 26-38. Issues not addressed 39-40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 43-44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adoped in Conclusion of Law 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Issue not addressed. 52-53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 54-55. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 58-73. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 78-79. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 86-94. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 39 and 42. 99-101. Issues not addressed. 102. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 103-134. Issues not addressed. 135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 136-140. Issues not addressed. Boca Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 12. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 14. Adopted. 15-16. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 18. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 19. Issue not addressed. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 22. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 23. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 28-30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 34. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 36. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 37-42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 43-47. Issues not addressed. 48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. 49-50. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Issue not addressed. 53-54. Rejected in Finding of Fact 30. 55-56. Issues not addressed. 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 58-59. Issues not addressed. Rejected in Findings of Fact 39 and 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 64-65. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 35 and 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 34. Issue not addressed. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Issue not addressed. Adopted. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 81-82. Rejected in Finding of Fact 42. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25 and 42. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 89-97. Issues not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Rejected in Finding of Fact 42. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Sandy Pines 1. Issue not addressed. 2-3. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 4. Issue not addressed. 5. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 9. 6-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 9-13. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 20-24. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 9. 26-29. Issues not addressed. 30. Adopted. 31-33. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43, 48, 49 and 54. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Issue not addressed. 39-40. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 41-42. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 12 and 17. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 17. 46-47. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 48. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25 and 26. 49-50. Issues not addressed. Adopted. Adopted. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 42. 55-56. Issues not addressed. 57. Adopted. 58-59. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Conclusion of Law 3. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 62-64. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 67. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 22. 68-69. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. 70. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 71. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26 and in 72. Conclusion of Law 3. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 26 and 73. 38. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 25, 27 and 30. 74-75. Not legible. 76. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 77-80. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 81. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 82-83. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 84-95. Issues not addressed. Wellington 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 8-10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 13-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 44. 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 46. 21-22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 44 and 46. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. 27-28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 31-32. Issues not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Adopted. Issue not addressed. 36-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 38-42. Issues not addressed. 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34, 42 and 47. 44-63. Issues not addressed. 64-65. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. 66-67. Issues not addressed. 68. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 69-91. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 47. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. 94-103. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 1 and 44. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. 106-111. Issues not addressed 112. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25, 27 and 30. 113-115. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. Savannas Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 50. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 50. Adopted. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Rejected in Finding of Fact 56. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 51. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 30-33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 35-37. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Issue not addressed. 40-42. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. 44-48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50. 49-51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. Adopted. Adopted. 56-57. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50 Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. Issue not addressed. 60-61. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. 62-63. Issues not addressed. 64. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 65-66. Issues not addressed. 67. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. 68-70. Issues not addressed. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 72-77. Issues not addressed 78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 79-100. Issues not addressed. HRS Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 16 and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10-11. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. 16-17. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 32, 46 and 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 22. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 2. 23-33. Issues not addressed. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 35-36. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. 37. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 32. 38. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 39. Rejected in Findings of Fact 40, 41 and 42. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 41. Issue not addressed. 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 44. Issue not addressed. 45-46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. 48. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 44. 49. Issue not addressed. 50. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 46. 51. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. 52. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 46. 53-54. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. 55. Issue not addressed. 56-57. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. 58. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. 59-61. Issues not addressed. 62-64. Adopted in Findings of Fact 50 and 51. 65. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 65. 66-68. Issues not addressed. 69. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 52. 70-71. Issues not addressed. 72. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 53. 73. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 53. 74. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 75-77. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. 78-80. Issues not addressed. 81-82. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. 83-89. Issues not addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Cooper, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William B. Wiley, Esquire McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 James C. Hauser, Esquire Foley & Lardner Post Office Box 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire David C. Ashburn, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire C. Gary Williams, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire John F. Gilroy, III, Esquire Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles H. Hood, Jr., Esquire MONACO, SMITH, HOOD, PERKINS, ORFINGER & STOUT 444 Seabreeze Boulevard, #900 Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether an out-of-state corporation doing business as a psychiatric hospital located out of state and as a counseling servico located in Florida's District I is entitled to formal administrative proceedings on an application for certificate of need filed by another party seeking a certificate of need to construct an 80-bed long-term psychiatric hospital in District I? For present purposes Bay Psychiatric's well-pleaded, factual allegations in its petition for formal hearing are assumed to be true. The petition alleges essentially the following ASSUMED FACTS Bay Psychiatric proposes to build an 80-bed long-term psychiatric hospital in Bay County, Florida, and HRS proposes to grant it certificate of need No. 3204 authorizing it to do so. The proposed hospital's primary service area is to be HRS Districts l and 2. Petitioner operates a free standing psychiatric hospital in Dothan, Alabama, which "includes beds defined as long-term psychiatric beds by Rule 10- 5.11(26), Florida Administrative Code, and beds defined as short-term psychiatric beds by Rule 10-5.11(25), Florida Administrative Code." Approximately one quarter of the Dothan hospital's patients come across the state line from HRS Districts l and 2. Last year the Dothan hospital experienced less than an 80 percent occupancy rate of its long-term beds, less than a 75 percent occupancy rate of its adult short-term beds, and less than a 70 percent occupancy rate of its other short-term beds. If Bay Psychiatric receives a certificate of need, the Dothan hospital "will be substantially and adversely affected because any patients admitted to the proposed UNITED MEDICAL facility would otherwise likely have been admitted to CHARTER WOODS HOSPITAL. Petitioner also operates a "counseling and intervention facility located in Panama City, Florida, "offering various outpatient services which "at least in part" are the types of outpatient services Bay Psychiatric would offer at its proposed hospital. Because of "a finite patient population" petitioner's counseling facility would also be "substantially and adversely affected " if Bay Psychiatric receives a certificate of need.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative dismiss the petition for formal proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire 318 North Calhoun Street Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3300 William E. Hoffman, Jr. James A. Dyer Bondurant Miller Hishon and Stephenson 2200 First Atlanta Tower Two Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30383 F. Philip Blank, Esquire 241 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chris H. Bentley, Esquire Fuller & Johnson, P.A. 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winuwood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
