The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Adele "Nikki" Leon, holds Florida teaching certificate number 413436, covering the area of emotional disturbances and special learning disabilities. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. At all times material hereto, respondent was employed by the Dade County Public Schools, Palmetto Adult Education Center, as a part-time teacher, and was assigned to teach Adult Basic Education for the Elderly (ABE) at Snapper Creek Nursing Home. Pertinent to this case, respondent's assignment during September and October 1992, included the teaching of an ABE class at Snapper Creek Nursing Home each Tuesday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. According to respondent's attendance reports for that period, twenty-five residents were enrolled in the class. On September 15, 1992, Ivette Morgan, assistant principal of Palmetto Adult Education Center, at the request of Edward Gehret, principal of Palmetto Adult Education Center, visited Snapper Creek Nursing Home to evaluate the adult education program. During the course of that visit, as well as visits on September 22, September 29, and October 20, 1992, Dr. Morgan had an opportunity to observe respondent's Tuesday class. On those occasions, Dr. Morgan noted only four to six residents in the classroom. 4/ Dr. Morgan reported her observations regarding class attendance to Dr. Gehret who, at the time, had been involved with enrollment and attendance review for, inter alia, Snapper Creek Nursing Home. Based on that review, Dr. Gehret observed that respondent had routinely marked all twenty-five residents in her class as "present," which did not square with Dr. Morgan's observations. On October 22, 1992, Dr. Gehret met with respondent to review the discrepancies he perceived in her attendance report procedures. At that time, it was the School Board's policy to mark residents "present" for an ABE class if they appeared at any time during the class period, no matter how briefly; but if they never appeared, to mark them as "absent." 5/ Respondent advised Dr. Gehret that she was of a different perception, and understood that nursing home residents enrolled in an ABE class were not to be marked as "absent" but, rather as "present," whether attending or not, so long as they were still in the facility. Notwithstanding, following the meeting, respondent agreed to conform her attendance procedure to the policy Dr. Gehret outlined. Regarding the discrepancies in respondent's attendance reports, when measured against the School Board's policy, the proof demonstrates that for the attendance reporting periods of September 14-27, September 28-October 11, and October 12-25, 1992, respondent completed and signed the attendance report for her Tuesday class on which she marked as "present" nursing home residents Helen Ambler and Gertrude Monge. Ms. Ambler and Ms. Monge were not, however "present" during such periods since they had died September 2, 1992, and June 15, 1992, respectively. The proof further demonstrated that for the same reporting periods, respondent had marked as "present" nursing home residents Agaton Bolanio, Nazario Lopez, and Martin Ruiz. Mr. Bolanio, Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ruiz were not, however, "present" during such periods since they had been discharged from the nursing home on June 19, 1992, July 20, 1992, and May 14, 1992, respectively. Finally, based on Dr. Morgan's observations of respondent's Tuesday class on September 15, September 22, September 29, and October 20, 1992, wherein she observed no more than four to six residents in attendance, it is reasonable to conclude that a significant number of residents who were marked as "present," other than the residents heretofore mentioned, were likewise not "present" on those dates. Which residents and why they were not present was not, however, established of record. 6/ Regarding the ABE program and the preparation of enrollment and attendance reports at Snapper Creek Nursing Home, the proof demonstrates that the ABE program was under the direction of the nursing home activities director who, without the participation of the instructors, prepared the enrollment for each class. 7/ Accordingly, respondent would not necessarily have known the residents assigned to her class, and reasonably assumed that the list of residents she received from the activities director contained current residents of the nursing home. Likewise, respondent relied on the activities director to advise her when residents died, were discharged or were otherwise no longer able or interested in attending before removing them from the roll; however, such information was rarely provided by the activities director. Finally, absent advice to the contrary from the activities director, respondent did not consider a resident's failure to attend on a given day an absence, as in the traditional classroom setting, and routinely marked them "present." Such practice in the ABE program was reflective of the voluntary nature of the program, as opposed to compulsory attendence in the traditional school setting, and the unavailability of information, except from the activities director, as to the reason a resident did not attend. Notably, residents frequently did not attend because, inter alia, nurses aides failed to bring them to class or they were too ill to attend, as opposed to not wanting to attend the course any longer. That such was the procedure at Snapper Creek Nursing Home, and perhaps other adult education centers in Dade County, finds other support in the record apart from respondent's testimony. For example, another instructor, Evelyn Foster, during the times in question, carried Francies Lambrou as "present" on her attendance record until July 27, 1992, although she was discharged July 2, 1992; and carried Maria Diaz, Carmen Morela, and Lorenzo Legundo as "present" until at least October 9, 1992, although Ms. Diaz and Ms. Morela were discharged September 5, 1992, and Mr. Segundo was discharged September 24, 1992. Moreover, Dr. Morgan found it necessary, at sometime between September 15 and October 26, 1992, to give the activities director specific instructions on how attendance was to be recorded, and Dr. Gehret found it necessary to conduct a "rollbook workshop" at Snapper Creek Nursing Home for all instructors, as well as agreeing to urge the nurses aides to bring the residents who desired to attend to class. [Petitioner's exhibit 1, pages 17 and 21, and respondent's exhibit 12.] Finally, there is of record a memorandum of July 8, 1993, almost one year after the events at issue in this case, from Connie Gilbert, District Director, Division of Adult Education, Dade County Schools, to all adult education center principals, which suggests continued confusion in attendance procedures for off- campus classes and that the practice at Snapper Creek Nursing Home was not an isolated occurance. That memorandum provided, in part, as follows: SUBJECT: ATTENDANCE PROCEDURES Off-campus visitations have revealed problems and confusion about attendance procedures. Please inform all teachers of the following procedures: Students must be present in a teacher's class and participate in the class activities in order for the teacher to mark this student present in that class. * * * Please make sure that off-campus teachers understand that students present "someplace in the facility" can not be considered present in a particular class. Students must be physically present in a class in order to be marked present in that class. Given the proof, it must be concluded that respondent's failure to record attendance in accordance with school board policy was, more likely than not, a consequence of a misunderstanding of, or ignorance of, that policy. In this regard, it is observed that no state policy for recording ABE attendance was established of record, and no proof that any policy established by the school board had been reduced to writing or imparted to respondent, or any other adult education instructor, prior to the events giving rise to the issues in this case. Accordingly, it follows that there was no compelling proof that respondent, by completing the attendance reports in the manner she did, had any intent to deceive the school board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative compliant. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of May 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 May 1995.
Findings Of Fact The parties' stipulation The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Forum and Amedex timely filed their respective letters of intent and applications with the Department and the District Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. The Department ultimately deemed the applications complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the applications. Forum and Amedex each timely filed a petition requesting a formal hearing on the denial of their application. With regard to the Forum application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Forum's project financially unfeasible, that the project is not the best use of Forum's resources, and that Forum fails to meet the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Forum's 60-bed proposal. With regard to the Amedex application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Amedex's project financially unfeasible, and that the project is not the best use of Amedex's resources. The Department further contends that Amedex has not demonstrated that it can provide quality of care, that it has not demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the short or long term, that it has not provided long range plans and that, even assuming minimal need, the size of Amedex' proposed project will cause difficulty in meeting projected utilization needs based on Broward County's past utilization rates. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Amedex' 240-bed proposal. As between the applicants, they agree that a comparative review is appropriate to determine the best applicant. Further, they agree for purposes of this proceeding that the other meets all statutory and rule criteria, at least minimally, except the following: need beyond 60 beds, ability to provide quality of care, and availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation. The parties have further agreed that there are no special circumstances existent in this case upon which a certificate of need is being sought. The Amedex Proposal In July 1986 Amedex filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a 240-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. The total project cost is projected to be $9,040,228. At hearing, Amedex failed to offer any competent proof to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposed project, that it could provide quality care, or that it had available the necessary funds for project accomplishment and operation. 1/ While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Amedex's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health services would be a more appropriate use of the resources. The Forum Proposal In July 1986, Forum also filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. Forum's application sought leave to construct a 60-bed facility. The estimated cost for construction of Forum's proposed nursing home is $2,39,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Forum's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resources. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops, and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Broward County that would consist of 120 apartments for independent living, a 30-bed adult congregate living facility, and the proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home. Forum has packaged its centers to provide these three levels of service to meet the desires of retired persons they hope to attract to their retirement community. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum would offer a wide range of services for its residents including: 24-hour skilled and intermediate nursing care, physical therapy services, and other restorative services. Additionally, Forum proposes to offer, as needed, subacute services such as: intravenous care, continuous bladder irrigation, oxygen therapy, nastrogastric tube feeding, ventilator care, insulin treatment, sterile dressing changes, and sterile care of tracheotomies. Forum also proposes to offer in the future, if need is identified and if any necessary agreements can be reached, respite care, adult day care, meals on wheels and hospice care. Forum proposes to seek medicare and medicaid certification, and will dedicate 25 of its beds to medicaid patients. Forum has a history of providing quality care at its existing facilities, and will provide quality care at the proposed facility. Forum has demonstrated the immediate and long term financial feasibility of its proposed project. Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. Due to the excellent growth potential in Broward County for retirement living centers, Forum should be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible. However, in view of the lack of numeric need for such facility as discussed infra, Forum's success will be to the detriment of existing and approved facilities. Numeric need The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2, Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology ... the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i... The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case, establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2 a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict (in this case the district and subdistrict are the same--Broward County) in the horizon year. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA," the estimated bed rate for the population age-group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA = LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB) is calculated based on the number of licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986, and that there were 3,226 licensed beds in the district on that date. 2/ The parties do not, however, agree as to the date on which POPC and POPD should be derived. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Forum contends that the appropriate date to establish the "current population" for POPC and POPD is January 1, 1986. The Department contends that the appropriate date is the date of application. In the opinion of David Warner, which opinion is credited, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that date, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of the Department. Between December 1984 and December 1986, the Department routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. That three and one half year spread was adopted by the Department for the same reasons expressed by Dr. Warner. In the batching cycle of January 1987, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2b to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + (6 x 110,217) BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + 661,302) BA = 3,226 / 820,180 BA = .0039332 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB," the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0039332 BB = .0235992 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A," the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. The parties concur that POPA and POPB are, respectively, 165,533 and 128,250 for the horizon year. Accordingly, application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a produces the following calculation: A = (165,533 x .0039332) + (128,250 x .0235992) A = 651.07439 + 3,026.5974 A = 3,677.67 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA," the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds" (gross bed need in this case. 3/ This calculation is defined by subparagraph 2d as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept. Accordingly, the parties agree that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d, but, rather is defined by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In Broward County (District X) LB and LBD are the same since the county has not been divided into subdistricts. Application of the foregoing methodology to the facts of this case produces a gross need in July 1989 of 3,453 beds, computed as follows: 4/ SA = 3,677.67 x (3226/3226) x (.845/.9) SA = 3,677.67 x 1 x .938888 SA = 3452.92 The net need calculation The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net reed from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed need allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for certificate of need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental sub- district from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. Notably, former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 comports with the new rule in all material respects. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts, through application of "policy," that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 for calculating LB and LBD), and the number of approved beds as of December 1, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). Forum would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no proof to expose and elucidate its policy choice. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and Forum for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. 5/ The inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph 2i, as well as former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's policy choice concerning the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational since it could result in some nursing home beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed in June 1, 1986, but licensed before the supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report (SAAR), they would not be counted in either inventory. Since the purpose of subparagraph 2i is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures, to the greatest extent possible, that the horizon population will not be over or underserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated by reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds, from previous batching cycles, existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing, there were 3,226 licensed beds and 695 approved beds in the district/subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a surplus of 399 community nursing home beds in the district for the June 1989 planning horizon. Consistency with State and local health plans The parties have stipulated that both proposals are consistent with the State and local health plans except for Forum's facial failure to comply with the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. Pertinent to this issue, the local health plan provides: In addition to controlling capacity in order to discourage the construction of unneeded beds, the certificate of need program addresses cost containment by encouraging efficiencies in operation as a criteria to certificate of need approval. A number of operational models have historically proven to be positive influences on efficiency. Licensure laws, for instance, require nursing home staffing patterns to be structured in minimum modules of 30 bed configurations. As a result, the construction of nursing homes with beds totalling numbers not divisible by 30, has the capability of encouraging over staffing. Similarly, experience has shown that freestanding nursing homes constructed at less than 120 beds also are less cost efficient compared to larger facilities. Likewise, since construction and corresponding debt service retirement is greater for freestanding facilities than for new construction on existing facilities, expansion and conversion as an alternative to new construction frequently acts to reduce costs. The basis for the 120-bed minimum size for a "freestanding" facility in the local health plan is to insure efficiency and economy of scale. The 60- bed project proposed by Forum is not "freestanding" but is an integral part of a retirement center which also includes 120 independent living units and a 30-bed adult congregate living facility. Under the circumstances, the economies and efficiencies contemplated by the local health plan will be achieved, and Forum's proposal is consistent with such plan. The local health plan also provides, as a recommendation, that: ... applications for certificates of need to construct additional nursing home beds should be approved so as to support the State policy of 27 beds/1000 population over age 65 in Broward County. Considering the population over age 65 at the applicants' planning horizon, as well as the number of licensed and approved beds in the district, calculates a 14.36 beds/1000 population over age 65 for July 1989. Accordingly, the applicants' proposal is consistent with state and local health plans regarding bed to population ratio. Comparative Review As between the competing applicants, the proof demonstrates that Forum is the superior applicant, and that were the award of a certificate of need appropriate in this case that its application would be the one of choice. Under no circumstance does the proof support an award to Amedex, since it failed to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, failed to demonstrate that it would provide quality care, and failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient resources for project accomplishment and operation. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications of Amedex and Forum, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1987), or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. In the case of Amedex, the lack of need in the district, as well as its failure to demonstrate compliance with relevant criteria as discussed in paragraph 46, demonstrates that, on balance, its application should be denied. In the case of Forum, its application meets all relevant statutory and rule criteria except need. Need is the key criteria in the instant case. Forum's failure to satisfy that criterion by proof of numeric need or special circumstances is dispositive of its application for licensure, and such failure is not outweighed by any other, or combination of any other, criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the applications for certificate of need filed by Amedex and Forum be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for Certificates of Need should be approved?
Findings Of Fact Ocala Ocala is a general partnership composed of three partners: Ocala Health Care Associates, Inc., Casterfield, Ltd., and Big Sun Healthcare Systems, the lessee and operator of Munroe Regional Medical Center. Ocala is the current holder of an approved CON for 35 community beds in Marion County. If the 21-bed transfer of sheltered beds to community beds is approved, Ocala intends to operate a 56-bed facility. A 56-bed facility is more viable than a 35-bed facility. At the time of the hearing, there were 642 approved and licensed beds and 215 approved not yet licensed beds in Marion County. The 215 beds include Ocala's 35-bed CON. A patient needing subacute care is one who has been released from acute care status by a physician and is ready to be released from a hospital (acute care) to a less costly facility, e.g. a skilled nursing home. Subacute care patients are those needing, e.g., intravenous tubes, respirators, IV medication, decubitus ulcer care, tracheotomy tubes, or antibiotic therapy. Patients needing subacute care should be placed in a nursing home, since this is less costly than hospital care and it allows for acute care beds in a hospital to be used for patients needing acute care. Skilled nursing homes are authorized to provide subacute care, but are not required to do so. In order to provide subacute care, a nursing home may need additional staff and equipment. There is a problem in Marion County with the placement of subacute care patients in nursing homes. This problem is caused by a variety of factors and usually results in a patient remaining in a hospital longer than is necessary. One factor is that some of the existing nursing homes will not accept patients needing certain types of subacute care, e.g., patients needing ventilators or feeding tubes. Another equally important factor is that the nursing homes want to make sure they will get paid and there is usually some delay in determining how the nursing home will be compensated. Other factors include the patients inability to pay and, on occasion, the unavailability of beds. Ocala intends to use its 35-bed approved CON to provide subacute care. Country Club While the application shows the applicant's name as "Country Club Retirement Center," that is the name of the project. The applicant is Mr. J. E. Holland. Mr. Holland's application is for a 60-bed nursing home which will be part of a 250-apartment continuing care community. The facility is to be located in Clermont, in Lake County. Lake County is in Planning Area VII of HRS District III. Planning Area VII also includes Sumter County. Mr. Keach, the only witness presented by Country Club, is Vice President of National Health Care. National Health Care operates a nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. In addition to operating the nursing home, National Health Care assists persons seeking a CON with preparation of the CON application. Mr. Keach and other National Health Care employees assisted Mr. Holland with the preparation of the CON application submitted in this case. National Health Care will not own or operate Mr. Holland's facility. Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in Clermont for a 60- bed nursing home. He bases his opinion on letters of support for the construction of the facility, on petitions signed by persons attending a public hearing, and on four or five visits to the area. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report there were 958 beds approved and licensed in Planning Area VII. Of these, 838 are located in Lake County, with 142 located in a nursing home in Clermont. Also these are swing-beds providing long-term care at a hospital in Clermont. Finally, there were 236 beds approved not yet licensed in Planning Area VII, with 176 to be located in Lake County. The occupancy rate for the nursing home facility located in Clermont is approximately 89 percent. For the six months ending March, 1988, the occupancy rate for Planning Area VII was below 80 percent. There are at least two nursing homes in operation within a 20-mile radius of Clermont. These two nursing homes are located in Winter Garden and one of them has received a CON to add 89 beds. Twenty-Eight Corporation The applicant in this case is Twenty-Eight Corporation. "The owner of the nursing home will be the Levy Nursing Care Center, a limited partnership, which will be owned and secured by Twenty-Eight Corporation." (28 Corporation, Composite Exhibit 1.) Twenty-Eight corporation seeks approval of a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be operated as part of a continuing care project which will include a 50-unit apartment complex. The facility is to be located in Chiefland, Florida, in Levy County. Levy County is in Planning Area II of HRS District III. Planning Area II also includes Alachua, Gilchrist and Dixie counties. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report, there were 1112 licensed nursing home beds in Planning Area II. Of these, 120 are located in Trenton, in Gilchrist County, 180 are located in Williston, in Levy County, and the rest are located in Alachua County. Also, there are 147 beds approved not yet licensed to be located in Alachua County. Chiefland is approximately 12 miles from Trenton. Williston is approximately 27 miles from Trenton. Mr. Keach was the only witness who testified on behalf of Twenty-Eight Corporation. Mr. Keach is vice-president of National Health Care. (See Finding of Fact 17, supra.) Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in the Chiefland area for a 60-bed nursing home. His opinion is based on letters of support and petitions of support he received for the project. Also, his opinion is based on the fact that there is no nursing home located in Chiefland and the nearest nursing home is located in Trenton, 12 miles away. The 1986 District III Health Plan shows the Trenton facility having an occupancy rate of 99.93 percent. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' applications in these three cases. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1862, 88-1863, 88-1864 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Ocala's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Accepted. 2-4. Supported by competent, substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 5-7. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. There is not an absolute absence of facilities willing to accept all patients needing subacute care. Irrelevant. "Serious concerns" are not what is needed under the Rule. First sentence rejected as recitation of testimony. Second sentence irrelevant; issue is whether nursing homes will accept patients, not whether nursing homes will enter into agreement with MRMC. 13-16. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. (a) Rejected to the extent it implies that the approved facilities would not provide subacute care. Mr. Bailey's testimony is that the facilities refused to enter into a relationship with MRMC; this does not establish that the facilities would not provide subacute care. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The weight of the evidence shows that some facilities would accept same subacute patients. True, but it is unclear if these are the physician's notations the HRS witness referred to. True that charts and logs were provided, but they did not establish the number of patients in need of subacute care in excess of licensed or approved beds. 19-26. Irrelevant. 27-29. Accepted-for what they are, but insufficient to establish need. Twenty-Eight Corporation's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4 Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. But see Finding of Fact 31. Mr. Keach testified that Chiefland is 40 miles from Williston. The road map published by the Department of Transportation shows the distance between the two cities at 27 miles. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. Also, a determination by a family member does not establish medical "need". True that this is Mr. Keach's opinion. However, Mr. Keach's opinion is rejected. His opinion of need is not based on what the Rule requires or on what health planners rely on to establish need. Mr. Keach is not able to testify as to the financial feasibility of the facility because he has no first- hand knowledge of the finances. 21-22. Irrelevant. 23. Rejected. See ruling on 10., supra. 24-26. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Irrelevant; this is not a rule challenge. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 37-38. Irrelevant. First phrase accepted. Second phrase rejected to extent implies that only need to show that no other facility exists within 20 miles. Irrelevant. Country Club's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 14-17. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. True, but irrelevant. See ruling on 11, supra. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. The Rule also recognizes this. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 33-34. True, but irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. 35-39. Irrelevant. 40. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 41-42. Accepted 43. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 44. True, but irrelevant. Also, there are approved beds within 20 miles, but located in a different HRS District. Leesburg's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted. 10-15. See Conclusions of Law section of RO. Accepted. Rejected as argument. Accepted. Rejected. Fact that need does not exist under HRS rule doesn't necessarily mean that that facility will not be financially feasible. In any event, Country Club was not able to establish financial feasibility. 20-21. See Conclusions of Law. 22. Rejected as argument. 23-28. Supported by competent substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted.- HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-19. Accepted. Rejected. The HRS witness did not specifically state that HRS needs to see the actual physician referral. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 22-28. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 29. Not a finding of fact. 30-37. Accepted. 38. Irrelevant. 39-42. Unnecessary to the decision reached. Irrelevant. Accepted. 45-46. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Not a finding of fact. 50-65. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 66. Not a finding of fact. 67-71. Accepted, but Ocala's Exhibits 6 & 7 are not amendments to the application but simply more of the same information that was provided with the application. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 First Florida Bank Building Suite 600 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 307 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Grafton Wilson, II, Esquire 711 NW 23rd Avenue, Suite #4 Gainesville, Florida 32609 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
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Stacey Health Care Centers, Inc., is licensed to operate Riverside Care Center, located at 899 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Florida, as a nursing home in compliance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. On July 9, 1986, James A. Bavetta, assistant area supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, made a visit of Riverside's facility and determined that Ralph Stacey, Jr., the administrator of record, was acting in the capacity of administrator for two facilities, the subject facility and another facility in Kentucky, without having a qualified assistant administrator to act in his absence. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ralph L. Stacey Jr., is a licensed nursing home administrator in the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. He has been licensed in Kentucky and Florida since 1974. At the time of Mr. Bavetta's visit and inspection during July, 1986, Ralph Stacey, Jr., was in Cincinnati, Ohio preparing the payroll for Stacey Health Care Centers. During this time period, Ralph Stacey, Jr., served as the administrator for the subject facility, Riverside Care Center, and another facility in Kentucky and did not have a qualified assistant administrator employed to act in his absence. However, once Mr. Bavetta issued his recommendation for sanctions, Petitioner, as part of its plan of correction, has employed a licensed administrator who is presently on staff and serves as Riverside's assistant administrator during the administrator's absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn it is RECOMMENDED: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) upon Stacey Health Care Centers- Inc., d/b/a Riverside Care Center, which amount shall be payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of Respondent's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3410 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard -Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly changed Petitioner's licensure status to conditional on June 23, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a nursing home in Venice, Florida. Respondent conducted a relicensure survey of Petitioner's nursing home on June 12, 1997. On June 23, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a new license, effective June 12, 1997, through October 31, 1997, for a skilled nursing facility. However, as a result of the deficiencies found in this survey, Respondent rated the renewal license as conditional. A resurvey on August 6, 1997, revealed that Petitioner had corrected all of the cited deficiencies, so Respondent issued a standard license, effective August 6. There are three ratings for a license: superior, standard, and conditional. Prior to the June 12 renewal, Petitioner's license was rated superior. The issuance of a conditional license adversely affects a licensee in one and possibly two ways. First, the conditional license hinders marketing and employee recruiting and retention. Second, the conditional license may affect Medicaid reimbursement levels. Even though Respondent rerated the nursing home as standard, the earlier conditional rating remains meaningful because it means that Petitioner cannot gain a superior rating for the next licensing period. Another factor militating against a determination that the present proceeding is moot is Respondent's procedure by which it does not provide licensees with an opportunity for a hearing prior to changing the rating of their nursing home licenses. As an incidental complaint to the issuance of a conditional license, Petitioner also complains of the procedure by which this Respondent issues this conditional license. Without having given Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing based on a proposed or tentative decision to change Petitioner's rating, Respondent simply issued the conditional license and gave Petitioner an opportunity to challenge this action, after the fact, in a formal administrative hearing. A mootness determination on these facts would insulate Respondent's initial action from effective challenge, despite the obvious economic impacts of the initial action. The June 12 survey reports cites three sets of Class II deficiencies, which were identified as Tags F 225, F 309, and F 314. These three tags were the sole bases for the issuance of a Conditional license. Tag F 225 concerns the investigation and documentation of an alleged incident of abuse of a resident by one of Petitioner's employees. The survey report asserts that Petitioner did not satisfy applicable legal requirements by failing, in violation of its own policies, to document in the resident's file the results of an abuse investigation report. Tag F 225 and the testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing are vague as to whether the issue under Tag F 225 is that Petitioner failed to conduct an appropriate investigation or failed to document adequately that it had conducted an investigation. When pressed, Respondent's witnesses chose failure to document, perhaps in deference to the fact that Petitioner's employees clearly conducted an investigation. The alleged incident underlying this issue did not constitute abuse. A staffperson grabbed a resident's arm for an appropriate purpose and did not injure or harm the resident. Petitioner's investigation properly concluded that there was no abuse. As discussed under the conclusions of law, the subsubsubparagraph of the federal regulation allegedly violated under this tag requires only that Petitioner report to appropriate authorities any knowledge of actions by a "court of law" against an employee suggestive of unfitness to serve as facility staff. There is no proof of action by a court of law; this missing fact alone ends the inquiry under this tag. Additionally, Petitioner nonetheless reported the unfounded allegations to the state agency charged with investigating allegations of abuse, and the state agency concluded that the charge was unfounded. Tag F 309 concerns the quality of care received by six residents. As to Resident Number 6, who was in the final stages of a terminal illness, the survey report asserts that Petitioner kept him in isolation and did not offer him opportunities for socialization. Testimony at the hearing revealed that the resident was dying and did not want to socialize, but Respondent's witness opined that this was not an appropriate option. No evidence suggested that the dying resident suffered any diminution of ability to eat or use language. Respondent's witness labored under the misconception that the cited federal regulation addresses socialization (as opposed perhaps to the role of socialization in facilitating the more specific activities actually mentioned by the regulation, which is discussed in the conclusions of law). Even if the federal regulation were so broad, which it is not, the evidence certainly suggests that any diminution in socialization was unavoidable due to the resident's terminal clinical condition. The evidence reveals that Resident Number 6, who had had a gangrenous foot, suffered a staph infection of his gangrenous right foot. He was depressed, fatigued, and in pain; however, he was freely visited by staff and family. As to Resident Number 8, who had had a stroke, the survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide him his restorative therapy of walking and failed to document this therapy. At the time of the survey, Petitioner was short of restorative staff due to a scheduled vacation and an unscheduled bereavement absence due to the suicide of an employee's brother. When a restorative aide, who was on vacation, appeared at the nursing home and attempted to provide Respondent's surveyor with documentation concerning the therapy administered to Resident Number 8, the surveyor rejected the documentation on the grounds that it did not sufficiently identify the resident or therapist. Resident Number 8 suffered some loss of functioning--i.e., the ability to walk 400 feet--but the record does not link this loss of functioning to any brief interruption in his restorative therapy. As to Resident Number 9, the survey report states that, during the two days that surveyors were at the facility, she did not ambulate, even though her restorative nursing plan called for daily ambulation. However, she suffered no harm during this insignificant interruption in her program, from which she was successfully discharged a couple of weeks after the survey. As to Resident Number 13, who was 102 years old, the survey report notes that he was supposed to ambulate in a wheelchair. One of Respondent's surveyors noticed that a staffperson was pushing this resident's wheelchair. However, staff had assumed the responsibility of pushing this resident's wheelchair for him after he had developed pressure sores on his heels. The evidence fails to show that Petitioner's care for the treatment of Resident Number 13 had anything to do with his loss of function. As to Resident Number 26, the survey report asserts that his physician had ordered an increase in dosage of Prilosec, which aids digestion by treating the acidity associated with peptic ulcers. Three weeks passed before Petitioner's staff noticed that the change, which was on the resident's chart, had not yet been implemented. They implemented the change prior to the survey, and notified the resident's physician of the error in medication administration a couple of days later. The survey report states that Petitioner's staff documented, on May 30, 1997, that Resident Number 26 had lost 4.8 pounds, or 5.7 percent of his body weight, in one week. This weight loss occurred during the latter part of the period during which Resident Number 26 was receiving less than his prescribed amount of medication. Two of Petitioner's witnesses testified, without elaboration, that the medication error did not cause the weight loss. The survey report implies otherwise, although Respondent's witnesses were not as pronounced as Petitioner's witnesses in dealing with any link between the medication error and the weight loss. Absent the weight loss, the medication error-- consisting of a failure to raise a digestive medication--would have been insignificant and insufficient grounds for a Class II deficiency on the cited basis. However, there was a serious weight loss while the resident was undermedicated. The lack of evidence in the record proving that there was or was not a causal link between the weight loss and undermedication means that the party bearing the risk of nonpersuasion loses on this issue. As discussed in the conclusions of law, Respondent has the burden of proof; thus, for this reason alone, Petitioner prevails on this issue. As to the last resident under Tag F 309, who was not identified, the survey asserts that a restorative aide commented that he used to walk 440 feet, but does not anymore because he thinks that he does not have to. This scanty allegation provides no basis for citing Petitioner with a deficiency, even if it applies to Resident Number 8, as appears probable. Tag F 314 also concerns a quality-of-care issue-- specifically, the development and treatment of pressure sores in three residents. As to Resident Number 1, who had been in the nursing home for three years, the survey report states that, on May 12, 1997, he had developed a Stage II pressure sore on his right outer ankle. The survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient care to prevent the development of this pressure sore, that Resident Number 1 had suffered pressure sores in 1995, and that Petitioner should have known and treated Resident Number 1 on the basis of his being at risk for developing pressure sores. Despite a failure to document, Petitioner's staff adequately treated Resident Number 1 once the pressure sore developed. Nursing assistants required that he wear silicone pressure booties and that lotion be rubbed on the irritated skin. In addition, Petitioner has shown that the clinical condition of Resident Number 1 made pressure sores unavoidable. One of Petitioner's Assistant Directors of Nursing testified that Resident Number 1 had poor pedal pulses, indicative of poor circulation, and a history of peripheral neuropathy. The resulting decreased sensation in his feet would prevent him from feeling increased pressure and thus the need to move his feet. Despite preventative measures, Resident Number 1 developed pressure sores due to these clinical conditions. As to Resident Number 7, who had been in the nursing home for six years, the survey report asserts that she had a Stage II pressure sore--meaning that the skin was broken--but was allowed to remained seated in the same position for two hours in a position in which the pressure on the sore on her buttock was not relieved. The survey report does not allege that this pressure sore developed while Resident Number 7 resided in the nursing home. Resident Number 7 had severe dementia and was a total-care patient. She could not move independently. In fact, she sat, unmoved, in a chair for at least 4 and 3/4 hours on one of the days of the survey. The failure to move Resident Number 7 raises serious questions about the adequacy of Petitioner's treatment. However, Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing answered these questions when she testified that the one- centimeter pressure sore healed five days after the survey. Thus, Petitioner provided Resident Number 7 with the necessary treatment and services to promote healing. As to Resident Number 13, who had been in the nursing home for less than three months, the survey report alleges that he had developed pressure sores while in the nursing home. Resident Number 13 was the 102-year-old resident who is also discussed in Tag F 309. The survey report alleges that, on April 24, 1997, Resident Number 13 had a red left heel, red right foot, and pink right heel; on May 1, 1997, he had soft and red heels; on May 7 and 14, 1997, his pressure sores could not be staged due to dead tissue surrounding the sores; on May 20, 1997, his left heel was documented as a Stage II pressure sore, but the right heel could not be staged due to dead tissue; and Petitioner's staff did not implement any treatment until May 12, 1997. Respondent proved the allegations cited in the preceding paragraph except for the last concerning a failure to implement any treatment until May 12. Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing testified that Patient Number 13 was frail and debilitated. If this is a clinical condition, it is the only statement of Patient Number 13's clinical condition contained in the record. The Assistant Director of Nursing testified that the pressure sore on the left heel healed by June 3 after the usual treatment measures of turning and repositioning and heel protectors. She testified that the pressure sore on the right heel improved somewhat, but had not healed by the time of his death in January 1998 of presumably unrelated causes. The testimony of the Assistant Director of Nursing rebuts any evidence concerning inadequate treatment of Resident Number 13, but does not establish that the development of his pressure sores was clinically unavoidable. Her testimony as to Resident Number 1 identified clinical conditions that, when coupled with the early implementation of preventative measures, established that Resident Number 1's pressure sore was unavoidable. As to Resident Number 13, the Assistant Director of Nursing also testified of early implementation of preventative measures, but, in contrast to her testimony concerning Resident Number 1, she described little, if anything, of any clinical condition making the pressure sores unavoidable. If the intent of the Assistant Director of Nursing was to imply that old age coupled with frailty and debilitation provide the necessary clinical justification, she failed to establish the necessary causal relationships among pressure sores, advanced age, and frailty and debilitation-- even if the frailty and debilitation were relative to other 102-year-olds, which the record does not reveal, as opposed to the frailty and debilitation, relative to the general population, that one might expect in a 102-year-old. Without more detailed evidence concerning Resident Number 13's clinical condition, Petitioner effectively invites the creation of a safe harbor from liability for the development of pressure sores in 102-year-olds or even 102-year-olds who are frail and debilitated for their age, and the administrative law judge declines either invitation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Petitioner and rating Petitioner's license as conditional for the relevant period. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson Broad and Cassell Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Karel Baarslag Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003.
The Issue The central issue for disposition is whether Certificate of Need no. 7750, for 24 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds should be awarded to Petitioner, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s). To resolve that issue it is necessary to resolve factual issues regarding the need for the proposed beds and a legal issue regarding the impact of Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America v. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. 671 So.2d 217 (Fla 1st DCA 1996) (Tarpon Springs) on the fixed need pool published in the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994 in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) is a not- for-profit hospital which has operated in the Tampa, Florida area for over fifty years. It is currently licensed for 883 acute- care beds; it owns John Knox Village, which includes an adult congregate living facility and medical center nursing home; and it offers other services in a continuum of health care. St. Joseph’s also has a 19-bed, in-hospital skilled nursing care unit which became operational in early 1995. The Agency for Health Care Administration (agency or AHCA) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the certificate of need (CON) process described in sections 408.031 through 408.045, Florida Statutes (“the Health Facility and Services Development Act”). The Process The fixed need pool published by AHCA in vol. 20, number 15, April 15, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly, projected a need for 94 additional nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the January 1997 planning horizon. There is no evidence that this fixed need pool was challenged. Approximately eleven health care providers, including St. Joseph’s, responded to the fixed need pool notice with applications for CON’s ranging from 10 to 94 beds. Some of those applicants, like St. Joseph’s, were hospitals seeking hospital- based skilled nursing beds. After comparative review of the applications, AHCA issued its state agency action report (SAAR) on September 16, 1994, denying some and granting others, and explaining the basis for its intended actions. Some of the beds were awarded for a hospital-based skilled nursing unit; St. Joseph’s application for 24 in-hospital beds was denied in the comparative review that determined St. Joseph’s application was inferior to others in meeting statutory and rule criteria. The applicants’ petitions for formal hearing were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by AHCA and were consolidated in a single proceeding relating to the 94 beds in District 6, Subdistrict 1. On October 19, 1995, during the pendancy of appeal of the DOAH Final Order in Tarpon Springs, all of the parties in the consolidated cases executed and filed a stipulation which disposes of 93 out of the 94 available beds in the fixed need pool. The stipulation provides that all of the applicants, except St. Joseph’s, withdrew their petitions for formal hearing. As to St. Joseph’s, the stipulation provides: St. Joseph’s has previously withdrawn its opposition to the applications of all other parties to this proceeding by its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petitions for Administrative Hearing and Notice of Lack of Opposition, dated September 13, 1995. St. Joseph’s and AHCA stipulate that Case No. 94-6236, wherein St. Joseph’s challenged the denial of its application for certificate of need 7750 to add 24 skilled nursing unit beds, should be held in abeyance pending the final judicial determination of Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, et al. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Proceeding below DOAH Case Nos. 94-0958RU and 94-1165RU, reported at 16 FALR 3420, presently on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal). St. Joseph’s acknowledges that the terms of this settlement will deplete the fixed bed need pool determined to be available for this application cycle, assents to the same, and maintains its position that its application should be approved notwithstanding the lack of availability of community nursing home beds within the fixed bed need pool. All other parties to this agreement except for AHCA hereby withdraw their petitions filed in this proceeding in opposition to the application of St. Joseph’s for certificate of need 7750 and waive any challenge or protest that they may have to the issuance of certificate of need 7750. St. Joseph’s hereby agrees not to oppose the transfer of up to seven (7) beds from this application cycle to TGH. After remand of all of the consolidated cases except St. Joseph’s (DOAH no. 94-6236), AHCA entered its final order on December 13, 1995, awarding CON’s for 93 beds to various of the applicants. Some of those 93 beds were awarded for hospital- based skilled nursing units. This final order depleted the fixed need pool of all but one bed. In their prehearing stipulation filed on August 29, 1996, AHCA and St. Joseph’s admitted these relevant facts: The appropriate planning area is Hillsborough County; The appropriate planning horizon for the application is January 1997. Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code was appropriately used in determining the bed need for Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994; and The numbers used to derive the project pool of 94 beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1 for the January 1997 planning horizon were accurate and appropriate. At the hearing and in its proposed recommended order, St. Joseph’s concedes that it did not apply for beds under “not normal” circumstances. The Project St. Joseph’s proposes to establish a 24 bed, hospital- based skilled nursing unit in an area of its main hospital building by converting 24 acute care beds to this use. The project involves 19,600 square feet of renovation at a total project cost of $684,731, including conversion costs of $331,940. Actual out-of-pocket costs for the project are $352.791. The skilled nursing beds within the hospital facility are intended to contribute to St. Joseph’s goal of providing a full continuum of care for its patients, with services provided at different levels for a medically-appropriate and cost- effective outcome. St. Joseph’s anticipates that the patient using the skilled nursing (also called “subacute care”) unit would be one coming from the acute care setting and requiring less-acute care, but a more intensive level of care and a shorter length of stay than generally offered in a typical nursing home. All ancillary services and therapies will be available at the hospital seven days a week. Rehabilitative services, which are critical to the patient likely to use the skilled nursing beds, include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and recreation therapy. Need Analysis/Impact on Existing Programs Virtually all of the referrals to the proposed new beds will come from within St. Joseph’s. This is the experience of the new 19 bed unit. The hospital’s doctors and their patients prefer to not transfer to an outside facility and they plan in advance, as part of their treatment goals, that the subacute rehabilitative phase of treatment will be in St. Joseph’s own skilled nursing unit. The multi-discipline health care team evaluates and identifies patients who will benefit from such treatment; patients are not automatically shifted down to the unit. The existing unit enjoys a near-100 percent occupancy rate and has a waiting list for patients. Sometimes patients are held in an acute care bed while awaiting transfer to a vacant bed in the skilled nursing unit. This is an inappropriate use of the acute care bed. Few, if any patients would come from other hospitals. Since many hospitals now have their own skilled nursing units, there is little exchange of patients. In the experience of St. Joseph’s staff, other hospitals generally fill their own units from within in their own “continuum of care” system. John Knox Village is not an alternative for patients who need to “step-down” from acute to subacute care. John Knox is eleven miles from St. Joseph’s and does not provide the intensity of care that is offered in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. There are subacute care, or skilled nursing care, beds in Hillsborough County in free-standing, not hospital-based units. These alternative facilities are not all fully occupied and some offer similar services and treat patients comparable to those treated in the hospital-based units. Evidence that the free-standing skilled nursing facilities are not appropriate alternatives to St. Joseph’s new beds was largely anecdotal. Although Dr. Wasylik, St. Joseph’s chief of orthopedics, is generally familiar with facilities in which he has patients, his observation that transfer of patients from St. Joseph’s would not be appropriate is based on his concern that the “continuity of care” would be disrupted. In other words, even before surgery and admission to an acute care bed, a “critical pathway” in the patient’s rehabilitation is developed. Another facility might have a different pathway that would disrupt the rehabilitative process. Better continuity of care, in Wasylik’s view, translates into quicker, and thereby more cost-effective, recovery. Financial Considerations Although the agency found some inconsistencies in the financial data included in St. Joseph’s application, those inconsistencies affected only the scoring of the application in a competitive batching cycle. The agency witness who provided financial review of the application conceded there was no problem with funding the project, and due to the small size of the project in relation to the size of St. Joseph’s, the project would not have a significant impact on the cost of other services provided by St. Joseph’s. The proposed project would generate a positive financial return for St. Joseph’s. In the proforma financial statement included with the application, the hospital used an occupancy rate of 74%; the actual occupancy rate experienced in the new 19 bed unit is higher. Some of the problems the agency found when reviewing St. Joseph’s application were adequately explained at hearing. For example, the actual cost of the project is less than what the agency found in the financial projections in the application. Also, if, as the agency contends, St. Joseph’s has over-stated its projection of Medicaid patients, a lower Medicaid utilization rate will actually inure to the benefit of St. Joseph’s, since the Medicaid reimbursement rate is lower than for other payor sources. While not obvious on the face of the application, the financial assumptions provided by St. Joseph’s were sufficient to extrapolate valid projected salary expenses in the second year of operation. In summary, a CON application, by necessity, includes estimates and projections of expenses and revenue generated by the proposed project. St. Joseph’s now has the experience, which it did not have when the application was prepared, of the actual expenses and revenue from its 19 bed unit. That actual experience helps validate its prediction of financial feasibility for the proposed 24 beds. Architectural Issues At hearing, St. Joseph’s clarified its intent to not delicense nor relocate acute care beds to make room for the proposed 24 bed skilled nursing unit. Nor does it intend to “phase in” the skilled nursing beds, if approved. Neither of these intentions is clear from the face of the application and the architectural review by the agency raised questions on these issues. The questions affected St. Joseph’s overall standing in a competitive review process, but are not serious enough to foreclose approval if the application is considered on its own merit. The application states that the new beds would be co- located with the existing 19 beds. But if there is not sufficient room, as long as St. Joseph’s can accomplish the project at or below the approved project cost, and as long as St. Joseph’s obtains agency approval for placing the beds elsewhere (which approval is routinely granted), the precise location of the beds within St. Joseph’s facility is not a problem. The beds may not, nor are they intended to be, co-mingled with acute care beds in the hospital. Upon construction, the 24 beds will meet all of the licensure, building code and other regulations applicable to a skilled nursing unit within an acute care hospital. Balancing the Criteria and Summary of Findings There is little dispute that St. Joseph’s has the financial resources to complete the approved project and to operate it successfully. Nor is quality of care, either in the existing facility and projected in the future, an issue of dispute. The questions raised in the financial review and architectural review are not impediments to approval. There are two significant problems with St. Joseph’s proposal. St. Joseph’s serves the entire planning district, and the impact of new beds must be considered in that district-wide health-planning perspective. St. Joseph’s generates enough patients from within its own hospital to fill the beds close to capacity. Other facilities providing similar services in the district are not at full capacity. The possibility of those existing facilities serving as an alternative to new beds was not adequately explored by St. Joseph’s, but was rejected out of an abundance of pride in its own fine services, or physician and patient loyalty. Patient and physician preference does impact “real world” utilization of health care facilities but cannot drive the health planning decisions that are made in the CON process. The second, and most significant impediment to St. Joseph’s application is that only one bed remains in the fixed need pool established for the relevant planning horizon. As discussed below, Tarpon Springs did not invalidate that fixed need pool. St. Joseph’s application does not reflect a willingness to accept any fewer than the requested beds, much less an award of only one single bed. (See, Respondent’s Exhibit 12, CON application, p. 34)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order denying CON number 7750 to St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1997. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Baker & Hostetler Suite 2000 100 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to protect one of the residents of its facility from sexual coercion. Whether Respondent failed to report the alleged violation immediately to the administrator.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida, under state and federal statutes. Respondent is a licensed nursing facility located in Orlando, Florida. Respondent is a small not-for-profit facility, overseen by a voluntary board of directors. Resident 2 is a Hispanic male, 57 years of age, who speaks English and Spanish fluently. He was a self-admitted resident at Respondent's nursing home facility during the relevant time period. Respondent is a small, not-for-profit facility, overseen by a voluntary board of directors. Respondent receives its funds to operate through various types of sources such as United Way, City of Orlando, Orange County, and many foundations. At all times material hereto, Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida and the assignment of a licensure status. The statute charges Petitioner with evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." The evaluation, or survey, of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of record reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. Agency surveyors use the "State Operations' Manual," a document prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Chapter 483. In March 2003, Petitioner conducted a survey to investigate a complaint that Respondent failed to protect a resident from sexual coercion. The allegation of the deficient practice was based upon an incident involving Resident 2. Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), a nursing facility must assure that a resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, and mental abuse. Failure to do so constitutes a deficiency under Florida Statutes. At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Jane Woodson, nursing program specialist, employed by Petitioner. Woodson testified that she does state and federal surveys in both state and federal licensure and federal institutions to identify or define any noncompliance. She visited Respondent's facility on or about March 26, 2003, and prepared a 2567 form based on her observations, interviews, and record review. It details the results of her investigation, including her interviews with the director of nursing, the administrator, the social worker, the compliance officer, a licensed practical nurse (LPN), and the assistant director of nursing. She also toured the total facility, observed its residents and also observed Resident 2. Woodson observed that Resident 2 was a well-dressed, alert male, and she spoke to him about the incident on March 15, 2003. Woodson did not have an interpreter present at any time when she interviewed Resident 2, nor did she consider it necessary to do so. At no time did she have any concern that Resident 2 was not mentally competent to understand her when she interviewed him. Woodson was not aware that Resident 2 signed his own financial responsibility forms, patient's rights statement, or that he voluntarily checked himself into the facility. She was not aware that Resident 2 made his own medical decisions in the facility. Following her investigation, Woodson conducted an exit interview with the administrator, the director of nursing, the assistant director of nursing, the social worker, and the compliance offer. Woodson included in her report a document filled out by Sharon Ebanks (Ebanks), registered nurse (RN), but she did not personally interview Ebanks. She also did not interview Marilyn Harrilal, LPN, nor did she interview the employee involved in the incident. She advised the administrator of her finding a Class II deficiency and provided a correction date of April 17, 2003. She also concluded that this was an isolated incident. Ebanks was the weekend charge nurse on March 15, 2003, and was in charge of the facility on that date. Ebanks was working on the north wing when she was called by Mr. Daniels, a LPN working on the south wing. Daniels told Ebanks about the alleged incident between Resident 2 and the staff person. Ebanks then called Resident 2; the employee, Marcia Dorsey (Dorsey); and the certified nursing assistants (CNAs), Ms. Polysaint and Ms. Mezier (first names not in the record), who had witnessed the incident, to the green room. She also asked Harrilal to act as a witness to her interviews with the individuals involved. Ebanks first spoke to Resident 2 and Dorsey, both of whom stated that nothing had happened. She then questioned the two CNAs about what they had witnessed. Ebanks concluded, after interviewing both the participants and the witnesses, that the incident was not abuse, but rather, was inappropriate behavior on the part of both Resident 2 and the employee. She based this conclusion on the fact that Dorsey is a trainable Dows Syndrome individual, who was supposed to be working when the incident occurred. Ebanks concluded that Resident 2 had not been abused or hurt in any manner and had participated voluntarily. Ebanks noted that Resident 2 makes his own medical decisions, is considered to be mentally competent, has never been adjudicated mentally incompetent and has not had a legal guardian appointed for him. Ebanks concluded that Resident 2 had not been abused. Ebanks testified that she completed a Resident Abuse Report on March 20, 2003, concerning the incident, after being asked to do so by Respondent's compliance officer. The resident abuse report was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. At the time of the initial investigation of the incident, Ebanks asked Harrilal to accompany her to the green room. While there, Harrilal listened as Ebanks first questioned Resident 2 and then Dorsey. Both stated that nothing happened. Harrilal then witnessed Ebanks question the CNAs, Polysaint and Mezier. Woodson did not interview Harrilal during her investigation. Ann Campbell, RN, a nurse for more than 38 years, was functioning in the role of assistant director of nursing on March 15, 2003. She was not in the facility on that day and was not made aware of the incident on the date of its occurrence, but became aware when she returned to work. Campbell is familiar with Resident 2. He was initially admitted with a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and dementia. She observed that he was a little confused and forgetful when first admitted, but has since became more alert and responsive. Michael Annichiarico, administrator of the facility and custodian of records, including medical records and personnel files, reviewed the personnel file of the employee, Dorsey. There were no disciplinary actions or counseling prior to the incident of March 15, 2003. Annichiarico is familiar with Resident 2 and has interacted with him. Annichiarico testified that, according to the resident's medical record, Resident 2 has never been declared mentally incompetent and that he makes his own medical and financial decisions. The Progress Note of Gideon Lewis, M.D., dated October 9, 2003, with transcription, was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2 and indicates that Resident 2 is mentally competent and is responsible for his actions as his cognitive functions are intact. Patricia Collins, RN, testified as an expert in the areas of nursing, long-term care, nursing home rules and regulations, and survey procedures. Collins is a RN, currently working in consulting work. She reviewed documents related to the incident. She went to the facility on two different occasions and interviewed the staff. She also reviewed the documents contained in the report of Woodson's survey. Collins interviewed the two CNAs, Ebanks, Resident 2, the medical records custodian, the director of nursing, the social worker, and Harrilal. She spent approximately four to five hours in the facility. After speaking with Resident 2, Collins concluded that he was cognitively intact and very alert. He appeared to be mentally competent. Before interviewing Resident 2, Collins reviewed his resident chart and the documents used to sign himself into the facility. She also reviewed physician's orders for medication, progress notes, nurses' notes, the MDS and the care plan. Collins testified that she reviewed the resident's financial responsibility statement and patient's rights statement, both of which were signed by the resident himself. The resident had no legal guardian. Collins concluded that during the incident of March 15, 2003, there was some inappropriate behavior that needed to be addressed and that this behavior was properly addressed by staff. The inappropriate behavior was the observation of hugging and kissing between Dorsey and Resident 2 in an empty resident's room while the employee was on duty. Collins was of the opinion that the behavior was mutual and not abuse. Collins found no reason to conclude that any harm had been done to Resident 2. Collins testified that a nursing home resident has the right to associate with whomever he desires. He also has the right to have voluntary and willing sexual contact with other people. The inappropriateness in this incident was due to the fact that Resident 2 had involvement with someone with mental deficits. The incident was inappropriate on the part of the employee as well, since she was participating in it during her working time. Collins disagrees with the findings of Petitioner's surveyor. Collins testified that the investigator should have determined the abuse allegation was unfounded. According to Collins' expert testimony, the facility staff acted appropriately. The CNA who initially observed the activity called another CNA as a witness. They then went to their supervisor, who then went to the ranking nurse at the facility at that point in time, which was Ebanks. Ebanks questioned the employee, Resident 2 and the witnesses. She had the presence of mind to have a witness there as well, which was Harrilal. Ebanks made the determination, based on her nursing judgment and in her authority as nurse in charge of the facility on that day, that there was inappropriate behavior on behalf of Resident 2 and the employee. She put a care plan in place as to Resident 2, separated the employee and Resident 2, and sent the CNAs back to work. Collins testified there was no need to report the incident to the Department of Children and Family Services because there was no evidence of abuse or harm to Resident 2. Collins' testimony is found to be credible. Based on all the evidence, it is found and determined that an incident occurred at Respondent's facility on Saturday, March 15, 2003, at approximately 11:00 a.m., involving Resident 2 and a staff employee of Respondent, Dorsey. Resident 2 and the employee were seen by staff employees sitting on a bed hugging and kissing each other in a resident's room that was not being used at the time. Two CNA employees witnessed and reported the incident to the charge nurse. Ebanks was the charge nurse on duty on March 15, 2003. Ebanks was advised of the incident shortly after it occurred and interviewed both Resident 2 and the employees involved, as well as the employees who witnessed the incident. The interviews were conducted in the presence of Harrilal. She completed a Resident Abuse Report on March 20, 2003, at the request of the risk manager within four business days of the incident, and the administrator was advised of the incident on the first business day after the incident. Resident 2 was alert and oriented on the date of the incident. Although he had a low level of dementia, he was mentally competent at the time of the incident. He does not meet the definition of an "elderly person" or "vulnerable adult" under Chapter 415, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: George F. Indest, III, Esquire The Health Law Firm Center Pointe Two 220 East Central Parkway, Suite 2030 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Heritage Hall is a partnership, domiciled in the State of Virginia, which owns and operates ten nursing homes in that state. Heritage Hall did not, at the time of the close of this record, own or operate, nor have under completed construction, any nursing home in Florida. Heritage Hall filed a "letter of intent to construct, own and operate a 60-bed nursing home in the counties of Collier, DeSoto, Highlands, and Lee. On July 15, 1983, Heritage Hall filed the specific Certificate of Need application at issue with HRS, requesting authorization to construct a 60-bed freestanding nursing home in DeSoto County. That application was deemed complete on September 15, 1983, and a free form decision was made to grant it by HRS on December 1, 1983. The proposed nursing home would be located in the vicinity of Arcadia, in DeSoto County, a subdistrict of HRS District VIII. Diversicare Corporation, Inc. d/b/a DeSoto Manor Nursing Home (DeSoto Manor), (Diversicare), owns and operates DeSoto Manor Nursing Home, an existing 60-bed nursing home facility located in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. On November 3, 1983, Diversicare filed a Letter of Intent with HRS announcing its intention to seek a Certificate of Need for an addition to its DeSoto County facility. It ultimately filed an application seeking authorization for a 36-bed nursing home addition on January 12, 1984. No additional information was requested by HRS and the application became complete by operation of law on March 15, 1984. That application is thus in a separate and later batch for purposes of Rule 10-5.08, Florida Administrative Code, and thus was not comparatively reviewed with the application in the case at bar as a competing application. On May 1, 1984, HRS notified Diversicare of its intent to deny its application for the 36-bed addition. Heritage Hall proposes to construct a 60-bed nursing home at a total cost of $1,597,293. This specific cost of construction, not including land acquisition cost, is proposed to be $1,070,740. The nursing home's cost of construction allocated on a per bed basis would be $26,622. Heritage Hall proposes to finance this project to a tax-exempt bond issue in an aggregate amount of $1,436,075, carrying a 10 percent interest rate with a 30-year maturity. Additionally, the Heritage Hall partnership would invest $161,218. Heritage Hall projects that once it begins operation of the proposed new nursing home, that a 97 percent occupancy level for the proposed 60 beds would be reached within six months. Included within that projection, Heritage Hall projects that 49 percent of the patient revenues would come from Medicaid reimbursement, that 10 percent would come from Medicare reimbursement, and that 40 percent of its revenues would be attributable to private paying patients, not included within any relevant government entitlement programs. The remaining one per cent of its patient revenue base would be charged off and attributable to bad debt, or indigent patients. Heritage Hall proposes charges for its Medicare and Medicaid patients to constitute $62.39 per day, and its charges for private paying patients would be $68.00 a day for a private room, and $65.00 per day for a semiprivate room. It proposes to staff its facility with five registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses (LPN), 17 nurses aides, and an administrative and miscellaneous employee staff of 16, for a total staff for a 60- bed nursing home of 44 employees. DeSoto Manor's present patient population is largely composed of Medicaid and Medicare patients, such that 84 percent of its revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare sources. Its private paying patients are a small minority contributing 16 percent of its total patient revenues. DeSoto Manor has consistently experienced 99 - 100 percent occupancy for all of 1983 and 1984, upon which is earned a net income for fiscal year 1983 of approximately $15,000. DeSoto Manor presently employs on its staff 2.2 registered nurses, 5.6 LPN's, 17.1 aides, and 17.4 administrative and miscellaneous employees, those figures being expressed in terms of full-time equivalent employees in those categories. DeSoto Manor's application filed in a later batch is not at issue in this proceeding, in terms of comparative review for the purpose of determining whether Heritages Hall or DeSoto Manor is entitled to a Certificate of Need for DeSoto County nursing home beds as a result of this proceeding. Such a proposal, however, to add additional beds to an existing nursing home, is worthy of consideration as an alternative means of providing nursing home services to the public in District VIII, and specifically the subdistrict of DeSoto County, pursuant to authority cited infra. In that vein, DeSoto Manor proposes to add 36 additional beds at a total cost of $767,337, including involving a construction cost of $541,280, which is equivalent to a $21,260 cost per bed for the proposed 36-bed addition. DeSoto Manor would require the equivalent of 17.3 full time additional staff members, if such an addition (a 36-bed addition) were approved and built. DeSoto Manor charges will be (on January 1, 1985) $45.56 a day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $47.00 a day for its private pay patients. If its 36-bed addition were installed, it would charge $49.31 per day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $53.00 a day for private paying patients. DeSoto County is a relatively small county geographically, located inland from the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico in District VIII. It is a rural county in character, as that term relates to its economic base being largely agriculture, and its low population density, with its population center being in the only sizable community of Arcadia, the county seat, located approximately in the geographic center of the county. It is surrounded by Sarasota, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. Highlands and Hardee Counties are in District VI, with Sarasota, Charlotte and DeSoto Counties being in District VIII, as are Lee, Collier, Glades and Hendry Counties. In 1987, DeSoto County is expected to have a population of 3,749 persons age 65 and over. The county is not experiencing a significant rate of growth at this time, nor is it expected to through 1987, the pertinent "horizon" year. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the nursing home bed need methodology, HRS computes a need for additional nursing home beds in its health care districts and sub-districts, first by determining "actual need" or the "area specific bed need allocation." The actual need for additional nursing home beds is computed by means of a population based formula embodied in that rule. The second step of the need/availability determination process involves determining how many beds above or below the actual need determined may be added before the utilization in the district or subdistrict falls below 80 or 85 percent. The actual need or "area specific allocation" is determined by multiplying the poverty ratio for the district or subdistrict by the statewide nursing home bed need ratio of 27 per 1,000 persons age 65 and older, and the population of the district or subdistrict age 65 and older, and then subtracting from this computation the number of existing nursing home beds within the district or subdistrict. Within District VIII, the poverty ratio equals 8.61 divided by 12.70, the relevant population of the district for the applicable year being 213,561, with the population for DeSoto County, as a subdistrict, being 3,749 persons age 65 and older. There were 3,671 licensed nursing home beds in District VIII at the time of the hearing, and there were 1,130 beds approved, but not yet licensed or open in the district. There were 60 licensed and operating nursing home beds in DeSoto County. There were 3,904 actually "needed" or allocated beds in District VIII, which, when added to those beds approved but not yet licensed and operating, total an aggregate of 4,801 licensed and approved beds in the district. Thus, there are 997 excess nursing home beds over and above those actually needed in District VIII by 1987, according to the population based formula used in the first part of the need/availability determination process embodied in the above-cited rule. There is an actual need in DeSoto County alone of nine additional nursing home beds by 1987, based upon the subdistrict actual need allocation determined by the first part of the above methodology process of 69 beds. The second part of the need/availability determination process computes how many additional beds can be added to a district or subdistrict before the occupancy rates of nursing home beds in the district or subdistrict fall below the applicable rule mandated percentage. In DeSoto County, the applicable percentage is 80 per cent, because the subdistrict of DeSoto County indicates some need for additional beds, although the district as a whole has excess beds with no additional actual bed need shown. Thus, based upon the entire applicable computation, 15 beds may be added to DeSoto County before utilization of nursing home beds in the county will drop below the threshold of 80 percent. It has thus been established that if 60 beds are added to the bed supply in DeSoto County, for instance by a grant of the instant application, the utilization of nursing home beds will decline to approximately 50 percent. Under the above rule methodology, HRS, in adhering to the requirements of that rule, would not normally grant a certificate of need when only a small number of additional nursing home beds are computed to be available under that formula, that is, for a new freestanding nursing home facility. It is undisputed that construction of a new nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered to be financially feasible. That rule of thumb does not apply, however, to the addition of beds to an existing, already-built parent facility, and it is undisputed that the addition of needed beds to an existing facility is more cost-effective in terms of construction costs and staffing, than the construction of a new facility. In its review process, with regard to the instant application and proceeding, HRS did not consider the alternative of adding new needed beds to the existing facility operated by Diversicare (DeSoto Manor), since the Diversicare application was not filed in the same batching cycle as the application at bar filed by Heritage Hall. Although the nursing home bed need determination formula reveals a maximum need of 15 beds for DeSoto County by 1987, HRS proposes to approve 60 beds in conjunction with the Heritage Hall application. In its review process, HRS took into account the fact that DeSoto and surrounding counties in District VIII were experiencing high occupancy rates as to existing licensed beds, and took the position then and in this proceeding that residents of DeSoto County needing nursing home care would have difficulty finding available nursing home beds. HRS failed to take into consideration, in its review process, the additional number of nursing home beds which had been approved in surrounding counties (as pertinent hereto, the surrounding counties of District VIII), but which were not yet licensed and actually operating. Thus, at the time of hearing there were 301 approved but not yet opened beds in Charlotte County, 97 approved but not yet operating beds in Collier County, 222 approved but not yet opened beds in Lee County and 597 approved but not yet operating beds in Sarasota County. Thus, the approved but not yet licensed and operating beds will result in an increase of 1,217 beds available, when open, to the residents of DeSoto and the adjacent counties of District VIII. 1/ The applicant and HRS seek to justify the approval of 60 additional beds in DeSoto County by reference to the high utilization rates being experienced in adjacent counties. As pertinent hereto, Charlotte County was experiencing an occupancy rate of 99 percent, Sarasota was at 88 percent occupancy, Lee County at 91.5 percent, with Collier County at 64.5 percent. Those figures do not take into account the latest nursing home District VIII occupancy figures as of June 29, 1984 which reflect the above-discussed additional approved, but not yet opened beds, and which result in the occupancy rates in these counties falling substantially. Thus, Charlotte is now experiencing only an 80.4 percent occupancy, for instance, with Sarasota County falling to a 78.5 per cent occupancy, with lowered occupancy rates resulting in Lee and Collier County as well with the addition of the approved, but not yet opened beds. These lowered occupancy rates resulting from the opening of these approved, but not yet licensed beds, were not considered by HRS at the time of its initial review, and free form grant of the certificate of need at issue. The opening of these hundreds of additional beds will continue to reduce occupancy in those counties and provide available beds to residents of District VIII and to residents of DeSoto County, to the extent those beds in the other counties are deemed accessible. HRS admitted at hearing that the availability of beds has increased in the district since its first review of the application. The financial feasibility of the Heritage Hall proposal depends upon an assumed 97 percent occupancy in its sixth month of operation, and projects that 40 percent of the revenues will be derived from private, paying patients. The 97 percent occupancy is an optimistic projection however, because only nine beds are shown to be actually needed in the county by 1987, and only 15 beds can be added before occupancy will drop below 80 percent. The addition of 60 beds would drop occupancy at DeSoto Manor and the proposed Heritage Hall facility, if built, to 50 percent. The Heritage Hall projection for revenues from private, paying patients which is 40 percent, is substantially more than the current revenue source from private, paying patients experienced by DeSoto Manor of 16 percent. In order to achieve such an occupancy rate in such a short time, and such a higher percentage of private, paying patient revenues, Heritage Hall must aggressively market its new facility and nursing home service so as to attract private, paying patients. Based upon historical evidence of record, it is likely that the patient base in DeSoto County itself will not support such a high percentage of private, paying patients and such patients will doubtless have to come from other areas or counties in the district, specifically the counties lying along the coast of District VIII. There is no evidence to establish that nursing home patients in the coastal counties have any inclination to seek nursing home care in DeSoto County, particularly because those coastal counties are already experiencing lowered occupancy rates, and nursing homes there need more patients. There is thus no demonstration that residents of the coastal counties in District VIII (or other adjacent counties for that matter) would travel to DeSoto County for nursing home care when there are empty beds available to them closer to their homes or the homes of their families in those counties. Heritage Hall proposes to recruit its staff from DeSoto County and the surrounding geographical area. DeSoto Manor however, itself is currently experiencing severe problems in recruiting registered nurses for its facility, in spite of repeated advertising and recruitment attempts. Potential staff members share a reluctance in becoming employed at DeSoto Manor, which lies in an isolated, rural area, and which must compete with the many nursing homes lying in the coastal areas in the other counties of District VIII for staff, and which areas offer more living amenities in general, than does the isolated, rural, small community setting in which DeSoto Manor is located. Indeed, other District VIII nursing home administrators have contacted the administrator of DeSoto Manor, in her capacity as administrator, as well as in her capacity as president of the Florida Health Care Association for District VIII, seeking assistance in obtaining additional staff for their facilities. Approval of the Heritage Hall application will, in effect, double the competition for staff members for nursing homes in DeSoto County, and will concomitantly, increase DeSoto Manor's present difficulties in obtaining and retaining appropriate employees. In calculating the financial impact which an additional 60-bed nursing home would have on the existing DeSoto Manor facility, DeSoto Manor assumed that the number of nursing home beds said to be available before occupancy dropped below 80 per cent, which includes the proposed 15 additional beds, would be full of patients and that these patients would be evenly split between the two nursing homes in the county. Thus, each nursing home would have approximately 37.5 patients in its respective 60-bed facility. In this event, and taking into account the concomitant reduction in staff, salaries and other per patient expenses because of a reduction in the number of patients, the proposed Heritage Hall facility would likely experience a net loss of approximately $232,587 for the first year of operation of its additional facility. DeSoto Manor's Medicaid reimbursement revenues would fall $31,722 below DeSoto Manor's actual cost of providing Medicaid patient care. Thus, in order to recover lost revenues and achieve a break-even profit and loss status, a significant increase in patient charges over existing charges would be necessary. The weight of such increase in patient charges would have to fall upon the private, paying patients in the revenue mix of each nursing home, because of the inflexible nature of the current Medicaid reimbursement scheme. In evaluating the DeSoto County population's accessibility to nursing home services, HRS admittedly did not take into account the provisions of Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which is the local health plan as it relates to nursing home planning adopted in the most current HRS rules. This local health plan provides for nursing home services to be available within a one hour travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of the residents of District VIII. The president of the District VIII chapter of the Florida Health Care Association, who is the administrator of DeSoto Manor, is aware of at least ten nursing homes within a one hour drive of Arcadia and at least three others within that radius which are under construction, a significant number of which are in District VIII. Arcadia is located in the center of DeSoto County. All counties surrounding DeSoto County in District VIII have substantial numbers of approved beds which have not yet been opened and at least Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, which are adjacent to DeSoto County have occupancy rates in the neighborhood of 80 percent or less. The applicant did not establish, in furtherance of its attempted justification of 60 additional beds for DeSoto County, the lack of accessibility to DeSoto County nursing home patients of beds in the adjoining counties of District VIII, especially Charlotte and Sarasota, inasmuch as it was not established that those nursing homes in those coastal counties are more than an hour's driving time from the center of DeSoto County. Although, as witness Straughn for HRS established, Sarasota or the more westerly parts of Sarasota County, are approximately 49 miles and roughly an hour driving time from DeSoto County, it was not established that there are not nursing homes available in closer parts of Sarasota County which are accessible in less than an hour's driving time to DeSoto County residents and/or patients. Indeed, witness Porter testifying after the hearing by deposition, established that most of the nursing homes in the coastal counties involved in this proceeding, are within "40 some miles" from the present DeSoto Manor facility and the proposed Heritage Hall facility. Indeed, witness Porter established that Port Charlotte, in the immediate vicinity of which are several nursing homes, and which county is experiencing now an 80.4 percent occupancy rate (with the above-mentioned numbers of approved but not yet installed beds) is only 25 miles from the proposed Arcadia location. Thus, the criteria of the above rule which HRS witnesses failed to take into account, encompasses nursing home beds available or approved in the coastal counties referred to, which are accessible to patients in DeSoto County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the relevant legal authority, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING the application of Heritage Hall to construct a new 60-bed nursing home facility in DeSoto County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1985.
